|
CHAPTER FOUR: PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION
Inseparable Partners
The introduction to this report refers to cultural activity as a continuum
- an inter-linked process that includes creation, training, production
and distribution, preservation and consumption. Each of these elements
is linked to the others, but perhaps none more closely than production
and distribution, which is why the Committee has chosen to deal with these
activities together.
Many witnesses who appeared before the Committee offered praise for
the federal government's policies and support for its cultural programs.
However, some of the same witnesses also pointed to issues that have arisen
as a result of the fundamental changes occurring in the cultural environment.
This chapter addresses these issues and identifies the challenges facing
the federal government with respect to its existing policies and programs
and includes a number of recommendations.
Throughout its hearings and in reviewing the many submissions it received,
the Committee was presented with examples of Canadians who have strong
commitments to Canadian cultural expression and identity. These men and
women can be guides for the federal government in orienting its involvement
in culture. They provide the creative visions that help shape the federal
government's cultural mandate.
The importance of the connection between production and distribution
was argued very strongly by Sean Fordyce, president of Voyageur Publishing:
The main reason for my being here is to say that we need to support
marketing, distribution and the demand for Canadian books as opposed to
simply the production and warehousing of them.1
By contrast, Michel Dupuy, the former Minister of Canadian Heritage,
sees production as the main issue, noting that if the overall number of
viewing hours of Canadian films in Canadian cinemas is to increase, "it
is not so much to the distribution side that we should look, but to the
production side."2
The Committee is convinced that production and distribution constitute
an essential partnership, regardless of changing conditions. In other words,
the connection between production and distribution is the same today -
in the era of digital production techniques and e-commerce - as it was
in the age when books were produced by hand.
Le Cirque du Soleil
The links between the federal government and Le Cirque du Soleil
illustrate recurring themes in this report: training, which led the federal
government to support the creation of the National Circus School in 1986;
the importance of international touring; job creation; and establishing
a Canadian reputation for creative innovation at home and abroad.
The story begins in 1984 with a band of street performers in Montreal.
Music, dance, theatre, mime, clowns and gymnastics converged in a public
performance applauded by passers-by. In effect, this band of performers
was updating Comedia dell'arte, the popular theatre of the 16th century.
Spontaneity, improvisation, risk, boundless energy and laughter were the
daily fare. Led by Laliberté and Gauthier, the group has taken the
world by storm. Firmly grounded in Quebec's cultural life, operating in
east-end Montreal, Le Cirque du Soleil has opened its arms to embrace the
world with its magic.
From an initial tour of the province of Quebec in 1984 to celebrate
the 450th anniversary of Jacques Cartier's arrival on Laurentian shores,
Le Cirque du Soleil has gone on to travel to 120 cities around the world,
sell 17 million tickets, provide employment to 1,300 persons, (500 of whom
are resident in Montreal), and generate $175 million in revenues in 1997.
Le Cirque du Soleil unabashedly celebrates sensation. Its performances
are ephemeral, like rainbows after a summer
afternoon shower, yet they echo in memory long after the big top has moved
on. Children of all ages are entertained and delighted.
Le Cirque du Soleil is a celebration of the human imagination in
its innumerable guises. As they say in Quebec: "faut l'faire,"
which, loosely translated means, "What an achievement!"
In his Maclean's article of July 1998, Brian D. Johnson quotes one
of the founding directors of Le Cirque du Soleil: "After fourteen
years, we've done nothing. The real test will be the next 10 years."
Johnson then closed his article with a personal observation that captures
the visionary in full flight: "Under the Cirque's ever expanding big
top, the former fire-breather seems to have found his place in the sun
- but he is still the boy from St. Bruno, running away to join the circus
that has yet to be invented."
Canadians have always had to find markets for their cultural and artistic
products. In recent years, the marketplace has become increasingly international.
In 1990, Canada's French-language publishers generated $7.3 million in
export revenues and foreign sales. Three years later, earnings had quadrupled
to close to $30 million. In 1993/94, export revenues and foreign sales
registered by Canada's English-language publishers increased by 65% for
a total of $321 million.3
Also, in 1996/97, 45% of the total touring income recorded for Canada's
not-for-profit performing arts companies was obtained from international
touring - a 10% increase in just two years.4
Sales figures are not the only indicators of success. When artists are
honoured by their peers at home, as well as abroad, their work gains in
stature. Today, Canadian prizes and awards, including the Governor General's
Award, the Giller Prize, and a number of prestigious provincial and metropolitan
arts awards stand proudly alongside the East Coast Music Awards, the Genie
Awards, the Gemini Awards and the Juno Awards.
Canadian creative production has also been recognized internationally.
In recent years, Canadian creative artists have received or have been nominated
for the Academy Awards, the Palme d'Or, the Booker Prize, the Prix Goncourt,
the Commonwealth Prize, the Orange Prize, the Impac Award and the Pulitzer
Prize.
Artistic styles, fads and trends come and go, but the creators of performing,
visual, literary and media arts are interested in finding an audience.
When T. S. Eliot wrote that, "No poet, no artist of any art, has his
complete meaning alone,"5
he was referring to the way audiences become part of the cultural meaning
of a work.
Looking Beyond Production
Production now receives the lion's share of federal government support
to the arts. One reason is that that production costs are high. A feature
film can cost millions of dollars to produce and market. Records and books,
while less costly to produce on an individual title basis, rely on a few
"successful" titles to finance other less successful titles.
In the Canadian sound recording industry it is generally accepted that,
on average, only three out of ten new records generate sufficient profit
to cover their recording and promotion costs.6
Since it typically costs $100,000 or more to launch a recording, a company
must have several million dollars worth of recording projects underway
to be a viable economic entity. A report issued by Ekos Research Associates
in 1995 provided a number of valuable insights. One related to costing
was the following:
The budget required to produce a master recording varies greatly depending
upon the type of music being recorded. A minimum budget for a simple recording
can be as low as $10,000 if it is financed by an artist (i.e., acting as
a recording company). But, a contemporary CD, which is competitive in the
world market will cost considerably more: production costs can be on the
order of $200,000; the artist might have an advance of $20,000 and marketing
costs (e.g., video and a tour), on average, will cost an additional $200,000.7
Similar considerations apply in the book publishing industry although
the costs of publishing a book are, on average, less than those to launch
a record. Hervé Foulon of Éditions Hurtubise HMH Ltée
pointed out:
You can publish a novel . . . [for] $10,000 but you cannot bring out
a textbook . . . [for] the same amount. In the latter case you're talking
about an investment of $300,000 to $400,000, so it's a totally different
problem. That is why we have to be careful when we talk about the health
of the industry.8
A company in a large market can produce a record, a book, or copies
of a film at a lower unit cost than producers in a small market. In addition,
producers in large markets benefit from economies of scale. The marketing
expenses for a film starring Gerard Depardieu or Al Pacino are largely
incurred in France or the United States. There is so much spillover from
that promotion that the costs of marketing the film in Canada are marginal.
Canadian film producers, on the other hand, do not have the benefit of
such economies of scale.
Traditionally, Canadian governments have played a important role in
offsetting some of the competitive disadvantages described above. Indeed,
most of the federal government's cultural support programs were originally
designed to compensate Canadian cultural producers for their competitive
disadvantages. Examples include protection for Canadian magazine publishers,
distribution subsidies and support to the sound recording and book publishing
industries.
The benefits of government involvement are apparent in the growth and
development of the Canadian book publishing and sound recording industries
over the past two decades. Despite fierce international competition, Canada
now has a reasonable complement of capable sound recording and book publishing
companies. This would not be the case had these industries not received
support from the federal government. It is noteworthy, however, that most
of that support was designed to encourage the production of Canadian-authored
materials, books or recordings.
An example of how effective modest financial support can be is underlined
in the history of the Stratford Festival. How this cultural event came
about, how it developed, and how it continues to transform itself is a
shining example of the innovative imagination and spirit that drives Canadian
performing arts organizations.
