HERI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 16, 2000

• 1110

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I would like to call to order the meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which today is a meeting with members of the executive of the Canada Council of the Arts, le Conseil des arts du Canada.

I would like to mention to our guests that we had a request from Mr. Mark of this committee that the committee convene the Canada Council. We also have received a letter from the Minister of Canadian Heritage dated February 15, 2000, which I think it would be useful for me to read because it's very brief. She writes to me as chairman of the committee to say:

The Canada Council for the Arts has made important contributions to the cultural identity of Canada for 43 years. Artists such as Ben Heppner, Robert Lepage, Karen Kain, Veronica Tennant, Margaret Atwood, Carol Shields, Maureen Forrester, Marie-Claire Blais, Denys Arcand, Alice Munro, Atom Egoyan, Angèle Dubeau, Thomson Highway, Michael Ondaatje and Michel Tremblay have all benefited from the support of the Canada Council.

Recently, concerns have been raised regarding certain grants issued by the Canada Council. Given the arms length relationship with this agency it would be inappropriate for my department to review individual grants; however, possible process improvement is always worthy of consideration.

[Translation]

In that regard and to ensure better understanding of the important work of the Canada Council, I would appreciate the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage inviting the Canada Council so that the committee can undertake the appropriate review.

[English]

This was also mentioned in a letter by Mr. Mark.

We are very pleased to have you appear before the committee today. I'd like to salute you and the tremendous work the council does on behalf of Canadians. I think it can be said without exaggeration that it is one of the great pillars of our cultural instruments and policies. Canada Council, as stated in the minister's letter, has made possible the work of a large number of successful creators and artists in Canada, which would never have been possible if the council had not been there. So we thank you for appearing.

I would like to turn the floor over to you, Monsieur Roux and Dr. Thomson. I don't know who wants to start.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Louis Roux.

Mr. Jean-Louis Roux (Chairman, Canada Council): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Needless to say, it gives me great pleasure to appear before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage as Chairman of the Board of the Canada Council.

Had this been a joint committee, I might have been seated there among you at one time, but times change and today, I have been invited to testify before you.

Therefore, it is with great pleasure that I respond to your invitation, all the more so since this is my first appearance as Chairman of the Board of the Canada Council. I look forward to sharing with you my enthusiasm for the work of one of Canada's foremost cultural institutions, as you have just pointed out, Mr. Chairman.

Allow me first of all to present several colleagues from the Council. Of course you recognize Dr. Shirley Thomson, Director of the Canada Council, who has appeared before the committee on numerous occasions, both in her current position and as Director of the National Gallery of Canada. Also with me is Mark Watters, Secretary-Treasurer of the Board, Joanne Morrow, Director of the Arts Division, and Keith Kelly, Director of Public Affairs, Research and Communication.

In order to allow as much time as possible for questions and an exchange of views, Dr. Thomson and I will make our opening remarks brief.

• 1115

Allow me to begin by describing briefly where we are, and where we've come from. When the Canada Council was formed in 1957 in response to recommendations of the Massey-Lévesque Commission, the cultural scene in Canada was in its infancy. The NFB and CBC were mere adolescents and the lively arts and the visual arts were just beginning to come into their own.

Indeed, the Canadian Arts Council said to the Massey-Lévesque Commission in the early fifties:

No novelist, poet, short story writer, historian, biographer, or other writer [...] can make even a modestly comfortable living by selling his works in Canada. No composer of music can live at all on what Canada pays him for his compositions [...] No playwright, and only a few actors and producers, can live by working in the theater in Canada. Few painters and sculptors [...] can live by the sale of their work in Canada.

[English]

Much has changed since then and the council has been able to play an important part in the great flowering of Canadian art and culture that has marked the last 40 years. The state of the arts in Canada today is unparalleled in its strength and in its diversity.

In this first year of the new millennium, some 700,000 Canadians earned their livelihood from the arts and from cultural industries. This sizeable chunk of the Canadian population, a community approximately the size of Winnipeg, contributes some $29.5 billion to the gross domestic product. The cultural labour force continues to grow at about twice the rate of any other sector in the labour market.

The Canada Council is an important catalyst in this growth. In 1998-1999 it distributed grants totalling some $112 million. This amount includes $8 million paid to some 11,000 authors through the public lending right program. Some 5,000 individual artists and arts organizations make up the grant recipients in writing and publishing, music, dance, theatre, visual and media arts, and interdisciplinary arts. Programs include support to some 3,000 public readings across the country.

The Canada Council has, through its programs, made its way into the lives of millions of Canadians. Indeed, recent statistics show that council funding was distributed in varying amounts to artists or arts organizations in over 500 Canadian communities.

