CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 4, 1999

• 1108

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I declare open the meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage,

[Translation]

meeting today to continue its examination on Canadian culture

[English]

into the next century.

Before we open the meeting, I want to read to members a letter I have just received from the National Arts Centre. I think members will want to hear this.

It says:

I am writing to advise you that Elaine Calder, the Interim Director and CEO of the National Arts Centre has announced that she will be leaving the NAC on June 15th, to assume the position of Managing Director of Hartford Stage, in Hartford, Connecticut...

The selection process for the next CEO is underway and we expect to announce the new CEO following our Board meeting at the end of June.

I want to confirm for you and members of the Standing Committee that the National Arts Centre remains committed to completing its corporate plan as expressed at our appearance before the Committee last February 4th. We expect to have our corporate plan finalized around the end of May. A summary of the corporate plan will be distributed to the members of the Committee at that time.

The Board of Trustees and Ms. Calder would be pleased to meet with you and the members of the Standing Committee at your convenience. If the Standing Committee wishes, the meeting could be scheduled at a time after the appointment of the CEO, in order that, he or she could be involved in the meeting.

I think the request makes sense, but it's up to you to decide what you want to do. You will note that the new CEO will be appointed only at the end of June, at a meeting of the NAC.

It's unfortunate; I would like to have had Mrs. Lill here, because she...

• 1110

Maybe you would like to think about it.

Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): I suggest we table it until the next meeting, when we have adequate members here to discuss it properly.

The Chairman: Sure.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: I'm very pleased today to greet the witnesses from the Center for Research-Action on Race Relations.

[Translation]

We have the pleasure of welcoming today the chairman of the committee, Dr. Wesley Crichlow, lecturer at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto.

[English]

and an expert in cultural studies and representation of minorities.

We also have Mr. Fo Niemi, the executive director, and Mr. Karim Karim, a professor at the Department of Journalism and Communications at Carleton University and a director of the Pearson-Shoyama Institute.

I understand Ms. Jean Brown-Trickey won't be with us today. Is that correct?

Mr. Fo Niemi (Executive Director, Center for Research-Action on Race Relations): I'm not sure. She's supposed to be here.

The Chairman: All right.

Mr. Niemi, the floor is yours. I don't know if you want to start, or one of your colleagues.

[Translation]

Mr. Fo Niemi: Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, members of the committee, I'd like to thank you in the name of the Montreal CRARR and of my colleagues here, for having given us this opportunity to present our points of view and comments on this matter. We would also like to thank you for allowing us to participate in this process which is promoted as being open and inclusive on the matter of the future of Canada's cultural policy.

With us we have people who are experts on matters of culture, communications and question having more specifically to do with cultural and racial diversity. Today our objective is to give you guideposts concerning the multicultural and multiracial character of Canadian society and its impact on the development of the country's culture, especially in view of the new century.

We'd also like to address how this racial and cultural diversity should be considered during any discussion and, eventually, concerning any government action in matters of culture as well as to suggest factors justifying government support for Canadian cultural life.

More particularly, we'd like to bring to your attention the problems or barriers met by artists from racial and cultural minorities in plying their trades and in their efforts to enrich Canadian culture. We believe it is essential for artisans, creators as well as cultural workers of all origins be able to fully participate in elaborating a policy on Canadian culture.

[English]

In the letter we have forwarded to you—it's bilingual—we have listed some of the concerns and some of the barriers that we believe can hinder the development of an inclusive cultural policy. We'd like to invite you to perhaps discuss those issues later.

Dr. Karim Karim will discuss the issue of globalization and the new technologies that impact on culture. This is an area he has an expertise in, working for years in the areas of research in culture and multiculturalism.

Dr. Crichlow will be talking about the aspect of diversity, particularly in the area of popular culture and youth culture, in addition to the issue of minorities, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, in order to come up with a perhaps more inclusive analysis of the types of culture directions this country should take and also the role of the federal government in the cultural sector.

Without any further delay, I would like to invite Dr. Karim Karim to make a short presentation.

[Translation]

Professor Karim Karim (Department of Journalism and Communications, Carleton University; Director, Pearson-Shoyama Institute; Centre for Research-Action on Race Relations): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

[English]

As Mr. Niemi said, I will address the issues of new technologies and globalization in the context of diasporic groups in the larger world.

• 1115

I'd like to take this beyond the borders of Canada, as the issue suggests. It is normal for national governments and national policies to be centred around what's within the country, but more and more these days we have to acknowledge not the disappearance of borders—I don't think that is likely to happen—but the diminishing significance of borders, especially in terms of culture.

We have seen how such mega superstars as Céline Dion and others have made a big hit south of the border and around the world. It's within that context I'd like to speak, but I'd also like to bring in an aspect of globalization that really has not been considered—namely, diasporic groups.

Global migration trends have produced transnational groups related by culture, ethnicity, language and religion. Whereas members of some of these group had generally operated such small media as newspapers, magazines, and radio and television programming to meet the information and entertainment needs of their communities, the emergence of digital technology is enabling them to expand such communication activities to a global scale.

From time to time, ethnic media have been at the leading edge of technology adoption due to the particular challenges they face in reaching their audiences. The relatively small and widely scattered nature of their communities has encouraged them to seek out the most efficient and cost-effective means of communication.

Technologies that allow for narrow casting, targeting specific audiences rather than those that provide the means for mass communication, have generally been favoured. The arrival of Ku-Band satellites and digital compression technology has enabled a vast increase in the number of radio and television channels that can be beamed over large distances directly to residential sites equipped with small satellite dishes.

Whereas developing as well as developed countries have expressed fears that digital broadcasting satellites, or DBS, would erode their sovereignty by transmitting foreign programming in an unregulated manner, this technology is providing remarkable opportunities for diasporic communities.

Ethnic broadcasters having limited access to space on the electromagnetic spectrum are finding much greater options opening up for them through DBS in Canada, the United States, and Europe. Diasporic programming using this technology has grown exponentially in the last few years, well ahead of many mainstream broadcasters.

For example, the South Asian television network was already using American satellites before the CRTC had given licences to Canadian satellite broadcasters to carry programming. The South Asian television network was able to serve the south Asian community in both the States and Canada. Of course, this was not the grey market; this was all done legally.

Here you had an outfit based in Newmarket, Ontario, being able to capitalize on a North American market.

Diasporic groups are also making extensive use of such on-line services as the Internet, Usenet, LISTSERV, and the World Wide Web. These worldwide networks are allowing for relatively easy connections for members of communities residing in various continents.

As opposed to the broadcast model of communication, which, apart from offering little access to minority groups, is linear, hierarchical, and capital intensive, on-line media allow easier access in a non-linear, largely non-hierarchical, and relatively cheap manner.

The ability for individuals on the other side of the planet to access messages, and to have access to community information almost instantaneously, changes the dynamics of diaspora, allowing for qualitatively and quantitatively enhanced linkages. As the number of language scripts and translation capabilities of on-line software grows, an increasing number of non-English speakers and non-French speakers are drawn to the medium.

Diasporic web sites are already creating global directories of individuals, community institutions, and businesses owned by members of diasporas. Some sites have hypertext links to sites of alumni associations. Listings of forthcoming festivals and cultural events are also provided for those travelling to other parts of the diaspora, including those in Canada. The availability of on-line versions of newspapers of countries of origin further enhance intercontinental connections.