The Committee appreciates the richness of the artistic achievements
of the Festival. The Festival would not exist were it not for the efforts
and vision of a community-minded entrepreneur who had no special training
in the arts. As Tom Patterson reminds his readers, "Most theatres,
of course, are started by actors or directors - in other words, by theatre
people, whose total concern is for what will go on the stage. But because
I did not know what was involved in producing a play, I was able to concentrate,
in my teenaged mind, on getting the people there to see what might happen
on stage."
Patterson's approach was very straightforward. In his business plan
he set about to bring in audiences; the task of the artistic team was to
produce theatre that audiences would want to see. Here, production and
marketing operated hand-in-hand. The Stratford experience shows that vision
and hard work coupled with modest support can unite marketing and high
quality production. In the case of Stratford, the result has been a world
class success.
Tom Patterson's Vision: The Stratford Festival
The writing was on the wall for Stratford, Ontario. "It was
still a CN town, back in the 1930s," recalled Stratford native Tom
Patterson in 1987, "and we all knew that diesel was coming in. We
understood it would be only a matter of time until the giant steam-engine
repair shops, which my father, grandfather, and great-grandfather once
worked in, and on which the town depended, would be put to rest."9
The decision to close the CN repair shops and divisional offices
in Stratford came twenty years later, with the loss of 2,000 jobs. At that
time (the early 1950s) Stratford's population was 18,000 and practically
every family was affected by the job loss.10
Rather than sit by passively and watch the economic demise of their
town, Patterson and a small group of fellow citizens began looking for
alternatives. Initially, they considered converting the town arena into
a summertime hockey school with instruction by players from the National
Hockey League. "Another idea, my own," writes Patterson, "was
to create a Shakespearean Festival. After all, I argued, we had a city
named Stratford, on a river named Avon."
As Patterson continues the story in First Stage: The Making of the
Stratford Festival, he paints a picture of himself as a young, small-town
journalist just returned from war, full of big ideas but with no practical
experience,
applying creative, entrepreneurial thinking to an otherwise crushing shift
in the local economy. "The picture I had in my mind was not a building,
nor of a stage, as I knew absolutely nothing about theatre, or of how it
worked. Rather, I had an image only of lots of people pouring in, and this
began to develop in my mind."
The Festival idea was officially launched with a cheque for $125
from the Stratford City Council. The money was to be used by Tom Patterson
to travel to New York to talk to theatre people. That was the year before
the Festival's first season in 1953.
In 1953 the first season ran for six weeks. Some 68,000 people attended.
Last season, the festival ran for six months and played to a total audience
of 523,015 patrons.11
Overall, the festival estimates that it is responsible for bringing
more than $120 million, annually, into the local economy.
The Stratford Festival is now the largest performing arts institution
in Canada. Thetotal budget for the last season was $29,107,275. Of that
total, approximately 79%, or $23,591,730, came through the box-office,
the largest ticket revenue in the festival's history. Public funding, including
federal and provincial support, represented only 5% or $1,612,275, of the
total budget. Income from fundraising accounted for the remaining 16%,
approximately $4,888,000.12
Ownership and Citizenship
The achievements in building the Stratford Festival and other Canadian
cultural success stories have been aided by a number of different types
of support from the Government of Canada. A number of government programs
are tied to ownership and citizenship. Witnesses commented on these issues
to the Committee. Applying ownership rules as a criterion is important
for the following reasons. First, most Canadian-authored books and records
are produced by Canadian-owned companies. Second, targeting ownership is
efficient because it allows the government to avoid involvement in the
identification of specific authors and musicians who merit support.
Canadian publisher Jack Stoddart told the Committee just how far forward
the book publishing industry in Canada has travelled in the past twenty-five
years, especially in the face of fierce competition from abroad. He noted:
Although sales in the English language are dominated by books from outside
the country, approximately 30% of all the books sold in this country are
Canadian-authored books. I think as a starting point, that's a very important
position because I'm not sure there's another cultural industry that controls
30% of the Canadian market from its own creative base. I think we should
be happy about that and rejoice and feel comfortable that in fact a lot
has been accomplished in the past 25 years.13
For Stoddart, this growth would not have been possible without the
financial support of the federal government.
While there is some merit in focusing on ownership, it can place the
emphasis on the wrong issues. First, the issue of ownership can become
confused with the goal of support programs. Second, focusing on an industry
can divert attention from cultural matters and redirect focus to the difficulties
of running a business. This confusion can produce ambiguities in policies
and uncertainty about the nature of government involvement.
One witness made the following comment:
I would suggest. . .that the paradigm which we have been using in our
support of our cultural industries for the past twenty years or more, which
is essentially based on flowing support to Canadian companies, as defined
by citizenship of the principals and physical location of the activity
they engage in, may be the correct approach for an industrial policy, but
has proven to be a very hit-and-miss approach from a cultural perspective.
If we were to change the focus of our support from "Who makes it"
to "What it says," we might get more predictable and satisfactory
results.14
Ownership rules, point systems and content regulations are important
elements of Canada's cultural policy. Unfortunately, the inflexibility
of existing support measures is having the effect of denying some Canadian
creators, performers and producers a room in the Canadian cultural home.
For example, under existing Canadian content rules, Céline Dion
and Shania Twain are not defined as "Canadian" artists. The CRTC
defines Canadian content according to a point system based on the nationality
of the creative personnel involved in the production; ten points is the
maximum. A TV series about American policemen called Top Cops shown
on the CBS Network receives the maximum of 10 points under the CRTC certification
system because the programs were made in Canada by people with Canadian
passports. At the same time, a Canadian broadcaster showing Never Cry
Wolf, a Disney movie based on Farley Mowat's novel about a wildlife
scientist studying the habits of timber wolves in Canada's north, did not
qualify for a single Canadian content point.15
Keith Ross-Leckie, of Tapestry Films, drew attention to the ambiguity
of the present point system.
It all gets down to, again, the point system and Canadian content. The
cable fund and Telefilm talked about Canadian content being 8 out of 10
points, which I believe is good and functional. In fact, the cable fund
has come out with a new initiative that makes it necessary to have the
script done by a Canadian scriptwriter, and I think that's a wonderful
step towards empowering us that way. However, the CRTC [rating system]
is still only the basis of 6 out of 10 points, and they call this `Canadian
content'. What results from the 6 out of 10 is that the scripts are generated
in the States by American producers and often, but not always, American
directors. In effect, what we are doing with the 6 out of 10 CRTC ruling
is subsidizing American production.16
Marie-Josée Corbeil of Cinar Films in Montreal stressed the importance
of flexible government rules.
I wouldn't like to see the rules become more rigid. On the contrary,
I think we should have greater flexibility.17
These examples suggest that the link between ownership and citizenship
and Canada's cultural policy goals needs to be discussed in greater depth.
The Committee believes that an additional policy mechanism should be considered.
A Complementary Approach to Canadian Content
Entitlement on the basis of citizenship of the principals or the physical
location of the activity has proven to be a successful approach to achieving
cultural policy objectives, as the above examples show. Complementing existing
ownership and citizenship rules with an additional focus on "what
it says" could, the Committee believes, produce desirable cultural
results. With an approach such as this, Céline Dion and Shania Twain
would be defined as Canadian artists, while a film about Canada's north
based on a novel by a Canadian author would be a Canadian story.
The Committee acknowledges the value of point systems and ownership
and citizenship rules. A complementary system based on cultural content
would not be a major departure from practices and methods that have been
employed in Canada for many years. If agencies of the Government of Canada
can use peer-based assessment effectively with creative artists and scientific
researchers, why would a similar approach not be as effective when dealing
with questions of content?
Recommendation 14
The Committee recommends that the Department of Canadian Heritage,
in addition to existing ownership and citizenship requirements, develop
complementary policies and programs which focus on, ensure and enhance
Canadian content in cultural works.