[Translation]

In response to a recent enquiry by this committee on support programs for book publishing, we reported that title production in the literary or cultural domain increased in the 10-year period 1985-1995 by 65 per cent, from 900 to almost 1,500 titles. In the same period, sales increased by 54 per cent, from 1,900 to almost 3,000. The Council's contribution to this growth is significant. One has only to look at the best-seller lists or the cultural pages of newspapers to see the names of writers who at one time or another in their careers have received help from the Council. The names include Carol Shields, Michel Tremblay, Nancy Huston and the late Anne Hébert.

• 1120

[English]

This investment in Canadian culture not only rewards artistic excellence, it gives voice to Canadian values and it does this in a world where media and culture forces of one kind or another risk narrowing our choices and hindering our creative diversity. It is in this light that I wish to congratulate the committee on the excellent report on art and culture it tabled in the House of Commons last June. A Sense of Place, A Sense of Being is a far-reaching document that ably lays out the cultural challenges we face as a nation.

[Translation]

I myself have had an opportunity to state my opinion of this remarkable report.

[English]

We appreciate the view expressed in the report that the Canada Council and other cultural agencies play an important role in the future of Canadian cultural development. I was particularly struck by the committee's comments about artists deserving the same consideration as scientists and researchers. Exploration, investigation, and innovation, whether they are scientific or artistic, are vital activities and need our support. As the report states, we all reap the benefits of that support and suffer the consequences when it is not there.

The fruits of this exploration may not always be immediately available, but on the whole, the original investment is paid off in spades. In the case of the council, the examples are legion: Atom Egoyan and David Cronenberg in film; Michael Ondaatje and Marie-Claire Blais in literature; Diana Krall and Angèle Dubeau in music.

[Translation]

To pursue the matter of support to creators a little further, it is worth pointing out that only about 4 per cent of total federal cultural spending goes to artists and the arts. The bulk of cultural spending is devoted to delivery mechanisms - broadcasting, cultural industries, new media, museums, and so forth. Without the artists, however, these delivery mechanisms would be bereft of content.

For this reason, we are extremely pleased that the government has accepted the committee's recommendation that increased funding be provided to the Canada Council to assist Canadian creators. The allocation in last month's budget of an additional $10 million will enable the Council to support more artists, including young artists, help solidify the foundations of Canada's cultural infrastructure and strengthen the nation's cultural diversity. As the Standing Committee recognized in its report to Parliament, and I quote:

We need creators [...] because they shape our cultural identity and give us our sense of who we are [...]

Creators frequently challenge the status quo and are often at the cutting edge of social change [...] [But] without their commitment and their craft our cultural industries and institutions would be dominated by foreign voices and perspectives.

[English]

The board of the Canada Council will begin examining options for the distribution of these new funds when it meets next week. It will do this within the context of our key strategic issues identified in the council's recently adopted corporate plan. These are: increased investment in the arts; dissemination and communication, including youth outreach, advocacy, and arts education; continued reform and vigilance in administrative management; and governance, which includes the bedrock principles of peer assessment and arm's length. Governance also includes accountability and ensuring that the taxpayers' investment is scrupulously and diligently administered. The board's focus on governance as a key strategic priority has the purpose of enhancing the council's effectiveness and responsibility to the public and to the government's cultural policy objectives.

• 1125

[Translation]

Our governments have shown wisdom in creating strong cultural agencies that operate independently by accountably. And equally importantly, agencies that ensure that our artists and our unique identity are supported and preserved.

Thank you for your attention, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. With your permission, I would now like to ask my colleague Dr. Thomson to speak to you about certain recent developments at the Canada Council.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Roux.

Dr. Thomson.

Dr. Shirley Thomson (Director, Canada Council): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Mr. Roux has outlined some of the key strategic issues that underpin the Canada Council's corporate plan.

[Translation]

Before I describe some of the Council's more recent programs, I would like to begin by elaborating on one of the basic principles of the Council's governance, that of peer assessment, or peer review.

[English]

As Mr. Roux stated, $112 million in public funds are distributed annually by the Canada Council to artists and art organizations. This figure, however, conceals a truly remarkable and unique feature of the council. The hidden virtue here is that this money is in fact distributed by several hundred Canadians from right across the country. Each year about 500 Canadians from all points on the compass come through the offices of the council to sit on peer review committees and recommend which artists and art organizations should qualify for grants. The council also calls upon some 200 independent peer assessors each year to provide evaluations of specific performances or works.

Peer committee members and assessors are drawn from a constantly changing pool of approximately 9,000 names. All told, there are some 120 peer assessment committees, which meet for a combined total of 430 days each year to review applications. You will have had distributed to you this morning, hot off the press, our peer assessment document, which we've been working on for the past six months.

