Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Issue No. 35 - Evidence - Meeting of December 7, 2017
OTTAWA, Thursday, December 7, 2017
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade met this day at 10:32 a.m. to study the impact and utilization of Canadian culture and arts in Canadian foreign policy and diplomacy, and other related matters.
Senator A. Raynell Andreychuk (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I’m going to call this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade to order.
Before we commence, I am Raynell Andreychuk from Saskatchewan, chair of the committee. I’m going to have the senators introduce themselves.
Senator Ataullahjan: Salma Ataullahjan, Ontario.
Senator Greene: Stephen Greene, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
Senator Massicotte: Paul Massicotte from Quebec.
Senator Dawson: Dennis Dawson from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Bovey: Patricia Bovey, Manitoba.
The Chair: The committee has been authorized by the Senate to study the impact and utilization of Canadian culture and arts in Canadian foreign policy and diplomacy, and other related matters. Under this mandate, the committee will hear today from the government officials from Canadian Heritage.
Before I turn to introduce them, we did have Global Affairs Canada yesterday, and many of the questions we placed to them they said would be better answered by Heritage Canada. We wanted you to come in any event, but we have some questions that they felt were within your competence to answer. I trust there have been some communications on those issues and we’ll be able to get the answers today.
It is my pleasure to introduce Jérôme Moisan, Director General, Strategic Policy, Planning, and Research; and Michel Sabbagh, Director, International Trade, both from Canadian Heritage. I’m not sure who is going to make an opening statement. We will then have questions. I’m sure you’re used to testifying, both in our chamber but also in the House of Commons.
Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
[Translation]
Jérôme Moisan, Director General, Strategic Policy, Planning and Research Branch, Canadian Heritage: I would like to thank the committee for inviting us. We are pleased to appear before you.
We listened attentively to the testimony of our colleagues from Global Affairs Canada yesterday. We are prepared to answer the questions that were brought to our attention.
The main objective of my observations will be to provide the committee an overview of the different tools and initiatives of the Department of Canadian Heritage that contribute to cultural diplomacy. As you are all aware, cultural diplomacy is based on the use of a country’s culture to reach important foreign audiences, including governments, individuals and communities.
Global Affairs Canada is primarily responsible for foreign and diplomatic relations. However, Canadian Heritage is responsible for fostering and promoting Canadian identity and values, cultural development, and heritage. My department has significant experience in using culture as a diplomatic tool in support of a range of objectives.
In 2016 and 2017, the Minister of Canadian Heritage undertook missions to China, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Belgium, and Mexico. The minister engaged her counterparts in dialogue on priority issues, such as promoting the diversity of cultural content in a digital age and cultural trade. These missions have fostered greater policy discussion within Canadian Heritage itself, enhanced bilateral relations and dialogue with her political counterparts, while reinforcing the image of Canada as a diverse, inclusive, progressive and innovative country.
The minister is also promoting the diversity of cultural content in the digital age in important multilateral fora, such as the World Economic Forum in Davos and UNESCO, where Canadian Heritage, for example, is responsible for Canada’s status as a party to the 2005 Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions.
During the first ever meeting of G7 culture ministers in Italy in March 2017, the minister took the opportunity to engage her counterparts on the issue of cultural content in the digital age, thus introducing a new subject to their agenda that went beyond the Italian chair’s focus on conserving cultural heritage.
Canada’s support and involvement in the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie, OIF, also reflects broader efforts to promote Canada’s image internationally. Canadian Heritage, for example, is responsible for Canada’s contribution to the TV5MONDE partnership, one of the opérateurs or operating agencies of the OIF. Canadian television programming is broadcast on TV5MONDE throughout the world. A solid partnership of over 30 years has been built between the governments of Canada, Quebec, France, Switzerland and the French-speaking community of Belgium.
The department’s portfolio organizations also support cultural diplomacy. The Arts Abroad Program at the Canada Council for the Arts, for example, supports artists, arts professionals, groups and organizations to enhance their international exposure, undertake artistic exploration or exchanges with international colleagues, and nurture new and existing art markets in a global context. Canada’s national museums undertake numerous exhibitions and international partnerships each year that serve as tools for cultural diplomacy abroad. Library and Archives Canada has signed several memoranda of understanding with foreign institutions, with a view to sharing its knowledge and expertise, and advancing Canada’s image internationally.
Canadian Heritage works very closely with Global Affairs Canada and its missions abroad to promote Canadian culture in countries around the world. For example, with the support of the mission in Oslo, the department participated in the June 2017 Arctic Arts Summit — the first of its kind — hosted by Norway. The summit brought together political officials, NGOs, artists and cultural stakeholders from around the circumpolar world to discuss shared challenges and opportunities with respect to promoting the diversity of Arctic arts and culture. Thanks to the co-operation of the Canada Council for the Arts, Canada was able to profile a number of northern indigenous artists throughout its participation at the summit.
Co-operation among Canadian Heritage, Global Affairs and the Canada Council has been formalized into a working group dedicated to advancing their collaboration on cultural diplomacy.
[English]
Creative Canada was launched last September. It presents a vision for the future of the cultural and creative industries in Canada and, through its investments, it can contribute to the country’s future cultural diplomacy efforts to project a unique image of Canada in the world. This vision invests in two important pillars related to Canadian cultural diplomacy.