Strategic Challenges
The achievements in building the Stratford Festival and the Canadian
magazine and book publishing industries, among others, have relied on a
number of different types of government support. Future efforts will increasingly
be made in an environment characterized by globalization, technological
change and the knowledge society. There will be new challenges, different
from those Canadians have had to face in the past.
Jack Stoddart's report that 30% of books now sold in Canada are Canadian-authored
titles illustrates one of the positive results that have stemmed from government
support channeled to Canadian-owned publishers. Other witnesses, while
acknowledging such successes, contend that although there should be continuing
support for production, we must now focus more on other challenges facing
Canadian cultural industries.
Canada hasn't had a production problem for 20 years. We have a distribution
problem. That is our primary problem. It is not producing. Canadians are,
for our population, producing enormous amounts of material. Our problem
is distribution. Our problem with movies is not that we don't make movies;
it's that we can't get any theatres to show them.18
Production has always been an important focus of federal government
support to cultural development in Canada. But a focus on production by
itself is not enough. Jefferson Lewis, a screenwriter, explained to the
Committee how important it is for Canada's cultural industries to promote
their products in such a way that they continue to find new audiences.
In the case of film, international partnerships and co-productions help
build the industry while attracting new audiences.
Forget the United States. With all due respect, maybe we can one day
work as equals with the majors but the natural partners for us are the
French, the Brazilians, the Irish, and the English. All those countries
are roughly our size and are interested in roughly the same kinds of things
we are. And they'd love to work with us. . .Everything we can do to enhance
co-production is terrific for us, because it leads to truly international
productions and it gives us the additional money we need.19
The Committee notes that the Canada Council for the Arts recognized
the importance of dissemination during a recent strategic review of its
programs. As Joanne Morrow, of the Council explained to the Committee:
After examining our priorities, the Council and the staff agreed that
the weak link in the chain was dissemination. We use the term "dissemination"
in the broad sense and include it in all activities creating links between
artists' works and audiences: performing arts tours; exhibitions of visual
and media arts; promotion of books and periodicals; tours by writers; and
translation of Canadian books from one official language to the other.
We therefore made dissemination the priority and reallocated funds internally
for this purpose, even before receiving new resources. The new funds are
enabling the Council to strengthen this activity in a truly meaningful
way so that more Canadians will have the opportunity to experience the
work they support with their tax dollars.20
The Committee acknowledges that cultural production requires strategic
planning to achieve its desired results and that, quality of work notwithstanding,
successful marketing and promotion is essential. However, there is an important
distinction that must also be made between for-profit and not-for-profit
organizations. The next section deals with some of the differences between
these two sectors.
The Not-for-Profit Sector
In the performing arts in Canada, as in many other countries, not-for-profit
companies and commercial enterprises operate side-by-side. In general,
cultural industries operate within a for-profit framework, whereas most
performing arts, and heritage organizations tend to operate within a not-for-profit
framework.21
Visual artists, like many other creators in Canada work in both settings.
Their works or performances, can be seen in commercial as well as not-for-profit
venues. This makes for a highly flexible, mobile and entrepreneurial work
force whose adaptability and mobility may well serve as a model for other
sectors of Canada's labour force. At the same time, the label "not-for-profit"
should not be confused with "not viable." The not-for-profit
designation indicates that the organization has a community-based board,
usually has charitable tax status, and is eligible for public funding.
Over the past decade, one of the most striking achievements of Canada's
not-for-profit arts organizations is the ways they have reduced their deficits.
In 1993, for example, there were approximately 470 not-for-profit theatre,
dance, opera and music companies in Canada and they ended the year with
a combined deficit of approximately $5.5 million. Interestingly, by 1996-97
the number of companies had grown to 602, but their combined deficit was
reduced to approximately $655,000 - only slightly more than one-tenth of
the total recorded in 1993.22
It is worth noting that the not-for-profit sector is larger than one
might assume; for example, as seen in Chapter Six, more than 13 million
people attended performances of theatre, music, dance and opera in 1996-97.
Members of the Committee have noted that reducing deficits can impose burdens
on performing arts companies. These can include shorter rehearsal times
and smaller productions, involving fewer actors and more volunteers. These
constraints could adversely affect performing arts attendance levels.
The For-Profit Sector
Every decision to set up a commercial enterprise is based on the assumption
that after some initial period the enterprise will become a viable and
profitable commercial entity. Canada has a well-structured set of legal
and financial rules and procedures for dealing with for-profit enterprises.
These include accounting principles, reporting relationships, and obligations
to investors. The Committee believes that profit-oriented enterprises must
abide by these rules, procedures and common understandings to be eligible
for federal support. Federal support for these organizations must be structured
differently and have different performance requirements and expectations
than those set out for not-for-profit organizations.
The Committee notes that almost one-third of the English-language publishers
and one-quarter of the French-language publishers supported by the federal
government do not break even. That is, even with federal support, these
companies are losing money.23
The Committee interprets this situation not as one of the unique circumstances
of the Canadian cultural scene, but as evidence that some for-profit cultural
enterprises depend on the federal government for their very existence.24
In short, they are not viable without government support.
The Committee notes that this situation has been allowed to continue
over a long period of time. First, it suggests that confusion has built
up between the for-profit and the not-for-profit sectors. Second, it is
difficult to determine whether the federal support being provided is being
used to enhance the production and distribution of Canadian materials or
to compensate for inefficiencies in a particular firm. For example, if
the purpose of support is to increase the sales of Canadian-authored titles,
then it should be used for that purpose. Federal support should be targeted
for specific projects or initiatives that address government policy objectives,
and it should be possible for the companies that receive such support to
demonstrate that it is being used for the purpose intended.
Recommendation 15
The Committee recommends that the Department of Canadian Heritage
review its financial support measures to clarify the distinction between
for-profit and not-for-profit cultural organizations.
Recommendation 16
The Committee recommends that the Department of Canadian Heritage,
in consultation with appropriate cultural agencies, develop mechanisms
to ensure sustainable, long-term, multi-year funding for not-for-profit
cultural organizations.
Recommendation 17
The Committee recommends that support for the developmental phase
of a new company (start-ups) be designed to include specific performance
targets and that there be a sunset clause for federal support to the start-up
phase of the company's development.
Recommendation 18
The Committee recommends that in the case of viable, for-profit,
commercial enterprises, federal support should be targeted for specific
projects or ventures.
Balancing Government Policies
The Committee was told repeatedly that marketing is the vital connection
that links production with distribution. Canadian artistic and cultural
materials must be effectively marketed if they are to continue to compete
successfully at home and abroad with cultural materials from every region
of the world.
Hervé Foulon, of Éditions Hurtubise HMH Ltée, expressed
the need for Canadian publishers to have control over the production and
distribution of their products.
With the help of governments, we have managed to nurture a small industry
and make it what it is - a publishing industry that has all important components
in Canada, along with everything for the industry itself, for jobs, and
for the cultural protection of our identity. . . From the economic standpoint,
we have a problem. If tomorrow we were granted complete freedom, and we
couldn't provide help for our people to get what they needed, I don't imagine
that any company here - in distribution even more than in publishing -
could face up to any of the major U.S. publishers or European multinationals.25
Martin Bragg shared with the Committee his experience in the Canadian
Stage Company explaining the shift in his company's funding base.
I do think there is role for government in supporting the arts, and
I think it should be a cornerstone of Canada's cultural policy. But I am
not prepared to sit here in 1998 and pretend that my head is in the sand
and it's back to 1972. My organization in 1972 had 80% of its . . . revenue
coming from three levels of government. Today that level has shrunk to
18% . . . .Something is going on here.26
The Committee is also concerned that there is insufficient federal support
for marketing and distribution, especially as it pertains to the ability
of arts and cultural organizations to compete domestically and internationally.
If these organizations are to survive and continue to develop, they must
receive assistance from both the public and private sectors to help them
adjust to demographic changes taking place in society.
