CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Friday, February 26, 1999

• 1415

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): Order, please.

We have a bit of a problem. Our translators are freelance translators who somehow haven't shown up as yet. The translators from the House of Commons had to go back and we had freelance translators coming in, but they haven't arrived.

A standing committee of the House of Commons has to have translation, but my colleague, Suzanne Tremblay, who uses French when she addresses us, says she will waiver the privilege of having automatic translation to make it possible for the meeting to get going. But we can't do it unless there's agreement on all sides, from all people here, that it should happen.

• 1420

We are extremely sorry about this. The clerk is trying to rectify it. He is phoning people. There must have been a foul-up somewhere.

I would like to ask if you agree that we should get started in the meantime. Mrs. Tremblay has told me that if we get started, it's okay with her. I realize that people have come from a long way, especially those from Windsor, and they have to get back home.

Is that all right?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Merci beaucoup, Madame Tremblay.

Next, we have two challenges before us. The first is to arrive at a consensus as to what we are going to do about Canadian cultural policy. That's the largest challenge.

On a more immediate basis, I have to make sure everybody gets a chance to speak here. That's the immediate challenge. There are a lot of people around this table. We have only until 5 p.m., so if everybody takes 15 or 20 minutes, as sometimes happens, and we multiply that by the number of people, we will be here until midnight. You might like that, but some of us have to get home.

What I would suggest, then, is that I recognize the people when they give me their names. If somebody speaks on a certain point and another person wants to respond to that particular point, I will recognize them. Otherwise, just give me your names and you'll be recognized.

At that, I would like to welcome you very warmly to this meeting. Thank you very much for coming in such large numbers, especially those of you who have come all the way from Windsor to be with us this afternoon.

As you know, the idea of these round table meetings is to help us, within the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, come up with a report that will outline the recommendations we want to make to the House of Commons—and thus to the government, eventually—in terms of what we see as an evolving Canadian policy and federal government role in the realms of culture and heritage and the arts in the decades to come.

Of course, we could have focused on a lot of challenges that we see for the next years ahead, but we decided to focus on three that we felt were crucial from the point of view of what we see ahead.

The first one involves the changing demographics of the country, with its fast-aging population and its different texture, which is changing very rapidly with sustained immigration from different parts of the world.

The second challenge is the fast-evolving communications and multimedia technologies. These are happening at such a rate we can hardly keep pace with the changes. Our kids do, but for people like me, it's harder. What is the impact of those on the role of the federal government in terms of our cultural programs and projects?

Third, there is the changing nature of the economy and trade, which is now becoming more and more globalized. You know what happened when the MAI came up, and what a commotion it caused regarding culture. Now we have before us Bill C-55 and NAFTA, and in the fall we will be going into negotiations at the World Trade Organization, the WTO. Culture will become another big subject there, with carve-outs and no carve-outs. How do we react to these challenges? We have a Canadian policy framework now that provides these programs, projects and policies that you use all the time. Are you satisfied with them? What do you want to see in the future given the challenges ahead, and what others might you want to identify? That's what we're trying to get your views on.

• 1425

We started this work nearly two years ago now. We have heard a great number of groups, mostly in Ottawa. We have received a large of number of briefs that we have collated and circulated to members. The research team has put a lot of material together. We also decided to go and meet people in the field, so to speak. Unfortunately, time for travel is very scarce at the House of Commons; we can only travel when the House is on a break. And then there's the question of a budget. We therefore decided to have two teams, one travelling west and one travelling east, and we have had these round tables as we have today.

The idea is not to have people make or read long statements. It's more to have an exchange of what you feel deeply about these issues so that we really can have a frank and open discussion. It's very informal. There is no speaking order. You just signal that you want to speak, and that's the way it is. We will try to divide it so that everybody gets a chance.

Starting with Ms. Tucker, I think it would be a good idea that we introduce ourselves. Maybe you can tell us what your background is and what organization you represent, so that we all know one another to start with.

Ms. Mary Angela Tucker (President, Architectural Conservancy of Ontario Inc.): Thank you, Mr. Lincoln.

My name is Mary Angela Tucker. I am president of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario, an organization founded in 1933 to preserve the best examples of built heritage and places of natural beauty in Ontario. We are a non-profit, volunteer organization.

The Chairman: Later on, we'll be sure that you are recognized in order to make any statements you want to make.

Mrs. Hopkinson.

Ms. Claire Hopkinson (Chair, Professional Opera Companies of Canada): Hello, I'm Claire Hopkinson. I am the chair of the Professional Opera Companies of Canada, which represents opera organizations across the country. I am also a producer for Tapestry Music Theatre here in Toronto.

Mr. Paul Ledoux (Past Chair, Playwrights Union of Canada): I'm Paul Ledoux. I'm with the Playwrights Union of Canada, and just very recently the past chair; our current chair is in the Yukon. I'm a writer. I write for the theatre, I write for television, radio, and I write any other dramatic form that will make me a living.

The Chairman: Mr. Jamison, for the second time.

Mr. Mark Jamison (Executive Director, Cultural Careers Council of Ontario): Yes, I'm back, and I am executive director of the Cultural Careers Council Ontario, which is an alliance of arts service organizations, artists unions and individual cultural professionals. It exists to advance the career needs of the sector.

Ms. Nancy Morand (Heritage Planner, Windsor Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (WACAC), City of Windsor): I am Nancy Morand, and I'm a city planner with the Windsor planning department. I'm here representing the Windsor Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee, which is the subcommittee of Windsor city council that advises on built heritage matters.

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): I'm Wendy Lill. I'm the member of Parliament for Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, and I am the New Democratic Party critic for culture and heritage.

Mr. Hamel Docter (General Manager, The School of Toronto Dance Theatre; Executive Director, Cahoots Theatre Projects): Hi, I'm Hamel Docter, and I'm representing Cahoots Theatre Projects today, which is a small theatre company based in Toronto that develops multicultural theatre.

Mr. David Caron (Director, Communications and Special Projects, Canadian Actors' Equity Association): Hi, I'm David Caron. I'm from the Canadian Actors' Equity Association, which is an association of about 5,000 artists across Canada who work primarily in live performance. That is, the actors, the directors, the choreographers, and the stage managers.

Ms. Pat Bradley (Executive Director, Professional Association of Canadian Theatres): My name is Pat Bradley. I'm the executive director of the Professional Association of Canadian Theatres, which is the anglophone national trade and service association for theatres. In my volunteer life, I'm the president of the Canadian Conference of the Arts, the CCA, our national, multi-disciplinary advocacy organization for the arts.

• 1430

Ms. Jane Gardner (Executive Director, Theatre Ontario): I'm Jane Gardner, executive director of Theatre Ontario. We're very active throughout the province in linking the professional theatre sector with the community theatre sector and the educational sector. We span from Thunder Bay to Windsor and throughout the whole province.

Mr. Robert Jekyll (Interim Director, Canadian Crafts Federation): My name is Robert Jekyll. I am a professional craftsperson with a studio practice in Toronto. I am currently president of the Ontario Crafts Council, but more specifically, as to why I am here today, I am also an interim director of the Canadian Crafts Federation, which is the new name for what used to be the Canadian Crafts Council.

Ms. Nataley Nagy (Director, Art Gallery of Windsor): Hi, I'm Nataley Nagy and I'm the director of the Art Gallery of Windsor. I've been a professional arts administrator in this country for over 15 years.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): I am Suzanne Tremblay, MP for Rimouski—Mitis, spokesperson on Canadian heritage for the Bloc Québécois.

Ms. Evelyn McLean (Member, Les Amis Duff-Bâby): My name is Evelyn McLean and I'm representing two organizations in Windsor, Les Amis Duff-Bâby, the friends of the Duff-Bâby mansion on the Detroit frontier; and the Friends of the Court, which is the Mackenzie Hall building in the city of Windsor named after its builder, Alexander Mackenzie, the second Prime Minister of Canada.

Ms. Rosemarie Denunzio (President, Windsor Chapter of the Ontario Archaeological Society): Hi. I'm Rosemarie Denunzio. I'm president of the Windsor Chapter of the Ontario Archaeological Society. I'm a professional archaeologist and teach part-time at the University of Windsor.

Ms. Fela Grunwald (President, Professional Art Dealers Association of Canada Inc.): I'm Fela Grunwald, president of the Professional Art Dealers Association of Canada, also known as PADAC, founded in 1967. We're a national not-for-profit organization that represents about 67 commercial art galleries across the country.

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

Ms. Marilynn Havelka (President, Ontario Museum Association): I'm Marilynn Havelka. Today I'm representing the Ontario Museum Association. I'm president there. We have over 1,000 institutional, corporate and individual members. We represent both large and small museums in the province, promoting museums, professionalism and standards for museums. In my day job I'm a municipal cultural worker in the city of Hamilton.

Mr. Gaston Blais (Committee researcher): Good afternoon. I am Gaston Blais. I am the researcher for the committee.

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

[Translation]

The Clerk of the committee: My name is Norman Radford. I am the clerk of the committee. I won't act as your interpreter for now, Mr. Lincoln.

[English]

I won't act as your interpreter for now. They should be on their way soon. We apologize for that.

The Chairman: All right.

We are ready to start it off. Who wants to lead? Ms. Morand. Good for you.

Ms. Nancy Morand: We're a very small group representing built heritage today, so maybe we'll get our two bits in before we turn it all over to the more cultural-minded representatives.

WACAC has sent me with a brief. There are just a couple of points I want to make. They have basically two main concerns.

First, we'd like to promote a stronger commitment to the protection of federally owned buildings in Windsor. Some of our most important built heritage structures are federally owned—our post office, our armouries and our federal building. In recent months we've become a little uneasy because people from Public Works Canada have come in, have asked for the highest and best uses for the sites, and have told us that according to the federal buildings department, they're only recognized buildings and not heritage buildings, which means they're looking at the sites rather than our buildings.

We would like to emphasize that while some of these buildings may not be considered heritage by this particular board, they are certainly very important to our local community. We'd like to work with the federal government to ensure that our federally owned heritage buildings stay with us.

Our second point is that financial commitment to heritage preservation from the province, of course, has dried up, and as a municipality we're having an increasingly difficult time funding very expensive restorations of our heritage buildings. In whatever form—whether it's tax relief, direct payments or some kind of partnerships with loans—we certainly would welcome financial assistance from the federal government.

• 1435

We also have tried to answer your five main questions, but I presume that maybe later on we'll get going on those questions. But I got my two points in, and thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. You will be given your chance again, Ms. Morand.

Yes.

Ms. Pat Bradley: Thank you.

I want to talk just philosophically for a second, if I may. I submitted a brief that talks about the theatres in the country and their relationship to the Canada Council and other federal institutions, but I wanted to talk a little bit about cultural policy. I think it's really impressive that this committee has undertaken this task and really impressive that you have travelled around the country. Thank you very much. I don't speak only on behalf of Torontonians, who sometimes are quite privileged, but my members everywhere in the country, who were very happy to have met with the standing committee.

It's obviously a very complex task you've set yourselves, because of the complexity of the world we live in as a cultural sector and the world you live in as a part of government. If I can just share a little bit of experience I have from a much simpler level of government, in a previous existence I was a public servant for a level of government that no longer exists in this city, the metropolitan level. We developed a cultural policy that was much simpler than the kind of things you'll be looking at, but the essential element of it is, I think, something this committee should be striving for in its deliberations: to ensure that the consideration of cultural matters is taken into account as nearly as possible everywhere in government.