First, Creative Canada is investing in Canada’s creators and their stories. This includes, for example, increased funding to the Canada Media Fund to assist the country’s creators and cultural entrepreneurs to bring their stories to life.
Under the second pillar, the government will promote the discovery and distribution of these stories at home and abroad. This initiative will support the creation of Canadian content in a digital age. It will also support entrepreneurs in achieving their international objectives so that this content is easily discovered by audiences around the world.
Fostering trade of Canadian creative content supports cultural diplomacy efforts. Beyond the economic benefits, increased international trade of the cultural industries provides greater exposure and generates interest in Canadian creative works in a range of countries abroad. The distribution of Canadian creative works abroad expands the reach of Canadian stories that share our values and identity with the world. In turn, cultural diplomacy can open the door to increased interest and demand for Canadian creative works, fostering the conditions for our creative entrepreneurs to export to foreign markets.
The government is investing an additional $125 million over five years through the Creative Export Strategy to assist Canada’s creative industries in reaching new international audiences. A new creative export fund will be launched in 2018 to help Canadian creators achieve their international business objectives.
The implementation of the Creative Export Strategy will build upon investments made since 2016, when the government made its first $35 million investment to showcase Canada’s cultural industries to the world.
[Translation]
In concrete terms, as you heard yesterday, Global Affairs and Canadian Heritage have collaborated since 2016 in supporting creative exports. At PCH, we have supported the export of Canadian creative content by way of additional funding in some of our programs. These investments have, for example, made it possible to reach new markets in francophone Africa and to add international tour dates for some of artists in the field of music. It is these investments that enable Canada to be the country of honour at the Frankfurt Book Fair in 2020 and partner country at Gamescom 2017, two major springboards for Canadian creative exports that also offer an international window for Canada, its creations and its values.
At Global Affairs Canada, on-site support has been increased by the addition of personnel and resources dedicated to supporting artists and entrepreneurs from Canada’s creative sector, at a range of missions abroad.
[English]
In the audiovisual sector, audiovisual co-production treaties allow Canadian and foreign producers to combine their creative and financial resources to develop co-productions that stimulate foreign investment, create jobs and lead to mutually beneficial cultural exchange. Canada’s co-production treaties with 55 countries have led, over the last 10 years, to 600 co-productions with total budgets close to $5 billion. While they are primarily economic instruments, co-production treaties are also valuable for enhancing diplomatic and cultural relations in addition to promoting greater access of Canadian cultural content by domestic and international audiences.
I would like to end today with two examples of the intersection between cultural diplomacy, trade and collaboration with Global Affairs Canada and Canadian Heritage portfolio organizations.
Our department is using culture to build stronger people-to-people ties between Canada and China and to advance increased trade in the creative and cultural sectors. Following the signature of a renewed Canada-China program of cultural cooperation in 2016, Minister Joly led a mission to China in January 2017. During the mission, she agreed with the Chinese minister of culture to establish a Canada-China Joint Committee on Culture. The committee will serve as a platform for high-level dialogue on issues of mutual interest related to culture, creative industries, heritage and the arts.
The inaugural meeting of the committee will be hosted by Canada in early 2018, and Minister Joly will be joined at the table by the heads of the key portfolio organizations. In addition to discussing matters related to the mandates of the two ministries responsible for culture, the meeting will provide an opportunity for discussions between representatives of the two countries’ creative industries and to create momentum for a creative industries’ trade mission to China in 2018.
Additionally, the minister led a successful mission to Mexico last month that resulted, among other things, in the creation of a creativity and cultural working group as part of the Canada-Mexico partnership. This high-level forum, with phased cooperative projects, focuses on enhancing cooperation, market development and investment for creative industries and on strengthening the creative sector’s contribution to social and economic development.
I will end there. We look forward to this committee’s report as we continue our efforts to promote Canada and its creators on the world stage. We welcome your questions and comments.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Welcome. Your presentation was very interesting. I am a big supporter of the study launched by our colleague Senator Bovey. I feel I must say that to put my question into context.
The arts and culture sector is often singled out for budget cuts. Then we have to negotiate with Treasury Board. You have to negotiate with Treasury Board.
From the beginning, you have said that the various actions taken, including missions, have fostered greater policy discussion within the Department of Canadian Heritage, have enhanced bilateral relations and dialogue with political counterparts, while strengthening Canada’s image as a diverse, inclusive, progressive and innovative country. I have noted some interesting initiatives, such as the Creative Canada program. You said that, in 2018, there will be a new fund for creative exports.
When it comes time for us to make our recommendations, we have to decide whether we should do more of what we have been doing, that is, provide more funding to do more with the funds we have, or take a different approach. My specific question is as follows. What indicators of success do you have for your cultural diplomacy programs and investments?
Mr. Moisan: Thank you for your question.
In recent years, we have developed a framework for measuring the contribution of culture to the Canadian economy. Together with Statistics Canada, we now have a satellite account on culture that allows us to quantify the contribution of cultural activities to the Canadian economy. The latest figures indicate that approximately 3 per cent of GDP and 3.5 per cent of jobs in Canada are related to culture.