There is a link between creating a work of art and finding an audience.
At the same time, however, this happens in different ways. The process
of publishing and distributing copies of a book is physically different
from that of making and distributing a movie. The federal government has
always recognized these distinctions and has been able to adapt its programs
to facilitate the production and distribution of works of art and culture
across a wide range of cultural industries.
A number of witnesses spoke of the need to build on existing successes
by providing for the need to market our efforts in arts and culture. The
proposition is as simple as recognizing that a theatre must advertise its
upcoming performances. If no one knows about a performance, attendance
will be modest, disappointing, even dismal. As Theodore Levitt has pointed
out ``if you don't market, something terrible happens - nothing."27
The famous explorer Ernest Shackleton understood the power of advertising.
His advertisement appeared in London newspapers in 1900 and made a simple
point:
Men Wanted for Hazardous Journey
Small wages, bitter cold, long months of
complete darkness. Constant danger.
Safe return doubtful.
Honour and recognition in case of success.
A ``hazardous journey" is how one might describe starting a theatre
company that will develop and stage a play. One way to make the journey
less hazardous is to form partnerships with others. In some sense, the
federal government has always worked in partnership with the arts. In the
Committee's view, policies should support such initiatives and not hinder
them.
Based on evidence from the arts, heritage and cultural industries sectors,
the Committee believes there is a broad consensus that federal support
should address the key activities of production, distribution, marketing
and promotion in a strategic and coherent manner. Museums and performing
arts organizations, as well as filmmakers and book publishers understand
the links between these activities and they are seeking to take full advantage
of them. The Committee believes that important benefits would be achieved
through a careful review of current federal programs and makes the following
recommendations:
Recommendation 19
The Committee recommends that an independent, objective and cross-disciplined
analysis be commissioned by the Department of Canadian Heritage to develop
strategies that promote essential links among production, distribution
and marketing.
Recommendation 20
The Committee recommends that within a year of the presentation of
this report, the Minister of Canadian Heritage should ensure that the department's
program objectives relating to the essential links among production, distribution
and marketing and those of its portfolio agencies are complementary.
The Knowledge Society
In 1657, Sir Isaac Newton wrote to his colleague Robert Hooke, ``If
I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
His summary of what he had learned from others is even more pertinent today.
People use a myriad of instruments invented by hundreds, if not thousands
of others. This capacity to build on knowledge learned and propagated by
others has become one of the defining characteristics of modern society.
This idea is not new, nor is the fact that knowledge is embedded in a product
or technology. The new element is the speed with which the knowledge can
be shared and exploited.
The Committee realizes that we can know what someone else knows without
taking anything away from them. Indeed, companies form strategic alliances
because of a need to learn how to do something, or to share in the development
of a line of products. In his presentation to the Committee, Ken Stein
of Shaw Communications elaborated on this practice:
They are saying that the driving force of the new economy is going to
be knowledge and information. . . We have to be able to break down the
barriers so that we can have the kind of integrated companies in this country
that we are up against as we deal outside this country in the future. 28
The need to form strategic alliances among companies in Canada's cultural
sector is as important as it is in the high-tech sector. Such alliances
tend to benefit all the members of the alliance. For example, Making
History: Louis Riel and the North West Rebellion of 1885 is an interactive
CD-ROM, produced as one of a series devoted to Canadian historical events
(available in both official languages). This production is designed to
provide students with different perspectives and interpretations of the
event and the characters involved. Using archival material, documentary
techniques and interview footage, this multimedia project was created in
partnership with an independent production company, Monro Media of Vancouver,
the National Film Board, and Terra Nova, part of the Canadian Studies
Program of the Department of Canadian Heritage.
It is important to view these developments in the context of expanding
multinational entertainment companies who are also developing multimedia
products and services. A recent article in The Economist noted:
[S]even huge entertainment companies have emerged - Time Warner, Walt
Disney, Bertelsmann, Viacom, News Corp, Seagram and Sony. They cover pretty
well every bit of the entertainment business except pornography. Three
are American, one is Australian, one Canadian and one Japanese. `What you
are seeing,' says Christopher Dixon, managing director of media research
at PaineWebber, a stockbroker, `is the creation of a global oligopoly.
It happened to the oil and automotive businesses earlier this century;
now it is happening to the entertainment business'.29
CBC president Perrin Beatty calls these huge organizations "constellations."30
Their growth is a challenge to small players everywhere. They are not the
backdrops to cultural enterprise in Canada; they are at centre stage, providing
audiences and consumers with popular products and shareholders with returns.
Micheline L'Espérance-Labelle, representing Quebecor DIL Multimedia,
stressed the importance of partnerships and strategic alliances as a way
to ensure a solid economic base for Canadian cultural production.
I feel the government should encourage these [cultural] industries .
. . to work together so that each of them can benefit from partnerships
in the future. We have to find the means to protect culture, and find the
means [to disseminate it]. We have to sell it.31
The challenge for Canadian cultural enterprises is how to form new and
creative partnerships and alignments that will empower existing Canadian
constellations and promote the development of new ones. A small press,
independent book store, video production house or recording company is
in competition not only with every other small press, book store, video
production house or recording company in Canada, but with the "global
oligopoly" mentioned above. These challenges cut across the jurisdictions
of several federal government departments and they must be addressed from
a government-wide perspective.
However, most of the government structures in use in developed countries
today are based on institutions that were developed in the 19th and early
20th centuries. Examples can be seen in the departments (ministries) dedicated
to health, education and agriculture. In times past, the pace of change
was slow, citizens were not as well educated and most countries were, to
a large extent, insulated from outside influences. Change often took decades.
A major challenge for governments in the next millennium involves the
need to adapt 19th century structures to 21st century needs. John Godfrey,
a member of the Committee, described the challenge in the following way:
[W]hat I want [everyone] to understand is that here we have a 19th century
federal government set up with departments that didn't understand anything
very much about environment or telecommunications or any of the complexities
of late 20th century life. . .[F]or example, in the case of the drilling
moratorium, the federal government is going to deal with that through the
Department of Natural Resources so. . .on these issues there's a natural
resources component, there's a Fisheries and Oceans component, there's
a Department of the Environment component. . .[R]ight now we're dealing
with a Heritage-Parks Canada component. In other words, our governmental
structures, both federal-provincial and within one level of government,
don't deal very well with late 20th century problems. 32
The Department of Canadian Heritage needs stronger horizontal links
with other Departments in the federal government. Cultural issues, for
example, are occupying an increasingly prominent place in international
trade. Although the Department of Canadian Heritage is primarily responsible
for cultural matters, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International
Trade (DFAIT) is responsible for international trade. International trade
agreements have a profound effect on culture. This calls for timely cooperation
between these departments.
Recommendation 21
The Committee recommends that the federal government create a special
committee of cabinet, including the ministers of Canadian Heritage, International
Trade, and Industry and Finance, to develop a policy framework that will
provide Canadian cultural industries with the optimal environment to sustain
themselves and grow, both at home and abroad.
The Government of Canada can turn to a wealth of talent to help it address
cultural issues. However, a mechanism or model is needed, which will allow
the government to draw upon that talent on a continuing basis, while respecting
the mandates of departments and the autonomy of government agencies. The
Committee is also convinced that mechanisms must be found to address existing
structures of the federal government, many of which are essentially out-of-date.
While the Committee is concerned primarily with this issue as it applies
to cultural matters, it believes that it also arises in other areas of
federal responsibility.
The shift to interdependent and multi-sectoral planning and policy development
is, in the Committee's opinion, one of the biggest challenges facing the
federal government in the cultural sector.
Recommendation 22
The Committee recommends that the Department of Canadian Heritage
identify potential changes to the structure of government that would enable
the Government of Canada to respond in a timely manner to changes in the
cultural sector.