[Translation]

Peer assessment is a bedrock principle of the Canada Council because it has stood the test of time. It is, quite simply, the fairest and most equitable system around. It is rigorous, it has stringent criteria and it brings in a wide range of experience. Who best to decide on the artistic merit of a proposal in dance or the visual arts but someone from that community - the acknowledged experts, those with relevant professional training, those with extensive knowledge of the field. The system has strong parallels with peer review in the natural sciences and humanities. Peer review is the system that best supports accountability in the distribution of public funds. It reflects the policy of cultural diversity and the principle of freedom of expression, and constitutes a real safeguard against the imposition of uniform or one-dimensional viewpoints.

[English]

The task of peer committee members is to examine the some 15,000 applications for grants received by the council annually, to establish priorities among the applications based on published criteria, and to recommend which should receive support. Peer assessors are not affiliated with the council. They are not board members, nor are they staff. Peer review thus removes the selection of grant recipients from the control of council personnel and assures the most representative and transparent use of public funds. In the end, only one in five individual requests is successful.

• 1130

Peer review is part of a broader array of democratic decision-making measures, and like any system of decision-making, it requires careful management. Safeguards we have introduced in recent years include constant rotation among assessors, ineligibility of assessors for further committee service for two years, ineligibility of grant recipients as assessors for a two-year period, and stringent conflict-of-interest rules. These policies help bolster the integrity of the system.

Canadian artistic successes of recent years are due in no small measure to this system, joined as it is in a dynamic partnership with a vibrant and dedicated artistic community and a longstanding Canadian tradition of public funding of the arts and culture.

I would like to turn now to some recent program developments that will give you an idea of the range and focus of council operations.

[Translation]

The Council announced in December the results of its fourth and final competition for the Millennium Arts Fund. The Fund, as you will recall, was created by the government in June of 1998 to support artistic projects marking the millennium. Individual professional artists and arts organizations in all artistic disciplines were given the opportunity to create works that will have a lasting and positive impact on Canadians, and enrich collections, repertoires and public places.

[English]

A total of $9.2 million was awarded to 179 projects. We were delighted with the scope and creativity of the projects submitted from major centres as well as from such far-flung places as Iqaluit in Nunavut, Hope in British Columbia, and Goose Bay in Labrador. We received an unexpected 1,820 eligible applications. Successful applicants included well-known names, such as Robert Lepage and Walter Learning, but also an encouraging number of young artists at the beginning of what I am sure will be promising careers, the Ben Heppners and Diana Kralls of tomorrow.

The millennium fund is one of 69 different arts programs at the Canada Council. It continues to underscore the risk-taking, the cultural research and development, if you wish, the innovation, and the investment in youth that characterizes council programs. These programs apply to individual artists and to arts organizations. The bulk of Canada Council funding, some 80%, goes to arts organizations—museums, art galleries, orchestras, theatres, and publishers—such as the Vancouver Playhouse, the Edmonton Symphony Orchestra, the Glenbow-Alberta Institute, the Royal Winnipeg Ballet, the Art Gallery of Ontario, Les Éditions Boréal, the Saidye Bronfman Art Gallery, le Théâtre du Nouveau Monde, Musée du Québec, Le Théâtre “Les gens d'en bas”, Théâtre du Bic, Goose Lane Editions in Fredericton, and the Neptune Theatre, to name but a few.

Another new council initiative worth highlighting is the first ever Governor General's awards in visual and media arts. This is the result of a close collaboration between Rideau Hall and the council. Six $10,000 prizes for career achievement and one $10,000 prize for exceptional volunteerism will be presented at Rideau Hall next Thursday, March 23. These awards complement the Canada Council's Governor General's literacy awards and the Governor General's performing arts awards. The visual arts awards are among some 100 prizes and fellowships granted annually by the Canada Council to artists and scholars for their contribution to the arts, humanities, and sciences in Canada.

Another program development worth highlighting today is the recent move of the Canada Council's art bank to new headquarters in Ottawa. The move drastically reduces the bank's rental cost, from over $1 million to $460,000 per year. This will bring the art bank to a break-even position in the coming fiscal year.

• 1135

The bank, as members know, rents contemporary Canadian works of art to both public and private sector clients. Approximately one-third of its collection of 18,000 paintings, prints, photographs, and sculptures is on public display. The bank has surpassed its revenue target of $1.1 million for this fiscal year, reflecting the renewed emphasis being placed on management and marketing.