That said, we are in the process of improving these initiatives in order to capture exports and trade, and to quantify the impact of some of our initiatives on cultural trade and commerce with certain countries.
In the end, we will be able to identify the impact. I will be modest because we cannot link increased trade with a country to a single initiative, as important and brilliant as it might be. We have to consider the broader context of international trade. We have developed new tools to quantify and measure this component.
As you have already heard from experts, there is a whole qualitative component — the quality of our relationships with other countries — that is very difficult to quantify and for which we are seeking other indicators, other sources of information, other than what can be quantified by statistics.
Senator Saint-Germain: You guessed my supplementary question. Am I to conclude from your last remark that there are hardly any or no qualitative indicators at this time?
Michel Sabbagh, Director, International Trade, Canadian Heritage: That is something we will have to discuss with our colleagues at Global Affairs Canada. I know they have been working for a number of years on more effectively measuring the impact of cultural diplomacy. That is still a challenge because, as Mr. Moisan said, we are talking about qualitative indicators. Nonetheless, I think this is a question for Global Affairs Canada.
Senator Dawson: I am sorry to have missed the meeting yesterday. It was not for lack of interest. I had to attend the Joint Interparliamentary Council, the JIC.
[English]
I had a JIC meeting yesterday. I’m a little bit like Senator Saint-Germain in that I’m quite interested in this subject. I actually read everything said yesterday and, since Senator Housakos is not here and he had questions that weren’t answered, because they said the people from Canadian Heritage —
[Translation]
The people from Canadian Heritage said they would answer tomorrow, which is today. One of the questions from Senator Housakos pertained to Mr. Chrétien and Team Canada. Could there be a cultural Team Canada with Mr. Trudeau? Rather than limiting it to small initiatives, we could do something on a grand scale. I understand that Ms. Joly went to China and that international efforts have been made, but I am wondering if we could achieve more by working together.
I am not blaming you for the comparison between Canada’s centennial year and the one hundred and fiftieth, but I remember 1967 as a cultural boom. We will remember 2017 for the artificial skating rink set up on Parliament Hill. If you think of the National Arts Centre and the Grand Théâtre de Québec, which are from the centennial year, the 150th will not have anything as prestigious.
An event on a grand scale would be a cultural Team Canada trip, with the minister and the prime minister. Could such an initiative be carried out jointly with Canadian Heritage and Foreign Affairs?
Mr. Sabbagh: Right now, a trade mission to China is planned for the spring of 2018, as announced by the minister this fall. That is the mission we are working on, but in the longer term, the creative export strategy includes other missions in the near future. We have certain countries on our radar, key countries, such as Mexico. We will have to examine what role the prime minister will play in those missions. We are familiar with the Team Canada model from the past. We are already working closely on these trade missions with Global Affairs Canada and other portfolio agency partners, and with some of the provinces. That is part of our plan.
[English]
Senator Dawson: Sometimes the chair will give the witnesses homework to do when they go back to their departments. I will join in your effort, Madam Chair.
As we go forward, if you want to do it discretely and not publicly, if there are things you think we should recommend — it goes beyond the mandate of Heritage Canada; it’s the country and it’s foreign affairs. If there are recommendations you think our report should have, please feel free to contact us and tell us, either publicly through the clerk or if you don’t want to embarrass your department or the Foreign Affairs department, to be sure that we have recommendations that are pertinent and that will have impact.
I’m giving them homework, too, Madam Chair. If it concerns your minister and you don’t want to admit it, I’ll meet you privately. I don’t have a problem with that.
The Chair: Should we strike that from the record?
Senator Dawson: Too late. It’s on camera.
The Chair: Is there a response?
Mr. Moisan: We’ll consider that opening.
The Chair: Could we do it from another way that may be more helpful to you? You’re in charge of a department and everyone is focusing on you as the place for culture. What we need to know from your experiences are where the gaps are, what the difficulties in delivering these programs are, and where you think there are opportunities for expansion, et cetera.
We’ll recommend to the minister or the government if we feel a need, but you are, operationally, responsible for this. Can you tell us where the impediments are?
For example, I’d like to know, is it a problem within your ministry? Is it across the board? Is it within the cultural community, because it’s so diverse and hard to manage, et cetera?
We want your experiences to help build our recommendations. We do that with other departments. I just came from Finance. We do hear from them. There are difficulties in implementing programs, et cetera, and that’s very helpful in our studies. We want the same kind of thing.
You don’t need to speak confidentially to Senator Dawson, unless you feel you want to. It’s something that I think you could and should put on the record, to be quite serious.
Mr. Moisan: Yes.
The Chair: Further questions, Senator Dawson?
Senator Dawson: It’s okay.
Senator Bovey: Thank you for your presentation. I want to ask more specific questions. As one who has worked in the field for many years, I can look back, but I’m hoping that the work of this committee can look creatively to the future. We’ve got new tools, and artists are making and presenting their art in new ways.
I do have some conflicts and I need you to help me with these conflicts. I very much appreciate the emphasis on the digital world. I’m not sure the digital world really goes beyond cultural heritage; cultural heritage is the foundation of much of what the digital world is looking at.
