CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, February 25, 1999

• 0912

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I call this meeting of the Committee on Canadian Heritage to order. Our objective today is to continue the study that we started about two years ago on the role of the federal government with respect to arts and culture in Canada and on what this role should be in the next century.

As I said, we started this study quite a while ago, and our committee has divided up into two groups that are currently touring Canada from one end to the other. Our two teams, one of which is travelling in the east and the other which is travelling out west, will gather evidence in the field prior to completing our work.

First of all, I would like to welcome very warmly all of you who responded in such large numbers requesting to be heard here in Montreal.

[English]

I would like to welcome very warmly all of you who responded in such large numbers requesting to be heard.

[Translation]

If I may, I would like to point out the presence of a colleague from the National Assembly. We are very happy that Pierre-Marc Johnson, a former premier of Quebec, has joined us today. We are very honoured by his presence. Lastly, I welcome all of you.

I will start by asking the MPs who are part of the committee and our witnesses to introduce themselves. I invite our witnesses to say a few words about the organization they represent, even though people know each other quite well in your sector.

As part of our study, we are attempting to ascertain whether or not the Canadian government's current support programs are working well. Are they satisfactory in your opinion?

Secondly, we would like to know what role the federal government should play in arts and culture in Canada in light of the challenges that we face on the eve of the next century.

We could have identified all kinds of challenges.

[English]

We could have identified all kinds of hurdles and challenges. We chose three.

[Translation]

We identified three major challenges, since it was obvious that the committee could not study all of the challenges that arose.

• 0915

The first challenge we identified deals with demographic change in our society, in other words, our aging population and the change in the very fabric of Canada due to steady immigration over the years.

The second challenge deals with technological change, multimedia and the Internet. How will these changes affect the role of the federal government with respect to support for arts and culture in Canada?

The third challenge deals with globalization of the economy. We are all fully aware of the debates currently underway on some aspects of culture in Canada under NAFTA and the WTO, etc. We can see what is coming on the horizon.

Our first question to you is the following: In your opinion, are the current programs satisfactory in light of these three challenges?

Secondly, in light of these challenges and your reading of the situation, what role do you see the federal government playing in the future: the role of a legislator, the role of a funding partner? What kind of support must the government provide in the future? How will its role have to evolve?

We received a huge number of requests from groups throughout Canada, especially in Montreal and elsewhere in Quebec, who wanted to appear, and that is why we organized these round tables. To enable us to hear from everyone, there will be three round tables today.

These round tables are not designed to allow members of the committee to make speeches or presentations. That is not our intention at all. On the contrary, we want all of our witnesses to have an opportunity to intervene. The first round table will start at 9 a.m. and end at 11 a.m. As a result, you will have to be concise in order to give everyone an opportunity to speak. We have not established a specific speaking order. If someone goes on too long, I will step in and give the floor to the next speaker.

[English]

It's a freewheeling discussion. You can speak in English or in French. If you do, there's automatic translation.

[Translation]

We hope to have a good exchange, and a frank discussion, rather than monologues.

Robert Pilon from l'ADISQ has informed me that he must leave at 10:15. With your indulgence, I will use my prerogative as facilitator and give him the floor a bit before the others so that he can make his remarks before 10:15.

I will now ask you to introduce yourselves, to tell us briefly why you are participating and to describe the organization that you represent.

Mr. Rozon.

Mr. Gilbert Rozon (President-Founder, Just for Laughs Festival): Gilbert Rozon, President of the Just for Laughs Festival. I am obviously here to address the specific problem of major events in Quebec and Canada, and if time permits, the creative field as a driving force in the economy.

Mr. Andy Nulman (Director General, Just for Laughs Festival): Good morning.

[English]

I am Andy Nulman,

[Translation]

Director General of the Just for Laughs Festival.

[English]

I am Gilbert Rozon's evil twin. I'm here to talk about things he won't talk about, primarily new technologies and things that will affect our industry in that regard.

Merci.

Ms. Audrey E. Bean (Individual Presentation): I'm Audrey Bean. I'm here as a Canadian citizen to speak about the importance of the national public broadcasting system to civil culture in Canada from the perspective of a CBC listener and viewer.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I would like to point out that we would like to hear from both people who want to appear as individuals and groups. We will certainly give them all the latitude they need to do so. It is in this context that Ms. Bean and Ms. Mermelstein are here today.

Mr. Alain Dancyger (Director General, Grands ballets canadiens): Good morning. My name is Alain Dancyger and I am the director general of the Grands ballets canadiens. I am perhaps the only representative from a performing arts organization.

• 0920

I asked to participate in this round table on industries, but I could also have participated in the round table on the arts. I am here to talk mainly about the problems facing large national organizations, especially with respect to funding. I think that the topic will come up quite often around the table.

[English]

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

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre-Marc Johnson (President, Regroupement des événements majeurs internationaux): My name is Pierre-Marc Johnson. I was kindly asked to chair an organization that is called the Regroupement des événements majeurs internationaux. The ten organizations, festivals and other events that have joined together have one common characteristic: they are all major international entertainment and leisure events, most of which have a cultural component or are exclusively cultural in nature. They showcase their region and their community on the international scene. Their participants, often because of the nature of their performances, are also people who contribute to this international fabric.

This group revolves around the people who participate in it. It is born of the generosity of people who, at times, compete with each other namely for funding, and who wanted to share ideas and reflect as a group on economic aspects and the impacts that these events can have. These people also got together with a view to raising the awareness of governments as to their point of view on these events.

The Chairman: Mr. Légaré.

Mr. Yves Légaré (Director General, Société des auteurs, recherchistes, documentalistes et compositeurs): My name is Yves Légaré and I am the director general of SARDC. I represent scriptwriters working in film and television. I am going to focus my remarks today on government intervention in the audiovisual sector.

[English]

Ms. Judith Mermelstein (Individual Presentation): My name is Judith Mermelstein. I'm here as an individual. I'm a person who lives on the fringes of the arts. I am a practising editor and translator and a member of the Editors' Association of Canada, but I'm not here representing them so much as I am representing members of the public who care about the arts in Canada and who are concerned about aspects such as commercialization and globalization.

[Translation]

Ms. France Lafleur (Director, Quebec Division, Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada): My name is France Lafleur and I am director of the Quebec division of SOCAN, the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada. It is a society that collects public performance rights in Canada from the various music users. We are here today on behalf of the authors, composers and publishers to share the creators' point of view and especially their serious concerns over the involvement of the Department of Canadian Heritage with organizations, and more specifically the Copyright Board.

The Chairman: Mr. Valiquette.

Mr. Gilles Valiquette (President, Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada): My name is Gilles Valiquette. I am an author, composer and president of SOCAN. I won't repeat what Ms. Lafleur just said, but I would simply like to point out that our primary mandate is to collect performing rights for our members. I would like to highlight the fact that copyrights are creators' salaries. We would, of course, like to share our concerns in that regard.

The Chairman: Mr. Bertrand.

Mr. Pierre Bertrand (President, Société professionnelle des auteurs et des compositeurs du Québec): My name is Pierre Bertrand and I am the president of the Société professionnelle des auteurs et des compositeurs du Québec, which represents all composers and creators of songs in Quebec. We represent names like Luc Plamondon, Robert Charlebois, Jean-Pierre Ferland, just to name a few.

Obviously, my main concern deals with the role and profession of creators in Canadian society. As Gilles Valiquette said, the only salary an author receives is from the copyright and that is obviously the topic I would like to discuss with you today. Thank you.

The Chairman: Ms. Bertrand-Venne.

Ms. Francine Bertrand-Venne (Director General, Société professionnelle des auteurs et compositeurs du Québec): My name is Francine Bertrand-Venne and I'm the director general of SPACQ, the Société professionnelle des auteurs et des compositeurs du Québec. I would like to point out that we are not only home to songwriters and composers, but also to all composers who write original scores for audiovisual works, be it for film or television.

The Chairman: Suzanne.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): My name is Suzanne Tremblay and I am a member of the Bloc Québécois and party critic for Canadian Heritage. I am very moved today, being in a federal institution in Montreal discussing Canadian culture, and doing so mainly in French. I am very grateful to an institution that made us not separatists, but Quebeckers.

• 0925

Mr. Robert Pilon (Vice-President, Public Affairs, Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo (ADISQ)): My name is Robert Pilon and I am the vice-president of Public Affairs at ADISQ. As you know, ADISQ is the association that brings together independent producers in the areas of recordings, performances, songs, humour and variety shows in general. We bring together independent producers, as opposed to multinationals.

The situation in Quebec is perhaps a bit different because over the past 10 or 12 years, slightly more than 85% of recordings produced by Quebec artists—and the percentage is more or less the same, if not a bit higher, for shows—have been produced not by Canadian branches of multinational corporations, but by Quebec companies under Quebec control, Canadian businesses established here, in Quebec. ADISQ represents these businesses.

Mr. André Ménard (First Vice-President and Artistic Director, Équipe Spectra): André Ménard, from Équipe Spectra. Équipe Spectra is a Quebec industry group involved in the cultural industry as regards performance venues, managing artists, producing shows and recording studios.