• 1120

When I talk about diaspora, I don't only mean connections to the old country. Many groups have been in diasporic situations for generations.

For example, I was born in Kenya. My great-grandparents came from India. You have Indians living in various parts of the world—Guyana, Singapore, Malaysia, England, etc. So it's global linkages I'm talking about rather than just from the new country of settlement—for example, Canada—to the home country.

Global on-line technologies also offer some unique advantages for diasporic groups. For example, a worldwide registry would be extremely useful for such medical purposes as locating matches for human marrow donors, who are generally limited to one's own ethnic group. Similarly, data banks would also facilitate global genealogical searches in looking for adopted children's biological families, especially since more and more Canadians are adopting children from places like China and eastern Europe.

Many web sites catering to transnational communities have chat rooms where users can carry out discussions by posting messages. Usenet also enables ongoing discussions between individuals with common origins in newsgroups—for example, “soc.culture.Germany”, or “soc.culture.Pakistan”.

Discussions are raised on topics that include culture, literature, entertainment, politics, and current events in countries of origin and of settlement. Cyberspace becomes the place where the users electronically reconstitute the relationship that existed before migration.

The communal identity that emerges is not the old one but one that is a hybrid of past alliances, the re-establishment of relations through the newsgroup as well as experiences of negotiating the real life in countries of settlement and interaction with individuals and groups in that society who are not members of one's community.

Diasporic members with origins in countries with repressive governments have been using on-line media to mobilize opposition not only within the diaspora but also among other sympathetic individuals around the planet. The linking together of diasporas with broader groups on the Internet concerned with particular issues—for example, human rights, the environment, and development—would help harness the connections and energies devoted to distinct purposes into common fronts that would form, dissolve, and reappear in varying configurations responding to specific contingencies.

However, whereas the Internet is encouraging the growth of global linkages, it appears to have limits with regard to the extent to which newsgroup members are satisfied only in engaging in worldwide discussions. It seems there continues to be a need to ground oneself in the local or the national environment while still engaging in the global. So there is this dual relationship that people find they have to have with their new country of settlement and the new environment as well as the global environment.

We also need to keep in mind that even though the use of on-line media and DBS is increasing steadily around the world, the limited data available indicates that there are wide differences in the use of these technologies. Whereas servers have indicated high levels of use among such ethnic minorities as Chinese and south Asians, the lowest levels tend to be among African Canadians.

Mainstream companies are showing increasing interest in ethnic media, with corporations like CBS in the U.S. acquiring TeleNoticias, which broadcasts in Spanish, and Shaw Communications buying a stake in the Telelatino network, which broadcasts in Spanish and Italian.

As ethnic broadcasters become successful on national and global stages, it appears they will be become targets for takeovers by global media conglomerations that may not necessarily be Canadian but perhaps American or European. This may further compromise local community content.

It is clear that the terrain of broadcasting, nationally and globally, is in the process of undergoing remarkable changes. This has significant implications for state agencies concerned with regulation and policy. It is increasingly difficult to police one's borders given the ability of new communication technologies to facilitate intercontinental links between individuals and groups.

Whereas growing linkages between diasporic networks will not render national borders insignificant to the extent some have suggested, national governments will have to take into account the dynamics of global diasporas and their effect on their own populations.

• 1125

Policies regarding multiculturalism, the allocation of broadcast licences, access to information and communication technologies by minorities, and the development of multimedia products by diasporic groups, especially in the context of international trade, need to be re-evaluated.

Attention needs to be paid additionally to the effect of linkages between transnational communities on a putative global citizenship. Also significant is the impact on national citizenship and national cohesion.

The early stage of studies in diaspora and the evolving nature of new media use around the world do not allow for definitive statements on the directions that current developments will produce. Future research will need to address various aspects of the use of communication technologies by minorities. For example, the information and entertainment needs that have led to the growth of ethnic media have not been fully examined, particularly the effects of these media on issues of citizenship and social cohesion and the relation of these media with the mass media.

The emergence of ethnic public service broadcasting and the commercialization of ethnic media have yet to be analysed. There is a clear need for better quantitative data on access and use of digital media by ethnic groups. Content analysis of materials produced by diasporic communities as well as ethnographic research will go a long way toward helping to construct a fuller picture.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Before we proceed any further, I would like to extend a welcome to Mrs. Jean Brown-Trickey. Thanks for joining us.

Dr. Karim, you expressed a lot of ideas and suggestions in a very substantive brief. I was wondering if it would be possible for members, some of whom are at other committees right now, and haven't been able to attend, to have a summary of your notes afterwards. Even if it's the English text we'll get it translated for the members. There was a lot of substance, and I wouldn't want to miss the content.

Prof. Karim Karim: I will make them available.

The Chairman: Thanks very much. You can organize it with the clerk later.

I understand Dr. Crichlow will now address us.

[Translation]

Mr. Fo Niemi: I would like to say a brief word before we continue.

The Chairman: Go ahead.

Mr. Fo Niemi: I'd like to hand the members of the committee a document on diversity in a few Canadian towns. I'd like to remind you that during our discussion, it's important for us to always keep in mind the increasing diversity within our urban centres because culture is often a creation of urban dynamics in our country's context. These figures will show you how important it is to always keep in mind the diversity which exists in our urban centres and the way diversity is going to change our culture as well as our cultural actions.

I'd like to briefly introduce Ms. Brown-Trickey to the members of the committee.

[English]

For many of you, I believe, Mrs. Brown-Trickey needs no further introduction. She is a social worker. She is also one of the people who has made a significant impact on the history of race relations in North America. She was one of the pioneers who broke the school colour barrier in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Mrs. Brown-Trickey would also like to participate in this process by talking about some of the issues regarding culture and history, particularly the history of diversity and how it has also influenced our notion of culture and cultural institutions.

The Chairman: Mr. Niemi, just before we proceed with Mrs. Brown-Trickey, can you tell me approximately how long it will take for you and Dr. Crichlow to address us? That way we can allow enough time for members to ask questions.

[Translation]

Mr. Fo Niemi: I think our presentation will last no more than seven minutes.

The Chairman: You have five minutes each.

Mr. Fo Niemi: I understand it's best to be brief.

• 1130

The Chairman: Yes.

[English]

Welcome, and please begin.

Ms. Jean Brown-Trickey (Social Worker, Centre for Research-Action on Race Relations): Well, thank you for that opportunity to be brief.

The Chairman: Don't feel constrained, please.

Ms. Jean Brown-Trickey: Oh, no, I'm not constrained.

The Chairman: We're very proud to have you here.

Ms. Jean Brown-Trickey: I think I should state that I've lived longer in Canada than in the United States.

The Chairman: No, I realize that.

Ms. Jean Brown-Trickey: My loyalty is here.

I wanted to talk just briefly about the importance of history in defining Canadian culture and how that will apply to our understanding of culture in general.

Since its inception, the nation of Canada has consisted of racial and cultural diversity. However, the cultural images, symbols, and practices of those deemed “other” have been marginalized, ignored, and obliterated.

The historical perspective, including the many contributors to Canadian nation building—and I emphasize nation building—is essential to any definition of Canadian culture and to an integrated narrative culture in the Canadian context. Unfortunately, we have to take the bitter with the sweet. The absence of particular groups in historical texts, the non-acknowledgement of presences, gives us in the 1990s that one-dimensional portrait, or no portrait at all—at all—of those contributors to nation building.