[Translation]

I would also like to report on last November's Governor General's Literary Awards. These awards have been celebrating excellence in English and French-language writing in Canada for over 60 years. We are pleased that the Bank of Montreal continues to be the major sponsor of the awards after 13 years. One of the interesting themes that emerged from the 1999 award ceremonies was the importance of supporting the arts. As the English fiction winner, the later Matt Cohen said:

We are reminded that books play a special role in our culture, and what happens between a good book and an open reader is one of the most rewarding moments our civilization has to offer. The same can be said for all the arts.

[English]

Rachna Gilmore, winner of the children's literature category, said at the Governor General's award ceremonies:

As we near a new millennium, it seems that our culture, so rich in creative talent, is hurtling along a trajectory that devalues the arts.... In such a climate, the work of the Canada Council and [other] art-supporting organizations is more vital than ever.

This theme of the value and fragility of culture has echoes in many quarters these days. As the Minister of Canadian Heritage said at a UNESCO meeting last year:

Cultural diversity enriches the world. For Canada, it is central to our identity.... It is as important for human beings as biodiversity is for all species on the planet.... Cultural diversity enhances the quality of human achievements.... [It] is a source of wealth for humankind in creative, intellectual, economic, social and spiritual pursuits.

The objective of promoting and enhancing Canada's cultural diversity is central to the work of the Canada Council. It has also been the focus of efforts at the international level. Along with members of the Canadian Commission for UNESCO, which is a division of the Canada Council, one of our board members took part in last fall's UNESCO general conference. The Canadian delegation there was successful in having a Canadian resolution on cultural diversity passed by the UN body.

[Translation]

The resolution strengthens UNESCO's role in the on-going international debate on issues of globalization and its impact on the integrity of national cultures. The recent spate of mergers in the communications industries and the increasingly porous nature of national borders raise important issues for public policy. These developments suggest that the kind of support the Canada Council and other cultural agencies provide to Canadians is more crucial than ever.

[English]

As part of the council's engagement with these issues, we are organizing, in close cooperation with the Department of Canadian Heritage, a world summit on arts and culture in December 2000. The objectives of the summit are to create an international network of art councils to collaborate on shared problems, such as audience development and the impact of technology on the rights of artists and creators, and to promote Canadian talent more effectively throughout the global community.

As I mentioned, we're working closely with the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Department of Foreign Affairs to make this event a success. To date, 42 countries and 18 international organizations have responded favourably to our invitation to participate.

• 1140

There are many other Canada Council initiatives and programs that I haven't had time to describe—further examples of how the council is vitally engaged with the broad Canadian community. But as my chairman, Mr. Roux, mentioned at the outset, we're anxious to continue the direct dialogue with parliamentarians that we've had with you in the past.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: I'd like to now open the floor to questions from members.

Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I'd like to welcome our delegation here this morning.

Let me begin by saying the Canada Council has been a huge asset and has done great work for this country since 1957. I don't dispute that whatsoever. The reason we're here, unfortunately, is because of the controversial grants that have been given. As members of Parliament, it's our duty to respond to concerns the public has. As you know, it is still public money.

Unfortunately, the optics have an impact. You can do nine positive things and one negative one, and obviously most people will remember the negative experience. Unfortunately maybe this is the case.

I think the good news you have brought us today, in terms of the role of the Canada Council, probably needs to be spread across this country. Canadians need to be told about the job you are doing, things that have occurred since 1957, and all the successes we have had.

My question is very short. Do you plan to improve your peer process to reduce the number of controversial grants—whoever decides whether they're controversial? Certainly the public always has the last say. You know that.

Ms. Shirley Thomson: The short answer is no. We find the peer process works very well. You are invited, Mr. Mark, to observe a jury any time you like. I'm sure you'll be impressed by the seriousness with which those experts from all disciplines and many walks of life carry out their responsibilities toward the spending of public moneys.

Like any artistic object in history, you can never determine what will be controversial. The impressionists were controversial in 1880. You could not buy a Renoir portrait because it was regarded as ugly. Today you can't buy a Renoir portrait for less than $35 million. There's a long process of artists experimenting with the new. New materials demand new methods, and new methods fling a challenge to old conventions. That's a citation out of a Group of Seven catalogue in 1922. The Group of Seven, much beloved today by almost each and every Canadian, were not so well accepted in the 1920s.

I know a lot of the projects that have attracted controversy have been due to one-line descriptions in the press—complicated projects using technology as their paint brushes and canvases. One instance is the issue of the rotting grapefruit. A young woman is experimenting with hybridity—because the grapefruit is a hybrid fruit—and mutation. She links that to the telephone because when the telephone was first introduced it was seen as an attack on public and private space. So she's trying to link a biological process—the acidic nature of the grapefruit—providing electric voltage for the small stamp computer used often in educational projects, and translating that into a language, a database.