The most visible part of our activities are international festivals, namely the International Jazz Festival in Montreal and the Francopholies de Montréal, which are both world leaders in their categories, if I may say so.

I am here in part to express the views of the group on federal policies and to share with you our concern in noting that from one year to the next the budget envelope for the Department of Canadian Heritage goes up or down, without there being any planning involved. The situation is very difficult for a group like ours, which organizes events that are not necessarily held from one year to the next, but for which planning extends over several years. There seems to be a problem at that level, and that is what we would like to cover here today.

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

Mr. Gaston Blais (Committee Researcher): Gaston Blais, committee researcher.

The Chairman: Our clerk, Mr. Norman Radford, is also present. He looks after all the logistics for the hearings, and we are particularly grateful to him. One of our colleagues, MP John Godfrey from the Toronto area, is en route and will join us shortly.

Who would like to begin? Don't be shy. Mr. Valiquette.

Mr. Gilles Valiquette: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will begin because we have a lot to say. I've decided to tackle the fifth question that you asked regarding the government's involvement in our industry.

Before I begin, I would like to point out the fact that composing a work, creating it, is a profession, a life. However, performing it is another profession. It is true that certain people in our society can do both, but they are the exception. They could be compared to people who can do both plumbing and electrical work in a house; I think we all agree that that's also an exception.

I would like to discuss our members' concerns about the Copyright Board. You must understand that when someone creates a work, his actual salary only arrives once the work is performed, in other words, at the end of the line. We see ourselves as partners to the people who are present here today.

SOCAN, which collects these royalties, cannot dictate the amount of money that will be collected at that level. As I pointed out earlier, we must appear before a government commission that determines our salary. We are currently in a practical situation that's virtually impossible.

• 0930

The Board has been without a judge since 1994. It must be understood that this Board is essentially a quasi-judicial tribunal. It no longer has a judge. It had been designed so that five members would work on this Board, but for a long time now, there are only three. Up until very recently, there was one vice-president sitting who was really familiar with copyright law. This was Mr. Hétu, who retired on January 31. For the past year and a half, we've been suggesting to Mr. Manley's team that they appoint a successor and train him or her. I did say train because the other two people who currently work on the Board may not be experts in copyright. Moreover, I must admit that francophone creators are very worried because they are not sure that these members can understand them properly in their own language.

We've witnessed many changes. Amongst other things, you talked about technological change. This is everywhere. Last year, we were very surprised when members of the Board decided to reduce our commercial television tariff, without justification, in our opinion. But the worse thing is that the rules of the game were changed.

You, the people in government, spent a great deal of time reviewing the Copyright Act; you expended efforts, did work, spent money, held numerous discussions and came to the conclusion that, amongst other things, the management of these royalties should be taken over by collectives.

On the other hand, here we have a Copyright Board which, in practice, does the exact opposite. For our commercial television tariff, the Board now allows broadcasters to negotiate directly with creators. This used to be absolutely unheard of. I must admit that the weak power of negotiation of a small musical creator faced with large companies—not to call them multinationals—is extremely worrisome. We fear that in the final analysis, our creators will be working for nothing.

It is very important that a committee like yours take a look at what's going on in this regard. You were able to put your finger on the situation at the National Arts Centre and you got involved in a positive way, in my opinion. We are counting on you to intervene. We are worried because we wonder whether we will be able to survive in the near future.

I would also like to say that Canada is home to incredible wealth. We have many creators and not just in the field of music. You have to be creative to be a good manager and direct recording companies that work properly; that is an asset that we have today. We sincerely believe that in the near future, intellectual property will have more and more value. If we do not value appropriately what we do at the outset, who else in the world will do it?

It's important to ask who the raw material will belong to in the future. That begins with very practical things such as the Copyright Board. I'm sorry for having taken a great deal of time.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Valiquette. You have raised important issues.

Mr. Rozon.

Mr. Gilbert Rozon: I've been working in this field for a little over 20 years, unfortunately. As André can tell you, 20 years ago, we generally worked as best we could in basements, where we had an aquarium, a secretary and a $10,000 credit line. Starting with that, we decided to build an industry.

I could tell you some anecdotes. Fifteen years ago, I remember seeing a Quebec artist in Paris—I won't name him—who was performing for one night at the Olympia. The hall was half full, but the front pages of our newspapers related this as an incredible event.

Last night, at the Grammy Awards, it was Canadian artists who took top billing. Last week, at the Victoires de la Musique, it was Quebeckers who were nominated for just about all the awards. Nowadays, we don't find it unusual at all to have the Cirque du Soleil perform five shows in three or four continents. We're no longer surprised to see François Girard produce a $17 million film, The Red Violin, which is a pure masterpiece, or see other film-makers travel the world with top quality productions. The same is true for humour. For song, people like Céline Dion, Alanis Morissette and our musical comedies get top billing. In theatre, we have Robert Lepage and Marleau. Television, we don't even discuss; whether it's Due South or Alliance, I don't know how many producers and Canadian productions now go around the world. We're no longer surprised about that; it's become normal.

• 0935

I think this all corresponds to a phenomenon: creation has become an important worldwide industry. The demand for content, not only because of the Internet, but also because of the explosion in networks and the increase in leisure time, means that people go out more than they used to. The circulation of ideas and concepts has become a very common thing, to such an extent that—and I'm not telling anyone here something they don't know—that from year to year, depending on the success of the aerospace industry, culture ranks first or second in exports to the U.S.. This is not an insignificant phenomenon.

Here in Canada, we have developed topnotch infrastructures, perhaps because of this dichotomy or bicultural confrontation. In television, I know of no other city in the world that's as well equipped as Montreal, both in terms of creators and broadcasting. The same is true for theatre and film, as well as all other forms of expression. In museology, we have topnotch institutions to disseminate and create products. We have a virtually incomparable number of creators in proportion to our population. There are very few large cities or countries that can lay claim to having as many creators as Montreal.

We're starting to see relatively large entrepreneurs tackling the international market. I believe that the future resides in the internationalization, in the export of our ideas. An idea can be adapted. In song, this is done regularly and in theatre, scripts can be adapted. In film, there are remakes. An idea can be adapted, can be changed, can be amended and can be modulated according to markets. And big ideas travel well.

One of the problems that confronts performing arts companies is of a dual nature. Like André, I would like to discuss first of all les industries Spectra. When you have a big idea here you want to explore it, you'd essentially like venture capital unless you take all your resources and invest them in a single project. If the project is not as successful as anticipated, you've just put the whole company in peril. We lack investment funds, venture capital. That's very different from subsidies or loans, because a loan completely ties up a company's equity, whereas subsidies are not always appropriate. However, venture capital will enable us to have sponsors that support a project or an idea.

The larger performing arts entrepreneurs in Quebec and Canada have developed great expertise in determining what is a good show or a good production, but they lack the capital to export them.

In the field of biotechnology, you see people arrive here with two-inch thick glasses to discuss AIDS research. It's very esoteric and it's not easy to find a solution and yet, their success in obtaining venture capital is very impressive. But when you arrive somewhere and say that you have been producing shows for 20 years, that you have a 90% success rate and that you need $2 million to penetrate the American market, they look at you as if you were a tightrope walker working on a single silk thread without a net. There's a serious problem in terms of venture capital.

Once again, I'd like to reiterate something André broached. When our budget was about $4 million, Heritage Canada gave us subsidies on the order of some $250,000. Nowadays, by hook or by crook, we're given $100,000 while our budget is $17 million. It's completely disconnected from the reality of major events.

Canada and Quebec in particular have developed world-class, high profile events. We don't receive support in accordance with our degree of success, but rather because of political sprinkling of goodwill. A minor or local event—and that's all very well—is included in this envelope with a major event of international calibre that is competing on a worldwide basis, that must fight against the Americans who benefit from 5 and 10 million-dollar sponsorships every time they turn around, that must fight against the French who can get subsidies on the order of 50 to 60% for a festival such as Cannes because culture and creation is important to them. For them, culture and creation are an economic vector whereas here, if a major event receives a 5, 6, 7 or 8% subsidy, people say: My God, stop begging us for money. This is a business opportunity we're offering the country, and I would hope that this would be corrected. We've been prevented from growing and becoming competitive. Our success is not encouraged. Thank you.

• 0940

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

Mr. Pilon.

Mr. Robert Pilon: I'm trying to follow the questions that are listed here. The first is about federal measures. The federal government has intervened in extremely positive ways in the music sector in the past 15 years.

There's no doubt that the SRDP, the Sound Recording Development Program in 1986 was an extremely positive measure that contributed to sustaining the development of a Canadian industry, with Canadian control, and also to support the development of production. The Copyright Act and the various amendments that were made to it, particularly Bill C-32 that created new royalties, neighbouring rights and the private copy regime, represents great progress for performing artists, musicians and producers, and the Broadcasting Act and the CRTC that results from it are also extremely important elements. Notably, the application of quotas for television and radio has had a very positive effect for our industry. There's also the role that Radio-Canada/CBC plays or should play as a showcase for music.