There are many examples. I was trying to make a list. For instance, the emigration of live-in caregivers has proved to be very valuable to Canada in terms of women moving into the workforce. That's just one example.

Of course, we have the common ones—for instance, the black United Empire Loyalists, the Chinese builders of the railroad, and the Ukrainian or eastern European settlers of the prairies. So we have consistently and persistently had a diversity of cultures in this country.

If we are to maintain cultural sovereignty, or if we have a skewed picture of the cultural and racial diversity of what is and always has been Canada, it is important to realize that no form of culture is the sole province of any one group of people. Culture forms from the dialectic, the give and take of various groups, including, and creating from, clear lines of origin, and converging.

I like the word “hybridization”. Indeed, when we start to think of Canadian culture we have to include that grounding, and the duality of cultures.

The dialectic we share because of migration from one constituency to another can provide us with valuable indications of other shifts taking place within society and globally, demonstrating that aesthetic values are rooted more in historical circumstances than in transcendent objective values, and that cultural hierarchies are never pure. They must change in order to reflect the building of the Canadian nation-state.

Cultural production by any art form is impossible without the complete picture, because diversity and cultural production actually mediate by linking ideas and communities. Of course these mediations are art, music, literature—the mixture.

I would like to quote Cullen here, in The Art of Democracy:

The artistic vitality and economic viability of every popular cultural form has depended on steady infusions of talent from economically, socially, and/or politically marginalized [and non-marginalized] people.

How the past is interrogated, staged, painted... it can't be done without the information. Cultural productions have always been instrumental in describing the triumphs of history and the hurts of history as well as the triumphs of the human spirit.

Is that short enough?

The Chairman: Thank you.

Dr. Crichlow.

• 1135

Dr. Wesley Crichlow (Special Representative, Centre for Research-Action on Race Relations): I'll be very brief as well. I've had to do a lot of cutting of my original piece, so forgive me for my disjointedness as I speak. In the question and answer period I'm sure I can piece it back together.

I was asked to talk a bit about the postmodernist discourse around culture and identity, an area in which I teach and do work with youth.

I think it's important to know that the whole postmodernist discourse around the issue of identity is very new to Canada and is very new to the whole notion of how we take up the notions of “difference” and “otherness”.

For me, in order to provide any type of meaningful critique or debate around the whole notion of a formation of a cultural policy, it's critical that I talk about how notions of difference and otherness are taken up.

It is sadly ironic, however, that the development of a Canadian cultural policy in contemporary discourse that talks the most about heterogeneity, the descending subject, declaring breakthroughs that allow recognition of otherness, still directs its critical voice primarily to a specialized audience, one that shares a common language rooted in the very master narratives it claims to challenge.

If radical Canadian politics and cultural policies are to have a transformative impact on heritage, Canadian culture, and the voices of youth, a critical break with the notion of authority as “mastery over” must not simply be a rhetorical device. It must be reflected in the habits of being, included in styles of policies and writings as well as those on the chosen subject matter and not just the voices of those who uphold the voice of the mastery.

In particular, I'm interested in Third World scholars, especially elites and white critics who passively absorb forms of racism and therefore never notice or look at young people of colour on the streets, at their jobs, who render us invisible with their gazes in all areas of daily life. They are not likely to produce a liberatory Canadian cultural policy that will challenge forms of racism or promote a breakdown in traditional ways of seeing and thinking about reality.

The postmodern critique of identity, though relevant for a black and people-of-colour liberation struggle, is often posed in ways that are problematic. Given the pervasive politics of racism, which seek to prevent the formation of any type of person of colour's subjectivity in the formation of a Canadian identity, we cannot covertly dismiss a concern with identity politics.

Any policy-maker exploring the radical potential of a Canadian cultural policy as it relates to racial difference and racial domination needs to consider the implications of a critique of identity for oppressed groups.

The issue of colonization was raised by Jeannie. We must engage forever, I think, in the historical formation and the whole historicity of how people have been formed and shaped in their notions of identity.

I'm trying to get this done quickly.

The Chairman: If you feel under pressure, please don't; please.

Dr. Wesley Crichlow: Okay.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): He's not a very oppressive chair.

Voices: Oh, oh.

Dr. Wesley Crichlow: Okay.

The development of a Canadian cultural policy that is not seeking to simply appropriate the experience of otherness in order to enhance its discourses or to be radically chic should not separate the politics of difference from the politics of racism.

To take racism seriously, one must consider the plight of the underclass, people of colour. For me, it's about a yearning. Here, yearning is the word that best describes a common psychological state shared by many of us, cutting across boundaries of race, class, gender and sexual practice. Specifically in relation to the development of a Canadian cultural policy, or master narratives, it's the yearning that wells in the hearts and the minds of those whom such narratives have silenced in the longing for critical voice.

It is not surprising, then, that we have issues of definitions, and authors such as Neil Bissoondath, with a particular version of Canadian policy and identity that has become the common parlance for most discussions. It is important, however, to think about the many ways in which what I call a “theoretical critical policy”, which I use in critical thinking, need not be transmitted solely through the academy.

• 1140

While I work in a predominantly white institution, I remain intimately and passionately engaged with black communities. It's not as though I'm going to talk about writing and thinking about Canadian cultural policy or postmodernism and youth with other academics or intellectuals and not discuss these ideas with underclass non-academics or people in my community. Since I have not broken the ties that bind me to my community, I have seen that knowledge, especially that which enhances daily life and strengthens our capacity to survive, can be shared. It means politicians, critics, writers, academics, and journalists have to give the same critical attention to nurturing and cultivating our ties to communities of colour in the formation of a Canadian heritage policy.

Again, I'm really talking about cultivating habits of being that reinforce awareness that knowledge can be disseminated and shared on a number of fronts. The extent to which it is made available and accessible depends on the nature of one's political commitments.

Postmodern culture, with its decentred subject, can be the space where ties are severed or it can provide the occasion for new and varied forms of bonding. To some extent, it ruptures surfaces of contextuality and a host of other happenings and creates gaps that make space for oppositional practices that no longer require intellectuals to be confined to narrow separate spheres with no meaningful connection to the everyday world.

Much of what we talk about with regard to the whole idea of culture and identity and engagement emerges from the yearning to do intellectual work that connects with habits of being, forms of artistic expression, and aesthetics that inform the daily life of a mass population, as well the works of politicians and scholars.

In the terrain of culture, one can participate in critical dialogue with the uneducated, the poor, the working class, youth—categorized as Generation X, a generation long forgotten—the black underclass, and many others. One can talk about what we are seeing. One can talk about what we are thinking about, or listening to. A space is there for critical exchange.

It's exciting to think, be here, write, talk, teach, and create art and cultural politics that reflect passionate engagement with Canadian identity, remembering that Canadian identity is not fixed and always changing. Changing demographics demand that politics and policies shift to meet those demanding needs and changing conditions.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Dr. Crichlow.

I'll open the floor to questions from members.

Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to the committee. You've sure given us a lot of food for thought in your presentations.

I have a couple of questions. From the point of view that Canadian culture is emerging from the definition that culture should be defined in the present tense, do you think bilingualism is a racist policy?

Perhaps I can just relate that to my second question—namely, what is the relationship between bilingualism and multiculturalism? Maybe that'll make it easier to respond.

Prof. Karim Karim: Perhaps I can take a stab at that in terms of my understanding and experience.

