:
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me to share my views on this important subject.
Let me introduce myself. I am the Chief Executive Officer and co-founder of the International Conference for the Performing Arts, known as CINARS, a not-for-profit organization that was founded 25 years ago, with the aim of assisting the export of Canadian performing arts.
As experts in the field and as a rallying organization, we undertook a study last December on the impact of the abolition of PromArt and Trade Routes—two essential programs for the export of the performing arts. The results of that study can be found in the folder entitled « The Performing Arts in Peril », which you have in front of you. PromArt and Trade Routes were cost-effective and efficient. Every available government study or report has confirmed that fact. Not only were these programs cancelled without any justification, the resulting funding cuts are leading artistic companies to bankruptcy.
At the time we undertook our study, it was already one minute to midnight. The foreseeable consequences were already disastrous for the 61 professional or artistic companies that took part in our survey. In the next three years, 327 international tours would be compromised, representing some 3,395 shows across the globe and losses of more than $24 million. Today, it is a quarter past midnight. The house is on fire and it's time to call the fire department. Companies are living through a real nightmare. They can no longer undertake tours, or they must run a deficit. Foreign talent buyers are now turning to other countries to fill their show calendars. In the long term, Canada is putting itself in a position from which it will be very difficult to recover.
Let us look briefly at these two programs, so as to better understand their purpose. I invite you now to look at the summary diagram which can be found in your folder, in French and English.
First of all, PromArt comes under the Department of Foreign Affairs. It was a program designed to assist Canadian exports. The grants allocated in 2007-2008 amounted to $4.8 million, 70 per cent of which was for the performing arts, for a total amount of about $3.3 million. That amount is divided into two parts. The first is dedicated to assisting international tours, which represents $3 million, 90 per cent of which is earmarked for the performing arts. The second part is dedicated to assisting the process of inviting talent buyers from other countries to attend Canadian festivals and other international events.
Trade Routes is a Department of Canadian Heritage program. It assists export development. In 2007-2008, we estimate that this program represented approximately $7 million in funding. Of that amount, $2 million was paid out in the form of direct contributions to artistic organizations, including $500,000 to the performing arts sector. These grants provide assistance to Canadian artistic companies to allow them to participate in foreign festivals, conferences, and so on. The major component of the program, in the amount of $5 million, represented funding to pay for the services of trade experts based in Canada and abroad.
Taking a bird's-eye view of the situation, it is clear that the most significant amount to have been distributed to our artistic organizations was through PromArt's international tour support component, which had a budget of $3 million administered through the Department of Foreign Affairs. This amount covered the transportation costs involved in putting on a series of shows abroad—in other words, plane tickets for the artists and the cost of transporting equipment such as sets, backdrops and other technical material. That assistance is needed because the vast majority of foreign talent buyers do not pay those expenses. This is an international standard or practice. Without this assistance, companies simply cannot seize the opportunity provided by foreign buyers, and therefore find themselves deprived of significant revenues. Above and beyond the fact that this assistance is necessary, the money invested in PromArt is cost-effective. Every dollar invested by PromArt in an international tour brings in $5.50 in independent revenues, on average, for Canadian artistic companies. The rest of the funds distributed directly to the various companies were earmarked for export development. PromArt and Trade Routes provided annual funding of $800,000 for the performing arts for that purpose.
As in any industry, market development is essential for increased sales. This is long-term work and is part of the relationship-building process. Today, we are urging that federal funding for international touring and export development that has been cancelled be reinstated and increased, in order to save Canada's artistic companies, as well as Canada's international reputation.
In the very short term, we are calling for the immediate reinstatement of this funding to allow the tours that are planned for 2009 and 2010 to take place, so as to avoid any interruption in terms of our presence on the international market. The Canada Council for the Arts, through programs that are already in place to support international tours and market development, would be in the best position to manage these budgets.
For the medium and long term, we are calling for an increase in the budgets dedicated to the export of the performing arts, a profitable sector of our economy which is in particular need of support in times of crisis. This must be an ongoing priority for the government. Only then will we perhaps have evidence showing that the Government of Canada properly supports its artistic companies.
Up until now, Canada has been recognized around the world as an innovative, dynamic and creative country. But, how will we be perceived a few years from now?
In closing, I would like to quote an excerpt from a letter addressed to you, the members of this committee, which can be found in the folder we have provided to you. It is from the Van Baasbank & Baggerman agency in the Netherlands, one of the largest European agencies and the organization that represented many Canadian performing arts companies in the last 15 years. It says, and I quote:
If the Canadian government persists in its policy of cutting touring grants, [...] Canada will lose its leading role in the field of contemporary performing arts [...] The cancellation of the touring grants will not only have serious consequences for performing opportunities available to Canadian companies, but it will have a significant impact on the good name of Canada in general.
Thank you for your time.
:
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
My name is Martin Faucher and I am a stage director. I am also Artistic Advisor to the Festival TransAmériques in Montreal. Today, however, I am speaking to you as President of the Conseil québécois du théâtre.
A product of the States General on Professional Theatre held in 1981, the Conseil québécois du théâtre, or CQT, was officially established in 1983. The mission of the Conseil québécois du théâtre is to rally and represent Quebec's professional theatre community.