• 1145

So in fact that project, heralded in the press as rotting grapefruit, is about hybridity, mutation, metamorphosis, the link between the biological process and the human life and technology.

Even those great computer researchers in Silicon Valley—I'm thinking of Bill Joy, who is a leading computer researcher—are now starting to wonder if the smartness of those high-tech machines being able to reproduce themselves is in fact a threat to our natural world. As an example, it's like an artist being prescient and able to use new technology as a tool in the exploration of ideas and linking it very much to what a contemporary scientist is thinking.

Mr. Inky Mark: My second question deals with accountability. This week I received a fair number of documents from Mr. Kelly. Under the arm's-length principle you state that it is the council and not the government that is accountable for its actions. Obviously the old adage is that the buck has to stop somewhere.

I've also received a considerable amount of correspondence because of the controversy of this recent time period. What I will do is read this one statement, again dealing with accountabilities, and then I wonder if you can make a comment.

First and foremost, the Canada Council is answerable to the taxpayers of Canada. It is also responsible for the chosen peers who make up the committees and as a consequence are ultimately responsible for their decisions.

Is that an accurate statement?

Ms. Shirley Thomson: I'll ask Keith Kelly to talk about the arm's-length. We're looking to refine that even more precisely than the statement that appeared in that document.

Mr. Keith Kelly (Director of Planning and Research, Canada Council of the Arts): The question was about accountability, I believe. The council is ultimately responsible for the selection of peers. The way the process works is that every grant approved by the council is reviewed by the board. The council reports on every single grant to the board. For grants over $60,000 the board must give their approval. For grants under $60,000 the council board delegates that authority to the senior management of the council. So yes, we are certainly accountable.

I'd just like to give you one context piece. In the last five years, the council has provided about 25,000 grants. We have had some controversy around 10 or 12 of those projects. I think that's pretty indicative of rigorous management.

Mr. Inky Mark: My concern is not to particular grants. I'm just talking about accountability. Do you not feel that ultimately the politician is still accountable for your actions, regardless?

Ms. Shirley Thomson: Could I just clarify that? Our line of accountability, my line of accountability and that of my senior management, is to the chair of the Canada Council and his board—our board, if you wish—appointed by the government of the day. The direct line of accountability is through our annual report and annually audited statements to the Minister of the Department of Canadian Heritage, who then presents these reports to the House.

Mr. Inky Mark: Would you not agree that where the buck stops is at the minister's desk?

Ms. Shirley Thomson: We are aware that we are spending taxpayers' money every time we look at a grant process, every single week when we have senior management meetings. I assure you that my board, the council members, are very tough managers. Since we're coming up for our budget next week when the board meets, we expect very rigorous questioning on that budget. That is a recurrent situation.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Louis Roux: May I add something to that, Mr. Chairman? As Chairman of the Canada Council, I feel a responsibility toward Canadians, through of course the minister and the representatives of the people. Therefore, as I see, my responsibility is to the people of Canada.

• 1150

The Chair: Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Chairman, Mr. Roux, Ms. Thomson, I'd like to pursue this train of thought, but not necessarily while using the same parameters as my Reform Party colleague. You talked about grants that had generated some controversy.

As I see it, creative artists, that is painters, poets, writers and even pamphleteers, are in their own unique way the guardians of people's freedom of expression. In their own unique way, they guide the development of humanity. If not for the diversity of these creative artists, we would live in a uniform world. If not for the controversy they generate, we would suffer from intellectual anemia.

After all, if we are to grow, a little controversy is important. Therefore, I'm pleased to see that the Canada Council has displayed flexibility where the artistic community is concerned so that it can venture off into unchartered waters and stir up some controversy. Other agencies that report to Parliament state clearly in their action plan that they will conform to a particular department's policy directions. Consider the CBC and Heritage Canada. Other departments and agencies find themselves in a virtual straitjacket which the government in power adjusts as it sees fit. We even have a House of Commons which, in order to stifle controversy, prevents opponents from speaking too long or from even expressing their opinions in other ways.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the Canada Council to resist all forms of political or other interference in its quest for editorial independence. The Council is right and must be allowed to continue on the same course it has charted for itself and in this, it has our support.

Would you care to comment?

Mr. Jean-Louis Roux: Except for one comment Mr. de Savoye made, I couldn't have said it better myself. As an actor and stage director, I have always believed that the role - and this may be a somewhat pretentious word, but it reflects reality - of theater and the arts in general is to raise public consciousness.

The arts do not exist to provide answers. They exist first and foremost to entertain and through entertainment, to heighten Canadians' awareness of the problems they confront every day. While they don't provide answers to these problems, they do show people ways of dealing with these problems in their own unique way.