I think it boils down to practicalities—for instance, how many official languages can we have in a country? I guess the compromise was achieved in the early 1970s with Prime Minister Trudeau when he talked about the new policy of multiculturalism within a bilingual framework replacing bilingualism and biculturalism. So biculturalism got replaced with multiculturalism, retaining the framework of bilingualism.

People would argue, look, how can you separate language from culture? I think it's been the unique Canadian formula. Whether it works or not is debatable, but in terms of practicalities, we have to make allowances for translation and the costs related to that, logistics, etc. If you want to add one more language, two more languages, many more languages, it becomes very difficult, if not impossible, to carry out a civil, organized discourse in society.

• 1145

So I would suggest that at one level, it's a matter of practicality. At another level, to me, bilingualism, English and French, official bilingualism in Canada, is a recognition of the fact that this nation-state was built by two communities, the British and the French.

I'm not talking about the country but the state—two very different things. The country was built by a whole number of other people as well. The state specifically, initially with the very strong presence of the British, made a very clear allowance for the French fact or presence in its symbols, from 1867, and for the possibility to speak French in Parliament and in Federal Court.

In a way, the fact that multiculturalism was born in Canada before any other country... These days, many countries have adopted it, although we are still the only country that has a multiculturalism act. The multicultural discourse has spread around the world in many different forms compared with Canada—the United States, Britain, around Europe, even places like Malaysia. First of all, of course, it went to Australia after Canada.

In any case, what really opened the door for multiculturalism was the early acceptance by the British of the French fact. If that had not happened, I think multiculturalism as a policy would have been very difficult to implement here.

So I see it historically and as a matter of practicality that this is the unique Canada compromise. Some people may see it as racist and so on, but I think we live in the real world, where you have to take into account what is possible.

If one were to look at Vancouver, B.C., Chinese seems to be much more prevalent in the public sphere. You see more signs in the public sphere on streets, on storefronts, in banks, on Georgia, for example, a main street, which is quite remarkable.

I think what we have done is that where we have established an official bilingualism, there is in practice, where numbers justify, or perhaps other factors justify, the availability of using various other languages. In the north, especially in the new territory, we have the use of Inuit languages and so on.

I hope that has at least explained my musings. I don't have a definitive approach on this, but this is at least the way I approach the subject.

Mr. Fo Niemi: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to add something.

At the national or domestic level, the two frameworks, legislative and policy, if you want to use a certain jargon, really manage to channel and provide a framework for the growth of those realities from coast to coast. One cannot imagine how without those policies a country so diverse culturally, geographically, and linguistically can grow and prosper in a reasonably harmonious and equitable way. So that's at the national level.

At the international level, too, those policies influence and also are a reflection of many of the international covenants and conventions on minority rights with which Canada has been identified.

To advance the notion that somehow those policies lead to greater discrimination and greater inequity seems to me rather contradictory in terms of the evolving transnational/transfrontier postmodern society and world in which we find ourselves.

This is the type of reflection we'd like to perhaps advance, and see to a certain extent how much the soul of this country and the peoples coast to coast have seen themselves reflected in those two policies, in more ways than we can imagine.

• 1150

Look at many countries around the world and the rise of emerging minorities. People look to Canada and still wonder how they can do that. In many ways, those are very strong assets.

It's no coincidence that Australia came to Canada to study the multiculturalism policy, to study the ethnic broadcasting policy. They went home and developed Special Broadcasting Service, which in many ways is much more advanced and much more interesting than many of the things we're doing. Right now the CRTC is trying to reassess its broadcasting policy regarding ethnic and linguistic diversity, especially in this global village that we've become.

The Chairman: Mr. Muise.

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

Welcome, and thank you to our guests.

When we think culture in Canada, certain things come to mind about who we are and what we are. When we think of people who emigrate to Canada, we think they have different cultures. They bring with them some history and customs of their own. Really, we can learn from them, as we all learn from each other's differences.

I'm wondering, as it pertains to people who come from other countries who are now in Canada, what should be in a cultural policy to help make cultural policy more comprehensive for everyone here. It was Dr. Crichlow who mentioned the differences, so perhaps we could maybe hear Dr. Crichlow.

If you could touch on the rest of my question, I would appreciate that.

Dr. Wesley Crichlow: First, I think it's important to recognize that all groups don't come with the same issues in terms of where they start from. So when we talk about a policy that will have in it strategies or policies to address the concerns and needs of new immigrants, we need to talk about how different immigrants bring different experiences.

Recognizing the different experiences, then, we need a policy that is sensitive to the different stages that people come at. For example, some communities come under immigration policies that are geared specifically to business classes. Economically, they are already advantaged. They have a start.

Some communities sponsor immigrants. For example, a large number of domestic women from the Philippines and the Caribbean who came in to work would eventually stay here and try to sponsor their younger relatives. They have more needs. They have educational needs. They have economic needs. They have housing needs. They have language needs. A number of needs are different.

So a cultural policy without an economic base that attempts to create an infrastructure for, say, employment, job creation, job training, and language facilitation skills, be it French-English or French-English... An integrative type of policy and approach to what it means to live in Canada is what I think is needed at all levels of government, not just federal but also provincial and municipal, etc.

School systems have to be a part of that process, as do community organizations that do the work, the NGOs that right now do the work. It's about how we can form partnerships with a large group of people doing work in the area of working with immigrants and new settlements.

I think we need a commitment to funding, because the core of all this is funding. One of the arguments is that immigrants are not economic beneficiaries; hence, funding is the last priority.

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you. I like the way you're going, and I have another question, but I'd like to hear what the others have to say first, please.

Mr. Fo Niemi: I'd just like to say that for newcomers in this country, depending on where they came from, their country of origin, one of the most important messages Canadian cultural productions and Canadian cultural institutions need to give is that there is a place for change and a place for adaptation and also that the Canadian peoples or the Canadian communities are diverse, and that you can find yourself in many ways reflected, and your voice can be heard.

If we look at the English- and French-language productions on television, the worst message we can give is that to be Canadian, it's to be French only, or English only, or white only, and that if you want to see more colour, you have to go to American programming, as though Canadian culture or the Canadian country is only for people of certain races, certain ethnic backgrounds.

As you know, studies have shown that up to 80% of our English-language television productions are from the States, especially with the rise of the specialty channels and the private networks, whereas in French 80% tend to be produced here, in Quebec or in Canada.

• 1155

So we need to find a way to give to newcomers or to every Canadian, every person living on Canadian territory, a message to the effect that Canadian culture, in the large sense of the word, is inclusive and reflective of all kinds of people and experiences, and that, no, it is not American culture.

Historically, if we go through all the task forces, from the Aird commission in 1929 until more recently, the outcome of Hébert, one of the things that comes out for cultural policy is always that element of Canadian nationalism and anti-Americanism and the struggle between the Canadian and American souls.

The message, when you talk to communities here, is that if you want to see more cultural and racial diversity, you have to go to American programming, American cultural productions and films, because you don't find enough Canadian cultural productions. That is something we need to change when we devise a cultural policy for the future.

Prof. Karim Karim: I would like to take a more institutional or legislative approach. Some of the answers may already be in the legislation that's in place—for example, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, which asks federal institutions to respect the cultural diversity of this country. This, of course, includes all cultural institutions.

I think the problem lies in the implementation. Initially, when the debates were going on around the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, the minority groups had asked for a commissioner to oversee the implementation of the act. That wasn't done. I think that is one of the largest problems in actually bringing to the fore the proper implementation of the act.