International exposure of Quebec theatre provides a means to promote and present our art and our culture to others. It means naturally extending the life of our theatre works and fostering artistic encounters that often are the starting point for new projects.
Thanks to the creativity of artists like Robert Lepage, Denis Marleau, Wajdi Mouawad, Suzanne Lebeau, Michel Marc Bouchard—and I could name dozens of others—there has been a remarkable increase in the number of Quebec theatre productions being shown around the world in the last 20 years. That success is due to the tireless work of high-level artists and cultural workers.
By expanding opportunities to present theatre works and working on co-productions with solid foreign partners, Canada gives artists and cultural workers a chance to increase their income. The Canadian market for theatre is very small. Thus, tapping into world markets is essential to the prosperity and longevity of many Quebec theatre companies. On average, about 30 Quebec theatre companies have performed year after year on five continents, either through invitations to appear at prestigious festivals, or as part of the regular season.
The Canadian government has primary responsibility for the theatre arts sector, which has both an artistic and economic component, and thus it must take appropriate action to ensure that our artists have a significant presence on the world stage.
The unflinching efforts of Quebec artists and cultural workers over more than 20 years have helped build networks that require effort to maintain. International outreach is the result of work carried out over an extensive period. Any absence from the world stage—even for just six months—would jeopardize those networks.
The Festival d'Avignon, which is considered the most prestigious theatre festival in the world, has invited Wajdi Mouawad, the Artistic Director of French Theatre at the National Arts Centre, to be an associated artist at this summer's festival, in 2009. This extraordinary honour will enable Mr. Mouawad to present two major works during the festival. As a result of this invitation, other Quebec theatre and dance artists will also be performing at the festival. These feature performances by Quebec companies in Avignon are the culmination of ongoing support from the Canadian government's cultural diplomats.
Without a program in place to support international performances by its artists, it is unthinkable that the Canadian government would be in a position to keep the current momentum going. Every industrialized G-8 country provides strong support for its artists by fostering international outreach. The examples that spring to mind are England, with Arts Council England, Germany, with the Goethe Institute, and France, with Culturesfrance.
Until recently, with resources that can best be described as modest, Canada supported the international activities of Canadian artists and artistic companies through the PromArt and Trade Routes programs. Despite the inadequacy of the available funding, no theatre company ever complained about those two programs—quite the opposite. What, then, is the rationale for abruptly cancelling the PromArt and Trade Routes programs? On the basis of what criteria was the decision made to eliminate them?
Furthermore, the top priority of the Government of Canada's International Strategic Framework is international cultural promotion and cultural trade development. Why, then, would the federal government want to abolish these two programs, PromArt and Trade Routes, which were specifically aimed at meeting that key priority?
We also want to take this opportunity to remind the committee that international arts festivals, such as Le Festival TransAmériques, Les Coups de Théâtre de Montréal—a festival aimed at children and youth—as well as Le Carrefour international de théâtre de Québec complement the international touring program and thereby foster the growth of Quebec theatre.
Funding for these festivals is provided under a number of programs, including Arts Presentation Canada, whose budget will be sharply cut, by almost 50 per cent, starting in fiscal year 2010-2011.
This would also be a disaster for the international development of Quebec theatre.
In conclusion, in an international environment where trust is the basis for any relationship, it is essential that companies be in a position to honour their commitments, ensure reciprocity within international artistic presentation networks and continue their efforts to take their works beyond our borders.
The Conseil québécois du théâtre therefore recommends that:
- the Department of Canadian Heritage restore the PromArt and Trade Routes programs as quickly as possible, so that companies do not find themselves without the means to tour internationally after April 1, 2009;
- that the funds cut from the PromArt and Trade Routes programs be reinvested as quickly as possible in the Canada Council for the Arts, an exemplary federal agency that is soundly managed and has the absolute trust of the Quebec theatre community, and that this funding be increased and earmarked exclusively for international touring support;
- that the role of international theatre festivals as a catalyst for the international exposure of Quebec theatre be acknowledged and that such festivals receive adequate recurring funding.
Thank you very much.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for inviting me to speak to you today.
I'm the executive director of the Canadian Dance Assembly, the national association representing Canada's professional dance sector. Our membership includes over 350 professional dance organizations and individuals from all regions of the country, including performance companies, training institutions, presenting organizations, dancers, choreographers, educators, agents, and managers. We are a founding member of the Performing Arts Alliance and a member of the Canadian Arts Coalition and the Canadian Conference of the Arts.
I'd like to speak specifically about the sector-wide impact of recent cuts to PromArt, Trade Routes, and the Canadian arts and heritage sustainability program. As you know, decisions to remove or reduce investment in these and other programs were made without consultations with the stakeholders that they impact.
In the case of PromArt and Trade Routes, claims of the programs' administrative inefficiencies in no way support the conclusion to retract investment from critical areas of activity that enable dance and arts organizations to remain competitive in a global economy. For many dance organizations from Vancouver to Moncton, international export is a vital component of a sound business strategy that ensures the investments made in the creation and production of Canadian works will leverage revenue returns through business development in foreign markets.
Since it is an art form that is not connected to another major commercial cultural industry, touring is the only form of distribution for dance. Touring internationally provides added work weeks for artists and production staff and leverages revenue returns through performance fees that are substantively higher in foreign markets than they are domestically.