New Media33
The creation, production and distribution of multimedia products is
a new business. Although it is growing at an exponential rate, it is still
in a state of flux. The implications for the production and distribution
of cultural materials are only now beginning to be identified. The Committee
notes from the witnesses' testimony and from the submissions received,
the vitality of those Canadian companies that are actively developing new
media products.
Stentor presented the Committee with a report on a recent multimedia
conference, which serves as a useful snapshot of Canada's developing multimedia
sector:
[T]he participants represented a wide array of undertakings. They represented
companies consisting of a single person as well as those with 150+ people
devoted entirely to interactive digital media enterprises. The types of
content products and services the producers were involved in included:
animation, CD-ROM title production, including games, reference works, educational
titles; Internet services of many kinds, corporate presentations; computer
based training; overall, an impressive array of what constitutes new media
in Canada today.34
In his book The Bagel Effect, Paul Hoffert, a Canadian expert
on digital technology, offers this perspective on new media:
[Most new media are]. . . digital and interactive. These include CD-ROMs
and the Internet but would exclude music CDs, which are digital but not
interactive. At some point these media will cease being new and so the
term will not last long. A more descriptive name would simply be digital
interactive media.35
Micheline L'Espérance-Labelle, of Quebecor, suggested that new
media projects can have educational as well as developmental components.
One thing I have been very happy to see is all the initiatives in the
field of education. If we want to preserve our culture, we have to start
by thinking about children, our children. . . . Initiatives include networks
like SchoolNet/Rescol and others, that in my view are extremely important.
We have to focus on education.36
The National Atlas/Canadian Community Atlas Project
Students across Canada are logging onto SchoolNet to download portions
of some of the latest maps produced by Natural Resources Canada. By setting
out their own parameters and imposing a series of filters such as population
density or geological composition, these maps are electronically re-drawn
according the students' specifications. The students can download and eventually
print these customized maps. This is a two-way project. Students who "take"
information from this site are expected to put something back. They are
encouraged to post their own data, their own maps, photographs and descriptions
of their local surroundings. To make sure that this new data can be interpreted
and searched, the students use a series of mapping templates devised by
teachers and available on the map site. These student contributions to
the understanding of Canadian geography are then made available to all
subsequent users.
This interactive mapping site is a pilot project called the National
Atlas/Canadian Community Atlas Project. It is the result of a partnership
involving Geo Access, formerly known as the National Atlas Information
Service of Geomatics Canada (a division of the Department of Natural Resources),
SchoolNet, and the Canadian Council for Geographic Education, a national
teacher's organization. The elements required for this project were start-up
support from the federal government, a federally supplied data base, on-going
support from teachers, schools with access to computers and modems, and
students. In a swelling ocean of sources of electronically accessible information,
this small project stands out as an example of content development by and
for Canadian students. Because it is Internet-based, others can access
it around the world.
Paul Hoffert described the differences between two distinct interests
in Canada's new media sector as follows:
The television industry has a broad business infrastructure, publicly
traded companies, and lots of money . . . Broadcasters have no experience
with digital or interactive projects and have little understanding of how
to create them. They do have viable models for making money on broadcast
networks.37
Hoffert also made this observation about Canada's new media professionals:
[They] . . . know everything that is now known about how to create products
for digital networks and interactive media. But they are grossly underfunded
and do not have viable business models for making money on digital networks.
38
The Committee believes that new media is an area where an innovative
combination of pragmatic measures is required. The Committee also believes
that new media is an area where the cultural sector could adopt a set of
program measures which have been developed and tested in the areas of research
and development, specifically the idea of a network of centres of excellence.
Over the past ten years, the federal government has funded a program called
Networks of Centres of Excellence. This program brings university researchers,
private sector and graduate students together in a network that is not
determined by their physical location.
Metropolis, for example, is the name of a cooperative, international
research initiative created to examine immigrant integration and the effects
of international migration on Canadian urban centres. It comprises four
different centres of excellence: Edmonton, Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver.39
Core funding for these centres was provided by a consortium of federal
departments and agencies, including Citizenship and Immigration Canada,
Health Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Canadian
Heritage (Multiculturalism), Status of Women Canada, Human Resources Development
Canada, Statistics Canada, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and
Correctional Service of Canada.
Metropolis also has a strong international component, with partners
in public and private institutions from Canada, the United States, Denmark,
France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom,
New Zealand, Switzerland, Israel and Argentina.
Recommendation 23
The Committee recommends that the Department of Heritage, in collaboration
with the appropriate research granting and cultural agencies, establish
a network of centres of excellence for new media. Establishing a network
of centres of excellence for new media will require a feasibility study
that should examine substantive partnerships with educational institutions
and the private sector.
The Permissions Process
One of the major obstacles facing new media producers is the difficulty
of securing permission to use copyright materials in their products.40
The process of obtaining permission to reproduce text, music, images and
any other copyright material that is needed in a new media product involves
identifying the owner of the copyright, locating the copyright owner, contacting
that owner and then negotiating an agreement for the use of the work. Each
step in this process can be fraught with difficulties. Sometimes the owner
cannot be identified because authors and creators are not always the copyright
owners. Even when there is clear identification, it is sometimes impossible
to locate the owner because he or she has moved, is deceased or the company
has gone out of business. There can be further difficulties after contact
is made because acceptable financial terms cannot be negotiated or because
the request to use the work is not acceptable to the copyright owner.
In June 1998, the Honourable Sheila Copps, Minister of Canadian Heritage
produced a three-minute video explaining new media in connection with the
launch of a $30 million, five-year program administered by Telefilm to
assist in the production and marketing of Canadian cultural multimedia
products in both official languages. In order to produce that video, it
was necessary to obtain authorization for approximately 130 still photos
and video segments and seven segments from musical works. It was also necessary
to secure permissions from a number of individual performers for their
performances in the video segments. In one instance, the launch of the
work was delayed until authorization was obtained from a performer who
insisted on seeing what segment was being used, and in what context. This
copyright clearance exercise required the full-time work of three lawyers
over a three-week period.
The difficulties in securing copyright permission can cause undesirable
results. Producers are choosing to use material in which copyright has
expired to avoid having to get permission. They are also creating original
material, such as music and text, instead of undertaking the difficult
task of clearing the rights for existing material, or are buying material
from stock libraries that provide them with copyright-cleared material.
This can reduce the use of existing Canadian cultural materials.
Providing Access to our Heritage
The Committee believes that the wealth of the holdings of our heritage
institutions should be more accessible. New media is one way to improve
access and awareness to users throughout the world to the holdings of Canada's
heritage institutions. The difficulties associated with copyright clearances
in new media must be solved. With efficient royalty collection and rights
clearance mechanisms in place, new media companies could add a new dimension
to our national heritage collections and holdings by promoting and publicizing
them and, on a broader level, contribute substantially to the overall development
of this new media sector. From a cultural perspective, new media represents
a genuine opportunity for Canadians. CBC and NFB productions, as well as
millions of works in the national collections and holdings in libraries,
archives and museums, can be re-packaged in new media formats for a new
market, both in Canada and abroad. People who would otherwise never enter
a museum or archive will then have access to many of Canada's national
treasures, on the internet or on a CD-ROM, for example.
The Committee recognizes that the new media sector holds enormous potential
for growth. Of course, there are difficulties in identifying, locating,
contacting and negotiating with copyright owners. Canada is well placed
to create a niche for itself in this part of the global high technology
sector. And the government has an important role to play if this is to
happen. Under the circumstances, the Committee considers the federal government
to have an obligation to assist this fledgling industry. An important initiative
could include providing a forum for the exchange of information in this
new field.
Recommendation 24
The Committee recommends that:
24.1 The Departments of Canadian Heritage and Industry jointly work
with those involved in new media with respect to obtaining copyright clearances
more easily and in identifying the role of collectives in the administration
of copyright.
24.2 The Department of Canadian Heritage and Industry Canada jointly
fund a study to determine whether a central clearing mechanism for obtaining
copyright permission to use copyright materials in new media is feasible.