With that in mind, I find it interesting that I’m not seeing much activity with the virtual museums, which was a program that was started 15 or 20 years ago. In fact, the first digital exhibition internationally was between the Winnipeg Art Gallery, the Smithsonian and the national gallery in Mexico. It was a five-year program that was online for five years and it did a huge amount in developing ideas for artists to work with. I find it interesting that I’m not seeing a whole lot of those international collaborations. It may be just that my focus has been elsewhere, so I stand to be corrected.
The other thing that’s come very much to our attention that you’ll realize having read the testimony from yesterday is the major collections that are not digitized and online, such as the collection of Global Affairs. Again, this has to go back to the late 1980s. There was a huge endeavour from coast to coast to coast of putting collections online, so they were available for researchers internationally and for institutions to be available to do collaborative exhibitions internationally. What was online even 10 years ago I can’t find online anymore. I don’t believe that’s because of copyright, because copyright was ascertained before the works went online in the first place.
When we’re putting emphasis on digitization and digital platforms, I find it odd that, in many ways, we’re behind where we were in the 1990s and early 2000s.
That’s the first question. Maybe I can come back to another.
Mr. Moisan: Thank you, senator, for your question. It’s an excellent question. I don’t believe I had the time or space to speak about that in my opening remarks. I will endeavour to get you specific answers through the clerk on where we are with virtual museums.
I do know, however, that some of our national museums have gone leaps and bounds on this. I think of the national science and tech museum that actually remained open and even more popular when the doors were closed because of its presence in the virtual field, extensive digitization and extensive collaboration through their online collections.
I know as well that Library and Archives is very active in the digital world and they probably have also increased the level, but I would suggest to the committee that you may want to hear directly from Library and Archives on this as they are very much in that field and turning into that space.
We will provide you more information with specifics on what we do as a department to support museums and what’s going on with virtual museums, because I remember a lot going on in the early 2000s about digitization of collections and so on and where it’s at.
Senator Bovey: I’m interested in knowing what the department is doing in the national institutions, but some of our richest and most important collections are languishing unknown for lack of funds to digitize in all parts of the country. This is the Department of Canadian Heritage, so I would hope that as you develop programs creatively ahead that the programs really respect the cross-country.
The other thing disturbs me a little bit. I think digital imaging is fine. I love it. It’s a great way for audiences to perhaps see or hear a concert, but we know from all sorts of studies that galleries and museums are the most trusted institutions in contemporary societies because they deal with the real thing. It’s not fake things; it’s the real thing.
We also know that people who attend live art events live two years longer, cost the health system less, and get out of hospital earlier after elective surgery.
On the global stage, I find it interesting that the major research in that field has been done with little participation of Canadian institutions. I wonder where the department is now on the value of the real experience and the real object counterbalancing just the digital.
Mr. Moisan: We do have surveys in the field, specifically with the arts and performing arts, every other year, trying to assess exactly the impact of attending theatre and performing arts where we can draw some of this information from. I would be happy to give you what we’ve gotten lately. That gives us a bit of a sense.
Senator Bovey: I have all those. I mine those all the time.
The Chair: Perhaps the committee could get it.
Senator Bovey: My question is with the medical community.
Mr. Moisan: With the medical community, I’m not aware of any, but I’ll look for an answer.
Senator Bovey: There is some interesting stuff that I think will strengthen the case of what it is Canada is trying to do abroad.
The Chair: On that point, I know that you have a wealth of information on this, but if the witness could provide that material for the committee through the clerk, it would be helpful.
While I’m at it, Senator Bovey, you gave some interesting statistics on living longer, et cetera. It would be interesting if we could have those reports identified and include it.
Senator Bovey: The first of the major ones was done by Great Britain, Sweden and some doctors in New York. I’ll get it to you.
The Chair: It’s your homework.
Senator Bovey: If we’re going to be creative going forward, numbers, economic and job impacts are important, but I think there are a lot of other perhaps harder-to-measure impacts of arts and culture on the international stage, and that goes for Canadian artists as well as our audiences.
Senator Ataullahjan: I would like to know about your working relationship with Global Affairs. How closely do you work? Do you have any role in the promotion of Canadian culture in Canadian missions abroad?
Mr. Moisan: I’ll speak briefly to one element, and maybe Michel can speak about what we’re doing abroad.
We work very closely with Global Affairs and it’s a relationship with some of the colleagues you met yesterday, but also with our missions abroad.
Sometimes we get information about opportunities abroad. The best case was the Arctic Art Summit, which we got alerted to through the mission in Oslo and through the work with the mission to identify that this was a very important event to attend and then work with GAC at headquarters and managed to participate, ensure a strong Canadian presence, learn quite a bit and ensure that Canadian indigenous artists from the North were in attendance. That was a good case of collaboration. We often have those contacts with missions abroad that will draw to our attention some opportunities.
As well, sometimes we’re at the other end of the spectrum, where we know the minister is intending to go to certain missions, certain cities, and we work closely to not only ensure there are political contacts vis-à-vis the minister, but also meet with Canadian artists in those cities and cultural entrepreneurs who may be there. It’s a very close relationship.