As you've already heard from several witnesses, the impact of these cuts means cancelled tours, stalled contract negotiations, lost work weeks for artists, and the ultimate disappearance of Canadian art from the world stage.
Furthermore, these cuts have sent a clear message to foreign buyers, whose ability to present Canadian work is compromised by the fact that Canada will no longer cover travel and shipping costs for their artists to perform abroad—a universal industry practice among exporting countries.
This government claims to be investing $13 million in touring through the Canada Council for the Arts. I'd like to clarify for this committee that in fact the council invests primarily in domestic tours through programs that were designed in complement to PromArt and Trade Routes. It was not until very recently that the council introduced a pilot program that distributes a very modest level of investment to support international touring, in response to reductions to cultural export investment by the federal government in 2005 and in 2006.
To reinforce this point, I've compiled some figures to help illustrate the real situation in dance. In 2007-08, dance companies received less than $400,000 in total support for international touring and foreign market development from the Canada Council for the Arts. In the same year, PromArt and Trade Routes invested a combined total of over $1.3 million in support of over 650 dance performances abroad. As you can see from these numbers, failure to reinvest funds cut from PromArt and Trade Routes effectively evaporates support for international export and the promotion of artists abroad.
As we are all well aware, the economic environment has drastically shifted since the time these cuts were made. The government articulated in the January throne speech that old assumptions must be tested and decisions must be rethought. Like the government, the priority of the dance sector is to protect jobs and to ensure that companies can remain stable and sustainable over this volatile period and beyond. The demand for Canadian cultural product abroad during this period of recession is a testament to the excellence of Canadian artists and their work. Preventing this sector from responding to this demand by retracting funding is both irresponsible and illogical.
But I'd like to stress that we do value this government's expressed commitment to arts and culture, in particular through recent investments in the Canada Council for the Arts, national arts training, cultural spaces, and festivals. We do recognize that levels of investment have increased and we know that the government must make choices. However, despite these good efforts and intentions, I am here to tell you that failing to replace investment in international touring will compromise the effectiveness of other funding commitments and the ultimate viability and sustainability of the sector as a whole.
On behalf of the professional dance sector, I am therefore recommending to every member of this committee that you advocate for a minimum of $12 million in new federal investment specifically to support international touring and foreign market development, enabling arts organizations to remain competitive in the global economy.
I also wish to recommend that this committee support renewed federal commitments to organizational sustainability measures, through the Canadian arts and heritage sustainability program. Specifically, I recommend the renewal of the endowment matching program and renewed investments in capacity-building measures for small and mid-sized organizations.
The capacity building program, which was cut by $1.8 million, has allowed dozens of primarily small and medium-sized dance organizations, such as the Mile Zero Dance in Edmonton, Sampradaya Dance Creations in Mississauga, and the Atlantic Ballet Theatre in Moncton, to take important steps forward in their development, building organizational capacities not otherwise possible through regular operational revenues.
Finally, I cannot leave today without reinforcing the need for new substantive investment to the Canada Council for the Arts. The Canada Council is the most effective deliverer of federal investment for the arts, and I recommend that this committee advocate for $100 million in new permanent investment to the council.
Thank you.
[Translation]
My name is Edouard Lock, and I am the Artistic Director and founder of La La La Human Steps. I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for inviting me to appear today. I intend to primarily address the impact on the performing arts community of the cancellation of the PromArt program.
My company, La La La Human Steps, began in June, 1980 in a small theatre, Leskabel, in Saint-Henri in Montreal. The theatre had 75 seats and the run lasted three weeks. After that, we presented the same show in New York, for an additional week, in a similar sized theatre, but one which, at the time, was a hub for contemporary American dance. In all, we had three weeks of local performances and one week of international touring. Twenty-nine years later, touring has increased from one week to two years. We now perform in theatres such as le Palais Garnier and le Théâtre de la Ville in Paris, and Sadler's Wells Theatre in London. The theatres where we now perform have between 1,500 and 3,000 seats, and one dancer now earns ten times more than the company's entire budget back in 1980. But those are just some statistics intended to illustrate the impact that international touring has had on our development.
What I came here to talk about is the process that led to this, what I have observed along the way, and the effects of the cancellation of the PromArt program on myself and my colleagues. An international career is built through a coming together of many subtle influences: the international community's response to an artist's work; the reaction of artists and the media in the cities where the performances occur; box office success; the feedback provided to presenters and promoters by spectators and subscribers; the personal tastes of presenters and their own observations with respect to how well the show is received in their community.
Then, over time, a dialogue develops and leads to better recognition of the artist's work and his history. That, in return, makes it possible to develop long-lasting relationships that mean a steady touring schedule. This process takes time and, in our case, as for many others, it has taken decades to achieve. On this tour, we reached an audience of close to 140,000. When one thinks back to the first international tour by our company, where The Kitchen, in New York, was the only presenter, you can see just how far we have come. The investment in both time and resources is staggering. Yet, if Canadian artists are unable to continue to move these relationships forward, everything that has been achieved will be lost, and the world will forget us. That loss will in turn lead to stagnation among some of the most successful arts organizations this country has produced: its dance companies and dance artists.