24.3 The study should include at a minimum an analysis of what should
be done; the costs of doing it, an analysis of financial viability, and
the design of a fully funded pilot project. The feasibility study, including
the design of a pilot project, should be implemented within one year of
the presentation of this report.
Accomodating the New Environment
The government has a wide range of effective policy and program instruments
at its disposal. The combination that will best serve the long-term development
of the Canadian new media sector has yet to be determined. Moreover, the
Department of Canadian Heritage is only one of several stakeholders. Industry
Canada also has a role to play, as does the Department of Finance. Working
together in the area of new media, they can do much to help Canadian new
media producers establish a niche in world markets.
Recommendation 25
The Committee recommends that within one year of the presentation
of this Report, the Departments of Canadian Heritage and Industry Canada
jointly develop and establish objectives and criteria for federal support
to Canada's new media sector.
New media can help make Canadians and others more aware of our cultural
heritage. It can also provide new media users, both at home and abroad,
with access to the rich holdings of Canada's heritage institutions. There
are, however, other vehicles through which this can be done including:
ongoing support for the CBC, tours by performing arts companies and travelling
exhibitions.
Forging Links Across Canada
A. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
The Committee heard repeatedly from Canadians about the importance of
the CBC. For example, Mia Weinberg told the Committee:
I've been a Canadian for three years now. But when I went for my citizenship
test, my knowledge of Canada came from having listened to the CBC. That's
how I knew about this country. I knew . . . more than what I needed. .
. for that test because I'd listened to the CBC radio.41
The testimony is unassuming, simplicity itself. Yet it expresses what
the CBC is about. The CBC tells the story of Canada to its audience. The
testimony presented to the Committee referred to the role of the CBC in
a multitude of ways. The following are examples of the views of witnesses.
S I'd like to say that the CBC has been a tremendous resource for the
theatre community in Canada and certainly in this province and the cuts
over the past five years to CBC have had a profound effect on theatre artists
and musicians and writers and also for us as a theatre company, the CBC
did a lot of seeding of projects. They would often seed a small radio play,
then we as a theatre company could take up and put on the stage. Things
would grow from the CBC and that's been much more difficult recently.42
S Please continue the CBC's funding. As you've heard today, it's crucial
to isolated communities. I grew up in Toronto where you can push a button
and you've got 400 radio stations. You can't do that in northwestern Ontario
and it's crucial that information be available to the people all across
this region.43
S CBC has also helped the flowering of our culture and continues its
commitment and its work with the creative people. The Corporation must
have the means to continue doing this.44
The tenor of the testimony suggests to the Committee that the CBC is
perceived by Canadians as an integral part of the fabric of this country.
The testimony also speaks to a shared appreciation by Canadians of the
CBC's immeasurable contribution to Canadian cultural life.
The Committee recognizes the CBC's position in the very heart of cultural
expression in Canada. The Committee would like to endorse a number of recommendations
contained in the 1996 Mandate Review Committee - CBC, NFB, Telefilm:
S CBC radio should maintain its regional and local presence and continue
to operate four national networks.
S CBC's radio services should maintain their distinctive, non-commercial
character as provided in the CRTC's conditions of licence.
S Both CBC television networks should continue to provide programming
that informs, enlightens and entertains their audiences. But their program
services should be distinctively and almost totally Canadian; they should
be a clear and intelligent alternative to commercial television; and they
should be committed to quality, innovation and public service. 45
Members of the Committee believe that the above recommendations of the
mandate review committee address the concerns of Canadians as they were
presented during the Committee's travels to every region of Canada. Therefore,
the Committee urges the federal government to provide the CBC with the
support which will allow it to continue to fulfil Canadians' expectations
of their public broadcaster.
Recommendation 26
The Committee recommends that:
26.1 The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation receive continuing, stable
funding so that it remains a public, non-profit corporation for the common
good.
26.2 CBC Radio receive sufficient levels of stable, sustained funding
so that it need not resort to corporate sponsorships, commercial or non-commercial
advertising.
26.3 CBC Television receive sufficient levels of stable, sustained
funding so that advertising can be reduced to minimal levels.
B. Cross-Canada Tours
When audiences in one region of the country are exposed to creative
expressions from other parts of Canada, marvelous things are often known
to happen.46
For example, twenty years after the fact, one west coast witness recalled
the deep impression a play that had traveled to British Columbia from Newfoundland
had had on him.
In my past, when the seal hunt was huge, I was able to work with people
to bring the Mummer's Theatre from Newfoundland with a show called They
Club Seals Don't They? to [British Columbia] the heart of Greenpeace
country. It changed minds.47
Domestically, the Touring Office of the Canada Council for the Arts
has had a profound influence on the accessibility of the professional performing
arts in all regions of the country. Established in the early seventies
with modest resources of approximately $3 million, the Touring Office has
contributed to the development of touring performing arts circuits throughout
Canada. It has achieved this by collaborating with other orders of government
and with the enthusiastic participation of community volunteers who are
committed to providing access to the performing arts for their fellow citizens.
The touring circuits that were established with the help of the Canada
Council for the Arts involved "regional contacts." At these three-day
events the representatives of performing artists and impresarios made contact
with community presenters who were looking for groups to perform in their
communities the following year. The Touring Office provided subsidies to
cover part of the cost of the tours that were planned as a result of the
regional contacts.
In terms of value for money and broadly based community support, very
few federal programs can compare with the results obtained through the
Touring Office programs. However, funding for this important program has
remained static for 20 years, despite the extraordinary growth in the number
of performing arts organizations that could have taken advantage of it.
Fortunately, as noted earlier, the Canada Council for the Arts is planning
to provide additional resources to the Touring Office program.
C. Cross-Canada Exhibitions
In the heritage sector, the Museum Assistance Program (MAP) created
by the 1972 Museum Policy has been a highly successful initiative in support
of the collection, conservation, interpretation and distribution of museum
holdings in every region of Canada. Museum directors from across the country
spoke of the important contribution that MAP has made, particularly to
the intra-regional and inter-regional touring of museum exhibitions. This
activity has helped create strong working relationships among museums across
Canada, and has provided Canadians with access to the proud heritage of
every region in Canada through travelling exhibitions. Unfortunately, major
cutbacks to this program have reduced these travelling exhibitions to a
mere handful, and those that remain tend not to travel outside their own
region.
As Candace Stevenson, a museum director from Nova Scotia told the Committee:
I believe we're really at a crossroads right now as to whether the federal
government wants to be involved in a leadership role or whether it wants
to . . .watch us . . .decline from the heights we have reached.48
Based on her experiences in a remote part of the province, Rose Marie
Sackela, an Alberta educator, raised an important point with the Committee:
Alder Flats has 105 official residents. We have brought in museum collections
to the classrooms. We used to have access to trailer travelling-museum
collections. Those would be the only museums that people would go to. They
are two hours from Edmonton, but people in rural areas, and I think especially
in central Alberta and the North, just don't see that as a priority.49
William Barkley, another museum director, had this to say:
We've built this very professional infrastructure, but it's not being
used by the country. It's being isolated in our provincial settings."50
The Committee notes the Minister of Canadian Heritage increased the
resources available to the MAP by $2 million beginning in 1999. However,
these additional dollars do not fully restore the monies lost through earlier
budget reductions, nor will they alone generate the long-term results that
a review of federal support to distribution could bring. For these reasons:
Recommendation 27
The Committee recommends that the Department of Canadian Heritage
increase funding to support more cross-Canada tours and exhibitions.
Links Beyond our Borders
Just as links can be forged within Canada through effective touring
programs and travelling exhibitions, people outside Canada can be introduced
to aspects of Canadian culture through the effective promotion of Canadian
cultural expression in international settings. The work of Luc Plamondon
illustrates this point.