I agree with you completely that in order to heighten public consciousness, it's necessary at times to shake things up a little. Ultimately, this is very healthy for the public in general and for democracy as well.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Thank you, Mr. Roux.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): I have two or three short comments to make about our Reform colleague's statements.

• 1155

I think he was trying to identify who ultimately is accountable to the voters. He is right to say, or to imply, that the government, that is the elected representatives of the people, is accountable. I don't disagree with him. However, the government, the people's elected representatives, also has a responsibility to establish the Canada Council, to set its mandate, to draw up a budget and to verify that the Council is operating within established parameters.

Each year in fact, the Council's books are audited and an annual report is tabled in the House of Commons. By referring to these instruments, any Canadian can ask questions and, if a problem or discrepancy of some kind has been noted, demand that it be corrected. On that score, I agree with my Reform colleague.

However, I'm more inclined to side with Mr. de Savoye and the Chairman of the Canada Council who believe that often, the very issues that help a society to evolve are brought to the forefront by people living on the fringes and by those who have the courage to call into question traditional ways of doing things. Often, these people are members of the artistic community.

It is worth noting that those who wish to dominate a state are often at odds with artists and seek to eradicate them, the reason being, as I said, that artists have the ability to make the public see things in new and different ways and to convey new ideas to them. These ideas are what make society and mankind evolve. Mr. de Savoye and I are very much in agreement on this point.

Mr. Kelly's example is a valid one. The Canada Council has issued over 25,000 grants in five years. I challenge my colleague opposite to name twelve grants which have generated any kind of controversy. Some would even say at this time that not enough grants were awarded. Efforts must be made to achieve some balance in a society. If everything remained static, there would no longer be any growth or improvement. In this respect, the Canada Council is doing its job admirably.

I did have some questions about grants and the peer review process, but you have already answered them. I've heard certain statements and I realize that these cannot be accurate if the system you have developed is applied. It had been rumored that certain artists judged each other's work and that when they sat on a selection boards, they approved applications from artists serving on the same board and helped each other out this way.

However, based on the rules that you have outlined to us this morning and that I have read, this isn't the way things are done. Am I right?

Ms. Shirley Thomson: Absolutely right.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I'm satisfied, Mr. Chairman.

I have one final comment about something Ms. Thomson said. She recalled that when the telephone was invented, people looked upon this as an invasion of privacy. I think she was quite right in saying that.

Ms. Shirley Thomson: It was an artist who said that, not me.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: The situation is even worse today, what with people carrying around personal cell phones.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: To prove your point, I believe we're going to hear a cell phone ring in the next minute.

[English]

Mr. Shepherd.

Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): I'm just interested in following where Mr. Mark started off.

I had the pleasure—or the displeasure, I guess—of driving along in my car one day and hearing him on CFRB sort of running through all of these projects here. I have a list of them—Bubbles galore and so forth and so on.

The question I want to ask is about the fact that people are making these sort of one-shot, one-off criticisms of what you do. How does that affect the artistic community, in your estimation? Does that actually prevent people from bringing forth their artistic impressions? Does it diminish funding for the arts in other areas of our country?

• 1200

It seems to be a very popular thing to do. I guess we've always had criticism, but we seem to be going more into talk radio where everybody knows the answer to everything in two or three lines. It goes through the mass or the broad base of people and influences politicians, obviously, because we do get comments back. Everybody believes, of course, what they hear in the two-second sound bite.

I'd just be interested to know what that's doing, from your perspective, to the artistic community.

Ms. Shirley Thomson: Let me take a first run at it and then I'll turn to my colleague, Joanne Morrow.

[Translation]

Would you agree, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: Yes.

[English]

Ms. Shirley Thomson: The artists are prescient and I think unbiddable. They will practise their art no matter the criticism. It's our job to support the artists and to support the validity of their project in terms of artistic criteria and excellence based on our peer assessment group.

So we do listen to the criticism. In some instances it's very healthy to have the debate on what is essentially a spiritual dimension. It's articulating the values of our country. And that debate can rage from all regions.

In other cases, the more conservative element of sponsorships—and I'm thinking particularly of corporations who are not on the cutting edge of say technological developments, and would want only to sponsor safe projects and safe art—might be inclined to withdraw their support. Happily, though, there are some corporations who understand the value of innovation and will not withdraw their support.

Joanne Morrow might have something to add to that issue.

Ms. Joanne Morrow (Director, Arts Division, Canada Council for the Arts): Very briefly, I think artists do find value in, or do appreciate even, the fact that people who are not artists talk about art.

I think one of the problems and challenges at Canada Council that we're always trying to address is how to bring out the importance of art in a person's life—the power of it, the value of it, what it brings to society altogether to have our artists working in a society that is free, where ideas can be expressed.