In order to avoid that, integrating the work of our artists into the broader context of the global cultural community is vital. The mark of any civilized country is its ability to have a dialogue with other cultures. Our artists are windows into who we are, and what we believe in. Distinctive and unique Canadian perspectives are precisely what international presenters are looking for. Believe me, invitations from leading international presenters are not just paternalism. Their invitations are not designed to support us; they invite us because nothing equivalent is available at home. Inviting an artist from another country to perform is an expensive proposition that can only be justified by the quality and uniqueness of what the guest artist has to offer.
We know that money is tight, and that more grant money for many companies and young artists will be difficult to come by—hence the importance of maintaining access to international markets and foreign investments. As touring has increased for us and other companies, investments from abroad have become de facto forms of subsidy. Amounts generated through co-productions and performance fees amount, in our case, to more than the total amount of operating grants we receive from the three levels of government—federal, provincial and municipal. Therefore, to lose access to these revenues would be disastrous.
Another point I want to raise relates to the fact that most dance companies do not have long local seasons and therefore depend on international touring to maintain their revenue streams. Although national tours are pivotal, there are not enough performance opportunities to compete with extensive international tours which, once again, confirms the need to preserve them. It is clear that money alone cannot guarantee the success of an artistic endeavour and money alone cannot create an artist. But when success does occur, it must be recognized quickly and encouraged. And that is precisely the beauty of the PromArt program. That program does not create success; it supports and rewards success. It does not create opportunities; it lets the artist and presenters do that. It does not have to wonder about an artist's potential; it lets the international experts determine that and then responds based on their judgment.
It is a fundamentally smart program, in that it doesn't burden itself with subjectivity; rather, it lets the world's cultural institutions do the work and then facilitates the artists' access to the opportunities they themselves have generated through their talent and hard work.
Thank you.
:
As always, Mr. Chair,
merci beaucoup.
[Translation]
Good afternoon and welcome to all our witnesses. I am very pleased that you have been able to join us here today. I only wish that the circumstances could have been different.
I have a great deal of admiration and respect for the work that each of you do. I would have liked to be able to talk about dance, theatre, Quebec and Canadian success stories overall, and international touring, but instead, we have to talk about cuts. That is why you are here today—to talk about cuts that I, personally—I have said this before—describe as savage and unjustified, and which I am very upset about. They hurt our artists, and they hurt us as well, in terms of our international reputation.
To begin with, I would like to know whether any of you were consulted with respect to the review process and the cuts that were coming. Did you in any way participate in the process that led to these cuts?
No one was consulted.
Many of your competitors or competing countries—the international networks—have this type of support program, which often represents only a small portion of the budget. Do you not have the sense that, by virtue of the fact that you no longer have access to these programs, you will be fighting with your hands tied behind your back?
First of all, I want to thank all of you for being with us today. It is wonderful to have you here.
We are here to talk about the Trade Routes and PromArt programs. The Minister of Canadian Heritage has often said in the House that these programs are ineffective. He has also made that statement to journalists in several interviews. And yet, the only two studies that exist on the Trade Routes and PromArt programs praise them to the skies, saying as well that it was too bad more could not be done. I believe 95 per cent of respondents said that if they could, they would make more use of the Trade Routes program, and 70 per cent were extremely satisfied with it. All agreed that this program had allowed them to explore new markets.
It was the same for PromArt. Departmental officials said that the program was very good the way it was, but that it might be a good idea to add an additional component to it, whereby they could make proposals, rather than simply waiting for grant applications to come in. As you can see, we are far from the kind of ineffective program Mr. Moore is talking about.
Mr. Rodriguez asked if you had taken part in any studies or if you had been consulted. They response was a chorus of nos.
Is there any other program available through Canadian Heritage or another department that could make up for the cancellation of Trade Routes and PromArt?
Let's begin with Mr. Paré.
Thank you, witnesses, for appearing here today. I appreciate your taking the time to make your presentations to the committee.
The first thing I want to make clear is that we've heard an awful lot of discussion about PromArt. As you're well aware, PromArt is not a file within the Department of Canadian Heritage, it's a Foreign Affairs program. It's not within the scope of the study before us. That said, I appreciate hearing your comments on that.
Mr. Paré, I wanted to come back to you. I've done some research on CINARS, and I pulled up the funding history on CINARS going back to 1991. I found CINARS had received about $1.1 million, roughly, in total federal government funding since 1991; $405,000 of that is in the last two fiscal years under our government. So up until the point we were government, you averaged $47,000 per year and you've averaged a little over $200,000 under our government. Yet you've been a harsh critic, I think it's fair to say, of our government.
Do you think maybe you're not being fully open with folks when you're talking about the level of support you're receiving from our government, from the government in general?
:
Mr. Chairman, no offence taken.
Ladies and gentlemen members of the committee, I would like to begin by thanking you for this opportunity to speak today on behalf of the Union des écrivaines et des écrivains québécois, in my capacity as president of the organization first elected in December 2004 in the first of three consecutive mandates.