There are lots of places where it won't apply, but it applies to the Department of Canadian Heritage, the Canada Council, the CRTC, and the obvious cultural agencies and departments. It applies obviously to Revenue Canada with respect to both tax incentives for donors and how self-employed artists are treated. It applies to Health Canada, and I won't go there. There are a lot of parts of government that have an effect on our lives. In an ideal world, a coherent cultural policy would ensure that what one part of government does is not destroyed by what another part of government does in an opposing vein the next day. That's just my overall philosophical statement.

The Chairman: Ms. Bradley, it's very topical that you bring this up, because in the previous round table here in Toronto somebody made that point of view very forcibly as well. I think Ms. Morand pointed out just before you that Public Works plays a big part and so does the Department of Finance and so many others. The point is well taken.

Ms. Fela Grunwald: I have to say I agree one hundred per cent with what Ms. Bradley said. I was in Ottawa not so long ago and Mr. Patrick Borbey held a round table discussion. In my dealings with government I found that there was a lack of working together in policy and strategy not only among different organizations, but also amongst the cultural sector such as Heritage and Foreign Affairs and International Trade. I think Ottawa has recognized that, and this last round table they held was extremely productive and extremely positive. It went from 8 or 9 in the morning until 2.30 in the afternoon and it had all the departments represented there, as well as the cultural sector. I just today got a summary report of that meeting. The general consensus was that they should hold these every three months or so.

It was interesting, because the feedback was that the people in government learned a lot from each other and what they were doing. So I am hopeful there will be a lot more collaboration among the sectors in government, which will mean there won't be as much duplication, there won't be cancellations of policy, and people will work together toward the same goal.

I think what's important is to set the goals and make sure they're all the same and they complement each other. I think to this end this meeting is productive.

If I may, I'll address some of those issues. Do I have another minute?

The Chairman: Yes.

Ms. Fela Grunwald: The issues are demographics, technology, and policy.

For the visual arts sector, technology, demographics, and all those things, all those roads in our industry lead to an export strategy that needs to be developed. Our country is small and we have a limited audience. Right now the boomers are buying, but soon they won't be. They'll be downsizing, scaling down. What we need to do is to develop a bigger market. We need to anyway, but down the road that will be even more of a need—for sure. Also, technology via Internet and all of that is opening up the world markets.

• 1440

We need to start taking advantage of all these things and we need to develop an export strategy. There are many creative ways of looking at that. Sometimes Canadians think only in terms of sending people out in order to develop an export market, but I'm beginning to believe more and more that bringing people in may be an additional route in terms of developing an export market.

For example, Canada hosts no international events in the visual arts. If we do that, we bring people in from countries, from Europe, from the States, and while they're here for this international event, they can't help but look around. They will see what the artistic activity is in Canada, and not only in the visual arts—they'll go to theatre, they'll go to performances.

In that way, we have a better chance of reaching a broader audience and we also sell Canada as an exciting country culturally. In any policy that is set, I would like to have that considered as a priority.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Jamison.

Mr. Mark Jamison: I won't repeat what I said this morning to the committee, other than the fact that in Ontario there are 265,000 people working in culture. Most of you around the table qualify for that in one respect or another.

The issue of content came up this morning in the discussions with the cable and television people. The issue of content is about the people who work in culture. When we talk about any part of our sector, whether it's film, visual arts or heritage, there needs to be a well-educated, flexible, forward-looking and, actually, well-fed or at least reasonably well-fed group of people in the arts providing us with the content, providing us with that quality of product, whether it ends up on a stage or on a screen or on a wall.

One of the aspects of cultural policy at both the provincial and federal levels has been the decline in support—and I think it's based on public perception—of the artist, of the cultural worker, of the content person. We heard about the $2,500 support for the writer who ended up getting a $200,000 advance on a book that is now being sold internationally. We invest very little, really, in a group of people that is generating some $12 billion in economic activity in this province.

From the point of view of careers, our infrastructures, our silos—whether it's in film again or in sound recording or in digital media—are only going to grow and prosper if we take care of the good people who do that writing, who do the visual arts and who play the music. That is an area in which only government can really help. Canada would be the only jurisdiction in the world, other than the United States, that would not be doing that. We know what the policies are about cultural support in Europe, we know what they are in the former eastern bloc and we know that the United States has a different attitude.

The big concern I heard this morning was that the tendency to want to ape the Americans in terms of the way they approach culture is really not how we want to do it in this country. I really want to emphasize the point that if we take care of our content people, we will have a rich cultural future.

The Chairman: Thank you.

I'll recognize Mr. Docter and then you, Mr. Ledoux. In the meantime, let me advise you that translation is available.

Mr. Docter.

Mr. Hamel Docter: Thank you, Mr. Lincoln.

I just want to take us back into a little history lesson for a second. I won't take too long. The point of today is review: what we're trying to do is to develop a Canadian cultural policy for the 21st century.

• 1445

I have to admit that a lot has happened in the last few years. It's rather overwhelming to see the numerous reports coming out. We're finally starting to see some of the results of NAFTA and the implications it has for culture. Finally, when the MAI negotiations were happening last spring I think it became clear that a number of nations in the world were concerned in terms of carving culture out of the table. This is a very good step. Some excellent reports have come out, especially since the WTO decision in June 1997. However, these have been reactionary forces.

I do applaud the committee for taking on this review and heading forward into the 21st century. The only thing I can compare this to on a historical basis is what happened 50 years ago with the Massey commission. That basically set out cultural policy for definitely a good solid 30 years and developed some of the best institutions we have in this nation for cultural policies. It set bilingualism and biculturalism policies into motion.

There we were in an era where we were coming out of the Second World War. Everyone was coming back from the war and we had a huge influx of immigration. We had to ask, “Where are we going?”

Here we are, 50 years later, and the world has changed. We're now an international market. We're heading into the next century and here we are talking demographics. Fifty years ago, bilingualism and biculturalism were of the utmost importance, and I'm very happy to say that a great deal has been accomplished in this country. That's arguable, I think. We did get somewhere. Here we are, 50 years later: where are going? We see changing demographics. We see an aging population.

With respect to the aging population, as an arts administrator I take a look at that and I say, okay, there's a new niche; we can expose them to the arts sector. I say, hey, we have an aging population, let's bring them into the theatre and let's take them out to hear the symphony. That's wonderful, but we also have changing demographics in terms of diversity, in terms of multiculturalism. In the next 10 to 15 years, more than 50% of the Canadian population probably will not even have European roots, and that is a significant change. We're a Euro-based cultural industry here.

So where do we go with that? That's a really huge question. It really shakes up the fundamentals of Canadian cultural policy and it has implications for a number of things. There is issue linkage. We go into immigration. We go into education. What does our education include? That is under provincial jurisdiction, but I think we have to break down those jurisdictions a little and ask ourselves where we are going. If we're going to develop cultural policy for the 21st century, I think we need a coordinated effort among the federal government, the provincial governments and the municipal governments—the regions have to be in on this—and we have to ask ourselves where we are going.

Just as an anecdote, I went to a show four months ago and learned about the Acadian expulsion. It was amazing. I'm from Ontario. Isn't that something I should know? It's part of Canadian history, but I didn't know it. I learned it from a show. I was very happy I learned it, but it really opened my eyes to something: Canadians don't even know Canadian history. If we don't know Canadian history, how do we tell our stories and how do we move forward?

Going back to what I was saying about 50 years ago, here we are 50 years later and we don't have a clue about where we're going. We have this aging population. We have changing demographics.

But there's a third item I'd like to bring to your attention: our youth. This is topical right now, especially in Ontario with the cuts to education and basically almost a complete carve-out of arts from education. As a young arts administrator who plans to work in the field for the next 30 to 40 years, I think, “Who's going to be my audience in 30 or 40 years? Are they even going to know what music is?” It boggles me right down...it really comes down to that coordinated effort of where we are going to go.

I'll take that one step further. I applaud the committee for doing this work. I applaud the Canadian Conference of the Arts and a number of organizations that have brought out some excellent reports in the last couple of years. I'm happy to see what happened at the MAI negotiations: Canada took a stance, a leadership role, and there was a meeting of cultural ministers in June in Ottawa, with another one in Mexico.

I'm very happy to hear that, but the next step I see...as it was 50 years ago, there is so much going on now, and if this is going to be a coordinated effort, if we're going to properly strategize this and make plans for the future, I would almost say that there is a need for a royal commission about this.

The first thing most people will mention is cost. A royal commission is very expensive. The other thing is that with all of this work we've done up to this point, is it really necessary to go there? But if we're going to truly set into motion cultural policy for the next 30 years, I think this has to happen, and it has to involve a lot more than simply the cultural sector. If we do not involve the broad Canadian public, then we are creating arts and cultural policy for the arts sector while forgetting who it's for.

• 1450

So I'd really like to see it go there. We have a long future ahead of us, and I think the country is on the brink of a major breakthrough. We're in a unique position. We're one of the most diverse nations in this world. We should really take advantage of that.

The Chairman: Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I wanted to ask Hamel one question.

I'm interested in what you're saying about youth, Hamel. Obviously we have to be looking at youth and what they are absorbing right now, and I'm wondering what you think is happening to youth right now.

Now, that may get to a point at which we have arrived in several of these round tables—namely, that we have pretty much an occupied culture, and what they're getting is an enormous influx of American cultural products.

You're the youngest person in here, I think, so I address this question to you.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: He's the youngest one we've talked to.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Yes.

What does it all mean for youth today? Do they give a hoot about this topic to begin with, or would they rather just be watching YTV, leaving this bafflegab to the oldsters?

I guess I would like you to talk a little bit more about youth and where you think we can hook them into this conversation.

Mr. Hamel Docter: Thank you for giving me the tall order of speaking on behalf of all youth.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Hamel Docter: The funny thing is, I find the more general population...yes, a lot of American cultural exposure. I moved to Toronto six months ago Monday, and I am baffled by the amount of American culture in this part of the country. To be honest, it really bothers me.

When I asked my friends what they wanted to see when they wanted to see theatre, they told me Cats, and Phantom, and Chicago. I said, “That's nice, but that's not Canadian.” When I told them I was producing a great show at the Factory Theatre—it was an African/Trinidadian-based play, a wonderful piece of work, with Canadian content by a wonderful Canadian writer with a Guggenheim and a gazillion other awards—how many of my friends came out? Not many. To me, that's kind of scary.

I'll take that back to what I was saying in terms of developing it. I have worked in the arts, and was educated in the arts. Everyone I work with and go to school with in the arts knows what they're talking about. They love what they're talking about. If you get into university and you go around even outside the fine arts faculty, or arts faculty, you'll realize that there are people all over the place who love Canadian culture, who will support Canadian culture: “Oh, she's a Canadian writer; great.”

So it's sort of a mixed reception, but I see that we are getting pulled away. I think that's partially as a result of education, because exposure at an early age makes a huge difference.

For me, it was my dad, being from Holland, with his European background, throwing on music ever since I was a little kid. I was exposed at a young age. I was in French immersion, beginning in grade 5. I was fortunate to be living in Ottawa. I got to go to the National Arts Centre all the time, and got exposure to theatre. My first exposure to theatre was French theatre, and it was amazing. It pulled me right in. It was really good stuff. I just said, “Wow!”

That exposure at a really young age, whether it was going to see a community play or it was a play coming into my school, a little jazz band or whatever, or if it was getting to head off to the National Arts Centre to hear the NAC Orchestra, or to see a play, was always a joy.

I'll give you a personal little anecdote. A couple of years ago, when I was finally starting to head off to university and I had to make up my mind, all of my high school counsellors were encouraging me to concentrate on science and mathematics. Never mind that I was one of the most creative people in my school, and that I totally loved the arts; I was told it wasn't practical: You live in Ottawa. Do math. Do science. Become a government bureaucrat. Learn technology. Look at the high-tech market here.

