Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Issue No. 48 - Evidence - Meeting of June 7, 2018
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 7, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade met this day at 10:29 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, this 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 is pleased to continue its study with some very eminent witnesses. Before I turn to them, I would ask the senators to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I am Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec. Good morning.
[English]
Senator Bovey: Pat Bovey, Manitoba.
Senator Cordy: Jane Cordy, Nova Scotia.
Senator Oh: Victor Oh, Ontario.
Senator Greene: Stephen Greene, Nova Scotia.
The Chair: I’m Raynell Andreychuk from Saskatchewan, chair of the committee.
Before us in this panel is the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, who is no stranger to this chamber. Welcome. I hope you can hear me.
Rt. Hon. Adrienne Clarkson, as an individual: I can, Senator Andreychuk. It’s a pleasure to see you again.
The Chair: Thank you. And from the Glenn Gould Foundation we have Brian M. Levine, Executive Director, and Roger Garland, President, Board of Directors. Accompanying them is Susan Peterson d’Aquino, Member of the Board of Directors, The National Arts Centre Foundation and a member of the Glenn Gould Foundation.
We also have, from the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française, Martin Théberge, President, and Marie-Christine Morin, Director General.
Welcome to all of our witnesses. I’m going to take them in the order they are here. We often do that with video conferences because we sometimes lose the connections. It’s safer to start and if we run into problems we can reconnect.
Welcome to the committee. I’m going to turn to the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson for opening remarks. I ask all witnesses that their interventions can be as short as possible because senators would like to place questions to you. Welcome to the committee; the floor is yours.
Ms. Clarkson: Thank you so much, Senator Andreychuk. It’s a pleasure to appear before you and to give you an account of my passion, which I think most of you are aware of, for the relationship of culture to our national presence and identity both in Canada and abroad.
As Governor General, you are well aware that my state visits had enormous cultural impact and I took people with me on trips to places like Germany and Russia who were right out of the top of the cultural scene in Canada. Not only culture as singing, dancing, performing, writing and drama, but our general culture of what we are.
For instance, we make wine and that is part of our culture. We took two very prominent winemakers — one from Ontario and one from the Okanagan — to Germany with us and we exchanged visits with them, so subsequently they came back.
I believe there is an interchange that happens and what we are presenting to the world is what we know we are. But the world does not know what we are. We have to absolutely establish it for people. We have to say what it is that we are.
We took to Germany people like Paul Desmarais, who was actually very involved with Bertelsmann Publishing at that time. We took the filmmakers Atom Egoyan and Don McKellar and the playwrights Michel Marc Bouchard and Tompson Highway. They had all kinds of interesting and separate programs, as well as having the impact of their product.
We had showings for them, or readings or performances. The impact of this was Canada presenting itself in this way not only to governmental people; we had tremendous support and aid from the embassies who, I think, understand how important it is abroad to project ourselves as we really are.
I wanted to carry that on. It’s not enough to say we can do that if you’re the Governor General and you can take people with you to Chile or Argentina. We did the same things in Chile, Argentina, Iceland and Finland. We can do that. I think it’s very important to understand we have a message here to give. We can’t leave our embassies alone to do it. We have a cultural outreach. There is tremendous interest in our educational processes, et cetera. We have to understand that we, from here, can bring it out, too, to the world.
Culture is the thing that defines us as Canadians. We have our own culture in English, we have our own culture in French and we have Aboriginal culture. Then we have the culture that has gotten mixed into all three of those from people who have come from other places. The nature of Canada is such that we feel transformation happens when people immigrate to this country. Nobody is the same when they come here as they would have been had they stayed in the Ukraine, or in Italy, Syria or China.
They may keep their language. They may keep their food. They may keep all kinds of good things they remember. Coming to Canada, the space of Canada, the way of life of Canada and the climate of Canada changes everybody and gives them that chance to transform. Therefore, our culture is a transformed culture while it has its roots in all these different places and things.
I think it’s very important. I have considered it to be important as I have carried on after being Governor General. I founded, with John Ralston Saul, the Institute for Canadian Citizenship, which has a number of on-the-ground programs that are very concrete, one of which is the Cultural Access Pass. This was bred out of my longing, basically, to know how many people would go to museums and cultural attractions if they were given the chance: if they didn’t feel they had to dress up for it or feel they waited a generation until they spoke perfect English to go to the Royal Ontario Museum, with its name, just as an example, or the National Arts Centre. How do you feel do you belong in those places?
Culture is a way of making people feel they belong. It’s the way in which they have access to what everybody else has access. Through that cultural bond, they become one. That’s what binds us together as a nation.