Similarly, the Broadcasting Act asks broadcasters, particularly the CBC, as well as the other broadcasters to reflect the diversity of Canadians in broadcasting. As Mr. Niemi pointed out, this is not happening.

With respect to access to new information and technologies, in my paper I showed how... Well, I didn't have the time to demonstrate it, but evidence has shown that frequently, because of their particular needs from being scattered around the country, ethnic groups tend to adopt technologies that the mass media might not have adopted yet to be able to reach a very broad audience. It's not only in Canada. It's around the world.

So they're very much at the forefront of adopting technologies, but the old stereotype of immigrants and minorities not being uneducated, not being savvy in terms of technology, is very strong.

When I've been in task forces and so on, and I've suggested that perhaps this document we may be looking at in terms of information technology use in Canada should perhaps be sent to a minority organization—the Canadian Ethnocultural Council and so on, among other institutions—people resist that idea because of the old stereotapes: What do they have to do with this? They're not technologically competent to deal with new technologies.

The real story, of course, is very different. They often are at the leading edge.

Hardly any minorities, if any, are on task forces—for example, the Information Highway Advisory Council. So what you have in the report is a complete negation of the diversity of this country, no recognition of that, whereas, as it's been pointed out, the world is very diverse. The markets out there, for which we could be equipping all Canadians, including minorities, in terms of training...

The United States is already doing it through the NTIA. They're training minorities to become much more savvy in the use of new technologies. We don't seem to have those practices in place.

So I would suggest a stronger implementation of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. The seeds are already there. Although it's not as strong an act as we would have hoped for, the Broadcasting Act and such other acts as the Employment Equity Act will allow the proper implementation to enable the full flowering of diversity and cultural production within the country.

The Chairman: Mrs. Brown, do you want to add anything?

Ms. Jean Brown-Trickey: Yes, I do.

• 1200

This is from my personal experience. I'm the mother of six children, which means there are never fewer than twelve people in my house at one time.

I think this is very telling. This is a representation. This is the truth of this society. These young people have these discussions. They're Canadians. They look Chinese, they look Vietamese, they look Cambodian, they look Indian—all these things—and they are descended, but they are Canadian young people. They're very frustrated by the fact that they're not represented in especially the electronic media, on television.

I don't think we can run a world with young people who do not feel part of the culture. I think this is a real flaw in the future of nation building, because there's so many of them.

To reiterate what I said, school systems, history books, and so on are all related, all interrelated, and it's very important. Cultural institutions' representations leave my kids out. They resent it, and I don't think that's fair.

Well, “fair”; that's a woman's word or something. Inherently, though, it is unfair. Inherently, it is discriminatory.

So I like to hear what those 12-plus young people have to say all the time. They actually inform my world, and I'll bring you that information.

That too was short.

Mr. Mark Muise: That was good, though. Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: First of all, I'm just delighted you're here, because I think it's very helpful. We certainly would be the poorer if you hadn't come. We're going to have to figure some way of integrating in a meaningful way, not simply a superficial way, what you're telling us. It's truly important.

Ironically, as a member of Parliament from Toronto and from one of the most multicultural ridings around, and also living in one of the most multicultural downtown areas in a city where the diversity is extraordinary, from every point of view, when I go campaigning, for example, door to door, I take with me 20 languages. It's not that I speak 20 languages; I just know how to say, in 20 languages, “Hello, how are you?”

So as I look at this table, the reality of the table, it dissolves not into two categories, you versus us, but into far more interesting subgroups of cultures. I know and suspect you represent different countries of origin and different value structures, so there's no blanket reality even for you. There are huge differences within.

I was reflecting, without trying to get too personal, on the theme of victimhood. I don't want to caricaturize what Dr. Crichlow was talking about, but as I look at the table—and I'm not saying we're all representative Frantz Fanon here—I see my colleague, who comes from Latvia, which has been a victim of the Soviet Union.

[Translation]

There is also Ms. St-Hilaire who, according to certain historical texts, is a victim of the Conquest. That is historical reality.

[English]

I see Mr. Muise, who comes from Nova Scotia, where people were expelled in large numbers in 1755.

I don't really know enough about the history of Mauritius to work up a dramatic story involving the chairman, but he might volunteer something.

I don't know enough about Mr. Mark other than I think I know about the culture with which his ancestors are associated. There's a history of victimhood there.

Finally, in my own case, if you want to go back far enough, you can find victimhood. You can find the Loyalists, who were driven out by the Americans. You can find the Irish, who were driven out by the English and the lack of potatoes. You can find the Scots, who were displaced during the highland clearances of the 18th century.

So pretty much everyone at the table has a story of victimhood and displacement that explains why they came to Canada, in many cases. There aren't that many of the oppressing classes who made it so, because it's a successive history of victimhood displacing other victims. That's the Canadian reality. There were times when the Irish were despised in this country.

• 1205

So it's a historic truth, and I'm wondering if it's just an issue of time before we start to define ourselves in different fashions. Other than just speculating on the interesting nature of this very Canadian table, it seems to me that if what we're arguing in a report about culture is that it is a reflection of our dynamic and evolving society, I want to try a definition on you. I want to get your reaction to it.

I once undertook a big exercise when I was a newspaper editor. I attempted to define a society in a way that was really inclusive but also historically true. The best I could do was something like this: Canada today is a multicultural society, its first and most dominant characteristic, but that multicultural society is founded on three distinct historical realities—an English-speaking culture, a French-speaking culture, and an aboriginal culture.

Now, historically, and I am an historian, it seems to be indisputable as a definition. You can't get out of it. It also responds to what Karim Karim was saying, which is that at the end of the day, when people come to this country, they subscribe to one, or maybe two, of those cultures.

In order to have this meeting, we have to be English- or French-speaking members to get on with it. It's not a totally unformed society that people come to. There is a historical reality, one that is enriched by the arrival of successive waves of immigrants—or victims, if I may put it that way.

Whether that definition of our society then informs what our cultural policy ought to be is an issue, but the complexity of this is reflected, for example, in novels written by people from different origins. The great burst of creativity in English-speaking novels written by people who came from Ceylon, who came from the West Indies, who came from India, all of whom choose to write in English, reflect a reality that is very complex—for example, about being a woman, an Indian woman, backwards and forwards.

Whether there's a way in which we can capture that complexity without reducing it to total banality or total relativism, and without overly harping on the victimhood—and I don't want to take away from Dr. Crichlow's thesis—I wonder if this is a definition that's of any use to us. Is this something that can help inform our poor, benighted researcher here, in allowing us to move ahead?

Dr. Wesley Crichlow: It's a big question.

It's important for us to not sanitize oppression, which tends to be a simple way out of looking at complex issues. Class mediates the kind of oppression people feel and experience.

You attempted to give a historical analysis of different groups at different points in Canadian history who have made it, or who have had experiences of some type of victimhood. That point is well taken. But when we construct an understanding of race, and how racism gets played out, and how we still construct what we consider “other”, we always see other as someone who doesn't look white, regardless.

I mean, you can be Scottish or Irish or Yugoslavian or whomever and be historically victimized in Canada, but you are not considered “other” unless you claim that otherness conveniently in a discussion somehow to make a point of what I call “epistemic privilege”, or epistemic oppression.

Other than that, when you walk the streets, you always get constructed as a normative, and a normative is white—and not just white; white and male.