Controversy can bring discomfort to whichever person, artist or otherwise, is being criticized, but on the whole, it's better to have people talk about it than not.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Okay.

Going off on another tangent, I know the Auditor General in the past has talked about your relationship with the National Arts Centre. I'd be interested to know what that relationship is today and whether it has improved.

Ms. Shirley Thomson: We have cooperated very closely with the National Arts Centre. In fact, in their legislation it is recommended to the National Arts Centre to cooperate with the Canada Council in the promotion of the performing arts across Canada.

We have recently signed a memorandum of understanding with the National Arts Centre in which we agree to work with them in residencies. We're concerned about the National Youth Orchestra. We have art bank works in the National Arts Centre. We have a very close working relationship at all levels.

Mr. Jean-Louis Roux: Perhaps I can give you one example of the partnership we're exercising with the National Arts Centre.

Last year Théâtre français presented a series of performances called La quinzaine du théâtre en région. They invited theatre groups from all over Canada to come to Ottawa and perform their own productions. The council participated in La quinzaine du théâtre en région with a lump sum of $100,000, I think. So it's meaningful, and it gives you an example of how the council exercises its partnership with the National Arts Centre.

• 1205

Ms. Shirley Thomson: Keith might want to add something.

The Chair: Mr. Kelly.

Mr. Keith Kelly: Thanks. “Keith” is fine.

We are also in partnership with the National Arts Centre and the National Research Council in a one-day conference on creativity in the arts and sciences, to be held on June 21. The National Arts Centre is also a partner with the Canada Council for the world summit on arts and culture. We've found very practical, tangible ways to work together.

Our director is on the board of the Governor General's performing arts awards foundation, an initiative the National Arts Centre and the Canada Council work very closely on. Joanne Morrow, our director of the arts division, has been working with the foundation to implement a better adjudication procedure for the identification of performing arts awards winners.

We find ways to deepen our relationship on a very practical level all the time and we are committed to continue that process into the future.

Ms. Shirley Thomson: Could I have one more comment?

The Chair: Ms. Thomson.

Ms. Shirley Thomson: The chairman of the National Arts Centre, David Leighton, spoke to me recently, after one of the performances there, and said that he realized that the artists appearing on that stage—most of them—have benefited from a Canada Council grant. I think that if we looked at that very thoroughly we would find that the National Arts Centre performing arts have had a great deal of Canada Council backing in them over the past thirty years.

The Chair: Mr. Mark.

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

I must say that the one thing that makes these projects controversial is that they are publicly funded, like the issue of Bubbles Galore, as you know. If that project had not received public funds.... I mean, it's just another pornographic film, but because public funds were used to produce it, that's where the controversy stems from.

We must realize that for any creative projects funded on the private side, whatever they may be, almost, you won't have a public outcry, certainly not from the public officials. There is a difference, and that's why I asked that somewhere along the line there has.... I understand the problems of creativity, as we talked about previous to the meeting here. Having been a teacher, I know the problems that are always there, but how do we manage it? I guess that's the correct word. In other words, this year there's an increase in the budget, so does that mean we're going to expect the same number of so-called controversial projects?

The Chair: Ms. Thomson, do you want to answer?

Ms. Shirley Thomson: I could try to reply to that.

First of all, Bubbles Galore is not a pornographic film. It's a very interesting experimental filmmaker looking at the situation of a woman in a man's world, trying to make a buck, if you wish, on the production of pornographic films. There's a high level of irony and satire in that film. Cynthia Roberts has an excellent reputation in the film world. She has won awards throughout the world for her films. The film prior to Bubbles Galore, called The Last Supper, won a very important award at the Berlin film festival.

We have confidence in her, by placing money in her grants so that—who knows?—in five years' time, she produces a film worthy of international reputation, along the lines of François Girard with The Red Violin or Atom Egoyan and any of his films.

You're raising the question of whether or not the state should fund the arts. Arts have always needed funding, whether it has been from royalty, king, princes, aristocrats, the Vatican—I'm thinking particularly of the time of the counter-reformation, the 16th and 17th centuries, with the great blossoming of baroque architecture and baroque painting—or whether it is current state funding for the arts in Germany, France, and Italy.

The artists themselves I believe have an average income of about $13,000 a year. That is not enough to buy materials—and this is particularly grievous in the visual arts field—and produce their arts.

• 1210

Should the modern state fund the arts? It funds roads, transportation, sewers, parks. We believe that the arts are an important part of the identity of Canadians.

Mr. Inky Mark: That's not the question, though. The question is how do we manage if there is a concern, a need to manage controversial projects?