All that is extremely positive, but I think we are at a turning point right now. In our sector, all this was positive, but we must realize that this is an extremely young industry. In Quebec, the largest record producing company has annual sales of 4 or 5 millions dollars, and we compete directly with giants such as Sony, Warner and BMG who have sales of 4 to 5 billion dollars. In this dynamic, it's quite obvious that the SRDP, with its $9.5 million a year, is insufficient. The two can't be compared. I think that the federal government understood that for other sectors, notably television production and film production, where there are much more substantial amounts of money available. Look at the results we have today. In television particularly, we have managed to structure an industry and this industry can now occupy a significant proportion of the domestic market and play in the major leagues for exports.

In the music sector, we all rejoice in our success at the Victoires in Paris or at the Grammys, but let's have no illusions. This is the tip of the iceberg; this is a few individuals. In general, on the American market, this is supported by the multinationals.

We also have to look at the situation of the artists, be they Quebeckers or English Canadians. A group such as The Tragically Hip, that sells 500,000 recordings in Canada, is not an international success. Daniel Bélanger sells 200,000 recordings in Quebec. Those are extremely important and great artists and yet, they are not on the international market.

I agree with my colleague Gilbert that exports are important but we must not focus exclusively on the export market. We have to consolidate the domestic market. For the domestic market, in the area of music, apart from the quotas which represent an indirect protection, there is no protection. Go into any record store tomorrow morning and you will see that next to the CDs by Laurence Jalbert, CDs by Madonna are sold for the same price if not less and benefit from the support of a multinational that has sales of $5 billion a year. The playing field for this market is totally uneven and the government's intervention exists to try to correct the inequalities and the free market to some extent. The quotas are positive and they must be maintained. There was a good decision by the CRTC last year, which has been applied since Christmas. Unfortunately, the broadcasters apply it by having a more or less passive strike but can we discuss that at some other time. We'll see in a few months.

Bill C-32 is positive, but here again, we'll have to see whether there is a true Copyright Board to administer this legislation. I share the concerns of my colleague Mr. Valiquette in this regard. It's all very nice to pass legislation, but you have to have a board to manage it. We will see what kind of decisions come out of this.

The federal government is currently reevaluating the whole SRDP. For the past year, together with our colleagues from Toronto from CIRPA, an organization of independent English-Canadian producers as well as our colleagues from artists' and creators' associations, we are asking the federal government to think, perhaps for the first time, about a genuine popular music policy in Canada. This would involve assistance for production, creation, the SRDP, but also the Canada Council. We have to ask some questions.

• 0945

How come the Canada Council, at the federal level, does virtually nothing to support popular music? Are creators of popular music second-class artists compared to those in theatre or the visual arts?

The Quebec government has just given $5 million more a year for song and will increase the budget of the Quebec arts council for assistance to creators and artists to $900,000 a year. The time has come to ask some questions about the Canada Council at the federal level. On a more general level, we also have to ask questions about others.

At Radio-Canada, what was done with La Fureur is positive, but I think even more can be done. On the CBC side, there is no major program featuring singers. The showcase for singers has narrowed in television. In the private networks, there is nothing left. At Radio-Canada, La Fureur is positive, but even more can be done. So we have to think about all that.

We want the federal government to establish an integrated support policy for popular music for all the instruments it controls: subsidies, loans, venture capital that goes through the SRDP or other organizations, such as the Business Development Bank, Radio-Canada and the CRTC. We want a global policy.

With regard to new technologies, I am sure that my colleague Pierre Bertrand will discuss it at length and better than I can. Everyone knows what happens in the case of the MP3 right now; this is the issue of downloading of music. It's dramatic. We must take action.

At the World Intellectual Property Organization, a treaty was signed over two and a half years ago, and Canada is a signatory to it. It contains provisions that could significantly improve the situation by conferring on those who are entitled to do so the right to authorize or to prohibit the electronic marketing of their works or sound recordings. Canada has made a commitment to amend its legislation and it must now take action. Consultations are all well and good, but at some point, they have to end and something has to be done.

So the famous phase 2 or 3 of the amendment to the Copyright Act must take place, and it has to be done this year before any further harm is done to intellectual property and the very fabric of the industry.

With regard to globalization, we can discuss this further later. Everyone is following very closely the debate on Bill C-55. The importance of this debate can never be measured. Its outcome is fundamental. Over and above it, what's at stake for the Canadian magazine publishing industry is this: If Canada gets taken on this issue—we will all suffer. If the Americans win on this issue, tomorrow they will attack support or protection measures for cinema, and the day after they will attack book publishing, and after that they will attack quotas for songs on the radio.

A number of industries are organizing an event in Toronto on March 15 to demonstrate the global support of the industry, of the arts, cultural and education communities for Bill C-55. Even broadcasters will join us, it seems, to show that it is not only magazine publishers who support the initiative of Bill C-55, but the entire cultural communications and cultural industry communities. We can discuss this further later on.

I will not take up more time for now.

The Chairman: Mr. Ménard, you asked for the floor earlier.

Mr. André Ménard: I would like to pick up on what Gilbert said about the issue of support for events. In Quebec, we have created events that are really world leaders, that are head and shoulders above similar events in the rest of the world. The problem is that the support that the government used to give us never followed the growth of these events; on the contrary, it is being reduced. Our impression is that there's a certain penalty for success. The more successful we are, the less we are encouraged, whereas reinforcement should be reversed in my opinion.

If governments hesitate to subsidize events that seem to be working well.... Earlier, we alluded to aeronautics in the United States, which is neck and neck with culture for top ranking in exports. Aeronautics in Canada—I am thinking particularly of Canadair and Pratt & Whitney in Quebec—produce quite spectacular profits; and yet, 75 p. 100 of R & D in that field is supported by government, particularly the federal government, according to what I read some time ago. It doesn't bother them to support research and development.

• 0950

To carry on with that analogy, it's not the most visible or prestigious part of events that need support, but rather their research and development. There are a great many things that go into such events. There is a great mix of events. We put on prestigious events, but we also do things that only qualify as cultural development and that are absolutely not profitable. If those events were produced by the government, it would still have to put them on because there's not only the major stars out there; there's the whole less profitable aspect which is nevertheless important for event development and for cultural development in general.

So we must be helped with events, and I'm talking as much for the Jazz Festival as the Francofolies, in my case, because there's the whole aspect of these events that involves rather large expenditures, for instance in order to arrange for travel by artists, especially if we want to network our events with others. The Jazz Festival does so; it has certain artists touring around the world. The Francofolies does it as well, with other Francofolies that take place abroad. These are things for which we must intervene, but that suppose some mutual agreement. It presupposes that we also do it for others. It's never profitable, but in the long-term it is. It keeps the event in the circuit and it allows artists to tour events to renew themselves.

In research and development, even the most profitable sectors of heavy industry are assisted up to 75 or 80 p. 100 according to what I've seen. On the other hand, that does not prevent them from continuing their normal development using their own profits.

That's what I wanted to say on the issue of intervention. Like me, Mr. Rozon will testify about the fact that again this year, cuts were announced, while we were told that there would be some improvement in public finances and so on. At the federal level, you can't talk about the issue of hospitals like in Quebec, but that regional approach really does cause harm. We get the impression that Montreal is often stuck between one level of government that takes it for granted and another that feels it is the enemy. I know we're supposed to talk about federal politics here, but I can tell you that Montreal is extremely badly served right now by this political mood.

The Chairman: Thank you. Ms. Bertrand-Venne.

Ms. Francine Bertrand-Venne: I'd like to bring this debate to another level. I'm happy to be here in the presence of great cultural institutions in Quebec, who do extraordinary promotion.

If there was to be a subsidy contest, there's no doubt that the SPACQ would be the big winner, that is the organization receiving the least assistance from the federal government. However, it represents those who create the musical contents of most of the industries present here, in whatever sector.

In one of your questions you asked: How can you be protectors of the arts? There is something that concerns me in my day-to-day work and I hope that my colleagues will hear this in the right spirit. As we provide Canadian cultural content—and here, I think I'm in a position to say that I represent those who create this cultural content—as I was able to tell my broadcast colleagues during the CRTC radio hearing last year, we turn you into cultural industries that, in the final analysis, are subject to cultural protection in international trade agreements. That's worth a lot of money. As Mr. Rozon said, if we were to let all these companies compete in the world market.... They are protected in a way because we seek to protect Canadian culture.

What concerns me in my work, is to see that government help often reinforces corporations, institutions, commercial entities, bodies corporate. So when you represent pure creation, you're reduced to wondering: Do I really feel like supporting this industry, because I don't feel like I'm a stakeholder? You'd love to be in the business with your colleagues, but they often act like Americans towards us and we finally figure: You won't get it, your cultural exception, because at the end of the day the Americans can always say that you are managing your business and your relationship with the creators in the same way as the Americans.