I said no, and thought it ridiculous the discouragement I had at a high school level, and how I was pushed away. I actually almost decided to go somewhere else.

I recognized that I had an interest in international development, and I started pursuing that. In my last year of high school, just before I started, I was out job hunting as most students do, and I was putting resumés out everywhere. Finally one day I was at Laurier and Elgin and I took a look at the National Arts Centre. My God, I thought, I wonder if they have any job openings.

• 1455

I walked in, I had an interview the next week, and I started and I was there for three years. Two months after being there, right before I sent off my application to university—I knew what I wanted to do; I always knew. But it really bothered me to look back and say, God, how they discouraged us.

I think it comes down to that: educational institutions have to take a look at how we approach education and what we're exposing our children to. It's very, very important.

The Chairman: Mr. Ledoux.

Mr. Paul Ledoux: That was very interesting.

My comment is in terms of where artists fit into planning in the arts in this country. Many of my friends, not just in the theatre but also in acting and the media, have become very concerned with the fact that so many of the advisory councils, the boards of organizations, in this country do not put artists in positions of power. I suspect probably this morning you had the heavy hitters from the industry here rather than the artists. I get the feeling that more and more business attitudes come to dominate things so much that we're always looking at business strategies, and as a result of that the artist is getting shoved out of the decision-making process.

That's bad for business, if you want to talk about business. You get something like the film advisory committee, with virtually no artists being represented on that advisory committee. You see it at the CRTC, you see it all over our cultural midst, where the people who are actually bringing the ideas, bringing the bread to the table, are not being consulted about the menu, and that's a concern that needs to be addressed.

The Chairman: Yesterday and today again we had this discussion about whether culture is increasingly an industry or an industrial vehicle for artists. We had the dichotomy yesterday in Montreal of people saying the creator, the individual is at the core of any cultural policy. Others this morning are saying that if you don't have an industry, if you don't have this big framework, the whole thing dies. Others say if you don't have the creator there's no industry.

Another person in Montreal told us that before we go any further we should define a value system for our cultural policy. This morning we tossed it out, but there were few takers. Most people felt that what we really need is a system, a machine that keeps the thing going and leaves the values aside, because by the time we define them the whole system will be lost anyway, there won't be any culture left. Maybe we can reflect on that.

Mr. Paul Ledoux: Certainly it's not healthy for any human being to think that their life is just their job. That's something I think anybody addressing issues involved with culture or indeed with the health of our democracy has to address. That's not what I'm talking about.

Even if you just want to look at an industrial strategy, an industrial strategy that places the business elements entirely in control without really putting the artist inside that discussion is not going to be very healthy. This is because the person who is the producer of a large film company, perhaps, has a strong industrial basis for what they are doing, but without the voice of the artist in there you're not going to get a balanced policy. Without a balanced policy you're going to end up with what you're seeing now, which is, for instance, that a lot of the film companies in Canada have their development offices in L.A. If you look at the Writers Guild of Canada newsletter and see where the membership is, a third to half of the new members listed in every issue of that magazine live in L.A., and that's part and parcel of a strategy that's primarily just listening to producers and not listening to the artists.

• 1500

The Chairman: Ms. Hopkinson.

Ms. Claire Hopkinson: I'm really glad we're having a conversation here, because there are so many interesting points I'd like to pick up on. But I'll restrict my conversation.

I think this issue of a cultural policy is not so different really from how we need to administer or manage our companies. For instance, at the heart of my company is a passionate commitment to the Canadian creative artist. That's where we start from. We need to surround ourselves with an excellent structure to be able to get the story out, to get the music out, to produce the product. But more importantly than that, we have to have an audience and we have to then be able to take this story, this wonderful work of art, and distribute it across the country. Then, what we would like to do now is take it to the international market.

So there is a balance between our passion, our values, our desire to tell Canadian stories, and the need to have an infrastructure that helps us to deliver those stories. I don't think the dilemma is so much different on a large scale, if we just take that as a paradigm.

In a way, on this question of changing demographics I have a little bit of confidence that if we have the structures in place—and certainly the Canada Council has been enormously important to opera companies, theatre companies, and many organizations, and to my company—and if we can continue to give them support, we can develop programs that will help us with audience development and new audiences. Also, as we mature as a country, our stories will reflect our changing demographics because those are the compelling stories.

In answer to how our institution is going to reflect our changing demographics, I would say our artists are going to reflect the changing demographics.

The very core of what I think about this process is that we have to find a way to communicate to members of Parliament, that every member of Parliament has a passionate commitment to Canadian culture and to heritage and that they are our ambassadors in this mission. They can also help with communicating that passion, that genuine passion, to the Canadian population. Indeed, our institutions, such as the Department of Canadian Heritage, need to be led by visionary individuals who also have a passion for arts and heritage.

That's all for now.

The Chairman: Mr. Jamison, followed by Mr. Caron.

Mr. Mark Jamison: You gave us three themes—the impact of new technologies, demographic change, and globalization.

The reality is that there is no other walk of life, there's no sector, that isn't facing those three major themes in some way or another. To me the one fundamental thing that's true about whatever sector you're in—automotive, biomedical, it doesn't really matter—is that individuals within those enterprises within those sectors are the ones who will provide the creative response to change. It won't be an edict of government. It won't be a bunch of cultural executives or any other kind of executives. It will be creative individuals.

So the argument comes full circle, back to the idea that your content people—your stage technicians, acrobats, musicians, visual artists—will actually address these things as the creative force. Then those of us who are involved in the management side and the infrastructure side will respond to that creative response to those three themes.

What we're facing now in terms of supporting the careers of our artists and cultural people is that we don't put enough behind them. They are mainly self-employed. Over 50% of cultural workers are self-employed. As I said this morning, they don't show up on the EI and therefore are not eligible for support of any kind through the EI programs. Again, we put more money into bumper makers than we do into visual artists or film and television people. The craftspeople are the ones who will drive change.

• 1505

With regard to where we are at as a sector, my understanding is that we have the highest level of self-employment of any designated sector. This means we have something to tell other sectors about the world of work and the future of work. You say there are 20,000 new computer jobs, and I'm quite sure 80% of those jobs are contract jobs. Eighty percent of everybody who works in film is on contract. They are self-employed. The issue is that they need help between engagements.

We need to get behind the individual in order for that individual to flourish, and the rest of us will support them in that way. That's what makes our sector fundamentally different from the automotive or construction sectors. We need the support behind the content people as a fundamental aspect of our cultural policy. That will also allow us, I think, to get around all the international agreements that make it look like protectionism. We have a right as a nation to protect our individual people and to support them. Whether it's Bill C-55 or any of these other in-your-face world issues, the fact of the matter is that if we get behind the writers, the musicians, and whomever else, we have a right to do that even with a World Trade Organization mandate.

Those are my points about those three themes.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Caron.

Mr. David Caron: I'm going to start off from a personal point of view. I'm 30 years old. I've been out of university now for 9 years, and I work in the arts. When I graduated from university, it was at a time when all of us who graduated felt that government was withdrawing. The news about cuts here and cuts there and the governments cancelling this program and that program was all we heard about as we went through school. Basically, our attitude was that we were just going to go out there and do it. We were going to do our own stuff no matter what happened and not get any help from anybody else, not from government, not from anywhere. That was our attitude.

I think that attitude still exists today, because I think what people are seeing is a lack of commitment and really a lack of vitality from government. That's what they're looking for. That's why they're drawn to some aspects of American culture, because it has a measure of vitality they can tap into and bring to themselves and use for themselves.

If we want to do something here, I think governments need to commit themselves again, just as they did with the Massey commission and, from my historical viewpoint, in the seventies and early eighties. They committed to Canada and its culture. I don't think there's a perception there that it's happening. Having worked as an administrator for a number of years, I know there are these measures in place that do that. But I know this is still true because I'm the staff liaison for our new members committee and that's exactly what their focus is: how are we going to make our own projects happen? These are all artist-run projects.

We talk about the haves and the have-nots in our society. I think it's true also in the arts. We're going to have have-not projects by artists and have projects by artists—larger organizations that are getting capital gift donations and things like that, and have-not projects that can't benefit from such measures. For instance, even though it has been suggested to the federal government for a number of years that there should be better tax incentives for small donations, that hasn't happened yet.

Going back to Pat's first point, part of that commitment from government involves a real understanding of the role government can play in a sector and what it can do. I totally agree that a knowledge of culture should be a part of every department, but I think it's naive to think that will actually happen, that every single department will have a real understanding of what it means to work in arts and culture.

One of the things I was really drawn to when I read the CCA's final working paper was the idea that the Department of Canadian Heritage, or the renamed Canadian Culture and Heritage, could oversee the application of the federal government's tools. I really liked that idea, because it meant that at least there would be a way of tying into the government and then having that knowledge filter down into the other departments.

• 1510

For instance, there's a very small regulation under the Citizenship and Immigration act that allows any company of 15 or more to enter our country. When we talked to the people from Citizenship and Immigration, they said this is to bring in those internationally renowned companies, such as the Peking Opera or the Bolshoi Ballet Company, so that Canadians can benefit from that. I think that's great. But what has happened is that semi-professional companies from the States are coming into the maritimes, offering cut-rate ticket prices, and taking market opportunities away from theatre companies in the area and, following from that, jobs from Canadian artists.

It's my ideal hope that we could have that base of knowledge at the Department of Canadian Heritage, which could then filter down to other departments, such as Citizenship and Immigration, and they can talk about what that regulation actually means to the arts sector.

I'll stop there.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Ms. Havelka.

Ms. Marilynn Havelka: I just wanted to make a few points. Working with provincial heritage organizations, we want to instil the fact that the federal government should be a leading advocate for Canadian heritage. It is extremely important that it take a strong position, and combined with integrated programs and regulations, that will go a long way toward supporting Canadian museum and heritage organizations.

Secondly, in collaborations and discussions we shouldn't forget that there are many mid-size and smaller-size institutions that should be involved and should have a say in our culture and cultural policy. Also, we shouldn't forget that operational dollars are still required of some of these smaller organizations. Even though some of the granting funds are good and there are interprovincial initiatives, we're still seeing that a lot of these smaller organizations cannot participate in a lot of these grant programs because they don't have the dollars to do so.

The third thing, building on Hamel's point, is that education is truly an important issue. A large part of our mandate in museums and heritage is education. I think that even though education falls under provincial jurisdiction, the federal government should take a leading role and be an example on that as well, because it does kind of combine and unite the country.

The Chairman: Ms. McLean.

Ms. Evelyn McLean: Thank you. I'm almost overwhelmed by the number of people who are representing arts organizations. I'm an architectural historian, and if anything is being threatened, it's what I consider the queen of the arts, that is, heritage architecture.

I should mention that federal funding was the very thing that made possible our conservation down in Windsor, in the former town of Sandwich, of a courthouse that was built by Alexander Mackenzie, Canada's second prime minister. I think that alone should elevate the building to the status of a national historic site, since there are very few such buildings anywhere else in the country, if any, that I'm aware of. It was as a result of the concern expressed by three members of Parliament from the southern part of our country, down there in the sun parlour of Canada, that we received $500,000 and change to restore this wonderful old stone courthouse, which had been declared surplus by the provincial government. Without that kind of money being made available, the City of Windsor would never have been convinced that they should acquire that building, which was looked upon as a burden because of the maintenance costs, of course.

So I think it's very important that the federal government maintain some level of funding, whether it's in the form of low-interest loans, because this seems to be a time of the tightening of belts, or whether some happy day we're able to get rather generous grants that would allow us to employ people to become involved in the restoration of heritage buildings.