We’re also now triangulating with the Canada Council, because they’re also very much present and important in supporting the touring artists. We make the most of the opportunity when certain artists, orchestras or theatre groups go abroad so that they get the maximum impact.
Maybe Michel can talk to you specifically about the mission fund.
Mr. Sabbagh: On the trade side, since the announcement in Budget 2016 about showcasing Canada’s cultural industries to the world that we alluded to earlier, we’ve been working closely with Global Affairs, with the Canada Council for the Arts and other portfolio organizations.
With Global Affairs, it’s about working together to identify opportunities on the ground and the relevant contacts, for example, that would be of help or relevance to artists and cultural organizations.
We also seek their support in terms of organizing trade missions and participating in major events. We talked about Canada’s participation in the Frankfurt 2020 book fair. That’s being done in close collaboration with Global Affairs, of course.
Another example over the summer is that Canada was a partner country at gamescom, one of the largest video game trade shows in the world, which was also done through great help from our embassies and consulates in Germany.
It’s a relationship that has been there for a long time. It has been renewed and strengthened over the past couple of years with the announcements that were made.
Senator Ataullahjan: Creative Canada, which was launched in September 2016, was initially a $35 million investment. How was this distributed and what criteria were used?
Mr. Sabbagh: Are you talking about the mission’s cultural fund? We can provide the specific criteria to the committee, but generally speaking, we tried to find the middle ground between the trade aspect and the cultural diplomacy aspect. We were seeking projects that advanced short-, medium- or long-term cultural or commercial opportunities for artists or cultural entrepreneurs and also contributed to cultural diplomacy and advancing foreign policy objectives and projecting Canada’s values abroad.
This year, there was a specific focus on Canada 150, as our colleagues from Global Affairs mentioned yesterday. We work together to identify those priorities that can change from year to year, both from a geographic perspective but also from a content perspective, depending on opportunities that we try to identify ahead of time.
Senator Ataullahjan: The agreement signed with Netflix, are we expecting any other agreements like that from other foreign companies?
Mr. Moisan: We don’t have any information.
Senator Ataullahjan: Maybe privately, as Senator Dawson suggested?
Mr. Moisan: Even privately, we don’t have any information on that.
The Chair: We’ve started and embarked on this study on cultural diplomacy. It’s a topic we talk about and we use the term “cultural diplomacy,” but it seems to mean different things to different people. It’s highlighted in Canada by artists and groups who want to get an international experience. On the government side, we hear that it’s a useful tool. It highlights Canada and explains Canada to the world, and that’s a benefit to Canada. It could be through trade, the political understanding of our country, to demystify Canada, to get rid of some of the myths and maybe create more of a modern look at Canada.
We’ve done bilateral studies here and found we were out of date about the country we were studying, but they were equally out of date on what Canada is. Some of those images of the cold in Canada persist.
We understand it’s a valuable tool. We’re trying to study it, so we need to capture what all that means within a federal perspective, with some focus on provincial and municipal.
For purposes of transparency and accountability, I’m not an artist, but I used to be in foreign affairs for a while so I understand some concepts of it. What I’m trying to find out is: What is happening at the federal level, from the federal government, on cultural diplomacy? You’re the pivotal point.
I have two areas. I’m not certain about your mandate and how you deal with it, and whether you’re the repository of all the funds that then go out. For example, Canada Council. Does their budget go through you or Treasury Board? There are lots of those issues, and we need to know.
When artists are given money to go overseas — I understand Global Affairs and how they get their money; that’s been explained — but when it is disseminated elsewhere, is it Treasury Board, the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Heritage that controls that? We need to know about that whole area.
Then you mentioned that you have a matrix now to judge the worth of what you’re doing. I trust you can give us that. Is that only for your department or does it go further?
I guess we need your help to understand what exactly is going on. We have other things going on. We have shows through Agriculture Canada. We display our food, capability and what we grow. There’s a lot of effort expended that way. I call that cultural activity, too. When we have a trade show, we highlight our goods, our capabilities. When we have cultural experiences, we show the kinds of food we have. We use diversity in Canada. We don’t have just one product you can identify with Canada, as we can with some other countries when there’s one food that jumps out at you. That’s all cultural activity.
We need to get, as the old phrase goes, a handle on all of this. We need to know the dollars being expended. If we could start with your department, we need to know what funds you have, what programs you have and where do we go to find that? Do we need to go to Canada Council or do we need to go to another ministry to find out where other funds are being allocated and dispensed so we can look at them?
It’s an overwhelming task if we don’t know some of the concepts. Then we can zero in on where we can maximize our effort, shed some light on it, and bring some clarity to the issues and some recommendations. We can also provide, through our televised hearings here and through our report, some of the information about what is going on. I think that is not known in this age.
Do you have websites that you combine that are coordinated between ministries?
Mr. Moisan: If I may, on your first point about Canada Council, there are a number of portfolio agencies — like the Canada Council, our national museums and the CBC — that all report to the Minister of Canadian Heritage but are independent of the department. They get funding directly through Parliament and report to Parliament through the minister.
For the Canada Council, for example, we can provide website information, but you should probably meet with them. They are completely independent. The funds don’t come through Heritage. They get funding directly from Parliament. They make independent decisions about artists and how funds are provided, especially in the area of support for international touring, which are funds that have greatly increased with this government. They are very much in that space. So I would encourage you to meet with them.