Thirdly, it's important to understand that when we critique multiculturalism, we are attempting to affirm various identities that historically have not been, and still are not seen as, valid in the formation of what we call Canadian identity. So it's important to do that, because what we challenge is colonial and imperialist thinking behind how we shape policies and how policies are formed.

• 1210

If we don't do that, we risk the chance of putting everybody's lives into this one pocket, saying, well, this group has made it, why you haven't been able to make it? And that group is making it, why can't you?

But what we know historically, and we know presently, is that it still is the case that there is an overrepresentation of blacks and first nations in our prisons. There is an overrepresentation of blacks and first nations and Hispanics who are pushed out of school; they don't drop out. There is an overrepresentation of blacks and first nations and racial minorities in the unemployed youth category.

What does that tell us, then, about Canadian policy on multiculturalism if it is so great? It tells us that we sell a sanitized version internationally, to the rest of the world, and that the reality of the social stratification is not yet interrogated or challenged, because to interrogate the hierarchy is to disrupt normative notions of comfort. If we disrupt normative notions of comfort, then we call into attention what people call radical politics. You are viewed as someone who is problematic, who wants to overthrow the state rather than talk about issues of social change for those who have less.

Too, you said earlier that you can say hello to people in 20 languages. The colonial impact that has on the person when you greet them... “Oh my God, he knows my language. Oh, it's so nice of him.”

I mean, just psychologically, the impact that has on a person is important in terms of how you as a white person, white male, can convey to that person, “I can connect with you on the basis of language.”

Beyond language, what about economic policies? What about job creation? What about the contracts? We don't see people of colour working on the street in all these major contracts, all these firms.

We can go on and on, but the problem is, we are not prepared to talk about those inequalities. We talk about women making gains, but we don't ask ourselves which women. We talk about how there have been gains in institutions and policy, but we don't talk about which gains, for whom, and under what conditions.

Those are the questions that need to be continuously asked in order to seek to redress the notion of historical difference.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Ms. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I thank you all for coming. I have to concur with my colleague, Mr. Godfrey, that this committee has truly been enriched by your presentations.

I have a few questions, two specific questions to Mr. Karim, and then I want to discuss some of the very important points that have been raised here by Mr. Niemi.

Thank you for bringing them to our attention, because they are concerns we have not heard, or certainly I didn't hear. I think they're very important.

Dr. Karim, you talked about the allocation of broadcast licences and how that's very important. Unfortunately, the reality of what we have seen is that with the spectrum being full at one point, while broadcast licences are being given out, we have a problem with the digital not being ready yet, except for on the aboriginal channel, where the CRTC actually directed that it be put on the first tier, on the basic tier.

It's one thing to get a broadcast licence, but what can or should be done by the CRTC to ensure that the diasporic groups have the proper representation on the band that is available, and on future bands? That's an issue I'd like to look at a little closer.

Secondly, you addressed some concerns about the fact that the larger networks like CBS were buying specialty channels. You seemed to indicate it was a bad thing, yet the reality of the situation here is that if the larger cable companies go and buy the specialty channels, which the CRTC is monitoring as well, it's one way to get yourself on the tier. The CRTC has had to try to balance that in the case of certainly sports channels.

Do we see it as a bad thing that we actually have the larger cable companies purchase the specialty channels so that again you have the public and you are on the lower tiers? It's not just getting the allocation of broadcast channels; the question is, how do we ensure that the infrastructure is there so that those broadcasts are showcased and not just hidden somewhere under licence?

Prof. Karim Karim: About the broadcast licence and what can be done within the existing bandwidth, coming back to the previous point I made about what's included in the Broadcasting Act, first of all, are CBC, CTV, Global, and the French channels living up to their legislative commitments in terms of representing all of Canada, all Canadians? I don't think so. Various studies have shown that this is very much lacking.

• 1215

In terms of the existing bandwidth, there has been, for example, a series of licence applications from, I believe, Mr. Dan Iannuzzi. He has continually asked for a licence to run a multicultural channel and has been been refused, basically. It's the same problem in radio. A black station was refused in favour of a country music channel.

An Australian researcher doing research in the country about ethnic broadcasting told me she's been told by a CRTC official that there just is no space for the ethnics; the spectrum is too full and there is just no space for them.

It's a matter of priorities. How do we see our country? How do we see its population?

You have the green sheet here, which shows the urban population. Of the total population in the country, more than 40% of Canadians have one ethnic background other than British or French.

This brings us to the original question about English and French. Yes, we are a bilingual country, but to make the point that Mr. Niemi made, there are other languages there as well, and we need to make some allowances, not completely block them out.

There was great rejoicing among all minorities—in fact, our group, the Pearson-Shoyama Institute, supported the licence application by the aboriginal group at the CRTC hearings—that at least this one little door has been opened for one minority group, a very important Canadian minority group.

We hope this will continue in terms of at least allowing for a multicultural channel that allows various other groups to be represented, and the languages to be heard. Some of them may even want to broadcast in English or French, but they bring their cultural experiences for their communities in that.

For example, CFMT out of Toronto, and the multicultural channel in Montreal, are extremely popular and doing very well on the commercial model. So there is a lot of scope there.

This brings me to the corporate takeover of ethnic channels. In my short presentation, it might have sounded as though I was saying that was a bad thing. The point I make in my larger paper, which I'll give to the clerk, is that in the absence or lack of encouragement for community broadcasting in other languages or other cultures, more and more of these groups have to turn to commercial broadcasting.

In fact, if you look at Vision TV, it's almost as though in the absence of having space in the spectrum, it's a backdoor way for certain minority groups to get certain kinds of cultural presence on that religious channel. It seems to have become the most multicultural channel that broadcasts coast to coast.

It is a very commercialized model, though, and sometimes you have more than half of the program being blatantly commercial at the expense of cultural programming. So there is a strong imbalance there.

As opposed to the CBC model, which follows the public broadcasting model, we don't seem to have something like the SBS, Special Broadcasting Service in Australia—that is, an allowance within an officially multicultural country for a public broadcaster whose primary mandate is to serve the minorities in our country.

So there is this imbalance, and if corporate takeovers occur and the primary motive is profit, then you will have, especially within the context of the digital broadcasting satellite stations, very little local content. Whether it's Ottawa or Montreal or Rimouski or wherever, there's very little local content, because these are broadcasting nationally.

• 1220

If the only channel open is by the means of digital broadcasting satellites and not cable or other means, then we will have very little local programming for those minority groups.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Within our current regulatory framework with the CRTC, if the CBC is not living up to its obligations through the Broadcasting Act and the CRTC is the one determining the priorities, in a sense the government's hands are tied, because there's this non-arm's-length relationship with that regulatory agency.

If indeed, as you're saying, it's a matter of priorities, is this something the minister could use Order in Council directives to ensure?

I think we're caught in a conundrum. The CRTC is there, and it's supposed to be independent. How do we get those priorities to the CRTC?

Prof. Karim Karim: I believe the minister, as far as radio goes, has already indicated—and I don't know whether it was by Order in Council or some other mechanism—that the next available station frequency in the Toronto area should be reserved for a minority channel, specifically a black channel, I think.

So there is a possibility for the minister to act. I'm not sure about the specifics, but there seems to be that availability.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Very quickly, Mr. Niemi, on the points you've made here with regard to Telefilm and Canadian content, what's ACTRA's position on this? I notice in your next paragraph you say the many associations and unions have no racial minority or aboriginal representation. Why hasn't ACTRA lobbied hard for this?