• 1515

The other thing I think it is important to recognize is that there appears to be no federal policy about architectural conservation. I know there is, but it's very low key and it doesn't seem to consider very noticeably the interests of the provinces or various little enclaves within those provinces.

In the United States—and I'm almost afraid to mention the name, because it's being dragged about in the dirt a bit here—they have a national trust for historic preservation. It seems to me that because of this interest in conserving sites of national historic interest they have generated a tremendous number of tourists, and as well, the townspeople themselves, who are very proud of their historic sites, promote them almost to the point of revulsion. Here we have such a timid approach to conserving these buildings, which granted are very expensive to restore, but without them somehow we lose our sense of community. They are our landmarks. They are the buildings that house the arts in many cases. They are the buildings without with which we would not have streetscapes of varying interest.

I was hoping that somehow through our involvement today we might at least plant a little seed here that the federal government should take a much more obvious and hands-on approach to the conservation of heritage properties all across the country, regardless of the amount of funding that is provided by individual provincial government agencies.

I'm also a little bit concerned about the loss of staff positions in many cases because of budgetary cutbacks. I'm a little puzzled that we should be losing individuals who are employed to assist in cultural program development in favour of a rather glossy coloured magazine, which I think is very nice and very appealing but doesn't give us any practical information. And it's something I think could very well be...I don't know what it cost to produce that, but it must cost a good chunk of taxpayers' money, and I can't help but think that as long as we're paying for a magazine of that sort, then we should really be getting a little more out of it, other than what some people consider to be rather fluff material. It is a boastful magazine, and well it should be, but as long as there is going to be such a magazine, it should also address some of the practical questions that people in various parts of the country have and for which they have difficulty getting an answer.

As I say, I feel like the lonely petunia in the onion patch, or the lonely onion in the petunia patch in this case, because there's not an awful lot of representation here for heritage architecture. But something has to be done to conserve some of our important sites.

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

Mr. Ma.

[Translation]

Mr. Jonas Ma (National Executive Director, Chinese Canadian National Council): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for having arrived late, but I was only given your invitation to participate in this round table this very week. I am very happy to be able to be a part of it.

[English]

I'm probably the only visible minority at this table. My name is Jonas Ma from the Chinese Canadian National Council. Our council represents 30 member chapters across the nation, from coast to coast, and our mandate is to promote equal opportunity for and the full participation of Chinese Canadians in all sectors of society, including the arts.

I would like to address the questions around demographics. I would like to bring some statistics to the attention of the committee.

According to the 1996 census, our country is becoming increasingly diverse, as Mr. Docter mentioned. I'll just mention three provinces in particular and the presence of visible minorities in those three provinces. In Quebec it's 5%, in Ontario it's a little bit over 10%, and in B.C. it's 18%. According to a study done by a consulting firm, these figures will double by the year 2006.

• 1520

The Chinese community, according to the latest statistics, is about 900,000 strong in Canada, with about 400,000 in Ontario and about 300,000 in B.C. Again, we expect this number to have grown already to close to a million or even over by 1999. That would give us an idea about the impact of changing demographics in our population.

Some of you who work in the cultural industries may ask who is our audience, and I think this audience is going to be one of the growing elements we should pay attention to.

Our council is mainly focused on policy issues and I must admit that we have not been very active in the area of arts and culture. I'm glad we have this opportunity today to start addressing it. Unfortunately, we didn't have a process to consult our chapters and gather more information for this participation, but I'll draw some of the things we have done in the past.

The media is one of the very crucial elements of culture and a channel for cultural expression. In our submissions to the CRTC last year and early this year, we spoke about the lack of representation and perhaps even invisibility of visible minorities in the media. We feel this has very serious consequences, not just for the cultural identity of our nation but also for those in the population who feel they have been left out and have not been reflected by the media. In our submission we recommend that there should be more guidelines and clear directions on having a more inclusive policy reflecting diversity, and also we recommend having support for minority artists who want to have their own voice, who want to express their particular identity in the same way as I think the NFB has supported Studio D to give voice to women and a perspective from women.

As little as I know, I know that the United Kingdom has in the past supported minority artists, especially Channel 4, and we have seen some wonderful works produced by Channel 4 in England that reflect the minority perspective.

We had a conference on the arts in 1995 and I'm going to draw some of the recommendations from this conference. It's a conference we organized in Vancouver and it had about 60 artists of Chinese Canadian origin who exchanged ideas and discussed the state of Chinese Canadian art, the challenges facing Chinese Canadian artists and what are the things we can do to overcome some of these challenges.

I'll name a couple very briefly. There's a feeling in the Chinese Canadian artist community that they are completely ignored by both the mainstream community and even by our own community. First of all, they feel that a lot of the time when we look at Chinese art, it's the traditional art like Peking Opera, Chinese music, folk dance or whatever, but for people who are growing up here, the second generation, this is not the culture that represents them. It's a culture that represents their parents, maybe, but not them. They are trying to create an identity, an expression to express that identity, and it is something that's based in Canada. They don't necessarily identify with what they see on CBC, or at the opera company or a theatre company, that does not reflect a lot of diversity.

There's a feeling that they need to create their own art expressions to express the experience they have in this country. They, both performing and visual artists, are facing a lot of difficulty, because of this marginalization, in accessing funds and in accessing space to showcase their work. There's also a lack of community support within our community. There's something we have to do in our own community to give them support, to give them some kind of a community base to organize and to receive them. A lot of them are turning to American models. There are a lot of American Asian artists who seem to be more supported by the community and by the mainstream community.

• 1525

That's another thing we noticed in our youth community. A lot of them are also very interested in finding artistic expression to reflect their experiences. A lot of them are reading magazines or watching videos produced by Asian American artists. I have a feeling we should do something here, so our youth can identify with this and be the patrons for this kind of thing.

I'll just give you an example of things that are happening here. Our council has a small youth committee and they wanted to have a workshop to talk about current issues and concerns. They decided to have a popular theatre workshop, so they invited a popular theatre facilitator to a workshop last weekend to help them explore some of the things they feel as a second generation here in Canada. It was a wonderful experience, and the arts were used in a way that made them feel there were a lot of things they could express, a lot of things they could explore for themselves. So I think art can be very useful, even in that sense.

Ms. McLean just spoke about architectural heritage. I also feel we should support preserving the architectural heritage we have. I just want to add that we should also include the heritage of diverse cultures. For example, in Vancouver's Chinatown there are a lot of historical buildings from the time the city was built, and no one seems to notice them or try to preserve them. I guess some of the community people are working on that. It should be part of the plan to preserve architectural heritage. I know San Francisco has done a great job in preserving and promoting the Chinatown there. I think places like Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal have Chinatowns that have a lot of history that should be preserved and promoted too.

Those are my comments.

The Chairman: Before I give the floor to Mr. Docter, he raised an important point that our culture basically has been European-based and, of course, of late influenced by the United States model. Then you have a large block of population of different cultures.

Twenty years hence, where will a young Chinese Canadian person go to the theatre? Will they go to our existing model of theatre, or do you think they will go back to their roots and seek the traditional model? What happens to the young Chinese of Vancouver from the previous generations of Chinese immigrants? What do they respond to?

Mr. Jonas Ma: It's an issue that was discussed at the forum. We have not discussed how Chinese Canadian young people are going to view traditional European art forms, but maybe it would be similar to how they view traditional Chinese art. Some of them think they don't really understand it, or sometimes they feel it's something that belongs to their parents. As they mature, some of them have a sense that it's part of them, even though they don't fully understand it, and they want to explore it. They don't want to totally duplicate it, but they want to draw inspiration from those traditional forms and make them their own.

I have a feeling they will probably approach opera and European art in the same sense, as being part of Canadian culture because the Europeans were in the majority in building the country, and this is something that is very much part of the Canadian culture. So I think they would draw something from European traditions but not duplicate it. They would create something of their own.

Also there's a youth culture, a global culture that's being developed. People travel a lot and they are influenced from all sides. So they would draw a little bit from here and there. It would be unique and people would say, “This is Canadian or Chinese Canadian.” It would be something they would draw from what they have here. It would be a mix that's not totally the same as Asian American or Australian Asian; it would be Canadian Asian. So I think it will be something new, and we cannot predict what it will be. We should give them the support to create it.

• 1530

The Chairman: Mr. Docter.

Mr. Hamel Docter: It's too bad it's winter.

The Chairman: I see you smiling. Do you have the answer?

Mr. Hamel Docter: I don't have all the answers, Mr. Lincoln. But I'm happy to see somebody else from a multicultural community at the table. I am here representing a multicultural theatre company. In the summer I think my multiculturalism is a lot more visible, as my tan comes out and I celebrate Carribana here in Toronto.

On the issue of traditional versus Canadian, the artistic director of the company I work for, Cahoots Theatre Projects, and I have had numerous discussions about how the first, second and third generations approach Canadian culture. We're planning to develop a season around this theme that will explore the first generation. We're hoping to do three workshops of three plays.

The first generation holds onto the roots very strongly. That's fair and with good reason. You come into a culture that's completely foreign and—it's very obvious in Toronto—end up with a number of diaspora communities that are holding onto their cultures. I think that's wonderful to some extent, but there's a concern with ghettoization and issue linkage, and we go into that.

Those in the second generation—and I would fall into that category in that I'm not the immigrant but my parents were—try to hold onto some of their parents' roots while trying to get a grasp of what this Canadian culture thing is. Canadian culture is wonderful, and from my exposure—in terms of artists that are about the same age as me and second-generation Canadians—we end up creating something called fusion. You pull up some of your traditional parents' roots and fuse them with European traditions. So you end up with modern dance; you end up with butoh in dance, and that's wonderful. You get these wonderful fusions and a lot of workshops being done, and that's something we're exploring.

What do they want? That's a really big question. The scary thing is that in the third generation there are two reactions David and I have come up with. You either completely withdraw from your traditional culture or you actually hold onto your roots even tighter. As Canada becomes more diverse, it will be interesting to see the impact it will have as the first, second and third generations approach the change and Eurocentric culture.

Every time we get into the issue of multiculturalism, it's kind of overwhelming for most people because all of a sudden you're asked, from a Eurocentric point of view, to understand Chinese culture or West Indian culture, and I'm almost ready to say you can't understand it right away. It takes knowledge and exposure.

I'll take funding bodies, for example. You have a jury coming out trying to assess a Chinese play. They're not going to completely get it, I'll be frank. I just finished doing a Trinidadian play, and it was wonderful. We tried to involve the community. We did a target marketing plan, and it was wonderful because our box office figures came in at 150%. I was very happy with the turnout because we target-marketed our community.

But to go back to my point, the jury will not completely understand it. I had a house that was filled with people from the Caribbean, and they completely understood the racial tension in the Caribbean and the metaphor and poetic nature of the play. Someone who's from Canada and has had very little exposure to Caribbean culture wouldn't completely get that. So how does a jury get that, let alone policy-makers or someone from a completely European background?

• 1535

There's something I'm hoping to see develop as the culture becomes more diverse. You were mentioning some statistics, and I had mentioned one earlier too. It is not to preclude one in exchange for the other, and not to say that we have to develop a dual system, because the competition becomes very harsh in the arts. I'll never forget being asked by someone whether or not my company had started that year—I think it was 1993. I told him Cahoots had been around for twelve years. He said that if you weren't multicultural that year, you didn't get a raise or something like that. It was kind of funny, but it was that tension that gets created within the artistic community. I think it's very unhealthy.