Ms. Shirley Thomson: I suppose we might have to talk to the press about that, because I think scandal sells newspapers.

Mr. Inky Mark: That's a good point.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Well, is it real or not?

Ms. Shirley Thomson: Exactly.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Louis Roux: Mr. Chairman, in response to Mr. Mark, I would say that some of the additional $10 million in grant funds will go to projects that ultimately will generate some controversy. We won't be deliberately trying to stir up controversy, but we won't be taking steps either to stop projects that are potentially controversial.

I don't think the public nature of the grants changes anything as far as the process is concerned. In my view, it would be reprehensible if the Canada Council were to institute a mechanism of some sort to block the production of works that might generate some controversy.

Briefly as well, a jury member or Canada Council member cannot predict the fate of a particular project. Once the project is approved, the artist is free to translate his concept into reality. If ultimately, the final product generates controversy, again, as I said before, I believe that's a good thing, provided of course this doesn't happen every single time.

I think that only a fraction of the projects funded fall into this category. Only twelve or twenty odd works out of the 25,000 which the Canada Council funded over the past four years were controversial.

The Chair: Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Obviously, controversy is more interesting, for the media and perhaps for us as well. However, overall, I don't think we see enough controversy, which can provide increased visibility. Controversy gets people thinking.

Between you and me, if a book is not a little controversial - consider, for example, Sortie de secours - then who's going to buy it? However, when the subject-matter is controversial, everyone wants to buy a copy because it encourages new ideas and reflection and sheds light on who we are and what we can or cannot be.

Consequently, I have no problem with works that stir up controversy. On the contrary, I view this as a positive thing. I don't think that there is enough controversy today. I think people need to take greater risks because when the day comes that the artistic community stops taking risks - and we've seen that happen in other countries and in other societies - who will step in to take their place and dare to take risks? The risk takers, that is the creators, are these ones who break new ground. I say they should continue to take risks.

Mr. Jean-Louis Roux: Thank you, Mr. de Savoye.

May I briefly remind people that history is evolving, as is mankind. For example, works such as Les Fleurs du mal and Lady Chatterley's Lover were banned when they were first released, but are now part of our global artistic and cultural heritage. That's something to consider as we ponder the minor controversies that have been generated by some of the works funded by the Canada Council.

• 1215

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: The list doesn't end there. Even today, there are people working to stop the release of certain publications. I won't go into details, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: You've touched on a very important point, Mr. Roux. If I've understood your comments, which jibe with my vision, the role of the Canada Council is to ensure, through the peer review and granting process, that core guidelines are established and applied and that grant funds are allocated in accordance with these guidelines. Once a project is approved, the artist's creative expression can cause no end of problems or controversy and that's a positive thing. That is what you said. You follow well- established guidelines and if these are adhered to, the Council is accountable to the public. Is that right?

Mr. Jean-Louis Roux: That is a very accurate description of how the Canada Council operates. Team members ensure that project applications submitted meet very specific criteria. After a project is deemed eligible for funding, they are submitted to a peer review committee for assessment.

As I said earlier, and as you pointed out, jury members have no way of predicting the outcome of a project, no more than do Council team members or members of the Canada Council Board. Following approval of the project, the artist can give free reign to his creative expression and in a small number of cases, this can lead to some measure of controversy.

The Chair: Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: May I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that you include in your response to the minister's letter a copy of the transcripts of today's meeting.

The Chair: I think that's a very good idea.

In any event, we thank you for taking the time to appear before the committee today. We appreciate it very much, because it has shed more light on the issue raised by the minister and by Mr. Mark. I hope all committee members are satisfied, as I am, with the explanations supplied. Again, thank you very much for coming.

[English]

Thank you very much for appearing before us. I think it was really very useful for the members and for all of us. Thank you.

Mr. Jean-Louis Roux: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the way you greeted us, and thank you for the way each one of the members greeted us today.

I may add as a conclusion

[Translation]

as the saying goes: enlightenment comes through discussion. I hope that our discussion this morning has shed some light on this matter.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[English]

Thank you, Dr. Thomson.

[Translation]

Can I have a moment, Mr. de Savoye, before we adjourn?

[English]

If members could be patient for just two minutes, we have discussed the question of the budget several times. Mr. Radford, who is replacing our clerk, who is sick, has prepared an updated budget to include the costs of bringing witnesses in to date. It will be different, as you will see, from the previous budget. We will just leave it with you today.

The clerk will be ready to give you all the explanations when we meet next time. Then we can discuss the budget to find out whether members will approve it and back it. So next meeting we will have a business discussion to see whether we can approve the budget or not. Thank you.

An hon. member: When will that be?

The Chair: The next meeting will be next Tuesday.

[Translation]

Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.