What I am saying is important for the question of intellectual property. We'd like to be real partners, but what too often happens is that our relations and our ratios are disproportionate. In the audiovisual field, it's a daily fight. For records, we get along better with our provincial record producers because they recognized long ago how important it is to commercialize Quebec creators and there's a more intimate relationship, but that's not always the case for other industries.

• 0955

I'd heartily like to support those who are here, but I'd also like to remind them and to remind you that Canadian and Quebec absolutely must show maximum presence during those events. I'm not saying it's exclusively that, but we should always be working towards that.

I'm worried about the role of government as a protector of the arts. I was at the Canadian Conference of the Arts to help establish the 21st century policies. We shouldn't tell ourselves that we're protecting an institution like a museum if, amongst our concerns, we do not include the one who creates this art and who's also a Canadian citizen.

I'd like us to think about that. This aid must support Canadian creators. They should at least be stakeholders. Showcasing and promoting are absolutely essential. No one denies that. The major events have been proof of the pudding and they have done a lot of good. I'm not here to tell them they don't deserve to be helped, quite the contrary, but I'd like us to try to associate Canadian culture creators to that.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Pierre-Marc Johnson.

Mr. Pierre-Marc Johnson: I'd like to add a few comments to what the lady has just said.

Cultural creation and production are first and foremost done by individuals. I'm deeply convinced that there is no creation of cultural productions without people, whether authors, composers, dancers, painters or performers. The force behind creation is the people. That's why the community and the State have developed a series of means to defend creation.

The State has created institutions that are sometimes councils, like the Canada Council, or places, like museums or halls for the performing arts. The State must play an essential role to defend the specificity or, I might say, the specificities. In Canada, there are at least two. Maybe there are more, but there are at least two. I think we can all agree on that.

The creators have gotten together in associations. There are some, around this table, that are a major part of these associations which are fundamentally associations to defend their interests and who generally have one characteristic: they are non-profit organizations. These organizations, as a general rule—there are exceptions—are there to defend the interests of that community.

That said, I think that today we live in a world that goes beyond that. This world, in the context of globalization, presupposes a reevaluation of the State's role and support. Secondly, we must live with the consequences of playing by market rules. Third, we have to have a good appreciation of the position of what are called cultural industries because they exist within the framework of those markets, in a context of globalization. Here is what I mean.

Traditionally, in Canada, the government has defended a or the 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.

• 1000

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.

The Chairman: Mr. Légaré.

Mr. Yves Légaré: Some have mentioned television as being the sector where we had the most success. In effect, that sector has competed with foreign works very successfully.

This success was built up thanks to the means used to intervene and ensure its vitality. We have the Broadcasting Act, the regulations on Canadian content, the Copyright Act, which has played a role, and also the creation of cultural institutions like Radio-Canada/CBC.

These measures are being challenged today by a lot of things: new technologies, the explosive new development of the audiovisual scene, globalization of markets and so on.

It's fundamental for Canada to maintain its position in favour of the cultural exception. The positions taken to date are really excellent. However, one wonders if, beyond motherhood statements, we'll be preserving our present tools. Amongst other things, Radio-Canada/CBC have undergone many budget cuts over the last years. This institution has played a role in the sector's vitality.

Can we both defend cultural exceptions and say that we must be able to assume our cultural identity and our cultural development, thus risking harming institutions that are fundamental, institutions that were set up to meet cultural imperatives, and which don't necessarily have to have commercial imperatives, but rather cultural ones?

Our concern is that instead of counting on what we already have, we'll turn a blind eye to the progress we've already made thanks to these institutions. We hope that the legislation and interventions will be adapted in light of new problems, for example that the Copyright Act be adapted to the problems posed by new technologies, and that the institutions will have enough money to be able to respond to the explosive development of the audiovisual scene and provide adequate Canadian content in a context of greater and greater demand.

The Chairman: Mr. Dancyger and Ms. Lafleur. I think Mr. Pierre-Marc Johnson has issued a major challenge. He said that we'd have to come off the defensive and go on the offensive to adapt to this new world. Do we agree with that? Mr. Légaré, you were mainly supposed to look at the present elements that we must adapt to this new world.

Mr. Yves Légaré: You don't necessarily have to aim to increase the circulation of cultural products, but we still should build on what we already have and not throw out the baby with the bath water.

The Chairman: Fine.

Mr. Robert Pilon: I'd have different things to say about Mr. Johnson's intervention.

The Chairman: Let Mr. Dancyger and Ms. Lafleur say their piece and I'll give you the floor then. It will take you about ten minutes? I promise I'll give you an opportunity to reply.

Mr. Alain Dancyger: Before answering on that issue, I'd like to say a few words on the problems of we call Canada's major cultural institutions, like the Montreal Symphony Orchestra, Canada's National Ballet, les Grands ballets canadiens and so on.

I'd like to point out that we're in a rather critical situation in many respects and I'd like to suggest several focuses for reflection or priorities that deserved to be examined in more detail.

• 1005

First, before talking about these priorities, I'd like to use our case as a case in point structure wise. Les Grands ballets canadiens, at the federal level, are dependents of three departments. We're a dependent of the Canada Council for our basic funding. To answer your first question, giving us funding over three years is certainly one of the best initiatives. So we're asked for three-year plans because that's our reality.

The second department we deal with is the Department of Foreign Affairs for our tours. In the area of dance, as well as music, with the symphony orchestras, that's about 50% of our activity. Let's take the case of les Grands ballets canadiens. It could be decided that the USA and Europe are the two main markets where we should invest for the long term. On the other hand, Foreign Affairs will tell us, for example, that it's India and China that are the Canadian government's priorities. What commonality, then, is there between our reality and our product, which is competitive, that we develop and invest in, and priorities that have more to do with politics or diplomacy?

The third department, of course, is Canadian Heritage which, to all practical intents and purposes, is obsolete because the famous Cultural Initiatives Program has no budget. So these programs do exist but they're virtual because there's no budgetary envelope. I don't see why you'd bother having a program without any money. So I'd say that we have a problem there.

So that's one of our priorities. Isn't it logical to think that the major cultural organizations should plan for the long term? I'm now signing contracts for the year 2001, not only for guest companies that I'm bringing to Montreal, but also for tours that I'm looking forward to on those two priority markets. Wouldn't it be conceivable or rather logical to think that we could depend mainly on a single organization and that you could then have a system for sharing out the priorities and responsibilities within the federal system? I'm sure that the different departments talk to one another, but I think it would be preferable to have only one structure in charge of that.

My priorities and those of my colleagues are fivefold. First, you have funding. We have very clear cases, specially here, in Montreal, of organizations that are suffering. Without going into the details of the hows and whys, I'd say it's clear that our basic subsidy, which is the biggest subsidy we get, comes from the Canada Council. However, the Canada Council has decided that management is only 10% of its criteria. Management is thus weighted for only 10%. On the other hand, the organization probably spends 90% of its time on funding. There again, there's a problem where our reality and established criteria clash. Whenever you have a funding problem you're saying, at some point, that there are going to be cuts and that's where there's an impact on the artistic product.

The second aspect, and it's very crucial, lies in the distribution. It is known that tours, whether in the country or internationally, are the mainstay of the performing arts, especially for dancing. However, as I've mentioned, we depend on Foreign Affairs. I think that should be reviewed because there's not only a problem with funding, but also a problem with the terms and conditions. We have to develop long term markets, decide on directions and make financial commitments whereas Foreign Affairs often has a very short term view; on top of that, its funding is inadequate compared to market needs.

The third priority is developing an audience. You should know that most cultural organizations like ours have some costs that cannot be cut. We have collective agreements that ensure adequate working conditions for our artists. We give our shows in places where costs cannot be reduced. In our case, it's the Place des arts.

• 1010

We also do audience development by giving a certain priority to some market segments, especially youth and cultural communities. In Montreal, that's probably the future for the next 10 years.

The fourth aspect is human resources. I think we must recognize the lack of qualified resources especially in some vital areas like audience development.

The fifth priority is encouraging organizations to get together to develop the discipline needed and show more efficiency with audience development.

The Chairman: Thank you. Madame Lafleur, could I beg for your indulgence? Mr. Pilon must leave at 10:15 and I'll give him the opportunity to be heard if you don't mind.

Mr. Pilon.

Mr. Robert Pilon: I'm a member of the SAGIT, the sectorial advisory group on international trade and culture, an advisory organization for the Minister of International Trade, Mr. Marchi, made up of some 20 people from different areas in the cultural and communications sector. It took us two years of extremely arduous debate—without revealing any secrets—to come up with a report that was made public last week. I was talking about it with a colleague from SOCAN who was quite right in pointing out to me that the report was full of contradictory wording. That's not surprising. That's what the debate is all about.

In the report, you'll find a sentence that says: Yes, but with the new technology everything is changed and we probably can't do anything in terms of cultural policy anymore. Three pages further on, you'll find another sentence, that I wrote, and that reads: With the new technology, it is more important than ever to maintain adequate cultural policies.

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. That's an illusion that does not take into account an extremely simple thing I raised at the very beginning of my statement. 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.