What I would like to see is some sort of dual model being developed. For example, the Canada Council has peer assessment, but what does “peer assessment” mean? Does “peer assessment” mean it's another theatre artist coming out to assess your work in-theatre, or is it someone who understands the cultural value of that work who's going to assess that work? Again, that's a fundamental question that I think we have to address. That's where I wanted to go with that.

The Chairman: All right, thank you.

Ms. Gardner.

Ms. Jane Gardner: I'd like to make three points in general.

I'm an artist who has travelled all over as a manager, as a marketer, as someone who has seen no borders, living in five different places in the last fifteen years while working for a variety of companies. When we look to this particular standing committee, I think people like me wear many hats in terms of the careers we've had.

One of the things we see is that there has certainly been a change in the base of money available. There has been a change in the base of human capital that's available through the Department of Canadian Heritage. In terms of the results coming out of this standing committee, we're very interested in seeing it come up with a strategic cultural policy that directs the available funds, the available capital in terms of human resources within the department, into a specific strategic plan.

One of the things that's terribly important to us as a group, and to us as individuals as we've gone to different places across the country, is the importance of the arts service organizations in building capacity, whether that's for us as individuals as we began our careers, or whether that's for us in terms of learning a new form, becoming a general manager, becoming a publicist, becoming something new in terms of the hat we wear today or tomorrow. It's the support we get from those arts service organizations that makes us better at what we do. It's the strategic investment in those organizations that we feel is completely vital. It's something that should be preserved and addressed as a national policy by this committee that we see here today.

Also very important is the role that the Canadian Conference of the Arts plays for us when we look at the policies they've put together for the 21st century. Those are all fantastic ideas that we believe are a great base from which to springboard some discussions. Perhaps you could look at some of those policies instead of a royal commission. They've done some of the homework for you, so you could pick and choose one of the important strategies that you'd like to go forward with.

When we talk about building capacity, all we would like to achieve is excellence in what we do. We have great faith in our national training institutions, places like the National Ballet School, national organizations that have committed themselves to producing excellence in youth. In terms of what we've seen in the last few years, there has been an instability of policies towards funding of those particular organizations. We would really like to see, one way or the other, which it is. Would you like to see artists train themselves within their provinces and do that on a freelance basis through organizations like what Mark has suggested, like the Cultural Careers Council? Or would you like to invest as a nation in specific training institutions that have built outstanding individuals, such as the National Theatre School? Those are the kinds of organizations and institutions from which we, as artists who live in many places in the country, aspire to see graduates.

• 1540

If I can plead for discussion around issues of building capacity for the next generations, those are very important leadership roles that the federal government can play in terms of ensuring excellence and and a high quality of standards, without getting into politics in terms of what the provinces will do and what the municipalities will do. It's that building of capacity that serves artists who know no boundaries, who will go from one province to the next in order to create excellence in what they do, because that's really what we aspire to as artists.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Ms. Hopkinson.

Ms. Claire Hopkinson: I wanted to pick up on what Mr. Ma was saying a little earlier, and I also concur with my friend, Hamel.

On the issue of the changing demographics, I think it's very important that we have programs in place that provide increased access for artists who may not feel they're part of the mainstream system. I don't think we should ghettoize these programs. I think the Toronto Arts Council, with a very small budget, has done a good job, inasmuch as it can, in grappling with the demographic shift in Toronto and in its outreach.

We do come down to an issue of dollars, and we cannot and should not jeopardize the mature organizations that have developed in Canada over the last fifty years. They are very important organizations, institutions, companies, ranging from very small theatre companies that have been around for thirty years, to our larger institutions. Also, they play a very important role. For instance, one of the most exciting pieces of theatre I've ever seen is Robert Lepage's play The Dragon Trilogy. Really, it was an inspiration. It was a French Canadian artist writing about Montreal's Chinatown. Of course it's gone around the world.

I see these changing demographics as a fantastic opportunity, but I do think we need to have funds in place to seize such opportunities. For myself, my own company has been working for four years with composer Chan Khan In to write a Chinese Canadian opera on the building of the railroad. We wouldn't be able to produce this if there hadn't been new money from the millennium fund. I believe the Vancouver Opera is also working with aboriginal artists to write an opera, so here we have what you would consider to be traditional institutions that are really working to create great art, because it's there that the stories are coming from.

This is an exciting journey for my company, and I think it's probably an exciting journey for a number of companies to work with these changing demographics. However, it does take time and it does take additional funds.

Thanks.

The Chairman: Ms. Denunzio.

Ms. Rosemarie Denunzio: I'd like to change gears a lot here and go into archaeology. Actually, it's not really a change in gears, because we're the actors, we do public advocacy, and we even have the public wanting to work with us on archaeological sites because they think they know how to do it and they think it's fun. We also get into museum work—because that's where a lot of the artifacts end up—the interpretation of Canadian heritage, and also multiculturalism. We don't care who they are, we'll dig them up anyway. And the older the better, if you're talking demographics. That's a little pick-me-up—or a dig-me-up, I guess. I'm tired; we've been on the train too much.

Anyway, what I wanted to do was get away from policy a little bit. In archaeology, the federal government has been dealing with policy for at least the last 30 years. We're pretty well policied out. At this point, the policy is not really that bad. It's a little vague in spots, but we can live with it. It's enforcement of the policy that really has to increase.

In regard to enforcement, I want to specifically nail down some actual things here. For one, Parks Canada deals with the archaeological sites on all of federally owned lands: national parks, things like different military forts, heritage sites in terms of natural land, other government woodlots, government buildings that now have cement covering the ground. Regardless, these properties are important.

• 1545

Yes, the policy is in place to have archaeology undertaken if disturbances are going to be undertaken on those lands. The problem now, with only five archaeologists left in Parks Canada to cover the entire province—I believe 43 were let go in the mid-1980s—is that they are now 10 years behind in any report writing, any analysis and interpretation of excavations that have been undertaken—10 years behind. That would be atrocious to any scientific body, or any other body for that matter.

The problem with Parks at the moment is no one is being brought up into the system to take over when these people retire. They are going to be retiring within the next 10 to 12 years. So who is going to take this on if they're already 10 years behind? In 10 years who's going to take over for that 10-year period? So I see that as a major problem.

I guess this also gets to the discussions interdepartmentally with the federal government of the problem with the federal import-export act enforcement with regards to cultural artifacts flowing across the borders—uninterrupted flows crossing the border between Windsor and Detroit. I will often be the educator to the border guards, who don't even know the act exists. Going over to Wayne State University in Detroit, first for my master's degree and then to teach for a year, they would stop me all the time. Once you say you're an archaeologist they keep you there for an hour, and they want to talk, they're interested. They didn't know these things existed. Well, they do now, but only in Windsor.

So there needs to be more enforcement involved in this. I also see a partnership between the local level of heritage and the national level, federal level, because often the important sites to a local community are also the important sites to the nation. To answer Hamel there with regard to students and not knowing history, I often refer to the CBC commercial snippet selling beer, where they have les voyageurs, and that's the first place they learn about voyageurs.

Interestingly enough, when I taught at Wayne State they didn't know about their own history either. So are you happy to know that? They're in the same boat.

Mr. Hamel Docter: No, I'm not happy to know that.

Ms. Rosemarie Denunzio: You know, once you get their interest then you've got them, and you keep going with it. Having archaeological digs, you never get your work done because people are so thrilled with it and want to know why there aren't more being done. Well, there's no money. Well, why not? Isn't the federal government giving you any money? Well, no.

So there's a different problem for you. Hopefully we'll be able to see something come out of this.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Before recognizing Mr. Jekyll, I thought it would be good at this point, when we have just over an hour to go, if we have a large number of people who have come out and are showing a lot of interest and patience out there, to hear what they have to say, if some of them have remarks to make to the panel or to the committee members.

Mr. Jekyll, we'll start with you, and then we'll turn it over to the public over there.

Mr. Robert Jekyll: When we talk about the cultural sector we're actually talking about a number of subsectors as well. I represent the crafts subsector at this meeting. In doing so I'm representing some 18,000 professional craftspeople, artisans and craftspeople across the country. I'm sure they want to continue having a seat at the table when dialogues such as this, as we plan cultural policy for the 21st century, are taking place.

• 1550

I'm very much afraid this is a very fragile arrangement. David talked about haves and have-nots. The Canadian Crafts Council was funded by Heritage Canada for some 20 years. In 1996 that funding ceased. Since that time, the organization has been run entirely by volunteers. The Canadian Crafts Federation, which has replaced it, has a much leaner type of organization, and operates exclusively by volunteer activity.

This cannot go on. We can't guarantee that our sector can be represented at national tables of this type without some minimum level of funding. I don't know how many representatives sitting around this table today are in our situation, but I think an essential precondition of having a meaningful dialogue on cultural policy would be that each of the sectors have some minimum level of funding so they can be assured of being able to be here at the table.

Our demands are very, very modest. We need one staff person and we need some help getting an Internet site up and running. I think if you roll that out, it probably represents a small percentage of some budgets that other organizations or other sectors have.

I think there's a fragmentation within the community that has to be addressed to level off our ability to represent ourselves to the federal government before this dialogue can have any real depth. I'm afraid there may be sectors that are going to be so underrepresented that you will hardly hear from them. My main reason for being here is to represent to you an extremely dire situation from 18,000 professionals from across the country.

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

At this point, I thought it would be nice to turn over these two mikes to the very many Toronto citizens who have come out to listen to this. I should explain at this point that we are a committee of the House of Commons. We don't really represent the government as such. We have set up this mandate ourselves with very limited resources, to try to study what the role of the federal government should be in the future regarding Canadian culture, so we can produce a report, which in turn will put pressure on the government to do something or other, hopefully to pick up some of the recommendations we make after listening to you.

What would you tell us that we should bear in mind? Feel very free; the two mikes are there and the floor is open. I can see there's a rush to the mikes.

Are you telling us we should just carry on the way we're doing it? You're quite happy to sit and listen? It would be nice to have some input, if you feel like it. All right, if you change your mind, let us know.

There we go. It always takes a first person.

Mr. John Reid (Individual Presentation): My name is John Reid.

The Chairman: John, now you have a mike all to yourself. There are a lot of people out there and we have one hour to go. You don't have the whole hour, just one mike.

Mr. John Reid: No, I'll be brief.

I am the prairie regional director of the Canadian Music Centre from Calgary. I get scared when I hear some political parties talk about culture in...I think their catchword is “self-sufficiency”, and they presume there is a possibility for cultural organizations to exist on a commercial basis. That concerns me, because I think the people who make those types of statements ignore the fact that the people who have come to positions of prominence as artists have had a whole network of support from all levels of government—provincial, federal, and municipal. I think it's a real fallacy to think that culture and the arts will exist any time soon on a self-sufficient basis. I think there is a need now and there will be in the future a very prominent financial role for the federal government to play in culture and the arts.

• 1555

I'm very concerned when I hear those types of statements. I feel that the opposition parties at the moment, over the last couple of terms at least, have really been making this a very strong rallying cry, and to some extent our government has caved in to this pressure and has been cutting particularly the CBC, although it's good to see that some of the Canada Council support has been restored. But I would make my plea to the committee to put forward a very strong voice for continued and increased financial support of culture and the arts.

The Chairman: John, I think you have yourself a debate. There are three members of the opposition parties there. They may not agree with you. Already one has raised his hand, Mr. Mark, and number two has raised her hand.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In response to the earlier intervention from the audience, we've heard witnesses throughout these last four days who reminded us that the business model does not always fit when it comes to culture. I think there's agreement probably at this table. We understand that. That's the advantage of going out to meet the people and listening to what they have to say.