At the Institute for Canadian Citizenship, which we started in 2006, one of the important programs that have had a huge success is the Cultural Access Pass. It allows new Canadians to explore, travel and discover Canada during their first year of citizenship. At every citizenship ceremony now in Canada — we have over 2,500 of them — new Canadians have access to go online and join up for one year to the Cultural Access Pass, which allows them free entry with families of up to four children to something like 1,400 cultural institutions across this country.
It also gives them 50 per cent off on the lowest travel rate on VIA Rail, so they can get around the country. If you are an immigrant who is in Montreal, you can take the train, say, at half-rate, and you can go to Vancouver and use your pass at the Vancouver Art Gallery or the Museum of Anthropology. This has been in place for 10 years and has had enormous success. We have been really happy about how we have been able to deal with that.
The Cultural Access Pass is a way in which we have made our numbers known. We have had more than 260,000 new citizens. We have had 40,000 new citizens participate each year. We are now getting to about 35 performing arts partners, like the Canadian Opera Company. They will put up, for instance, that they have 70 seats free for any given night for the opera. Within 30 seconds, all of those seats are filled and they are going to be free for people.
This program is fully bilingual. We are celebrating our 10 years in progress right now. This Cultural Access Pass has had a tremendous influence on people in Europe, because they realize that they can do that.
Why we want to improve the Cultural Access Pass is we feel we would get more people if we could make it so they don’t have to go and sit down at their computer and log in. What we’re going to do is have a mobile app, which is launching in 2019, to maximize access, participation and engagement. We anticipate 100,000 users every year, dependent upon the government swear-in rate of 200,000 plus new citizens. That will be a heightened opportunity for all arts organizations.
We are working with the Department of Canadian Heritage and we have had funding privately for this, as well.
We have a penetration of 94 per cent of new Canadians on the smartphone. We are terribly excited because we know we will be able to bring culture to people who have come from other places and who will know and be talking about the fact they have access.
We have talked about this program abroad. People are very excited in places like England, in Britain, in France, and in Germany particularly.
One of the things we started at the institute is something called 6 Degrees Citizen Space, which is an international forum held every September for three days. It’s designed to drive the global conversation on citizenship and, therefore, inclusion, and belonging in the 21st century. Canada has been a huge success. My worry has always been that we don’t know why. Because you don’t know why something has happened to you, you are in danger —
The Chair: Ms. Clarkson, I have to interrupt you. This is probably the first time I have ever done this to a Governor General or a former Governor General. I apologize. We have one hour with two other panellists and the senators will want to ask questions. If we don’t have all of your presentation, I would very much appreciate receiving it in a written form so that we have it on the record.
Ms. Clarkson: Certainly. I will do so.
The Chair: I will now turn to the Glenn Gould Foundation, Mr. Garland.
Roger Garland, President, Board of Directors, The Glenn Gould Foundation: It is a great honour to be able to appear this morning. It’s something we feel very strongly about. This is a huge opportunity for Canada. It is also, in the world we live in, a world of uncertainty and competitiveness and something that we need to spend more of our time thinking about.
I’m going to turn it over to Brian to explain what the Glenn Gould Foundation does, what its mission is and how that relates to cultural diplomacy. Then I will step back in and wrap it up in a few minutes. Thank you very much.
Brian M. Levine, Executive Director, The Glenn Gould Foundation: Thank you. The Glenn Gould Foundation is a Canadian charity established in 1983. Our mission is to honour Glenn Gould’s spirit and legacy by celebrating brilliance, promoting creativity and transforming lives through the power of music and the arts. Our reach is global, and that’s made possible by the worldwide fame and iconic status that Glenn Gould enjoys around the world.
Our central focus is the coveted Glenn Gould Prize, Canada’s most internationally significant honour for creative achievement presented to a person of any nationality who has enriched the human condition through the arts, with special emphasis on innovation and humanitarianism.
In addition, we are active around the world with numerous partnerships and creative collaborations. I took a count the other day and it was about 15 countries so far in which we have been active. In that capacity, we feel we proudly represent Canada.
More than 30 years of international experience has given us a bird’s eye view of what cultural diplomacy can accomplish and also the areas where proactive policy and strategic investment are most needed.
The three key objectives, in our view, for cultural diplomacy are: One, to communicate a powerful, sophisticated message about Canada, its talents, values and identity to the world, both through presenting and hosting; two, to strengthen ties with allies and trading partners, and to reduce tensions and suspicions with other countries by fostering connections based on our shared humanity — effectively to undermine otherness; three, to expand trade and economic prosperity going well beyond promoting the creative industries themselves based on the promotion of a brand Canada so to speak, focused on concepts of openness, inclusivity, excellence, which we sometimes forget to underscore sufficiently, and innovation that elevates Canada’s profile to new levels of global prominence.