We're told that we only need be imaginative and aggressive to succeed and that we have to stop seeking protection. Well, that will lead us—and I apologize to the economists—straight to Ricardo's theories: specialization. The Portuguese have all the qualifications needed to make port. Well, let them make port and they'll sell it all around the world. Italians are great at parmesan cheese. Americans are great at movies and film because they're good at cultural industries. That will be their specialty. That's the theory of compared advantages. Things don't work that way. If you let the free market operate freely, that's how it's going to work itself out.

I started studying Spanish lately, and old dream of mine. I'm good enough now to start reading a novel in Spanish and I'm finding immense pleasure in discovering a whole field of absolutely extraordinary culture both in the cinema and in literature. Some things that were more theoretical for me before are becoming more concrete.

There are a certain number of products which, in any case, no matter what governments may do, will become huge on an international scale: Garcia Marquez in literature, Céline Dion in pop music, and so forth. We're happy about that. It's extraordinary.

• 1015

But behind all that, how many Colombian writers are there, besides Garcia Marquez, who are important in the field of literature in Columbia? How many singers are there who are important for Canadian and Quebec culture and who will never have Céline Dion's success at exporting?

Should our policies be established solely for a few major stars and should we say that our goal is to have international stars on the world stage? Is our goal to respond to the American model through an American counter-model or is it to say that Canadian citizens have a right to have access to what their creators create and to what their producers produce? Can we get organized to bring this into being, to make room for our own productions inside our own country? The Portuguese can do the same in their country.

All the better if there are maximum exchanges, but let's be careful: we shouldn't confuse the exchanges that should exist... I'd be happy to hear Brazilian popular music over the radio. I might even give up a point or two of quota for that, but that's not what I'm going to hear if we give up quota points. I'll be hearing even more Madonna and I say that even though I'm personally one of Madonna's great fans. We'll just be hearing more of the same.

As for protection, Mr. Johnson, something here flabbergasts me. In the whole area of the environment, and I think you're a great fan of that, nobody is shy when it comes to using the word "protection". Someone wants to get a new housing development underway somewhere in the Eastern Townships. All of a sudden, you discover there's a bird sanctuary. Everything stops because you have to protect the bird sanctuary. That's super important.

Is it the same thing when one wonders if there is still going to be Brazilian pop music, Portuguese literature or even Quebec or Canadian films 10 years from now? Apparently these are protectionist measures and we should stop spouting such retrograde ideas. We have to go ahead and be good. If we make good movies, they'll be bought everywhere in the world. If we come up with good songs, they'll sell everywhere in the world. It's basically flaky that protecting wild ducks and trout is all of a sudden more important than protecting and defending our culture. There's something there I have trouble understanding.

The Chairman: I think you should stay. We'd have an interesting debate.

Ms. Lafleur.

Ms. France Lafleur: First of all, I'd like to say that I totally support what Robert has just said. I'm in total agreement. I think that concerns the record industry as well as creation.

However, we have differing interests, at an industry-wide level, concerning creation. That's why, with the creation aspect, we've taken such a defensive attitude. We're losing what little we have. At this point in time, the creators are fighting not only for their salaries, but also for the survival of their collective management.

As the interests of the industry and the creative side are often different, how is it the Copyright Act, which is our legislation for both the creators and the holders of rights, falls under the joint jurisdiction of Heritage Canada and Industry Canada? To my mind, that doesn't make any sense and it seems to me imperative and primordial for Heritage Canada to claim authorship and jurisdiction of the Copyright Act, that has to do with the creative sector.

In the same line of thinking, how is it that Heritage Canada doesn't have jurisdiction over the Copyright Board while you are the ones paying that Board's bills? Industry Canada, who has authority over the Copyright Board, didn't give them a cent, last year for their expenses, while Heritage Canada invested $100,000. We also hear that Heritage Canada is going to have to invest $200,000 this year while Industry Canada won't be paying out a penny.

How is it that the Copyright Board's mandate was broadened after the passage of C-32—now there are neighbouring rights and private copy—but that the size of the Board itself was reduced? For private copy, there's only one Board member who doesn't speak French. So we can't even go and testify before the Board. It's ridiculous for Heritage Canada not to have jurisdiction over the Copyright Board when it's paying its bills, as we are through our taxes, while Industry Canada doesn't do anything and doesn't provide any money. We'd like Heritage Canada to regain authority and control of the legislation and the Board. That would only be fair and equitable.

In another connection, concerning protection, the CRTC has done a lot for Canadian content. That has helped the industry and the creators because now you can hear what our creators have produced.

• 1020

With the new technologies and the new media, it also seems imperative to me that the CRTC control and regulate Canadian and Quebec content at the media level. The SOCAN tabled a brief and appeared before the CRTC two weeks ago and we're appearing before the Senate next week. I think you should also push to have the CRTC regulate Internet content and new technologies. Thank you.

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

Mr. Johnson.

Mr. Pierre-Marc Johnson: My microphone seemed to not be working very well when I started off before. Otherwise, Mr. Pilon would not have caricatured my position has he did.

In Canada, there's a cultural defence industry funded, in good part, by the Secretary over the last 50 years and that's normal. There are 250 million Americans south of us. There were 20 to 25 million people here. There was a need to defend ourselves. We did it with the railroads during the last century. We did it for culture during the second part of the 20th century and we'll continue doing so. That's not the question.

The question is that while we're defending Canada's specificities, in the rest of the world there's something happening called 200 television channels my kids can access, that's called Internet and where there's no State control possible over the contents. Only China is trying to do that. That's a reality we can't ignore.

What I am saying is that in Canada, in the cultural field, we are not used to dealing with this reality of the openness and permeability of borders. We don't have this tradition. We are very well adapted to this reality in the field of manufacturing. When almost 40% of the GDP is created by exports, as is the case with Canada, we have obviously developed a foreign and industrial policy based on the idea of an international position.

In the field of culture, we have not done this historically, and I suggest that we have to. We cannot ignore these realities, and these realities do not operate only in one direction. The issue is not only the domestic penetration of our GDP. We also have to develop vehicles to carry our culture abroad. This is what I'm saying. The issue is to know why we are doing it and how.

In my opinion, there are three objectives. There may be others, but I see three.

First, we have to promote the distribution abroad of certain aspects of our culture that are unique to us because we are excellent or highly involved in those fields. We have our Vinicius de Moraes in Quebec and in Canada, to echo what you said about Brazilian or Latin American interests, Mr. Pilon.

Second, we have to promote the ability of our stakeholders to have a specific weight, for economic, financial as well as cultural reasons. Why? Because in this free-trade world in which we are living and in which we will continue to find ourselves, culture is not isolated. In spite of the cultural exception, which I support and agree with, we have to give ourselves the infrastructure and ability to operate in a market framework based upon a certain number of cultural products.

Having said that, it doesn't apply to everything. I am not sure that it applies to ballet, for example, which will always be somewhat subject to the vagaries of co-operation and will always be somewhat at the service of Canada's cultural policy abroad. It is more applicable to songs and instrumental music. It is much more applicable to video and, in some cases, to film.

If we accept the premise that we have to deal with the permeability of borders and that there is a two-way flow, we have to give ourselves the means. These means include subsidies and taxation, and there is also the matter of genuine recognition of those who are making efforts in this regard.

• 1025

The whole system is essentially focused on defensive measures, and I recognize it is important, but if we don't look after the rest, we are going to find ourselves with a great big gap. Why? Because when my children will zap through the 200 television stations available, they will see nothing that reflects their reality if we don't make a certain effort. I think that this is essential.

Mr. Robert Pilon: Allow me to make a brief comment. I don't think that it is true, Mr. Johnson, that nothing has ever been done to develop exports. Look at what the federal government has done for television in the past 10 years. Today, there are players of international calibre: Lantos, Alliance, CINAR, Coscient and others. So it is untrue to say that the Canadian policy is basically defensive. It has also been active. It has helped to develop businesses that could be strong on the domestic market and, consequently, become players internationally. I don't think that it is as black and white as you are saying. This is my problem with what you were saying, even though, I admit, I may have deliberately exaggerated.

On the issue of permeability and the 200 channels, something concerns me. I am a great fan of openness, but I do not want to become blinded. If openness means that 198 of the 200 channels will be American channels, this is not what we're after. It is true that we want our productions to be seen abroad. We cannot be unrealistic and want our products to be seen abroad without opening the door to foreign products. I have no problem with being more present in the Italian market, the Korean market, the Chinese market, the American market, and in all markets, nor with the fact that, in return, we will have to make deals. Look at the film co-production agreements. They are interesting because the deals work both ways. In countries that have quotas, Canadian co-productions can be included in the quota of a foreign country, and vice versa. I think that's good. We may have to work on these kinds of things: opening the market creatively. Without certain parameters and policies, we will simply open the market to American invasion. I am a great fan of American cultural productions in all areas. But I would also like to see Italian, Brazilian, Portuguese and others, and why not Chinese. I don't speak Chinese, but I am familiar with Chinese films, and I like them a lot. This is what we have to find. We have to avoid excessive purity in these things.