The other point is about the support of our national institutions. There was a lot of support for that, for instance for our National Ballet School, and the reason for this is that there is this thing about excellence. That's what we need to promote. If culture is to create wealth, then we need to do it well, or else there is no opportunity to export not only a product but also our heritage. The support for the CBC is immense. Wherever we've gone, people have told us that the CBC needs to be supported because it is a reflection of this country from sea to sea to sea and coast to coast.

So whatever you've heard, I think the members here probably would support culture. I think this government, this country being young historically, needs to invest. As an opposition member, I look at it as an investment rather than support.

The Chairman: There you are, John. You get your first vote of support from the opposition.

Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Over the course of the last five years, the Bloc Québécois, despite its political ideology, was probably the party that rose the most often in the House to defend Canadian culture. We had no qualms about working very closely with the Liberal Party when it was a matter of saving Radio-Canada in 1994 and 1995. We believed that the cuts had gone too far. There was probably a need to clean things up a bit in Radio-Canada's house because there was a lot of fat and, given the deficit we had, everyone had to do his or her part, but we do believe that the cuts were too deep in the area of culture. All things considered, it is the department that suffered the greatest cuts. If Mr. Martin stopped hiding the surpluses, we would perhaps be able to find a little bit of money to put back into culture. It is obvious that we have quite the battle to wage.

I seem to recall that it was my young friend from across the way, that I first met as a page in the House of Commons, who said that we lacked commitment. That is the word I took note of because I think that is about the size of things. One must believe in culture.

I have received word about what went on in the West from one of my colleagues of the Bloc Québécois who was taking part in the trip. He told me that in Saskatchewan someone said: in Canada, to live, you need water, air and food; in Quebec, you need water, air, food and culture.

• 1600

I would like to humbly say that if Canada took a look at the way in which Quebec went about protecting and defending its culture, it could perhaps draw inspiration from that and do the same thing for Canada vis-à-vis the United States. It would work.

[English]

The Chairman: Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I guess I have to say something too.

The Chairman: You see, it was a great idea to turn this mike over. John has started something.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I'm the New Democratic Party's critic for culture. I'm here because I was a playwright and having a really good life but I decided that I was very alarmed with what was going on with cuts to the CBC and cuts to the Canada Council, and just a shrivelling up of commitment to culture. Truly the only reason I'm here is because of that, and also the same shrivelling up of services for kids with disabilities. I would say the New Democrats have been front and centre in supporting the CBC since the time it began, and we have been fighting tooth and nail against the MAI and we're fighting for Bill C-55.

I'm very concerned about the state of our magazine industry and our publishing industry. We are talking very specifically about our issues here, but there are some very mega-issues we're not talking about particularly, and one is the fact that we have an occupied culture. That's the position I take, and the more really radical changes that can happen and the more real gutsy moves on the part of the federal government to gain back our culture for our artists the better. That includes changes to the Competition Act and revisiting the trade agreements, like making sure the MAI never sees the light of day again. I think you can be assured that the NDP is fighting on the cultural front for Canadians, and I hope you feel that way.

The Chairman: I think it would be important to know, for all of you out here, that politics is a strange world, where we get along very well together all across party boundaries; but then we are separated by this divide, and one side says yea and the other side says nay. In standing committees very often these barriers seem to evaporate much more than within the House of Commons.

In the committee for Canadian heritage we are really lucky that way. I think we have a lot of people here who are really committed to what they believe is a cause. I think I can genuinely say...and I don't want to be pious or say that I don't have very strong feelings. For instance, Suzanne Tremblay and I won't see eye to eye if we talk about the Constitution or the place of Canada in our lives; we know that, so we respect each other's feelings, and I know where she comes from and she knows where I come from.

In regard to a lot of issues regarding Canadian culture, on the copyright legislation for instance, many of us sided together despite party labels on this question of the culture study we are trying to accomplish. I can genuinely say—and this goes for Inky Mark of Reform, or Wendy Lill of the NDP, or Suzanne Tremblay, or all the Conservative members—that there's a tremendous kinship of ideas in that we really want to see, despite party labels, something come out of it that is constructive for all of us. I think that's why we manage to do these things here, and I think it's a little ray of light that somehow at the committee level we don't treat it on a strictly partisan basis. That's my experience of it and I think it's useful.

There we go, John, you started something again.

Number two.

[Translation]

Ms. Mireille Gagné (individual presentation): My name is Mireille Gagné. I am director of the Centre de musique canadienne au Québec, in Montreal. I am not here because of some conspiracy, but because our directors are meeting in Toronto as we speak. We have a presence in Vancouver, Calgary, Montreal and, obviously, Toronto. I am also past president of the Canadian Conference of the Arts and I would like to take advantage of the opportunity given me here to say hello to Pat.

• 1605

I participated in the discussions leading to the publication of the famous report of the task force on the cultural policy for the 21st century. I was happy to hear you say, Mr. Clifford Lincoln, that beyond partisan politics, regarding an issue as important as culture and the arts in our country, people let their guard down a little and join hands.

This is doubly important in a context of globalization. Canada must stand tall and defend, support and sustain its culture. It must begin to do so in its own backyard, of course, because if the soil isn't nourished, we won't have what it takes to face international competition. We mustn't hide from the fact that the competition from our friends to the South is enormous, from the point of view both of the quality of what is offered and of the financial means used in support of this culture or these arts.

Therefore, I do not fully agree that we must apply economic and financial rules to the area of art and culture. Within such a framework, one could believe that the money given to culture and the arts is an investment, a short, medium and long term investment. There are different kinds of investment.

If we look at the world of business, we see that any major corporation, be it a multinational or even a large national corporation, invests daily in the improvement of its products. How many times do we invest astronomical amounts of money to carry out research, to create and to develop something only to realize, three months down the road, that it is a flop? If the business world is entitled to have flops, I believe that the artistic world should also, given the limited means at its disposal, be entitled to little flops as well. How could a company function if its budgets and its investments in creation could constantly be reduced at the drop of a hat? It wouldn't do much better. As we can see, there are all sorts of companies that are forced to shut down.

The same thing would happen to us in the area of the arts and culture if we slashed the available resources. Each artist invests personally through his or her own intellectual work and through his or her own money, most of the time sacrificing salary and compensation. Financial profitability mustn't be imposed at all cost. We could demand profitability in excellence, in exposure, etc. We must give a lot of thought to all of this. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for your message.

Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I would like to add a little something. Mr. Robert Jekyll, the representative of 18,000 craftspeople, was telling us that associations and groups need minimal funding. Through my participation in the work of the subcommittee on sport, I learned that Sport Canada finances a good portion of amateur sport associations. Each year, we hand out several hundred thousand dollars, or perhaps even several million dollars, to support such and such a basketball association and this, that and the other thing. This is perhaps an avenue our committee might study. We might perhaps draw comparisons or an analogy with sport and ask that funds be devoted to maintaining and supporting associations such as these.

The Chairman: That is a very good idea.

Ms. Tucker.

[English]

Ms. Mary Angela Tucker: I would like to speak once again to architectural heritage.

On behalf of the Architectural Conservancy, we appreciate the policies and the programs that are currently in place in the Department of Canadian Heritage regarding a built heritage in natural landscapes. However, we would like to see a number of these expanded or new ones created. Among those are ones such as FHBRO. We'd like to see its powers extended to cover buildings and sites beyond the federally owned properties and to cover also buildings owned by crown corporations and their trustees.

• 1610

We'd also like to see the Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act expanded and extended so that more than just the stations on site, or active stations, can be protected. We think other structures that are related to the Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act also should be protected.

We'd also like to see mechanisms set up in this Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act that allow for areas to have protection for those buildings when they are in transition or on sale and are in a period of not being protected.

We would like to see a lot more publicity about Canadian Heritage and the work it does across the country. I think far too often those of us in the heritage community may be well aware of what Canadian Heritage is doing, but unfortunately it's not as broadly advertised and recognized and therefore appreciated by the communities at large as it might be.

We'd like to see more partnerships from Canadian Heritage with all levels of government, and especially with local levels of government. For instance, in the case of Ontario it's the local municipality that has the responsibility for heritage under the current legislation in the province. So we'd like to see more interplay and dialogue and partnerships with all levels of government.

We'd also like to see an increase in the cost-sharing programs to enable, again, municipalities to conserve and preserve buildings that may be eminently significant in their particular locale, while not of national significance. We'd like to see some type of expansion of a cost-sharing program there that will enable communities to save and reuse buildings.

Finally, we'd also like to see a national register for historic buildings. I believe that's been touched on in terms of a national trust, which Ms. McLean mentioned. A comprehensive and cohesive registry would be in order for this country at this time. I believe something like that has been started and initiated at different times over the last number of years, but I don't know where it stands at the present time.

We'd also like to support Heritage Canada Foundation's recommendations regarding tax issues to make a more favourable tax policy regarding heritage structure donations and also for buildings that are being restored.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Caron.

Mr. David Caron: What I want to do is tie a couple of things together—the MAI and the larger economies of trade that Wendy mentioned with, basically, your three challenges. If you're looking at changing demographics, if you're looking at new technologies and what we can do, what the government can do, then you come down to the principle that it's not actually those with the greatest numbers that are going to be allowed to express themselves in terms of arts and culture, it's those with the most money.

If you're looking at a sort of global economic system where there are no restrictions on investments, where there's unlimited investment, such as the MAI was proposing, you're looking at an even greater situation here in Canada for that—where those with the most money get to dictate what kind of expression happens and where those without don't. I think that impacts greatly on those who are outside the mainstream now, as it develops.

I think this comes down to what, then, is the government's commitment to that kind of social policy, really. I've seen a lot written and heard a lot said that the Canadian government may need to acquiesce to the larger world community in the end if the World Trade Organization decides that unlimited investment rules are what is needed. We might have to bow to some international pressure if we can't get enough international community support for a separate international instrument for culture. I'm worried about that.

• 1615

The Chairman: Are you talking about the carve-out of culture?

Mr. David Caron: Yes, I'm talking about the leadership of Canada in the international community. For instance, I'm thinking back to 1905, when Great Britain wanted to lay down the imperial model for what eventually became the Commonwealth. He stood alone and said he didn't believe in the imperial model, that Canada did not believe in the imperial model and was not going to support it. By standing alone, he actually helped to create the kind of Commonwealth that we have today. That might not have happened if Canada hadn't taken that kind of leadership role.

The Canadian government has to think about the kind of policy it develops. It can do that not only in terms of thinking about international trade, it can do that in terms of what Paul was talking about: the inclusion of artists more in the cultural policy-making of Canada as it sets up a commission to look at such things, or even a special commission to include artists in that. I think there are ways the government can look at it to ensure that it's not necessarily those who have the most money who are allowed to speak, but that there's a real sustainable development for all of Canada.

The Chairman: I want to ask something of the people here. Recently, in the last few weeks, the Minister for International Trade has invited Canadians to let him know what they think about the position of Canada regarding the coming WTO negotiations. He has invited people to submit names. There are going to be public hearings and consultations. I want to say that if you have strong feelings—as you do, David—make sure you don't just tell us; tell him. He's the guy who's going to be there. Write to him. If he hears from thousands of Canadians at large.... In my own riding, I'm having a town hall meeting with people to tell them the invitation is there to send us the stuff, to send us briefs. We'll make sure they get to the Minister for International Trade.

As you know, Sheila Copps, Minister of Canadian Heritage, has started to get together with other ministers of culture now in order to start forming a broad basis to try to get to common policies regarding these things. The policy of Canada so far is to have a carve-out, but it will only happen if there's a lot of support. There are two agendas there. The people who are for unrestricted trade want unrestricted trade. The people who want to protect certain areas are going to have to fight for them.