What is our relative position in the world community? We obviously have a rich cultural legacy. We have incredible talent which is successful around the world. Yet, in our decades of experience, we have also seen that success does not automatically translate into a perception abroad of Canada as a leading creative nation. Nor has it supplanted an image based on wilderness and resource industries. We need to cultivate a new up-to-date image to advance the objectives that we suggested earlier, because, frankly, there are many persistent stereotypes.
I think you’ll see a picture, which I took on the streets of Paris last year. It indicates how some of these things die hard and are not consistent with what we want to promote in the knowledge economy. I ask you, if this is what they think of us, would you buy your biotech, your artificial intelligence programming or make other high-tech investments with that man?
Why is this? Well, first of all, there has been a decline in the institutional framework needed to build the global consciousness that creates a direct connection between the works of our creators and the nation that fostered them. What is needed is an underlying continuous — I underscore “continuous” — Canadian narrative that we can all get behind. Without that continuity of narrative, what we are really left with is one-off presentations abroad. Those can vary, particularly in the 24-hour news cycle, and can be forgotten very quickly while those long-standing stereotypes endure.
How do we stack up against other nations? Well, Japan has the Japan Foundation. Britain has the British Council. There is the Alliance Française and the Goethe Institut. We don’t have anything equivalent. Maybe that’s why our presence is lagging behind.
We talked about a brand Canada. Are we matching the talk with policy, strategy and investments? Our written submissions provide other examples of what other nations are doing.
We think there are some practical frameworks that can be used to build policy going forward. They are more fully spelled out in our written submissions. I would like to turn the chair back to Roger to give some perspective from a personal point of view.
Mr. Garland: I think it’s important to understand that perception is really reality in this world. The reality is the perception in the world of Canada’s culture does not accord with what we actually have to offer. As Brian pointed out, I think part of the problem has been that we have not been in the game. Other nations have made culture a far more important marketing focus for their diplomacy. We are at a disadvantage in that we haven’t properly created a framework within which our government operates and provided the adequate funding.
I read with interest a submission by Ambassador Kinsman last December to your committee. He made the same point when he was ambassador to Russia and to Italy, that funding was really an important part of what the missions do internationally.
How do we change that? Perception has to be changed. Brian mentioned that ongoing, consistent message. I spent my business life with Four Seasons Hotels and developing a brand that became known internationally as the best quality hotel operation in the globe. That was because we unrelentingly focused on quality, consistency and made that the pillar of our image internationally. I think Canada has an opportunity to do exactly the same thing.
The Glenn Gould Prize, which I represent through the Glenn Gould Foundation, actually does this every two years by awarding a prize. It is all detailed in the submission we left with you this morning. That creates an opportunity to focus on Canada as a leading proponent of outstanding creativity through the Canadian icon, Glenn Gould. I’ll leave at that. We’re happy to take your questions. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
We will now turn to Fédération culturelle canadienne-française. Mr. Théberge, I think you are going to make the presentation.
[Translation]
Martin Théberge, President, Fédération culturelle canadienne-française: Good morning. Joining me is Marie-Christine Morin, Director General. Thank you for having us.
The Fédération culturelle canadienne-française, or FCCF for short, serves as the national voice of the arts and culture sector across Canada’s francophone community, and works to inspire, mobilize and transform Canadians through arts and culture.
The FCCF network brings together seven national groups representing theatre, literature, song and music, media art and visual arts, 13 organizations committed to the development of arts and culture in 11 provinces and territories, a group of performing arts presentation networks and a community radio alliance.
With 22 members across Canada, the FCCF champions more than 3,125 artists and more than 150 organizations in over 180 French-speaking communities around the country. For more than 40 years, the FCCF has been promoting the artistic and cultural expression of francophone and Acadian communities.
It is worth noting that the FCCF belongs to the Canadian Arts Coalition and endorses all of the recommendations submitted by the coalition to the committee, in February, with respect to artist mobility, international taxation and artists’ resale rights. In our remarks today, we will also speak on behalf of Canada’s francophone community, with a view to encourage education, consistency and innovation in existing efforts and those to come.
Like many who have appeared before us, we are delighted with the government’s recent investments in the cultural export strategy and the reestablishment of positions abroad to coordinate and facilitate networking opportunities. The FCCF believes in the merits of raising Canada’s international profile and leveraging a network of culture advocates abroad to support us and showcase our cultural products. The planned export strategy is aimed at improving that presence.