We can try to —
The Chair: On that point, you’re saying it comes from Parliament. I get that. From the budget. But which minister do they report to?
Mr. Moisan: To the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
The Chair: Do they submit their budget through the Minister of Heritage?
Mr. Moisan: Yes, but the individual decisions about which artists and what kind of art are completely independent.
The Chair: I appreciate that.
Mr. Moisan: It’s set out in the legislation that way.
There are a number of other institutions that are present abroad. I can think of our national museums and the expositions they exchange with other countries, the National Gallery of Canada. All of those get appropriation from Parliament. They report to Parliament through the minister, but they have their budget set out and they manage it on their own.
I would be happy to provide the clerk with a sense, because it’s complicated with Canadian Heritage. The minister is responsible for a department that has a set of programs, but 20-odd portfolio organizations report through her and they are very active in cultural diplomacy, some of them. We work with them, but to help the committee in its study, I would work with your clerk to provide you with an oversight and probably suggest some sources of information and portfolio agencies that are very much at the centre of supporting artists going abroad or supporting that cultural presence of Canada abroad, so you can have a fuller sense of the whole thing.
We don’t have a single website that says this is where we have a number of different places to get this information.
As for Canadian Heritage and its programming, the most important is in the area that Michel is leading with respect to promoting exports. Apart from that, we don’t have a cultural diplomacy division or program or budget. We work with partnerships with existing programs. We don’t have a single pot of money that you can point to, but that’s the way we have been working for a long time.
The Chair: You’ve said through existing programs you work with. Can we get a list of the existing programs you work with?
Mr. Moisan: Absolutely.
The Chair: And perhaps the funding attached to that?
Mr. Moisan: Very much so.
The Chair: Is there an accountability mechanism for all of those, or is it only the new program that has been put in, 2016, that involves this matrix?
Mr. Moisan: I’m not sure what you mean.
The Chair: How do you evaluate those programs? That’s really what I want to know.
Mr. Moisan: All of them are evaluated on a cyclical basis every five years, per the regulation from Treasury Board. We all look at them regularly. I would have to inquire as to how it’s done in the portfolio agencies and what the cycle is, but they all are. They all have clear criteria as to what they’re trying to achieve and that’s what they’re evaluated against.
The Chair: Who evaluates them?
Mr. Moisan: We have evaluators in all the programs that run the evaluations. All the evaluations are made public. It’s done as a regular business in departments and agencies.
The Chair: Since I mentioned Agriculture, there are all these other ministries for which, nowadays, everything is international. You could talk nationally and regionally, but now you also have to talk internationally because there are so many treaties and conventions and the world is very mobile. Businesses are interrelated and these value-added changes we’ve been studying involve a lot of the cultural industries, too.
Are we going to have to write every ministry to ask them how they’re engaged in cultural diplomacy, or if they are at all? Or is there some central way we can collect this information? I guess what I’m asking is whether anyone has done that?
Mr. Moisan: Madam Chair, you raise an interesting point in that you have presented a definition that is broad in terms of cultural diplomacy. You’ve included food and ways of thinking of our approach to technology and to everything. That’s not exactly the way we’ve looked at cultural diplomacy. We’ve looked at culture and the artists and so on. Then you would get into a very complicated matter.
We’ve lived that through the tourism strategy. Canada has a tourism strategy, and that was a question. Where does food fit into our tourism? It’s part of the image we bring. Where do a number of other things fit in?
For the purpose of the committee, I think we will need to try to encapsulate too broad a definition, because I think many departments will scratch their heads thinking that their promotion abroad of the agriculture sector is really part of cultural diplomacy.
Now, my colleagues at Foreign Affairs may think it’s part of public diplomacy, but it’s not something that we’ve worked with in the past, as far as this all-encompassing notion including food and everything else.
The Chair: I appreciate that you’re bound by the instructions and the mandates you have within your department. I was asking for your expertise and you’ve given it to us in demonstrating the fact that it may be broader for other purposes, but you have your mandate.
Mr. Moisan: Exactly.
Senator Bovey: If I could ask a couple of follow-ups, I would appreciate it. With the last question, Madam Chair, I threw this out to a group of graduate students a few years ago and they gave me the answer in half an hour. It was exciting to see how they understood the international dimension of Canadian cultural policy. It’s out there. That’s a good point.
Regarding the question about evaluations, I’m very pleased to hear that you make the program evaluations public. I’m not sure a lot of people are aware of that.
I would follow up and ask: Does the department follow up on those evaluations in terms of program development?
Mr. Moisan: Yes. It’s very much part of it. When you go back and make adjustments and when you come up with new programs, for example, you have to take into account the learnings from the previous evaluations. That’s a normal part of the process.
When we’re asked to make adjustments right away, that is standard practice within departments to proceed.
Senator Bovey: I’m just going to say that a conversation I had yesterday indicated that the Museums Assistance Program and the international component of it is one that has not been followed up on evaluations. I throw that out as a caution.