To begin with, I would like to give you some background information about UNEQ, a professional organization founded on March 21, 1977 by 50 or so writers on the initiative of Jacques Godbout. The UNEQ represents almost 1,400 writers, poets, novelists, playwrights, essayists, authors who write for children and scientific and technical writers. The UNEQ's mandate is to work to promote and disseminate Quebec literature in Quebec, Canada and abroad, and to defend the socio-economic rights of writers. It was recognized in 1990 as the most representative association of artists in the literary community under the Loi sur le statut professionnel des artistes des arts visuels, des métiers d'art et de la littérature et sur leurs contrats avec les diffuseurs, L.R.Q, chapter S-32.01.
The UNEQ was also certified in 1996 by the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal, giving it the exclusive right to negotiate with federally regulated producers for the purposes of reaching a framework agreement setting out conditions of employment for self-employed professional writers.
I do not intend to discuss the direct impact of the PromArt and Trade Routes programs on the UNEQ, which was not one of the beneficiaries of these programs, for obvious reasons. Instead, I will focus on the international dissemination of the works of some of our members that is made possible through federal government support.
Among the cancelled programs, PromArt was the one most often used by publishers, who would receive assistance towards the payment of travel costs for writers invited to meet with their foreign readers at book fairs and launches, or any other activity connected to book promotion outside Canada. Only travel costs were covered under PromArt. This was, therefore, a shared-cost program which was deeply appreciated by both publishers and writers, as it lowered the cost of promotional campaigns and facilitated agreements with foreign editors who had translated the book, or with foreign organizations that invited authors to their countries. It is through the attendance of our writers and publishers at international meetings, symposia and book fairs that Canadian and Quebec literature can become better known internationally.
Last August, Pascal Assathiany, Director of Éditions du Boréal publishing house, pointed out that the PromArt program had enabled two writers whose works had been published by his firm to make a name for themselves across the globe, including Gil Courtemanche, author of Un dimanche à la piscine à Kigali, and Gaétan Soucy, author of La Petite fille qui aimait trop les allumettes, who subsequently saw their work translated into a number of languages. Through PromArt, these writers were invited abroad by Canadian embassies and several different countries, including the Netherlands, as the publisher himself pointed out to journalist Paul Journet of La Presse, saying, and I quote: “These invitations helped them see their work translated into more than 20 languages. Only about $3,000 or $4,000 was needed to pay for their plane ticket and their stay there, and to organize meetings.” According to Mr. Assathiany, in the last five years, between $25,000 and $30,000 has been invested in promoting works published by Boréal. Even if we multiply that by the number of Quebec publishing firms whose writers have made a breakthrough internationally—a half-dozen at most—we would still be talking about modest, but at the same time extremely useful, amounts of money, as I am sure you will agree.
Again, the Association nationale des éditeurs de livres, or ANEL, generally benefited from the Trade Routes program. In 2008, it received approximately $15,000 under the program, a grant that allowed the organization to take part in the Escale du livre in Bordeaux, in the Book Fair in London, and to successfully carry out a project in China which has had a direct impact on the career of writers whose works, on such occasions, benefit from exposure outside our borders.
Notwithstanding the allegations made by the former Minister of Canadian Heritage, Ms. Josée Verner, allegations that continue to be made by her successor, Mr. Moore, to the effect that these programs were poorly managed and ineffective, for their part, publishing sector stakeholders believe that, even though grants provided were modest, the funding served its purpose, which makes the cancellation of these programs that much more regrettable, in their collective opinion.
Another comment made was, and I quote: “[…] most of the budget comes from Québec Édition, a partnership between ANEL and SODEC, and the Association for the Export of Canadian Books”, this time by Pierre Lefrançois, Executive Director of the ANEL, when speaking to the same journalist from La Presse. He went on to say: “But, for an organization like ours, every penny counts.”
Naysayers like to repeat that Quebec and Canadian publishing is oversubsidized. However, they may be interested in knowing that government assistance only represents 7 p. 100 of the industry's total revenues.
As for overall subsidies granted the publishing industry, they are infinitely smaller than those that benefit Bell Helicopter or Bombardier.
Given that our best writers have access to creative development grants provided by Canadian Heritage through the Canada Council for the Arts, the cancellation of programs that provide assistance for foreign exposure, as well as the promotion and export of Canadian works, sends a particularly paradoxical message. In the absence of new programs to support the international promotion of our literature, again, to quote Pascal Assathiany: “It would be a little like subsidizing Bombardier to produce airplanes, but not helping it to sell them on the international market.”
Notwithstanding the alleged ineffectiveness of the PromArt and Trade Routes programs, their cancellation seems to consistent with a logic that I and my colleagues find worrisome. Since the Conservatives first took office, we have had occasion to deplore the dismantling of cultural services in our Canadian embassies, which is becoming increasingly difficult not to interpret as the expression of an ideology that clearly does not support international exposure for the craftspeople and products of an industry that contributes just as much to Canada's image as it does to its economic dynamism.
A statement made to the National Post last September by Minister , with respect to the cancellation of these programs, continues to haunt me: “We are a conservative government, and Cabinet ministers also wear that hat”, he said. This is not a bureaucratic process, but a decision made by ministers who sit on the Treasury Board and have their own ideas about these programs. I don't have to tell you that I certainly hope I am wrong in fearing the worst.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your kind attention.