The Chairman: After having listened to Mr. Johnson and Mr. Pilon, I think that they do have points in common. I think that you are both saying that we cannot promote one at the expense of the other. They have to work together.

[English]

Mr. Andy Nulman: Thank you. We're getting near the end, and one of the problems with speaking near the end of these sessions is that you find that the brilliant points you were going to make earlier on have been made by others—at least, that's my excuse.

One thing I see here around the table, and I may be wrong but not by far, is that I'm the youngest guy at this table. Am I not? I think I am perhaps the youngest, but not by far—

Mr. Pierre-Marc Johnson: The youngest man.

Mr. Andy Nulman: I'm the youngest man at this table, but I'm still old. The point is that I may be the youngest guy here but I'm still old; and I think this is a problem because one of the questions here was about the changing demographics.

I think there's going to be an establishment shift, and this establishment shift is coming a lot faster than many of us realize. We can put in at this point in time any protectionist measure we want—and I'm not against these—but the market, as Pierre-Marc was saying, and not just necessarily the market forces but the youth, will find a way around it. MP3, which Mr. Pilon was talking about before, is really not just a new technology. It's a protest. I find MP3 a protest. I have basically been at the Web site, but to me it's a whole lot easier to go into a store and buy a CD than it is to download something onto a disc and carry it and play it on a computer, although for my kids it's very different. To them MP3 is not just new technology but it's a protest, and my kids are the ones who are going to be leading in the future.

• 1030

New technology equals new rules, new rules equal new rulemakers, and new rulemakers equal new leaders. I just read an article in Shift magazine—a Canadian magazine, I may add, for the benefit of this commission. Shift magazine had an article about a 14-year-old whiz kid, I guess you would call him, who is wiring Jamaica. This is the kid, the man, I guess we can call him now, because he is in charge of basically wiring up the whole island of Jamaica. So when I say new leaders, new technology and new rules, it's coming closer than we think.

So what I hope is that these new leaders find a way to make Canada cool, hip, to position it worldwide, and—to use a term that perhaps is more familiar to Madame Tremblay—to really establish Canada as a distinct society worldwide, and not just for export but for locals as well. I'm going to get into this after very quickly; but Gilbert talked about exporting and so did Pierre-Marc, and I think it's important to find a way to make a living in Canada, as Canadians, with our Canadian culture. We have to find a way to support our own in artists, TV, film, etc.

I find it unacceptable to be the world's farm team. As nice as it is for everybody last night winning all these Grammy Awards, we are the world's farm team. We are positioning performers to go out and be sucked up by the American international machine. To me, the Tragically Hip selling 500,000 albums in Canada is a statistic that is equally, if not more, important than Alanis Morissette or Céline Dion selling 25 million albums worldwide. Those 500,000 albums sold in Canada by a Canadian group, to me, is a very important and meaningful statistic.

I worry about people like Alanis and Céline. I don't know if they even have residences here any more because of tax situations, but these are people who have been sucked up by the international machine. They'll be doing films, they'll be doing all types of soundtracks, different work, but how much of this is going to roll back to us?

The same thing happens to our Canadians comedians on Just for Laughs. These are people who use the festival as a springboard, then they get signed up by American studios, American television shows. Look at what we paid Jim Carey. Nine years ago, we paid him $2,000 a week to perform here. These days, Jim Carey won't even sneeze for $2,000. He makes $20 million a film. So this is what happens, and we are the springboards for them to go into the world.

How do we keep these people here? I hate to think that the same thing will happen to our arts and culture business that happened to the commodity business, our forests, our mines, where they'll raze our creative forest, they'll strip our creative mines, and Canada will be left as some sort of artistic sinkhole. I don't want to see that happening.

Gilbert talked about exports. I want to speak a touch about importing, not just the importing of tourists but the importance of Canadian culture to locals. There are five arts and cultural events in Canada right now—I don't want to really name them, but there are five off the top of my head—that are of international importance. We talk all the time about its role in the world of culture, but sometimes we overlook its importance locally. I speak about the jazz, I speak about Just for Laughs, I think about Stratford, just to name three. These are events that bring in tourists, and more importantly, they please Canadians, they please Quebeckers. I hate to be overtly political here, but they please voters. I think it's important to make sure we take care of those in our own locale.

Sometimes we put the cart before the horse; we work it a little bit ass-backwards. I'll give you an example of the OCTGM, Office des congrès et du tourisme du Grand-Montréal. They put out a campaign a few years ago called The City of Festivals; they positioned Montreal as a city of festivals, which we were thrilled about. They put in I think $8 million to promote this, to have people come to Montreal for the City of Festivals. This is the city of festivals. But guess how much we got to produce and promote it? There was $8 million, and we got zero to produce. So it's kind of silly. It's like producing these huge ad campaigns for a product that I wouldn't say doesn't necessarily exist, but you're really going ahead and building all this hype, and then suddenly we're there asking what is coming our way.

When I say we need constant support—Gilbert mentioned this earlier, so did André—I don't think anybody around the table disagrees. When we say we need constant support, it's not just for others. We have to support these events, artists, all Canadian culture, not just for the world but for us.

That's it.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Nulman. Well said.

Next is Ms. Bean.

I remind everyone that it's 10.45 a.m., so perhaps we could be concise so that everyone who hasn't been heard gets a chance.

• 1035

Ms. Audrey Bean: Okay.

To follow on what Andy Nulman said, I think the CBC is really a vehicle where we can ourselves see our own culture. I've written a little brief—and there are copies for everyone—about some of the points that I think are important as a source of civic culture in Canada. These include public education through the forums, standards of public discourse, which are really set on the CBC, and a sense of our memory, our national and cultural memory. We see ourselves; it's like a mirror back to us, both to remember and to see ourselves currently, and a source of cohesion in a very diverse and demographically rich and culturally rich country.

[Translation]

Among the questions you asked, there was the matter of demographic diversity. I think this diversity makes it necessary to have a national public network such as the CBC. Globalization poses a serious threat to this type of institution, because it promotes private enterprise and technology, such as the Internet. It promotes a type of anonymous communication rather than the type of responsible communication undertaken by Radio-Canada and CBC.

As to the role of government, I think that it has now become fashionable to criticize public programs and government agencies. This is very disturbing and undermines institutions such as Radio-Canada.

I would like to ask the people at this round table, whether they are appearing as individuals or whether they represent associations or cultural institutions, whether Radio-Canada is important to them. Is Radio-Canada important to you in the cultural and artistic field?

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Rozon.

Mr. Gilbert Rozon: I didn't think a while ago that I was starting a debate on exports that would cause people to adopt such radical positions. I was merely talking about an instrument of funding that we are lacking, which is called venture capital. I did not talk about subsidies or impoverishing the government.

I could give you the example of the financing that Cirque du Soleil received to perform abroad from Steve Winn and his famous casinos. It didn't find the money here. We could also talk about the capital that the French invested in Starmania and Notre-Dame de Paris by Luc Plamondon. He couldn't find funding here in Quebec. So we're missing a financial instrument that is not a subsidy. There was a reliance on investors who were probably motivated by tax considerations or possibly because they realized that there was a great potential. We don't have to worry about the fellow who risked millions of dollars to produce Notre-Dame de Paris; he doesn't have to work another day for the rest of his life. It wasn't a completely foolish risk.

I am somewhat surprised by Mr. Johnson and Mr. Pilon's reports. I think that we have to defend our culture and support what is happening here, but not at the expense of our potential international market share and the possibility of our artists gaining more money and being distributed on a larger scale and becoming better known throughout the world. We are missing a financial instrument that is certainly not a subsidy.

I would like to get back to the issue of festivals that I briefly outlined a while ago. Fifteen years ago, when we started producing festivals, these were relatively domestic events. With today's means of communication, a new trend has developed. When people come to a festival, be it the Montreal International Jazz Festival, or the World Film Festival in Montreal, they come to see the best in a discipline. They are quite overwhelmed and can say: For 10 days, I have the possibility of seeing the best on earth. But this is also true for foreign producers. When we started, we never had a cent for market development. Last year, almost 1,200 decision makers descended on Montreal in private jets or first class to scout out the best talents. Walt Disney sent 40 of his agents because the star of the television series Home Improvement was an unknown comedian who was discovered here.

• 1040

There is also an international trend, and this is not solely linked to Just for Laughs. We should take advantage of this development. Andy emphasized the fact that there are five events in Canada. Be there five, three or seven, when we look abroad we are impressed by the Rio Festival or the Cannes Festival, but when there are events here of similar importance or the same international scale, it is taken for granted. I don't take that for granted.

I believe that the fact that our jazz festival is the best in its class on earth and that Just for Laughs is one of the best, is of benefit to Canadian artists and tourism. We count on such events to give Montreal a unique character and personality. This is much better than broadcasting images abroad such as those of Kahnewake. There were problems at the time. I prefer to see footage of Just for Laughs and people enjoying themselves in the streets on Entertainment Tonight and the NBC News. I prefer that to the minor problems that are sometimes shown abroad. These events are important for tourism and the economy. When we talk about culture, we're always afraid to talk about the economy. But all studies carried out by government economic agencies have shown that we pay back 10 to 15 times the amount of money they give us, without talking about revenue generated by tourists who come to Montreal to attend these events, as I mentioned a while ago.