You mentioned UNESCO and I think part of international cultural policy is the sharing of expertise. Given the UNESCO agreements that countries with the expertise will help protect treasures in war-torn areas of the world, and in looking at the significant work they did with Palmyra and Egypt, I think it would be helpful for this study if you could let us know what Canada’s role has been in that component of the UNESCO agreement and Canada’s participation. I think it could be exciting, and that’s another important aspect of Canadian cultural policy abroad.
Canada is known as a country with some of the best-known singers and writers. Singers go around the world and sing, but our authors tend to write in one of the two official languages and there are programs for translation from English to French and French to English.
I wonder what we’re doing about taking the work of our internationally leading authors and having the work translated into other languages.
I had a meeting with a retiring Japanese ambassador a number of years ago. He came out to visit us and asked me to take him to a book store where he got two big boxes from the owner and filled them with two copies each of every major author he thought Canada had, from Margaret Atwood to Alice Munro to Margaret Lawrence, because at that point only one Canadian book was translated into Japanese and that, of course, was Anne of Green Gables.
He felt that Canadian literature was far above and beyond the standards of many other countries. He, in his retirement, was going to make it happen. Unfortunately, I don’t know how well he got on with the translations. I know I kept sending him books for a while.
As we talk about creative platforms, is this part of the Canadian Heritage jurisdiction, or is this something else that other countries have to pick up?
Mr. Sabbagh: In terms of book publishing specifically, I mentioned the Frankfurt Book Fair 2020. We’re working with the Canada Council for the Arts to establish a translation program specifically for this.
Senator Bovey: Into German?
Mr. Sabbagh: That’s right. We can provide details on this as the information comes up.
Generally speaking, we know that book publishers will need to enter into agreements when they exchange their rights, for example, at the Frankfurt Book Fair or at other book fairs. So, yes, that’s definitely a concern for us in terms of getting their works known and distributed in a number of countries beyond the English and French markets.
Senator Bovey: And regarding UNESCO, you can get us —
Mr. Moisan: Absolutely.
Senator Bovey: Your last answer about literature obviously opens up the whole realm of copyright, which is a discussion for another day. I know the act is being reviewed, but, Madam Chair, can I put it on our agenda that copyright will be critically important as we take a look at this arena of cultural diplomacy internationally?
The Chair: It’s certainly part of the trade agreements.
Senator Bovey: Absolutely.
The Chair: I have a few more questions, you’ll be happy to note.
You don’t think that we should broaden the cultural diplomacy as much as I was inviting you to contemplate, but you have created, as I understand, a Creative Canada Policy Framework and in there you’re to create a creative industries council, co-chaired by the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development to develop strategies to coordinate Canada’s international presence and brand. So you are going beyond your department. Can you explain where that’s at and how you intend to deliver that between the two departments?
Mr. Moisan: Madam Chair, I’m not saying it’s a bad idea, just that it’s a difficult idea.
The Chair: We’re having a good debate. Thank you.
Mr. Sabbagh: The creative industries council, as you mentioned, was announced on September 28 as part of Creative Canada. We’re working closely with our colleagues at Innovation, Science and Economic Development on the general terms, functioning and working on some ideas for membership of the council. As mentioned in the announcement, it will be co-headed by the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development.
We envision it as a tool to identify barriers to growth at home and abroad. It could be domestic policies or some features of the market in certain creative industries that we need to work on here, but also barriers faced by creative entrepreneurs as they try to enter foreign markets. There are markets that are more challenging than others for a number of reasons, and we certainly want the creative industries council to look into those questions and also perhaps to come up with some solutions that involve them as well. We’re working on that.
The Chair: The minister has identified certain countries that you are working in — Mexico, China, et cetera — how did that list come about? Why would we restrict ourselves to those countries? Is it a phasing that we’re doing, or is it where it coincides with other interests and other activities of the Canadian government?
Mr. Sabbagh: I can speak for the trade side of things. As my colleague mentioned earlier, the data series that we had on cultural exports were terminated around 2009-10; so we only have seven or eight-year-old data, and we’ve been working with Statistics Canada to bring those back to life. We will have updated export and import numbers by country and by creative industries probably by the middle of 2018. We very much look forward to that.
When you look at the top countries in terms of our exports, it’s really the U.S., France, the U.K., Germany, and then there are others, but really the bulk of our exports are concentrated in these countries.
We do know that there are countries that present some emerging opportunities that are growing, that have a middle class that’s demanding high-quality cultural content, China being one of them. That leads us to direct more attention to these markets. We also know there are particular challenges associated with those markets and that’s where we’re focusing some of our attention right now.
The Chair: You’ve tied it to trade. On Statistics Canada, we did a study on trade and the trade agreements that exist now. One of the issues that StatsCan came to the fore on was the fact that it’s very much centred on goods. So much is going on on services, and then the other was the global value chain. We aren’t trapping the real activity of our businesses, whether it’s creative industries or others, fairly. We simply get that raw data, and life is much more complicated. A recommendation was that StatsCan should change the way it gathers statistics on trade, and they, in fact, had started that and are involved.
Is that what you were referring to with Statistics Canada, to update them, to really start tracing the businesses we have now and how they move, not in the old “what comes into Canada, what goes out”? It flows in and out many times before it’s an end product.