My presentation this afternoon will, in fact, be a summary of the brief that we provided today, in both French and English, I believe. It is a short summary outlining our main points.
The INIS is a professional training centre that contributes to the development of the film, television and interactive media community in Quebec and Canada, by providing access to training programs for both individuals and businesses that respond to the demands and changes occurring in the audiovisual, communications and entertainment markets. Since its beginnings in January 1996, the INIS has trained some 381 professionals who work as screenwriters, directors and producers. The most recent surveys conducted by the INIS confirm that nearly 80 per cent of graduates are in positions directly related to the training they received—often in key positions. In addition to these graduates from the regular programs, there are several thousand professionals who have come to the INIS to upgrade their skills in the short and medium term.
The INIS is the only French-language institution of its kind in Canada. It belongs to a network of four training centres, including the CFC in Toronto, the NSI in Winnipeg and the CSTC in Ottawa. Since 1994, the federal government has provided grants of almost $14 million dollars to the INIS to help it carry out its mission. However, on Friday, August 8, 2008, the INIS was informed that the National Training Program for the Film and Video Sector, funded by Canadian Heritage and administered by Telefilm Canada, would not be extended beyond April 1, 2009. This decision followed on the heels of an evaluation which did not actually recommend that the program be cancelled. We are still unaware of the specific reasons for its cancellation, but its impact on the INIS is quite clear. For the Institute, the cancellation of this program will mean the loss of approximately $900,000 annually, or almost 25 per cent of its operating budget.
In addition, if the INIS is no longer able to access the Canada New Media Fund, another program funded by Canadian Heritage, the shortfall in its operating budget stemming from the loss of the federal contribution will exceed $1 million. The Institute's funding structure is based on money received from both levels of government, and on contributions of both money and services from private enterprise. Since 1994, the share of government funding has been constantly decreasing. Indeed, it went from more than 90 per cent in 1994-1995 to 53 p. 100 in the current fiscal year, 2008-2009—in other words, we have achieved a near perfect balance between public and private sources of funding.
However, being deprived of as significant an amount of funding as $1 million per year, the INIS loses one of the main levers allowing it to seek financial contributions from private companies and support through services offered on a “two-for-one” or “three-for-one” basis, for every dollar paid. The consequences of cancelling the program therefore include a decrease in independent revenues and the underfunding of the Institute, to the tune of some $2 million in money and services. In concrete terms, the cancellation of the program compromises the very existence of the Institute. Were the INIS to close, we would be looking at the permanent loss of exceptional expertise that has been built up over a 13-year period and to which, it should be pointed out, the federal government has contributed some $14 million. The closure of the Institute would also mean there would no longer be trained professional graduates able to successfully move into professional circles.
A simple solution to the problem caused by the cancellation of the National Training Program in the Film and Video Sector would be to immediately include the INIS in the National Arts Training Program. If the National Arts Training Program does not appear to be the appropriate solution, in the opinion of the federal government, it is urgent that the latter provide a clear response regarding its short- and long-term intentions for professional training in the film, television and interactive media sectors. The survival of a unique institution with a long track record is at stake.
I would now like to turn it over to Jacques Blain, who is a producer, and who can speak from experience about the Institute's positive impact on professional activities in the film and television sectors.
Thank you.
:
I would like to complete our presentation with some final comments made without notes.
I have been a producer for 30 years. I take part in the everyday activities of the INIS as a member of the board and as a trainer, from time to time. I also benefit, on a daily basis, from the training provided by the Institute. I produced the film C.R.A.Z.Y and the series La Vie, la vie. We produce series such as Naked Josh and Ciao Bella in French and English.
The INIS is an organization with very deep roots in Quebec society, because all the trainers come from the community. They are not theorists; rather, they are practicians who teach students who have been very carefully chosen. Indeed, 80 per cent of them end up finding jobs. In an environment where technological change is both quick and significant, the role of the Institute in our fast-paced society is absolutely vital.
There is also a lot of discussion about the new generation, which is of particular interest to me. Many baby-boomers, including myself, will soon be leaving the industry. If we do not train people capable of doing the job, we will be in very dire straits.
Canada and Quebec currently have a marked advantage when it comes to production. We export our expertise. A fellow who worked with us until last year is now the Director of Fiction for TF1, the largest French-speaking television network in the world. So, we export both expertise and productions.
I find it rather irresponsible, on the part of the federal government, to completely withdraw support. Federal funding represents 25 p. 100 of the Institute's operating budget. It simply is not possible to take that kind of action at a time when it is essential to excel in the world. We absolutely must find a way to restore the Institute's budget. The very survival of the organization is at stake—an organization that has been successful, since its creation, in providing Quebec with new directors, producers and authors, and in developing professional development programs that have benefited everyone.
I must admit that I am at a loss when it comes to the intricacies of government programs, but if another program comes forward that allows to compensate the lost funding, that would be an absolutely essential step in ensuring the survival of the INIS.
Thank you for your attention.
[English]
We're ready to answer your questions, in French or in English.
Thank you.
:
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
My name is Colette Brouillé. I am the Executive Director of RIDEAU, the largest network of French-speaking presenters of artistic events in Canada. I would like to thank the committee for agreeing to hear the views of an institution from the performing arts sector.