Mr. Foe Niemi: Actually, we're having a working meeting in Montreal at the end of this month on the issue of racial equality in the arts, bringing people from Quebec and Ontario together to talk about the common experience. So I am not in a position to answer the question.

I do know that in the past ACTRA has had a committee address issues of racial equality, and out of that produced a directory of minority actors and artists, members of ACTRA, to promote more visibility in Canadian productions. However, after a couple of years the committee no longer seems to be active.

There's an equity committee right now in ACTRA, but I'm not in a position to elaborate more on that.

With regard to Quebec, it's the Union des artistes, which is more present in Quebec. Usually when there is an issue dealing with cultural or racial diversity, Union des artistes refers people to us as an organization, because we worked extensively in NAFTA, seven or eight years, on the issue of access to culture and communications.

I think the point I'm trying to make is that the institutions are not opening up as much as they should. Some institutions are taking some steps to diversify the products. We've talked to people in Montreal, and some theatre companies, on how to diversify, mostly with regard to the clientele, how to get more members of ethnic groups to become patrons of the arts, and purely for economic reasons. In the theatre community in Montreal in particular, financially it's become very hard.

They need to recognize that members of minorities become cultural consumers, except that when you deal with cultural consumers you have to look at what cultural products you need to present in order to attract cultural consumers.

I would like, if you would allow me, to come back to the issues you raised earlier about the licensing. As you know, in the recent study in February the CRTC examined or reviewed the ethnic broadcasting policy. One of the questions they asked is whether there should be a national ethnic broadcasting service in Canada.

I believe the CRTC is looking at it, but also there's the private sector, which is growing exponentially. There's a specialty cable with specialty services growing very fast. The role of the CBC is going to be reviewed and discussed in public as of May 25, but there is also the APTN, the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network, which you all support. That's another pillar of the Canadian broadcasting universe.

So I think the big question is, should there be a national ethnic broadcasting service? Second, if that national broadcasting service is on, who is going to run it, and what do we do with all the broadcasting services in many cities and regions that are there? Should they should become affiliates?

In the last 15 or 20 years that has been the difficulty—resolving how, or whether, you should create a national service, and how you deal with the regional ethnic broadcasting services defined according to the CRTC policy as type A, type B, or type C, or different types of ethnic broadcasting.

• 1225

The issue we need to raise as well is that if we want to increase access for Canadians from different minority backgrounds to the broadcasting universe, it's a multi-layered strategy. If we look at, for example, the private broadcasters or the CBC, the CRTC can, at the most, issue as a condition of licence, “Thou shalt ensure racial and cultural diversity.” This is what our organization is recommending with regard to the CBC. It's a condition of licence for both the French-language network and the English-language network. When you deal with federal cultural institutions, usually we see more diversity in the English-language sector.

That's one thing. The other way for the minister or for the government to intervene—and this is where the role of the federal government needs to be strong—is through the Employment Equity Act or through the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. There are still things that can be demanded that can increase access and representation. All these broadcasters are regulated by the Employment Equity Act.

If you look at the data produced by the CBC on its on-air employees with regard to English television, you'll see that the number of visible minority representation is only half of what it should be in the labour force at large.

So we're still talking about the need, through government legislation that exists already, to increase diversity both behind and before the camera.

The Chairman: Mr. Mark.

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

I have a couple of short questions. One, I want to know how you perceive the race relations committee struck by the government in terms of advocating and advancing multicultural issues.

As well, what role does government have in terms of financing multicultural programs and initiatives? Should the federal government be involved in financing multicultural initiatives in terms of minority culture?

Prof. Karim Karim: The committee sounds very promising, although there has been, unfortunately, a chronic problem of underrepresentation of visible minorities in the public service. It's a problem that exists at many levels.

Are you talking about the Race Relations Foundation? I'm sorry; I was thinking of the PSC committee. I think that's an important development as well.

I believe the Race Relations Foundation has a $24 million endowment, which leaves it with, at current interest rates and the best investment strategies, a budget of just under $100,000. It has an arm-long mandate, very difficult to fulfil, but from what I have heard, they are doing some interesting things.

Your second question related to...

Mr. Inky Mark: Finance, and the role of government in terms of financing development of multicultural programs and initiatives.

Prof. Karim Karim: Again, I think this needs to be integrated into policies of such existing institutions as Telefilm and other broadcast funds where hardly anything was said about minority programming. We always seem to be missing the boat on that. If it occurs at all, it's an afterthought, but in this case it wasn't even that.

There needs to be more integration, as I said, of 40% of the Canadian population.

Ms. Jean Brown-Trickey: May I ask him a question so that he can answer it, for me and you?

I'm the subject of a documentary that is having a very hard time finding funding. It's being done by two Ottawa filmmakers.

Now, there was a change in the funding formula. Can you tell me more about that? It meant they were unable to access the Telefilm money. There was a change in the percentage the independent filmmaker had to raise in order to apply.

You know about this; you're the journalism expert. If I'm wrong, please shut me up quickly, but this change in terms of percentages that independent filmmakers have to raise just knocks a whole bunch of people out. It just denies access to that possibility, especially for young minority filmmakers.

• 1230

This group, Northeast Productions, is very multicultural. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't have it any other way. But just going out to get the money to do this is incredible. It's proven to be a full-time job on the part of the producer.

So there are barriers that are personal here. I see the barriers. They're right there all the time.

I will claim that I speak from my own point of view very often, or most of the time. Because of my social location, I think that's really important. I have experience with barriers that are faced by young multicultural filmmakers.

The Chairman: Ms. Brown-Trickey, it's maybe very timely that you raise this. Mrs. Bulte has referred to it also in regard to Telefilm, and you addressed it specifically in your letter to us.

The way I understood it, the way in which you addressed it was to point out that Telefilm is one example in that it doesn't have the sensitivity or the background knowledge to address the applications made to it in a receptive manner. It feels itself completely estranged from this because it doesn't have the sensitivity or the background knowledge.

Is it this that is the problem, is it the fact of the criteria that Mrs. Brown-Trickey addresses, or is it a mixture of both? What kind of recommendations could we make in that regard, in regard to Telefilm and the others?

Mr. Fo Niemi: I think the issue raised by Mrs. Brown-Trickey has to do with the Canadian Television Fund, which has been given to Telefilm before. I'm not very familiar with some of their criteria. I think it has to do with the 25% funding formula.

Ms. Jean Brown-Trickey: Well, there are cultural barriers. I think that's really important to state.

Mr. Fo Niemi: That's right.

The access to money for all filmmakers is always very problematic, because you need a private and public mixture. The Canadian film industry in Canada has always been very difficult.

Where we're coming from is that for those from racial minority groups, there are a couple of criteria barriers. I believe the issue with regard to the definition of Canadian content used right now by CAVCO, the Canadian heritage department, and the CRTC is that they want to stipulate that the producer must be a Canadian citizen, under a point system.

Looking at all the creative talents and personnel being defined as Canadian citizens, we are aware of some individuals who are permanent residents who don't have Canadian citizenship. They've been told that production agencies would be reluctant to hire them because they may not get the full points under the policy.

That is one clear criterion that can affect immigrant creative talents. That's one example.