So by all means, do that soon.

Mr. David Caron: Yes, I will.

The Chairman: Okay.

Ms. McKay, the director of Professional Opera Companies of Canada, we are very happy to have you here.

Ms. Micheline McKay (Individual Presentation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will certainly weigh in on behalf of our members in terms of the importance of putting culture back as an important part of the third pillar of foreign policy. We will be addressing that committee, because it's an issue for us in terms of how we bring our work in Canadian opera and music theatre to the world. Certainly it's been an area of great pressure for our companies. We have a lot of demand to have Canadian opera seen around the world, but we don't always have that ability.

I would also like to address the committee, though, in terms of the length between the public investment in culture in Canada and young audiences, which have been a particular interest to this committee. At the Opera Companies of Canada, we're undertaking a very small study looking at how to develop young audiences. Certainly trends around the world show that there's a huge interest in opera on the part of young people, and we see that in Canada as well. There's no lack of demand to see our art form.

• 1620

When we take a look at the programs that our companies offer, though, we see the major companies offering specific initiatives for young people to experience opera and musical theatre and be a part of it. Those programs are sold out across the country, from Vancouver right through to Montreal.

What the companies are saying to us, though, is that they face the dual pressures of addressing the young audience and also increasing their earned revenues. The point right now is that Canadian opera companies receive 25% of their total revenues from government as part of their overall funding. Only 25% is from all levels of government in terms of contributions to opera companies. This situation is forcing opera companies and music theatre companies to raise the price of tickets and to increase earned revenues on all fronts. As a consequence, we are seeing access to our products diminishing, particularly for young audiences, but also all Canadians of modest means. It's something that hasn't always been tied together, but as we move forward and increase our earned revenues—which opera companies are certainly doing across the country—we are also seeing the alternate effect, that access is diminished, particularly for young people.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much indeed, Ms. McKay.

It's going on 4.30 p.m. We've been here just over two hours, but I'm quite happy to stay on. We're slated to be here until five o'clock. We have the staff here until five o'clock, but we don't want to just stay on for the sake of it. I know it's Friday afternoon, so I'll just say that we'll have a last round, and if people want to express ideas that they haven't expressed before, this is the time.

[Translation]

Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I would like to ask a question to the representative from the opera.

The Chairman: Yes, go ahead, Ms. Tremblay.

[English]

Ms. McKay, would you like to stand at the mike?

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Is it the same for the opera as it is with sports, that people can have deductions for the ticket price?

The Chairman: In sports arenas, such as hockey rinks and so forth, people can rent those expensive boxes and get a tax deduction for the expense. She is asking if the same thing applies to opera companies—

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Theatre.

The Chairman: —in that regard for long-term ticket subscriptions or whatever.

Ms. Micheline McKay: No, I don't believe so. In fact, our companies are very careful to ensure that the value of their tickets is not part of the charitable tax receipt that the companies do receive.

The Chairman: But if a company wants to donate to you, then you can issue a charitable tax receipt?

Ms. Micheline McKay: Yes, in terms of dollars or in-kind contributions. I think this applies to all the performing arts and culture generally, not simply opera.

The Chairman: Ms. Bradley, did you have something to add?

[Translation]

A voice: Is it the same thing with the theatre?

[English]

A voice: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Ms. Nataley Nagy: I would like to answer Madame Tremblay's question.

It's a very interesting approach, particularly for the performing arts. If you purchase a box at your local theatre or as part of your local symphony orchestra, it is not a tax deduction. You are seen as getting value for dollar. You pay the full amount, and there are no taxable credits toward that.

The Chairman: But I think the point Mrs. Tremblay is making is that if somebody goes out and rents a box, they are supposed to be getting value for money at a hockey game. I doubt they do. I certainly don't think they do. All the same, if—

Ms. Nataley Nagy: Sport Canada has a better arrangement than the rest of us, I guess.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: My understanding was that if I want to go and see the Maple Leafs play tonight, a ticket will cost me $125. But if I purchase the ticket on behalf of my company, I will be able to deduct 50% of its cost on my tax return.

The Chairman: Mr. Docter.

Mr. Hamel Docter: If it is a personal expense...

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Only companies are allowed to do that. Private citizens are not.

Mr. Hamel Docter: That doesn't exist in the arts field.

• 1625

[English]

The Chairman: Do you want to say something? Go ahead.

Ms. Tanya Babalow (Individual Presentation): If a corporation wants to buy a number of tickets for their employees, they can write that off. So it does work that way.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: It does, yes.

Ms. Tanya Babalow: I believe so.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: For the corporations.

Ms. Tanya Babalow: Sorry; that's if the corporation buys it, but not if an individual buys it.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Okay.

The Chairman: Mr. Jamison.

Mr. Mark Jamison: Just to comment on that, there is a commercial side to a live performing arts enterprise. I did run a performing arts organization for a couple of years, and I think there is a marketplace side. In other words, we have to have multiple personalities in the performing arts business so that we look at the marketplace around us in a particular way.

In the case of sports teams, the closer you are to the front, the more you pay. Quite often in our sector we give benefit to a subscriber, and actually charge the casual user quite dramatically more money for a poorer seat. It strikes me that those of us who sell tickets have something to think about with respect to how those commercial enterprises operate, and that we should be selling the value of the better seat in the package. That's something I know I have been engaged in rather loud arguments about.

So that's the commercial side. On the issue of cultural policy and how we support—to get back to my theme—“cultural workers”, at the end of the day our cultural workers in actual fact generate tremendous wealth for our country in various ways, not in terms of the cultural product itself but the things it generates around it, the multiplier effect.

I'll give you an example from right here in this city. If you go down to the area around Roy Thomson Hall, or around the Princess of Wales Theatre, you'll see restaurants, people in business in that area, and large corporations that move their offices into that area because of the level of activity. So there's a multiplier effect on the economy.

If we take a look at the sports thing—we might as well take a shot at sports—my office is near Maple Leaf Gardens, and nothing happens around Maple Leaf Gardens. The businesses, over however many years Maple Leaf Gardens has been there, have not grown. Things have not happened. The Leafs' rates are low. The office space is empty. The restaurants are not all that great.

So cultural activity generates tremendous wealth for an awful lot of people—except the people who work in culture.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Mark Jamison: The actual artist, the actual person who works in culture, doesn't make very much money. A symphony orchestra musician in this country makes, on average, $21,000. So we're not dealing with people who make very much money.

When we talk about the service organizations needing support—and this has come up two or three times—it is very important to recognize that the Auto Parts Manufacturers Association of Canada does not need government subsidy to run their association. Our arts service organizations need it because our cultural workers, who are the industry, cannot afford to support the organizations from which they derive their help.

We must differentiate between the tickets sold—the corporate thing and Revenue Canada and all that stuff—and the actual person on the ground trying to deliver the service to our wonderful economy.

The Chairman: Ms. Bradley.

Ms. Pat Bradley: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to go back to something Micheline McKay just said in terms of the opera. Something that needs to be reiterated and emphasized is that as government at all levels has withdrawn from many sectors, including this sector, and as the organizations have found clever ways to raise new money to close the gaps, accessibility has been badly, badly decreased.

If one uses that bad old word “subsidy”, one can look at things like the Canada Council's granting budget as a subsidy in two different ways. We can look at it as a subsidy of the artists, as newspaper articles that are somewhat critical of such subsidies—or investments, as the case may be—often do. They see it simply as welfare payments for artists and arts organizations.

But the way in which we really should conceive of this investment or subsidy is as an investment in the people of Canada. It allows our activities to be accessible to people who are young and who don't have a lot of money, who are not middle- and upper-class people and who again don't have a lot of money. It allows Canadians, as many as possible, access to their own cultural goods and their own cultural stories.

• 1630

That's why it's important—not directly, but because it's a subsidy of artists.

The Chairman: Well said, Ms. Bradley. I think you have expressed it very well. I hope our researcher has written it down. Maybe we can have a quote from you in our little blurb.

Any more remarks? Mr. Mark?

I think Mr. Reid got to you, Mr. Mark. I think John got to you.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: I'm just joking.

Mr. Inky Mark: To reiterate Pat's point, that's correct, we never think of the subsidies we give to the corporate world. We give them hundreds of millions of dollars, even billions of dollars, and we call it investment. But meanwhile, when we talk about arts and culture, we call it grants.

Ms. Fela Grunwald: That's because we're not taken seriously.

Mr. Inky Mark: I think we need to rework that equation somewhat. It needs to be brought to the attention of your member of Parliament.

Thank you.

Ms. Fela Grunwald: Just to follow up on that, I don't think it's a reworking of the equation. I think it's a serious reworking of attitude.

We do not celebrate our artists in this country. We do not celebrate success, or our history, in this country. We are not proud of ourselves. We have an enormous amount of talent in this country. It takes other countries to recognize our talent before we will applaud our own.

Cronenberg, chairman of the Cannes jury this year, is Canadian. Guess what? He lives in Canada—still.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Ms. Fela Grunwald: This is fabulous, but we don't recognize his success. This wouldn't have happened 20 years ago, because people had to leave our country. In the visual arts, there was no way a Canadian painter or sculptor could get recognition or an exhibition without actually moving to that location.

It is starting to happen. We have a whole trio, or even more, in Vancouver. One has led to the other. Jeff Wall, one the top artists in the world now, still lives in Vancouver. This is happening more and more.

What we have to do is reward these people for their successes, celebrate their successes, and let them know we're proud of them instead of, well, Jeff Wall's paintings are now selling for $200,000, so let's start putting him down.

That's what happens. Eventually we drive them out—hopefully not, though.

So I think an attitude adjustment needs to happen in terms of not only government but also citizens' approach and respect for culture. Without culture we're not a nation. Culture is the soul of a nation.

We don't have to discuss Canadian content; we are Canadian. Whatever we do, by definition, contains Canadian content. What we need to learn to do is to celebrate it and support it, with money, yes, but first with attitude.

The Chairman: On attitude and commitment, I agree 100%, but if you reflect on the visual artist of tomorrow, as you mention, we heard testimony yesterday that according to Statistics Canada, currently the earnings of a visual artist average around $12,000. They're not even recognized for unemployment insurance.

Ms. Fela Grunwald: That's right, and neither is the government allowing tax write-offs for some of these artists. They're not making enough income, so they're not considered professionals. It's a catch-22. But again, that's an attitude, I think.

The Chairman: If we don't start with them, eventually we won't have many that we can celebrate down the road, because it takes so much commitment for them to stay.

Ms. McLean.

Ms. Evelyn McLean: Thank you.

I would just like to mention that it's amazing how money can be found when there is an active organization of people taking issue with a government position.

In the case of the Duff-Bâby mansion in Sandwich, the mansion, built in 1798, had been grossly altered over the years by unsympathetic owners. The Ontario government, which holds that property in trust for the people of Ontario, had planned, because of an alleged lack of funding, to simply restore the house to its 1910 appearance.

• 1635

Oddly enough, as a result of Les Amis Duff-Bâby getting together to protest this—and protest it rather vocally—the plans changed. As a result of that, because the building had to be stripped of all of the later accoutrements that had been added, we found a very important French Canadian structure underneath a British Georgian skin. Had we not done this, no one would have known that not only did we have a marvellous timber structure but we also would never have found some early French documents that had fallen behind a chimney.

So I think there's something to be said for the small groups of people who just get their backs up and say, “You're not going to do this to a fur trader's house. You're going to restore this house properly.” It works. I think it's very important that there be funding available for these poor little weak-kneed groups in order for them to be able to get together and say, “No, you're not going to do this.”