After 30 years of existence, our organization has 150 members based in over 200 sites across Quebec, and three member networks in French-speaking Canada as a whole. In 2007, box office revenues totalled $87 million in Quebec alone.
RIDEAU also operates at the international level. A leader in the presentation of the performing arts, it is one of the founding member organizations of the AREA network, which brings together partners from Canada, France, Belgium and Switzerland.
Every year, RIDEAU organizes the Bourse RIDEAU, the largest annual gathering of Francophone professionals from the performing arts. Our 22nd edition, which has just taken place, attained a new attendance record, with 1,400 participants. Among these, some 50 artistic companies showed their works to presenters from here and abroad, and 170 booking agents set up stalls at the venue. Over a three-day period, these stalls were visited by festival or theatre presenters intent on building their programs.
In concrete terms, the Bourse RIDEAU is a market place for discussing business, signing contracts and making deals. It is a forum for commercial transactions, a meeting point for supply and demand, and an extraordinary showcase that brings together established and emerging artists, from every discipline, which has huge economic spinoffs for Canadian companies at various stages of their development.
Ten per cent of the artistic programming presented through the Bourse RIDEAU is made up of foreign content: productions which, for the most part, tour Quebec or Canada within two years of their presentation at the Bourse. This creates an opening onto the world stage for all of the audiences served by RIDEAU, as well as its members across Canada. The countries of origin of artists who perform at the Bourse RIDEAU, and then on tour, are responsible for international transportation costs, while we defray the domestic transportation costs and daily expenses during their stay.
A government's support for its exports is a guarantee of quality for the importing country. Without this support, business dealings become much more difficult. The cultural industry should not be exempt from these principles. Yet budget cuts imposed by the government, particularly to the PromArt and Trade Routes programs, effectively end this reciprocity, thereby destroying years of work and investments and adversely affecting our international image.
It is in this spirit of reciprocity that the Bourse RIDEAU hosts a delegation of foreign presenters. At the last edition, presenters from Belgium, France, Switzerland and Mexico came to witness, for themselves, the vitality of our artistic productions and, more concretely, to sign performance contracts with Canadian artistic companies. That is just one of many examples I could choose.
You will have heard some pretty big figures mentioned at your recent meetings. Ours are smaller, but just as convincing. At the 2008 Bourse RIDEAU, the theatre company Le Clou presented its latest work, entitled Isberg. Allow me to give you some details regarding the economic spinoffs of their participation in a single tour across France: 16 performances, which represent 33 per cent of the 2008-2009 season for that show; five designers and the playwright will receive residuals; a 33 per cent increase in performance fees and residuals for the actors; the production will be presented at seven different venues, including one of the most important festivals for young audiences, Mélimôme, which is an ideal showcase where other presenters can see their performances and include them in their own programming; independent revenues of some $80,000, which represent 13 per cent of the company's independent revenues for the 2008-2009 season; and, finally, meetings that have already been scheduled with presenters, in order to develop co-production agreements for the company's next production.
That is just one example, compared to the 50 or so productions presented annually and 170 booking agents and artistic companies that attend the event. These spinoffs, it is safe to assume, can be multiplied accordingly.
Another remarkable initiative is that 10 foreign presenters invited to the Bourse RIDEAU got together and, in association with SODEC, created a $40,000 prize for a singer, called the Prix des diffuseurs internationaux. The winner of the prize in 2009, singer-songwriter Caracol, will thus be able to take her latest show on a European tour involving no less than 10 performances in French-speaking Europe. In 2008, Andrea Lindsay, originally from Ontario, was the prize winner. This has enabled her to give 12 performances at 11 different venues in France, Belgium and Switzerland.
In 2009, support received by RIDEAU from the Trade Routes program totalled $16,000. We found out in November, three months away from the event, that PromArt was withdrawing our financial support. The figures that have just been mentioned clearly demonstrate what an important economic lever these investments were.
How could anyone possibly have shown this kind of support to be ineffective, such that the program would be cancelled? If the program had flaws—flaws that we would like to see properly explained—it is important that they be analyzed alongside members of the artistic community, and that solutions be found quickly, based on a vision that goes beyond the effect of a single program.
For RIDEAU, it is essential that the networks which present artistic events, which affect the daily lives of people throughout Canada, have access to funding from the Department of Canadian Heritage, in order to maintain and develop their international relationships. Presenters of multidisciplinary productions are not part of the Canada Council's clientele.
Furthermore, we would be remiss in not mentioning the elimination in the medium term—in our view, unjustified—of the Skills Development program. According to studies, this program was effective, particularly in Quebec. With the challenges facing the new generation of presenters, it is critical that we continue to develop and adapt business models in our sector and to fully support these initiatives.
In closing, I would like to point out that RIDEAU believes in cultural diplomacy—the process of forging ties with foreign countries with a view to increasing their understanding of the ideas and ideals of our government, of its institutions and the culture it represents. We believe that this diplomacy operates primarily through international programs focused on dissemination and education, as well as cultural exchanges.
Today, we are here to talk about the cancellation of inexpensive government programs, although we are still waiting to see evidence of their ineffectiveness. To say that these programs are a “waste” of public money, in order to justify their cancellation, reflects a deplorable lack of understanding of the real issues and of the extraordinary role played by our artists and cultural workers, who have done so much to enhance Canada's image at large. Whether by accident or as a consequence, is this image now not being tarnished?