Canadian Cultural Expression on the International Stage
The magazine L'Actualité identified Luc Plamondon as its
personality of the year for 1998. His outstanding career in popular music,
initially in Québec, and now encompassing France and "la francophonie,"
in general, could serve as a case study for the successful strategic marriage
of production and distribution in one of the most competitive environments
imaginable - that of popular music. The success that Plamondon's Starmania
and Notre-Dame de Paris currently enjoy in Paris, draw on directorial,
design and performing talent from Québec and is a clear indication
of the extraordinary reach cultural and artistic expression can have when
it is supported by effective distribution and promotion.
An article, written by Jacques Godbout, a leading Québec cultural
commentator, is careful to make readers understand that Plamondon's success
in Paris is an extension of his earlier successes in Québec, and
that ultimately, his vision, and that of his creative and performing colleagues,
could and would prevail in Paris as it has in Montréal.
On the international front, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International
Trade, through its International Cultural Relations programs, provides
assistance for international tours by Canadian performing arts organizations
as well as for individual creative and performing artists. Canada's cultural
industries also receive additional funding through the Program for Export
Marketing Development. Both these programs provide artistic and cultural
organizations with opportunities for artistic growth, for representing
Canadian interests abroad and for the sale of their materials and services
internationally.
Witnesses pointed to a number of gaps in the federal government's promotion
of Canadian culture internationally:
I remember when the minister announced culture as the third pillar of
Canada's foreign policy. So far it hasn't really been supported with the
financial backing. I would . . . encourage a much greater role for the
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade in promoting Canadian
culture internationally.51
Curtis Barlow of the Confederation Centre for the Performing Arts in
Charlottetown also referred to the third pillar initiative.
I ran the International Cultural Relations Program for Canada for ten
years in London and in Washington. . . . A number of years ago [DFAIT]
adopted arts and cultural industries as the so-called third pillar of Canadian
foreign policy; the first being political, the second trade. But they failed
to follow through with any meaningful appropriations of public funding.
As a result, cultural attachés and cultural counselors abroad are
fighting to fulfil their mandates because they simply do not have the financial
resources to do so. So I would recommend that this committee take a very
careful look at culture as the third pillar of Canada's foreign policy
and recommend that the Department of Foreign Affairs and International
Trade appropriate the requisite sums of money to make it a meaningful policy
decision.52
Canada's cultural community has always maintained that government support
for distribution should be increased, and that its objectives should be
broadened to reflect the importance of distribution in promoting Canadian
cultural enterprises internationally. The Committee agrees; a major component
in future cultural policy should provide effective financial and logistical
support for international touring, exhibitions and trade exchanges.
The Committee notes the important work done for the Department of Foreign
Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) by the Sectoral Advisory Group
on International Trade (SAGIT). This group is comprised of men and women
who have distinguished themselves by their leadership and contributions
to our cultural enterprises at home and abroad. They advise the Minister
of International Trade on a broad range of cultural issues and contribute
their professional experience and knowledge to the ongoing identification
and promotion of Canadian interests internationally.
In February 1999, the SAGIT released a report titled Canadian Culture
in a Global World that suggests the federal government "call on
other countries to develop a new international cultural instrument that
would acknowledge the importance of cultural diversity and address cultural
policies designed to promote and protect that diversity."53
According to the SAGIT report there are two approaches:
- the cultural exemption strategy used in the past that takes culture
"off the table" in international trade negotiations;
- a new strategy that involves negotiating a new international instrument
that specifically addresses cultural diversity and acknowledges the legitimate
role of domestic cultural policies in ensuring cultural diversity.
The tools and approaches used in the past to keep cultural goods and
services from being subject to the same treatment as other goods and services
may no longer be enough. One does not usually think of works of creators
in the same way one views the products sold by department stores or automobile
manufacturers. To a much greater degree, culture deals with values, aesthetics,
spirituality, some of the central elements, which help define the human
condition.
There are two dominant perspectives about international trade in cultural
materials and services. One is that they are goods and services just like
any other; wheat, chickens and coffee makers are traded just as books,
films and magazines. The other view is that cultural materials and services
are outside conventional trading rules because of their importance to national
identity and, as such, should be exempt from rules regulating world trade
practices.
Canadians are facing some crucial decisions. Do they define themselves
as producers and consumers of tradeable cultural goods and services; or
are they prepared to affirm the value of their cultural diversity and their
right to ensure that their creative expression is accessible?
Members of the SAGIT believe it is time for Canada to step forward.
Just as nations have come together to protect and promote biodiversity,
it is time for them to come together to promote cultural and linguistic
diversity.
This Committee believes that the SAGIT is proposing initiatives that
take the strengths of Canadian cultural industries into full account and
make reasonable assumptions about their ability to compete internationally.
However, this assumes that agreement can be reached with some of Canada's
key trading partners that a new order be established to support and promote
cultural industries. Therefore, the Committee endorses the approach proposed
by the SAGIT which recommends that Canada call on other countries to develop
a new international cultural instrument that would acknowledge the importance
of cultural diversity and address the cultural policies designed to promote
and protect that diversity.
Recommendation 28
The Committee recommends that the federal government adopt the approach
proposed by the Sectoral Advisory Group on International Trade (SAGIT)
through which Canada would call on other countries to develop a new international
cultural instrument that would acknowledge the importance of cultural diversity
and address cultural policies designed to promote and protect that diversity.
Recommendation 29
The Committee recommends that the initiative taken by the Minister
of Canadian Heritage to ensure continued diversity in cultural expression
internationally be placed at the centre of the federal government's foreign
policy and international trade agenda.
Recommendation 30
The Committee recommends that the Department of Canadian Heritage
form an advisory group composed of individuals experienced in creation,
cultural policy and the marketing and distribution of cultural materials,
to advise the minister on issues affecting culture. This group should be
modeled on the SAGIT approach used by the Department of Foreign Affairs
and International Trade, and Industry Canada.
The Committee believes that a forum based on the SAGIT model is much
needed in the changing cultural environment. This model should be as useful
in addressing domestic issues as it has proved to be in addressing international
issues.
The initiative taken by the Minister of Canadian Heritage in June 1998
to invite ministers of culture from a number of countries to discuss the
nature of cultural diversity is an important first step toward dealing
with these issues. In time, this initiative could lead to a secure equilibrium
between the considerable financial benefits that accrue from the international
trading of our cultural materials and services and the imperative to conserve
diversity in cultural expression.
A Pivotal Debate: Pierre-Marc Johnson and Robert Pilon
An illuminating debate occurred at the round table in Montreal on closely
related subjects between Pierre-Marc Johnson, the former Premier of Quebec
and current president of Regroupement des événements majeurs
internationaux and Robert Pilon of ADISQ. Mr. Johnson began:
Traditionally, in Canada, the government has defended specificities
in a defensive manner. It has barred entry of a certain number of products,
formally or informally, explicitly or not, in what's called the Japanese
way or not. That's the debate around magazines. Or it has supported the
production of Canadian content, but always looking at the Canadian market
of the cultural universe and rarely looking towards the outside.
One of the challenges in coming years will be to switch from an essentially
defensive approach to an approach that sees the world of culture in the
context of economic globalization by allowing products made here to have
a chance on outside markets.
I'm not saying that's the only thing we should do, but I am saying that
to neglect doing that is missing a very important boat and ultimately those
who will suffer will be the creators, the authors, the composers. This
is an approach that presupposes that the Canadian government, taking into
account the important role it has played historically in this area, and
possibly the Quebec government, must engage in rather radical change. We
have to go from a purely defensive situation in the use of taxation and
subsidies for institutions to a more aggressive approach in showcasing
Canadian culture and creators.54
Mr. Pilon replied:
That's where the debate is and I think that things aren't as simple
as Mr. Johnson says. I don't think we can say that we used to have a defensive
policy and that from now on our policy will have to go on the offensive.