These events are important in terms of development because they bring many journalists to Montreal and are the subject of a lot of television programming. This gives us a very positive image abroad and our artists say that this is a tool that they need to build reputations and get ahead in their field.

Through these events in Montreal, we have gradually developed a reputation for offering events free of charge. Just for Laughs spends more than $4 million in the street to provide free shows and make this a people's festival. And, don't forget, governments provide only $60,000 for this end. There is a fair gap between the two. We got busy and found sponsorship. It's difficult for me to appear here this morning without having a sign from a cigarette or lottery company. We got as much money from the private sector as we could, but you reach a point when there is nothing left to sell. Then government support becomes very important.

I shall conclude by telling a story that I sometimes mention. Seventeen years ago, we were the only comedy festival on earth. So it was easy to be first. In the space of 15 years, there have been at least 50 festivals created around the world: in Melbourne, Perth, in all the large Australian cities, in England, in Ireland, in Scotland, in Cannes, in Montreux and in large cities throughout the United States. It happened so quickly that four or five years ago we faced ferocious competition. When I met the director of the Cannes Film Festival, he told me that he received subsidies of about 52% just from the private sector. When I compare that to my contribution of about 6%, I am envious. They collect taxes in hotels and restaurants, and governments have made this part of official policy. Obviously, it's easy to envy them, we don't have this type of support.

In Aspen, Colorado, the problem is different. Time Warner, which must do 20 billion dollars' worth of business a year—I don't know the latest figures—decides that it would be a good idea to produce a festival somewhere. It invests $5 million US. It has a dozen private aircraft, that it uses to get the stars, as well as film and television networks. It can tell an artist: It would be a good idea for you to appear at our festival because, as you know, we are financing your next three films or your next television series; you also know that your personal wealth has depended on us for the last 10 years.

So, we are facing ferocious competition. Three years ago, we asked for help. André and Alain Simon were among those who sought a solution. We fought. We produced reports because we were almost dead. We were getting hammered. We had become second, third or fourth. We got funding from the city and from the Department of Regional Economic Development, not from the Department of Canadian Heritage. The Department wouldn't even hear us; Ms. Copps was not interested. In order to get funding from Regional Economic Development, we had to exercise great political pressure. All of the events in the Montreal area benefitted, and that's fine. With the modest amount of $400,000 that we received, we were able to triple our attendance and draw in twice as many people from abroad and improve the quality of our productions. All of the surveys and studies showed that the public believed that our festival was much improved. Furthermore, we generated additional income for the economy. So I say yes to venture capital. There is a great need at the "macro" level. As for out little festival, which is a world-class festival and is trying to continue breaking into the world market, and which faces global competition, it needs greater support. The government will reap many times what it invests. Thank you.

• 1045

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Rozon.

Mr. Ménard.

Mr. André Ménard: I would like to respond to Ms. Bean's question on the CBC. Yes, the CBC is very important. We are always distressed to see that the CBC's scope and funding are being reduced year after year. In view of the rigidity of private radio programs, it is absolutely essential that the CBC remain strong, and that there be at least one radio broadcaster, either the CBC—I won't talk about television, because that's another issue—that remains strong, with a real antenna, a real ability to broadcast, which is not the case of community radio stations, and that the content reflect who we are. There are many Quebec writer-composers that we would never hear without Radio-Canada. It is generally said that it is a struggle to have French-language songs broadcast on private radio. That is true. This has never been the case at Radio-Canada. It is constantly fighting for its survival, and that has created a lot of difficulties and diminished its ability to produce. At the present time, it is reduced to meeting the payroll and playing recordings.

In the past, Radio-Canada produced many shows and concerts in conjunction with its partners. But that has disappeared. Radio-Canada must reassume its leadership in this area. Things are very different now from the good old days, 15 or 20 years ago, where we could take a feed and produce concerts with Radio-Canada. It was always quite flexible in that regard, but that is no longer the case. All it has left are employees who are paid to say that they don't have a budget for that. It's rather distressing.

[English]

The Chairman: Ms. Mermelstein.

Ms. Judith Mermelstein: Forgive me, I'm going to start this in English.

The first and most important point I can make here is that we have to make a distinction between cultural industries and cultural products. Often what happens is that we get muddled, especially where we're dealing with an artistic domain that is also a business domain. The decisions that are being made under globalization are business decisions. The decisions to launch oneself in the international market, to build up a local festival, or to conduct a ballet tour across the country are part of both aspects.

The basic culture of the country depends on things such as the artists, the creators. The budgets for both of the outlets that exist for them, the CBC and the film board, have been cut back very badly.

I remember that back in the 1960s—I'm not sure whether it was 1963 or 1965—there was a royal commission on the arts in Canada, which published a great big report. At that time the average income of artists, including writers, dancers, etc., was about $3,000. Here we are in 1999, and the average income of people in the arts is $12,000, which buys about the same as $3,000 did back in the 1960s.

Our artists are not benefiting from the boom in business. Our artists are losing their venues to play in, the publishers who publish their works, and their access to the created work of other artists, because they don't have the means to go and see those shows or buy those books. Canadian culture is in big trouble right now for that very reason.

• 1050

There are certain things about a culture that can never be market driven. There is no way you can create a large, lucrative international market for Canadian poems. We have fine poets here, but a really big success in that domain is to sell out an edition of 500 copies. We're not talking about something that can be financially viable on its own.

We're talking about the basic culture of the country, and that is becoming scanty as there are cutbacks in the programs in the schools that enable students to be exposed to the arts, and in the subsidies to artists, especially young artists who are at the beginning of their careers and who don't have anywhere to go, who don't have the venues, and who don't have the finances.

I'm not saying don't put money into risk capital or into cultivating export markets. But I think the essential threat to us is us. We are not valuing our culture highly enough. We are assuming that it will always be there even if we let the theatres close, the ballet companies disband, and the orchestras cut back to the point where they become chamber orchestras.

This is a very large country geographically and a very small one in terms of its people. We have as many people now as the United States had over 100 years ago. We'll never achieve their economies of scale.

The people who are behind the “let's make culture international” idea are talking about cultural product, the mass marketing of things that can be sold around the world for an increase in profit with very little increase in cost. Yes, American entertainment products are nice and they're fascinating to a lot of people, but this should not be the basis on which our culture is allowed to dissolve.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I shall try to be brief.

I would like to tell the SOCAN representatives that the Bloc Québécois is also very preoccupied about what is happening with respect to the Copyright Board. We have raised a number of questions in the House and we have even discussed the question in a subcommittee of the Committee on Canadian Heritage. We also said that we would put on our agenda as soon as we could, since we have to review bills that are before the House, two major problems in Canada: SOCAN and the CRTC.

When they were in opposition, the Liberals disagreed completely with Ms. Campbell on the creation of the Department of Canadian Heritage. They found it ridiculous that the CBC and the Copyright Board should fall under the responsibility of two departments.

When they came into power and passed the bills creating these agencies, they changed their mind, and we are living with the problems today. Obviously, it would be good to bring them back to Canadian Heritage, especially since Mr. Manley likes to help millionaires. You have read in the newspapers like me that he is getting ready to present to Cabinet a plan to bail out professional hockey teams. I'm exaggerating a little bit when I say that instead of paying our people $12,000 per year on average, give them a million dollars and then go and see Mr. Manley to tell him that you need money. That's what they are doing. There are no controls at all. Give them a million dollars US and then go to see Mr. Manley and tell him: Mr. Manley, we are an important industry that is creating many jobs in Canada; help us, please, to save them. That's the song and dance.

• 1055

It must be recognized that the cultural industry is very important in Canada. It is always distressing to note that the funding available to certain departments is being increased year after year. For example, the budget of the Department of National Defence may be increased. However, there has been no support whatsoever for anything on the cultural side. You have to understand what's happening.

The people in Eastern Canada gave us examples of what they have experienced. Some of them proposed to organize an exhibition and borrow artifacts from one of our national museums and other artifacts from Sweden. Sweden would lend them the pieces free of charge, while our museum would make them pay the costs. This is how a national institution is helping out in our regions and is promoting cultural exchanges. This rather mercenary reproach is disturbing. And the same approach is being adopted everywhere.

You said some interesting things in this regard. It is always said that a dollar invested has very beneficial spin-offs. As you have shown, if you have $400,000 more, you can manage, you can go forward and things get better and better. These are investments, and they have to be seen as such. It is unfortunate then when Mr. Martin and his government determine financial allocations that they don't see things more like that. They have money and could use it to this end.