This house on the Detroit frontier—which was, after all, a very large French settlement, although many people seemed to have forgotten that—is probably one of the more historic houses in Canada, and I don't think that's an overstatement. But it takes funding for little groups of caring people to step forward and fight the government.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. McLean.

I'll recognize Mrs. Nagy, Mrs. Hopkinson—wow, the meeting is very good!—Mr. Caron, Mrs. Morand, Mr. Docter.... We're off again.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: Mrs. Nagy.

Ms. Nataley Nagy: I'll keep my comments short. I want to support the comments of my colleague Evelyn McLean, but maybe by taking it in a different direction and going back in history, as Mr. Docter did earlier, to remind us that even large arts organizations, of course, were founded in communities.

The Art Gallery of Windsor was founded about 58 years ago by a group of very interested and concerned citizens who, over the years, have been able to maintain the support of that institution and, obviously, create others. They remind all of us at art museums around the country that the substantial collections we hold were founded by interested and committed individuals, who not only supported them financially and with human resources and volunteer resources but have also been able to position the Canadian government and provincial governments and municipalities to support those cultural initiatives. I think we need to remember that: from something small, we can grow, and we can stay the same, but all of us, large and small throughout this country, have an important place.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

At 4 o'clock you went into a lull. Everybody became mute and we had to call on the audience to wake us up. Now we are all suddenly inspired. I'll remind you that there are 20 minutes to go. Eventually things are final, so be concise. Now that you are so inspired you can have these wonderful short messages.

Ms. Hopkinson.

Ms. Claire Hopkinson: Picking up on what Ms. Grunwald and Ms. McLean said, all I want to say is that it feels like we need to have our backs up and fight the government. In the cultural sector, we are feeling that we're always fighting to protect culture. There is some issue every month that we have to go and fight for. It takes a great deal of energy away from running our companies and doing our art. I hope this policy can give us a feeling of confidence and a real feeling that we are supported and that culture is an important thing, so that we don't feel we are constantly fighting for survival and a place in the world.

The Chairman: Ms. Hopkinson, can I tell you a little secret?

Ms. Claire Hopkinson: Okay.

• 1640

The Chairman: I belong to the environment committee of the House of Commons and I hear the same message. I belong to a big caucus of 155 people. Every week we get the rural people saying that we don't listen to them and we get the people who back up children's issues saying that the government is going to completely ignore those issues.

At my stage in life, I have come to the conclusion that all of us in all sectors are going to keep fighting because unfortunately that's the way it seems to be. But keep fighting. I think if you were in another sector you would find that it is just the same. It's a battle, but it's a wonderful battle here.

Mr. Caron.

Mr. David Caron: I just wanted to pick up on a couple of recent statistics, just to pinpoint how artists can get somewhat lost in government policy.

You mentioned that artists make an average of $12,000 a year. I know that to be true just from the statistics at Canadian Actors' Equity. To supplement their incomes, of course, they take office temp jobs and they do waitering or any number of jobs from which EI premiums get deducted. Then, because they're self-employed in their primary profession as an actor or director, they can't claim EI. So if you want to talk about the EI surplus, there's a fairly good reason for it.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. David Caron: One of the things the federal government did do, though, back in the early 1990s was to establish a training initiative program using some of these EI funds, because of this very sort of duplicity. Then, with the transfer of responsibility for training to the provinces, that training program disappeared. That training program was not re-established in the provinces for, I think, somewhat political reasons. Also, like we talked about, artists travel across the country to work. There hasn't yet been a province that has picked up this program.

I think it actually points to an even greater need for some sort of dialogue between the federal government and the provinces about some of these issues that are being brought up today.

The Chairman: Good point.

Mrs. Morand, you have been very good. You made just one statement to begin with. You started it all and then you went quiet.

Ms. Nancy Morand: To wrap up, I just want to applaud the fact that the general consensus is that there has to be a commitment to Canadian heritage. Cultural heritage is really being emphasized, and as we close today, I just want to emphasize that we need that same commitment to our built heritage, because really our architecture is the art form that's in front of our faces all the time. It's there and it's so important. It really is a reflection of our history and our culture. Along with the commitment to our cultural heritage and all of the theatres and the operas and the art forms, I just want to emphasize again that we need to be equally committed to preserving our built heritage.

The Chairman: Are you from Windsor?

Ms. Nancy Morand: Yes.

The Chairman: It's really interesting that people in Windsor seem to be really trying to preserve these—

Ms. Nancy Morand: It's our heritage of fighting, you see.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: It's wonderful, it's great, it's fantastic.

Mr. Docter and then Mr. Ledoux.

Mr. Hamel Docter: I actually want to head towards the future but also head towards the past again.

[Translation]

Ms. Tremblay, your intervention was superb. A few minutes ago, you were saying that Quebec's culture was for a large part attributable to the pride of Quebeckers. It is this pride that allows you to keep Quebec culture intact. I am not intent on knowing if this reality exists because of international influence, but I know that we, as Canadians, are certainly familiar with this reality because of the Americans. We are fortunate that Quebec has retained its culture during all these years and I truly hope that Canada will continue to maintain its culture. We always talk about protecting our culture, but I see that in Quebec it is not simply limited to protecting it; it is in fact promoted. Culture is part of daily life in Quebec. From a very young age, Quebeckers adopt this value.

It is free to study at the Conservatory in Quebec, which is fabulous. Furthermore, registration fees in Quebec schools are relatively low compared with those in Ontario. It is so expensive these days! It is very important not only to protect culture, but also to promote it.

• 1645

We also talked about the salaries of our artists and of how hard it is to keep them here. We risk losing them if we are not able to pay them adequately. This is what is happening today in Moscow: all of the symphony players are leaving. The same thing risks happening here in Canada. As a matter of fact, this exodus has already begun. The National Arts Centre Orchestra is a case in mind. The budget cuts have done an awful lot of damage to the arts. I would like there to be some stability.

[English]

It comes back to commitment. That's where we have to go with the future, I think.

[Translation]

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

We will now begin another round and we will be hearing from Mr. Ledoux, Ms. Havelka, Ms. Nagy, Ms. Tucker and Ms. Tremblay.

[English]

I think we'd better postpone our respective trains, planes, and ships out of Toronto.

We'll start with Mr. Ledoux.

Mr. Paul Ledoux: Okay, I'll just jump in with two or three very small things.

In regard to income averaging for artists, there seems to be no way we can get Paul Martin to understand that the last changes in the tax act did not help us. We need income averaging for artists.

Support for arts organizations, as Mr. Jekyll pointed out, is crucial. At the same time the Canada Council announced that its greatest priority was to support artists, it cut off every arts service organization in this country, and every one of us is struggling to survive because of that. Our ability to help our members has been severely damaged by that action.

That's it. That's enough.

The Chairman: Could you write us a brief note, and send it to the clerk or Mr. Blais, about these two points, please?

Mr. Paul Ledoux: Okay.

The Chairman: Ms. Havelka.

Ms. Marilynn Havelka: I just wanted to add that when you were talking about interprovincial, provincial, and federal cooperation and partnerships, we didn't mention the cultural tourism aspect. Museums, art galleries, cultural institutions, and built and natural heritage stand to gain from new dollars brought into communities by that, so it would be wonderful to see collaboration between the two levels of government, and maybe some enhanced and developed partnerships and tourism promotions.

The other thing is that I'd like to build on what you said, Mary, about the enhanced charitable donations for tax incentives for middle-class people. It seems that maybe wealthier people give to the larger organizations, and we feel that bringing these incentives forward will mean that more middle-class people will give money to the smaller organizations.

From the museums' point of view, we encourage a proactive cultural policy and really support what you're doing. We were happy to be involved today and hope we can be a part of it in the future.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I will begin by relating an anecdote and I will then ask a question. During my first trip to Vancouver as an MP, I found myself in a shopping mall where two people were signing autographs. There were approximately 100 people waiting in line in one area and close to 1,000 in another. The two lineups were really unbalanced. I asked the people who were accompanying us who these two famous people were. I must unfortunately confess my ignorance publicly, but the people in the small lineup were waiting to see Margaret Atwood, whereas those in the long lineup were waiting to see an American actress. There we were in downtown Vancouver. The people believed it was more important to get the autograph of an American than that of Margaret Atwood. Unfortunately, I did not know her at the time, but I have since had the opportunity to meet her several times. Afterwards, I told myself that it was rather sad and that it must have hurt her. She is the greatest writer in English Canada and not many people were interested in getting her autograph, and all the while, people were in raptures about some American.

• 1650

I know that every week on TQS, Radio-Canada, Télé-Québec, TVA and RDI there are programs about culture, movies, theatre and interviews with artists, writers who are launching a book or singers who are launching a record. We are able to see these programs. The other night, when Céline Dion won her Grammys, Francophone television broadcast a live interview with her. When there were premiers of the Cirque du Soleil in Las Vegas and in Orlando, Quebec television was there on the spot.

When I say that culture is important, I often think of television, that I watch a lot of. It seems to me that these types of programs aren't as numerous on the Anglophone side compared with the Francophone side. You are in a better position than me to tell me if my impressions are well-founded or not. I believe that these programs are very powerful tools to put people in touch with culture. I am not sure that they are being sufficiently exploited on the English-speaking side.

[English]

The Chairman: Ms. Nagy, did you ask for...no, you didn't.

Ms. Tucker.

Ms. Nataley Nagy: I wanted to refer to the Windsor situation, in that there are many of us here from Windsor representing, I think, very interesting, diverse interests in both culture and heritage here. One of the many reasons—I'm speaking for myself, but I'm sure my colleagues will agree—that we felt it was important to have a presence here is that on a daily basis, we live very much in the face of the geographical presence of the United States. We are fierce in protecting our heritage and culture because we have to be. On a daily basis, we are watching our youth being swallowed up....

I think sometimes it's even important to get a geographical sense of the presence. We have an underlying sense of it, being Canadians, but when you actually see it in your face geographically.... I think one of the reasons a lot of us signed up was because of our disappointment that the committee didn't actually come physically to experience that themselves. So we encourage and invite you to come to our beautiful city and take a look at the domination—it isn't really dominating us, because we have a strict commitment to our culture there, but it certainly is something that is overwhelming.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Ms. Tucker.

Ms. Mary Angela Tucker: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Like Marilynn, I would like to say we appreciate the opportunity to be part of these deliberations and hope to participate in them again.

I'd also like to make a comment about the site that was chosen here today for this round table discussion. The ROM is certainly part of our architectural heritage in Ontario. It's an exquisite building and it facilitates both the museum sector and the arts and culture, and it's quite a fitting place for these meetings.

Thank you.

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

I wanted to say we'd better be transparent and frank. We were going to go to the house of the people, the CB, -because it's the federal taxpayers' home and we'd been to the CBC in Montreal. So we wanted to go to the CBC here, but because of the strike we couldn't. So we thought, it has to be a cultural heritage building, and our clerk here—who is a very smart-thinking person—said, what about the ROM? So it turned out to be wonderful for all of us and very fitting.

Thank you very, very much for your presence and your participation. I think it turned out to be a very lively meeting. At one time I thought this was not moving at all, but it turned out to be a wonderful meeting. I think you brought up a lot of different perspectives. You were very open with your comments. I don't know how we're going to sort it out, but we will somehow. You'll find out by and by.

Thank you very, very much for your input and your wisdom, and for coming here today, especially the people all the way from Windsor. Thank you to all of you out there. Thank you, Mr. John Reid and all the others. All the very best to you. We really enjoyed the hospitality of Toronto and this wonderful setting.

This meeting is adjourned.