The other example of something that we believe is very endemic to many film production funds, not only Telefilm but also all kinds of private funds—and this includes FACTOR, the musical production fund—is the ability and the capacity of people working in those agencies, including Telefilm, to develop a sense of what is Canadian culture, qu'est-ce que le contenu québécois, la culture québécoise, so that when they receive a proposal...

Filmmakers have told us they've often been told there's not enough Canadian content in terms of the substance of the story being presented.

In one case in particular, this filmmaker submitted her profile to Telefilm. The documents were in English, the story was in English, and the film she wanted to do was in English, but she received a rejection. We're building a charter challenge to that practice at Telefilm.

First of all, she found out that the fonctionnaire who evaluated her film proposal could not engage in a discussion with her in English. She was a francophone, and her English was insufficient. The proposal was in English. It was talking about a lot of Caribbean immigrant experiences to Canada, and the link with the home country.

Then she found out that at Telefilm in particular, there's a practice of using external assessor evaluators, people who do peer review outside. Now, when you get peer evaluators who perhaps do not have the ability to contextualize or, as the Supreme Court said in the case, do social contextualizing of a story or a case, then you may evaluate many proposals under a cultural bias.

• 1235

This is what we hear from a lot minority filmmakers, that the story they've often been told is that there's not enough Canadian content in there. It seems too foreign, too international.

So we're talking about both the criteria we need to review and some of the practices that perhaps are not part of a written policy but are just administrative practices.

For example, how many minority filmmakers are being constituted to make up this pool of peer evaluators from the outside to help the evaluators inside Telefilm give a fair assessment of a proposal? There's always a bilingual match, one French-speaking and one English-speaking, and some of those practices we believe make life complicated.

We're conducting right now a preliminary survey of about 18 production funds for film primarily, and music, just to see whether they do take into account the notion of cultural and racial diversity.

Musicians from ethnic groups have told us their musical creations tend to be categorized as “world beat”, even though, they say, it's primarily a musical thing. Because of their ethnic background and because of the ethnic flavour, it's considered world beat.

The moment you are categorized world beat, usually there's less funding allocation. There is no knowledge—we did some focus groups—of what officially constitutes the world beat category, or musique du monde. It seems musique du monde is anything that doesn't sound European.

That's fine, that's creativity, but in terms of funding allocation, this is where there may be a disadvantage. Again, this is the kind of practice that may not be part of any kind of official policy, and we need to review some of those, both policies and practices.

The Chairman: Any other questions?

I have one question for you before we close. It's hard to wrestle with this for somebody who doesn't live it day by day. I understand what Dr. Crichlow is about, and what he tells us today.

Your idea was that maybe there should be a broadcasting system or a television system that would be dedicated to ethnic minorities.

I was also very struck by Mrs. Brown-Trickey's testimony about the anger kids sometimes feel about not being a part of the system, and being left out of the day-to-day life of the system.

There seems to be a dichotomy between setting up a separate system for ethnic minorities or saying to CBC, for instance... At CBC now, if you look at the broadcasters and the people who read the news, and some of the leading reporters, they are from visible minorities. That's very striking to a lot of us. There's been an evolution there.

Is it better to integrate the system itself or to create a separate entity, and in creating a separate entity, is there a risk of the traditional ghetto taking place? This is something we aren't sure about. Maybe you could guide us there. To me, there seems to be a contradiction when I listen to both trends.

Mr. Fo Niemi: Perhaps we will take a shot at that.

We did mention the recent ethnic broadcasting policy. We have to talk the possibility of a national ethnic broadcasting service as a viable alternative and a complement to the existing national networks, both public and private sectors. One does not cancel out the other. It is unthinkable that CBC or Radio-Canada would broadcast certain programs in what we call “third languages”, or non-official languages.

First of all, we need to look at the market, at the so-called ethnic market demands. When we deal with ethnic broadcasting, we're talking about three kinds of programs. One is actually imported from the country of origin; one is produced locally, based on the financial or human resources; and the other area—and this is where some of us, especially in Quebec, have some reluctance—is the reduction of the 60-40 rule to allow for more English programming on ethnic broadcasting.

• 1240

When we talk about English-language programming on ethnic broadcasting stations we tend to mean American broadcasting, and in Quebec there is a strong need to promote French also within the ethnic communities who listen to ethnic languages.

The issue is, ideally, based on certain cultural and economic considerations, we can have a national ethnic broadcasting service, broadcast in different ethnic languages from coast to coast, and still have impetus to have the mainstream networks, including the CBC, ensure that the programming reflects what the legislative mandate says—the multicultural, multiracial character of Canadian society and the special place for aboriginal peoples within a society.

The language of the act is clear, that

[Translation]

"the special place for Aboriginal peoples within Canadian society".

[English]

One does not cancel out the other.

Again, in the States, Hispanic programming and black-owned stations and black programming provide access for many ethnic broadcasters to financial and technical resources to do a good job. In the States the FCC has recently released a study demonstrating black- and Hispanic-owned or -run stations, and counted tremendous barriers in accessing advertising revenues from mainstream broadcasters. They call it “urban dictate” practices, whereby a broadcaster deliberately withholds funding from any of these stations, fearing that, for bias or for economic viability, they do not generate the kind of revenues they need. That cripples a lot of ethnic broadcasters.

So if we are going for an ethnic broadcasting service to avoid precisely that ghettoization, a similar and parallel effort must be placed on mainstream broadcasters and the CBC to continue to diversify its programming and its operations in order to ensure the fullest and widest access to Canadians, regardless of their ethnic background.

If they want to go into ethnic broadcasting as a producer or journalist, they can. If they want to go mainstream, they still can. We need to make sure about access to resources, which will make a difference as to whether or not it will be a ghettoizing effort.

Prof. Karim Karim: There are very specific needs that are met in the two different broadcasting systems that exist at the present. When I look at mainstream broadcasting and the increasing presence of minorities in them, I see that as a great achievement of the various broadcasters, but they are operating within a particular broadcast model that has specific interests and specific content and so on. They're training a certain way to deliver that content to all Canadians.

When I look at ethnic broadcasting, there is, again, as there should be, a specific approach. For example, when Minister Herb Dhaliwal became the first visible minority minister in a Canadian government, there was hardly any coverage in the mainstream media about the fact that in a Canadian government this was the first full minister from a visible minority. Ethnic broadcasters, on the other hand, saw this as a big step in Canadian history, and it was highlighted.

So there are definitely very different perspectives, almost alternative perspectives, brought to bear by the two broadcasting systems.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Niemi, we're sorry that there weren't more members here today. Unfortunately, there are a lot of committees sitting simultaneously Tuesday mornings. I know that from our group there are some sitting on at least four committees. It is unfortunate, but that is life. I am very sorry because your presence as well as your colleagues' here was very useful to us. You have broadened our minds and shown us the challenges.

[English]

I think we were very struck by your respective testimonies before us. It's been extremely informative for us to be here. Everything you said is on the record, so it will be distributed to the members. They'll have access to it. The researchers who are here are working on our cultural policy.

I really appreciate your presence here, and your letter to us. You can be sure that there really are open minds here. We've been listening to you with great respect and intent.

Thank you very much.

• 1245

[Translation]

Mr. Fo Niemi: On behalf of my colleagues, I'd like to thank you for your patience and understanding. I know we've tried to have this meeting several times. So I thank you. We hope our discussions have managed to provide you with a few more leads to think about during your work. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

[English]

The meeting is adjourned.