Thank you for your kind attention.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I, too, would like to welcome you to the committee. Thank you very much for being with us today.
Ms. Brouillé, you concluded by saying that you would like to be given proof that these programs are ineffective. We would all like to see that proof. However, when we ask the government to show us why these programs are not working, it hides behind the fact that documents are confidential, and so on.
Mr. Chairman, to that end, I tabled a motion asking the government to provide the documents which were the basis for making the cuts by last Friday at noon. However, we have received nothing, with the exception of a two- or three-word e-mail. I am very anxious to receive those documents, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, the government is hiding behind documents that it promises to provide, but that we never receive. Furthermore, you and others have been telling us, week after week, that these programs are working, even though they do not have all the facts as to the way they are managed. They told us that the monies received had been used by artists, craftspeople and companies. Those programs have resulted in numerous success stories.
My sense is that this is a case where the baby has been thrown out with the bath water. These programs may not be entirely perfect, but rather than cancelling altogether, an intermediate solution could have been found. People have suggested that the programs be restored, and that they be managed by the Canada Council for the Arts.
Do you agree with that?
:
I want to extend my very sincere thanks to all of you for appearing today to comment on cuts to the programs we are currently reviewing.
My question is addressed to all of you, but particularly to Mr. Péan, because I really have no choice but to choose one of you.
All the witnesses who have appeared before the committee, without exception, have used the terms, in one form or the other, “irresponsible”, “illogical”, “incomprehensible” and “ideological”. No one has clearly explained why these programs have been cut. The witnesses all said that in the short, medium and long terms, this decision would jeopardize many different sectors of our cultural industries. They all talked about cuts that were not based on studies and of which they had not been informed. Indeed, no one was consulted on this. Similarly, committee members have never seen such studies.
When you consider the amounts of money that are at stake—$2, $3, $5 or $6 million—it is clear that we are talking about peanuts. We are meeting here to talk about peanuts. Government budgets are in the billions of dollars—not millions. In English, there is a lovely proverb that goes: “penny wise, dollar foolish”.
Mr. Péan, do you not have the sense that we are considerably more penny wise than dollar foolish?
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
And thank you, everyone, for coming.
I know the opposition continues to use the word “cuts”, but this is reallocation of taxpayers' money; it's just a reallocation of funds. Nothing has been cut. It's actually been invested. We've actually invested $276 million on top of what there was before. It's $540 million in total. That's a huge investment into arts and culture.
It's interesting that there are a number of groups--I have a whole list who are very pleased with how the government has invested into arts and culture. Magazines Canada said it is delighted with this decision. The Canadian Conference of the Arts said this represents good news for the Canadian arts and culture sector. There's the director of the National Ballet of Canada: “We're really thrilled that there's a strong minister and that there were [two] pages in the budget devoted to the arts, which is a first in my history.”
In the Toronto Star, Mr. Knelman called the $25 million investment for the Canada prizes “a huge breakthrough for the arts”. Opera.ca said that “the federal budget speaks eloquently to the place of culture in Canadian life”.
I have a question for Mr. Péan. Is the fact that we've invested hundreds of millions of dollars into the arts and culture in this country a good thing for the arts sector, really showing how much the government values arts and culture in Canada?
:
Thank you very much for coming today. I'm very glad to hear Monsieur Péan acknowledge that our government has done a number of very positive things for arts and culture, and probably more positive than artists have ever seen in previous governments.
I want to take a moment to address the collaborative opinion of all of you that the Canada Council for the Arts should be responsible for perhaps allocating some of these finances. I want to tell you that the Canada Council for the Arts has received an increase of 17% over two years from our government. In fact, Joseph Rotman, who is the chair of CCA, in Le Devoir last December said exactly this: proof exists that the federal government supports the arts through its funding to the Canada Council.
So I just want to go through a couple of facts about the Canada Council for the Arts. In the 2007-08 period, $182.5 million has gone to CCA. Out of that, Quebec received $51.7 million in funding, which represents 31.4% of total funding. Of that, because I know--
[Translation]
when you talk about writers, Mr. Péan,
[English]
writing and publishing, out of the travel grants to professional writers, they received $117, 379. I can go through a number of places where we are investing in international travel.
I'll do that right now. Dance: international co-production for dance, $277,500. Inter-arts program: travel grants to professional artists, $78,000. I'll go to some larger numbers. Music: music touring grants, $1,472,615; music travel grants to professional musicians, $162,977. It goes on and on. Theatre: theatre touring and special incentive program, $1,093,000. Again theatre, travel assistance for theatre, artistic directors, presenters and administrators, $75,900. Theatre: theatre international programs, $1,017,000.
There are a number of others. The total funding for travel assistance, I have to say for the people in the room who were here with the previous witnesses, is $9.5 million from CCA and not what we heard from a previous witness earlier when he presented a chart that was, as he said, conservative. His numbers added up to just under $3 million, and I'm telling you it's $9.5 million from CCA.
So I want to thank you for acknowledging our government's commitment to arts and culture, and I want to thank you for coming here today. I wish you all the success in the future.