I would like to get back to a comment that Mr. Ménard made. At my right is the former chairman of the Heritage Committee, who was the head of the committee at the time that we had a major discussion about the CBC. We decided to support keeping the CBC as an institution that would be available to all Canadians. We shall continue to support the CBC as long as it continues as a public service agency and not a federal government instrument of propaganda. It would be unacceptable that the agency change the colour of its stripes to match those of the government, and that it put Canadian flags everywhere. In fact, I would thank Radio-Canada for not having peppered the place with them here today. It would be unacceptable that the information be controlled from Ottawa and that journalists whose reports displeased the Prime Minister be relieved of their duties, etc. If things continue in this vein, it is quite obvious that the CBC would not have a role to play in Canada, that it should be privatized and that there should no longer be a public broadcaster. We have to be very clear on this point. We have a Crown Corporation as long as it is a public broadcaster and is not used for government purposes.

There is no question that CBC has faced enormous cutbacks. However, if we compare its funding with those of private chains, we can see that, including advertising revenue, it has close to a billion dollars. The CBC is therefore not penniless. If each of your undertakings had the same budget as the CBC, we would be saying different things around the table today.

The Chairman: Mr. Bertrand, I will invite you to have the last word.

Mr. Pierre Bertrand: I have listened closely to what has been said, and I don't quite know where to begin. I support a number of things that were said, especially what Ms. Mermelstein said, as this corresponds precisely with what I was going to say.

I will start by saying, as Mr. Pierre-Marc Johnson did, that culture is created by humans, by persons, and not corporations. I am a writer, composer, performer, musician, arranger, director, and also producer, as I see fit. I have been involved in almost all aspects of the world of songs. This is a trade, not an industry. Start above and beyond all with someone who writes songs, and that takes a guitar, a piano, talent, courage, determination, passion and patience. It is a person who does this, and this will always be the case.

As I have often said, we'll have to look at the income of the author, his copyright. At the present time, a new Act is being introduced in Canada, and copyright has been jointed by a new right, neighbouring rights. Traditional copyright has been based primarily on the public performance right, but there is now a reproduction right, and this is increasingly important because of new technologies and changing technology. Neighbouring rights are invested in the singer and musician as well as the producer, who is deemed to have ownership of the original recording.

• 1100

I am concerned about all of these rights because, like a number of my colleagues, the various associations that collect neighbouring rights, such as ATISTI, SOPROQ, SOGEDAM and the AFM are calling upon me. Gilles Valiquette is in quite a similar situation. They are at the centre of the maelstrom of technological changes and are making intellectual property the leading edge or key element of the new world that we have already entered.

We talked about the MP3s and the dematerialization of works. One of the problems that we're facing—people in the industry, business people or creators like those I am representing here—is that works such as songs, films and multimedia will all end up on the Internet. Anything that can be digitized will end up there. It's already begun and it's bringing about considerable change to the industry's traditional structure. We are in fact moving from the industrial revolution to the computer revolution; we are a perfect example of what is happening in this regard. It means, among other things, that there may be significant changes in the traditional retail chains. Cultural goods will be purchased directly by downloading to a home computer from another computer having large data banks that contain works in digitally encoded form.

I don't know whether it is the Department of Canadian Heritage that should study this question, but it is absolutely essential that we find a way to protect works and to ensure that the chain of rights is respected and that those who own intellectual property—those who created the works—remain the owners of the works to the greatest extent possible. The Canadian government, because of its investment clout, its economic power and its political responsibilities, has a role to play in terms of the Copyright Act, but also because of its role as regulator. It can bring balance to the power relationship between the users of works of all kinds, be they record producers, publishers or radio or television broadcasters—in short, all those who use the works of Canadian creators. What is needed is a power relationship that would allow creators to negotiate fairly with the various users of their works. We don't really have this now, because as far as cultural banks are concerned—whether we're talking about Musique Action in the case of music or Telefilm Canada in the case of film—you always have to play the intellectual property game. When loans are given or financial undertakings are signed, you have to give over ownership of the master tape as capital. This means that the performer or the creator may have his copyright or intellectual property rights taken away to pacify the cultural bank, which is then acting as a traditional bank that requires capital and financial guarantees covering the master tape.

The government should look at this issue and try to provide a more level playing field and ensure that all the players on the field are recognized as important: the creators above all, because they are really the ones who are the first link in the chain to which are attached all the others who come afterwards; the secondary creators who are the performers, who represent an important creative element, I agree; and all the others who come afterward, who are involved in production, in distribution, and in producing and promoting performances. There is a whole chain of people, but it's important to understand that creative activity is behind it all. The content of heritage, because we are talking about Canadian heritage, is first and foremost the creative act. That's what we have to protect and that's what is Canadian content created by a creator. All the rest follows logically, but in descending order of importance; at the top is the creator.

We have a good 20 years or so of experience with the cultural industries paradigm. We built up an industry, which was undoubtedly necessary, and this independent structure that we created allowed people, people in that industry, to exist in Canada and to even think of existing elsewhere, which is a very good thing. However, now it is time to think about the people who create the raw material and to give them financial assistance, through grants or other means, and to reestablish the power relationship that would allow them to create and to make a living from their occupation, which is a quite exceptional occupation. Many are called, but few are chosen. One must have talent and talent is fairly rare in this field. There is a lot in Canada, thank goodness, but we must encourage creators, we must recognize them and respect their work so that they will feel appreciated and loved in their own country.

• 1105

As for whether it is better for us to be defensive or more proactive, the creators I represent take a neutral stand regarding technology. Whatever the latest technologies may be, the latest ways of disseminating and making their work known, their main focus remains their writing and making it accessible to the greatest number while at the same time receiving compensation for the work that they do and the use that is made of it. We take a positive view of the transformation of the industrial structure and the increasing use of Internet in the coming years. We will be able to speak to the entire planet rather than being limited to a much smaller market, as is the case here in Quebec where it is difficult to function. The Internet gives us access to a global market. We are in favour of this trend but the fundamental question remains whether we will be able to encrypt our work in order to protect intellectual property rights.

As far as the CBC is concerned, I am in full agreement with André Ménard. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, particularly the radio service, is an important institution serving the interests of creators well, making their works known and playing songs that might not be heard elsewhere. The work done by CBC Radio is important but it is also important for other radio broadcasters to be able to play the same role. Of course these broadcasters are all subject to the legislation applied by the CRTC. All the broadcasters enjoy privileges that are granted to them by the citizens of Canada. Hence, everyone should be doing the same sorts of exemplary work as that done by the CBC. We agree that the CBC must be given the economic means to pursue its mission.

In conclusion, I'd like to raise the problem of dual jurisdiction, this is the problem that must be settled. As the creators see it, a way must be found to ensure that the copyright Act comes under a department with a neutral and objective vocation. It could either be the Department of Canadian Heritage or the Department of Justice. That is a question that you must examine. The ball is in your court. It is your responsibility to settle this matter. I believe that a dual jurisdiction, particularly with an economically oriented department, is very unhealthy for the creators I represent.

Thank you.

The Chairman: I'd like to invite Mr. Mark to make a few brief concluding remarks.

[English]

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

Over the last three days Madame Tremblay and I have heard from numerous presenters on this question of culture. We certainly are at the crossroads, and this is really the opportune time to deal with not only the present, but certainly our future. What I'd like to do is to share with you some of the common themes we've encountered and heard over our last three days.

The first theme tends to be money. As you know, the federal government can't be everything to everyone. The question is always asked, “Do we need more funding, or should we just spend more wisely?” Someone raised the point that the business mall doesn't always satisfy in the end result. So perhaps we need to examine that.

There was a fair amount of criticism that the spending decisions tend to be too political. I guess that's a reality. I hope we can address that. And the lack of consultation in terms of how the decision is made and who really makes the decision is a pretty common complaint.

One thing that was emphasized was that national institutions are important and need to stay, like the CBC and the NAC. One artist said that Canadian culture is more than just language and geography. That's food for thought. Another artist in Moncton said that culture should be wealth creation. Again, that's a different perspective, other than just what Canadian culture is.

Canadian culture is changing because there's a changing mosaic of the makeup of this country. That's interesting. As you know, Hedy Fry says she believes in the stir-fry model of multiculturalism, versus the melting pot model of the United States.

• 1110

I think it's important to look at this whole mosaic: how it impacts, how we define ourselves, what is Canadian culture. As you know, Canada has had a multicultural policy for 25 years, and it's probably time to look if we need to go down the same road or we need to refocus our emphasis.

Many of the groups stated that we lack a national cultural policy, whatever that may be. Our role is to look for answers from you, suggestions on what our role is as the federal government. Certainly with changing economic times and changing culture.... As one of the presenters from an arts council said, one of his favourite entertainers is a multicultural band. Does that mean that the definition of Canadian culture is forever changing? That's just food for thought.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

[Translation]

Are there any members of the public, who have followed our proceedings with a great deal of patience, who would now like to say something before we close this session?

I'd like to thank you for attending this meeting in such large numbers. I would particularly like to thank our panellists who've taken part in this round table. I know that it is very difficult for you to find the time to participate in this sort of activity and would like to offer my sincere thanks.

[English]

Thanks very much for coming.

[Translation]

It was very informative for us to find out about your concerns in the field. You can be sure that we will remain in contact with you. Once again thank you for coming.

The meeting is adjourned.