. . . To get back to Economics 101, I don't know of any sector of the
economy, in whatever country, that ever managed to be successful in the
field of exports without having built a solid domestic base for itself.
But if you don't look at that from the cultural point of view, Mr. Johnson,
even if you look at it strictly from a business point of view, from a basely
economic point of view, any strategy based only on concurring world markets
wouldn't make sense. You first need a strategy for structuring your sector
on your domestic market.
The present neo-liberal philosophy is an illusion, smoke and mirrors.
We're forever being told: Stop seeking protection, stop being supported
by governments, stop being led by the hand by governments; be big boys,
be good, go forward and everyone will buy your products on the international
market.
. . . In our sector, Quebec's biggest business has a volume of maybe
$5 million while its competitors are playing with $5 billion dollars. Market
rules and globalization are all well and good, but we're a long away from
Adam Smith. Pure and perfect competition just doesn't exist.55
The debate is not about the need to defend Canadian interests in bilateral
or multilateral negotiations involving our cultural materials and services.
Nor is it about domestic measures that might be taken by the federal government
to ensure that Canadians continue to have access to their own cultural
materials and services. On these matters, Pierre-Marc Johnson and Robert
Pilon agree.
Rather, the debate revolves around the assumptions we should be making
when we are formulating policies related to international trade in the
21st century. Mr. Johnson proposes a more aggressive and pro-active approach
to complement the necessary defensive measures Canada has adopted heretofore.
Mr. Pilon believes that we should continue with the tried and true.
The Committee believes that this debate goes to the heart of this matter
as it pertains to Canadian cultural expression that insists on retaining
its identity and diversity. The opposing views capture the essence of some
of the most difficult issues that will be confronting Canadian cultural
industries in the future.
1 Sean
Fordyce, Publisher, Ottawa Round Table on Publishing, March 10, 1998.
2 Michel
Dupuy, Ottawa Round Table on Film and Video, March 11, 1998.
3 Canada
Year Book 1999, Statistics Canada, Ottawa, 1999, Table 8.12, p. 288-290.
4 "Performing
Arts 1996-1997," The Daily, Statistics Canada, Ottawa, March
4, 1999.
5 T.S.
Eliot, Tradition and the Individual Talent, in: The Sacred Wood,
Essays on Poetry and Criticism, Methuen, 1920, p. 49.
6 Ekos
Research Associates, An Examination of Current Policies and Programs
and Legislation for the Canadian Sound Recording Industry, Ottawa,
1995, p. 37.
7 Ibid,
p. 36.
8 Hervé
Foulon, Éditeur, Ottawa Round Table on Publishing, March 10, 1998.
9 Tom
Patterson (with Allan Gould), The First Stage - The Making of the Stratford
Festival, McClelland and Stewart, Toronto, 1987, p. 26.
10
David Prosser, "The Stratford Festival" in Standpoints,
Paris, May 1998.
11
Stratford Festival, News Release, November 24, 1998.
12
Karen Farmer, Media Relations, Stratford Festival, January 5, 1999.
13
Jack Stoddart, Publisher, Ottawa Round Table on Publishing, March 10, 1998.
14
Sandra Macdonald, Chairperson, National Film Board, Ottawa Round Table,
Thursday, October 22, 1998.
15
Sandra Macdonald, "For Purposes of Discussion, Four Challenging Questions
for Canada's Audio-Visual Policy," included in her presentation to
the Committee.
16
Keith Ross Leckie, Tapestry Films, Ottawa Round Table on Film and Video,
March 11, 1998
17
Marie-Josée Corbeil, Vice-President, Cinar Films, Ottawa Round Table
on Film and Video, March 11, 1998.
18
John Gray, Author, expert witness, February 12, 1998.
19
Jefferson Lewis, Screenwriter, Ottawa Round Table on Film and Video, March
11, 1998.
20
Joanne Morrow, Director of Arts Division, Canada Council for the Arts,
Witness presentation, June 11, 1998.
21
Practically all of Canada's classical music, visual art, dance, and theatre
organizations, as well as librairies, archives and museums operate on a
not-for-profit model. This is a precondition for support from the Canada
Council for the Arts.
22
Statistics Canada, "Performing Arts 1996-1997," The Daily,
Ottawa, March 4, 1999, (breakdown of the not-for-profit deficit picture
for 1996-1997). Canada's 342 theatre companies ended the year with a collective
surplus of $3.5 million, compared with the 260 combined music, dance and
opera companies that ended the year with a collective deficit of $1.6 million.
23
Canada Year Book 1999, Statistics Canada, Ottawa, 1999, Table 8.12,
p. 289.
24
"Not-for-profit" is used in this report to designate all non-profit
organizations. "Not-for-profit" is the designation used by Statistics
Canada's Cultural Statistics Program.
25
Hervé Foulon, Publisher, Ottawa Round Table on Publishing, March
10, 1998.
26
Martin Bragg, Canadian Stage Company, Ottawa Round Table on the Arts, March
10, 1998.
27
Theodore Levitt, Thinking About Management, The Free Press, New
York, 1991, p.137.
28
Ken Stein, Shaw Communications, Ottawa Round Table on Broadcasting, March
12, 1998.
29
Emma Duncan, "Wheel of Fortune," The Economist, November
21, 1998.
30
Perrin Beatty, President, CBC, Address to the Committee, April 2, 1998,
p. 12.
31
Micheline L'Espérance-Labelle, Quebecor DIL Multimédia, Ottawa
Round Table on Publishing, March 10, 1998.
32
John Godfrey, Proceedings of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage,
Tuesday February 9, 1999.
33
In May 1999 the CRTC reported on its examination of regulatory issues related
to new media, particularly the Internet. The Committee has focused its
review of new media on issues related to cultural industries and institutions.
34
Froman & Associates, Final Report on the CanCon New Media Sessions,
included in the Stentor submission, p. 1.
35
Paul Hoffert, The Bagel Effect - A Compass to Navigate Our Wired World,
Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1998, p. 185.
36
Micheline L'Espérance-Labelle, Quebecor DIL Multimédia, Ottawa
Round Table on Publishing, March 10, 1998.
37
Hoffert, p. 189.
38
Ibid.
39
Further details on Metropolis and each of the centres of excellence can
be found at: <http://canada.metropolis.net/ main_e.htm>
40
Copyright is also discussed in Chapter Two.
41
Mia Weinberg, Representative of the National Council of CARFAC, Vancouver
Round Table, February 25, 1999.
42
Gay Hauser, General Manager, Eastern Front Theatre Co., Halifax Round Table,
February 23, 1999.
43
Diane Imrie, Executive Director, Northwestern Ontario Ports Hall of Fame,
Thunder Bay Round Table, February 22, 1999.
44
Louise Baillargeon, President and General Director, "Association des
producteurs de films et de télévision du Québec",
Round Table in Montreal, February 25, 1999.
45
Making our Voices Heard, Mandate Review Committee CBC, NFB, Telefilm,
Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services, 1996, Recommendations 1, 2, and
11.
46
Additional material on the importance of touring is presented in the chapter
on preservation.
47
Chris Tyrell, Vancouver Round Table, February 25, 1999.
48
Candace Stevenson, Museum Director, Ottawa Round Table on Heritage, March
10, 1998.
49
Rose Marie Sackela, Educator, Edmonton Round Table, February 24, 1999.
50
William Barkley, Museum Director, Ottawa Round Table on Heritage, March
10, 1998.
51
Earl Rosen, Marquis Records, Ottawa Round Table on Sound Recording, March
10, 1998.
52
Curtis Barlow, Confederation Centre for the Performing Arts, Moncton Round
Table, February 24, 1999.
53
SAGIT, Canadian Culture in a Global World, Ottawa, February 1999.
54
Pierre-Marc Johnson, President, Regroupement des événements
majeurs internationaux, Montreal Round Table, February 25, 1999.
55
Robert Pilon, ADISQ, Montreal Round Table, February 25, 1999.