Mr. Sabbagh: Right. The trade in cultural goods and services is more and more digital, as we know, and that creates its own measurement challenges that we’re working with Statistics Canada to improve. We were able to better capture what is imported and exported in terms of creative products and services.
As a first step, the cultural statistical account will have a module dedicated to trade, imports and exports by country and industry, but beyond that, we’re really working with StatsCan to make sure we are capturing this digital component that is so important for our creators.
Senator Oh: I have a question similar to what the chair just asked. The international global village, when they know about Canada, they know about polar bears, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the beautiful fall colours and the maple leaf.
On cultural diplomacy, one of the best practices is the crafting of the Canada brand with our maple leaf. It is a great symbol of quality and culture of our premium goods. What has the government been doing to promote our maple leaf brand? It’s an important tie to the economic world.
Mr. Moisan: At Canadian Heritage, and certainly at Canada Council and so on, we have supported a vision of Canada as being quite diverse, inclusive and innovative in a number of ways by bringing a number of artists abroad and giving them a sense. We don’t necessarily, if that’s your question, ask them to carry a flag around. They say they’re Canadian. They’re showing Canada in all its diversity.
That’s something that we have been discussing with Global Affairs: What is the Canada brand and how broad is it? It comes back to what the chair was saying, when you talk about Canada, how do you brand it and show simply but truthfully what Canada is? There’s great diversity in Canada. That is a challenge we’ve always had.
Even in the creative industries and the movies, we’re not asking our artists or moviemakers to tell only one story of Canada. In fact, they tell all sorts of stories about Canada. Do we make the brand a brand about the quality rather than content? It’s a very challenging world, and we’re discussing with Global Affairs how we do that branding.
Some of the branding happened this year in Canada 150, but it’s a real challenge how you brand a country. We’ve seen and you’ve heard from expert witnesses about the example in the U.K., Japan and other countries that went ahead with very strong branding activities. We haven’t done that in Canada and that’s something we’re certainly discussing with Global Affairs.
Senator Oh: The maple leaf on our food packaging has established a very important symbol. Canadians produce safe, quality food.
Mr. Moisan: That’s true.
Senator Oh: That is a big seller in Asia and Europe, with the little maple leaf there. Like New Zealand, they created the kiwi. Even the fruit. People don’t say the name of the fruit; they call it kiwi fruit. That’s important for expanding the economy.
The Chair: Thank you. That goes back to my question. I was putting it the other way: What are the departments doing? Senator Oh’s question is, if you’re contemplating what a brand means and do we use it? Then it goes out to the other ministries. You do have a role with the other ministries if we’re going to look at a new vision of Canada. Where are you in this discussion on the branding?
Mr. Moisan: I would say it’s an ongoing discussion with our colleagues at Global Affairs, and they talk to every department. Senator Oh’s point about the maple leaf on food is indicative of the breadth of what it means to be branding. Because that brand is about the safety of the food. It’s not about the values behind it. It’s about it being safe; you can trust it.
You can imagine, when you’re at a table with Global Affairs, with a number of departments asking, what’s the brand? It’s a very challenging discussion to boil it down. It is ongoing work we have with Global Affairs about how we brand Canada abroad.
Yes, we do have a role, and we bring the cultural, creative and the arts sides of things, but other departments bring different views about what the brand should be.
The Chair: I think the example of food is a good one, because it’s a safety issue. It does represent what Canada stands for, what our farmers are, the diversity of farms, and the changes they’ve made, value-added, moving with consumption around the world.
I come from Saskatchewan, and it used to be wheat, barley and oats. It’s now chickpeas, lentils, mustard seeds, canola oil, et cetera. That goes to showing a new Canada, a different Canada, but it’s really the safety issue. That kind of branding has a cultural dimension. It’s how we’ve grown and protected the farms we have. I think there is a cultural dimension to that and perhaps Heritage Canada can contemplate where it goes on that.
Senator Bovey: I was just going to say, if we look at the work our artists do, write, paint, sculpt and film, their work in both realistic ways and abstract ways tell the stories that lie behind the maple leaf. I think it’s fair to say, if I may, from my background on the question of the branding, that branding is in all the publications and all that goes along with these cultural exchanges.
I would hope that Canadian citizens and international citizens will be able to look, hear and see the international languages that Canada’s creators present through their work as part of who we are.
The Chair: As you can see, we’re starting a dialogue. We’re not letting you off the hook. We’re probing to find out what exists in cultural diplomacy in Canada and how the Canadian government is viewing it. We want to reach a broader audience and we would like to hear from Canadians what they think we should be doing more or less of. We’re going to try to bring it down to a manageable policy and perhaps recommendations with it.
Tthis is the start of a dialogue. I hope that some of our questions will be taken back to think through and see whether you want to respond further. I can assure you, we will probably invite you back somewhere during our study to take stock again and to float other suggestions and ideas and perhaps you will have some for us, as Senator Dawson had pointed out.
With that, senators, on your behalf, I thank the two witnesses today for a very frank, broad-ranging discussion. I think it has been helpful to focus us. We’re just starting our study, so we have a lot of time and input to go through yet. We trust that you will continue on that journey with us. Thank you for being here today.
(The committee adjourned.)