In order for the network to be as effective as possible, advocates need geopolitical knowledge and an understanding of the economic conditions in potential partner countries and, especially, of the full range of Canada’s cultural diversity. With that in mind, we would like to see stronger domestic cooperation among all partners.
In addition, the FCCF is of the view that training is a fundamental component in order for the cultural officers on the ground to be effective. Their success will hinge on their local expertise and in-depth knowledge of emerging opportunities. We dream of the day when these officers participate in our events and welcome our artists. It will then be our turn to welcome them and share the talent and creativity of Canada’s francophone artists. Together, we could dream big and collaborate on initiatives to introduce and showcase the full scope of cultural diversity our community has to offer.
The poet Charles Leblanc wrote that we are all strangers to someone else. Canada’s francophone arts and culture sector is endeavouring to be less of a stranger and enhance its international exposure.
Marie-Christine Morin, Director General, Fédération culturelle canadienne-française: As far as Canada’s francophone community is concerned, it is clear that we must work harder to promote our imagination and creativity in order to compete both at home and abroad. Looking outwards towards other cultures sometimes means focusing on smaller niche markets.
If Canada chooses to build its export strategy solely around marquee events and major international shows and fairs, then we will not necessarily be able to participate because we lack the resources and relevance enjoyed by our majority counterparts. We miss opportunities to discover and be discovered. Mainly, we are unable to address the asymmetry of needs specific to Canada’s francophone community, which appeals to different markets, including English-speaking markets, which, although smaller, are just as promising for certain industries.
The arts and culture sector across Canada’s francophone community has one wish. It wishes for the resources to build a strategy aimed at promoting its artists on the world stage, a strategy that takes its unique needs into account. What is more, such a strategy could include efforts to promote the French language on a broader level. The current modernization of the Official Languages Act is a golden opportunity to address that dimension as well.
Mr. Théberge: Digital technology is one of the key elements in an effective cultural diplomacy strategy. There is near virtual consensus that today’s digital environment provides a wealth of opportunity when it comes to disseminating and producing our cultural products and interacting with people both at home and abroad.
We must not, however, lose sight of the fact that the considerations around digital participation are many and complex. With content production and access at the heart of the forward-looking digital discussion, we must come up with business models that adequately recognize and value the work done by artists and creators.
We must also keep in mind that today’s digital and online landscape pushes us to innovate at every level, especially with respect to partnerships. With the advent of digital platforms, cultural diplomacy is no longer limited to the government. It calls for concerted action and the involvement of new players in order for that action to bear fruit. We agree with the Canada Council for the Arts on this issue. Regardless of the digital cultural diplomacy strategy adopted, it is paramount that Global Affairs Canada maintain an ongoing dialogue with artists. We hope to contribute to that informative dialogue and an enhanced focus on connections and networking. Thank you. We would be happy to answer any questions you have.
[English]
Senator Bovey: I would like to thank all of you for your presentations.
Your Excellency, I want to thank you for the tremendous catalyst you have been, not just for the arts in Canada, but Canada abroad. Having been part of one of the trips you did 15 years ago, it was there that we heard Ed Burtynsky, one of Canada’s treasures, make a wonderful presentation. Indeed, I was in London, as my colleagues know, just a few weeks ago, and it was from posters on the lampposts there that I learned he was receiving the planet’s most prestigious award. I did not learn it in Canada, which I found very sad. I got there in time and could celebrate with him.
When we hear the very compelling comments, perception is reality, we know what we are, we have been a big success but don’t know why, and John Ralston Saul wrote that Canada’s profile abroad is largely its culture. I want to take all of that and put it in another way.
We heard from Nicholas Cull the other day, a professor from the University of Southern California. He talked about how important Canadian artists are. We saw that with the Governor General’s Awards the other night. We should be a very proud nation. As he said, no one really knows they’re Canadian.
Taking that line and taking a look at the importance of cultural diplomacy, how do we take these magnificent artists — who are known and not known, who are emerging and experienced — and cherish the fact they are Canadian? How does cultural diplomacy link with all other aspects of Canada abroad? Not just a silo of the arts. How does it integrate to the various layers of Canadian society as it projects itself internationally?
Ms. Clarkson: Do we intervene just by speaking?
The Chair: I would ask the senators to direct whom you would like to answer your questions.
Senator Bovey: Anyone, but starting with our former Governor General and then Mrs. Peterson d’Aquino with her work on the Governor General’s Awards and the work she has been doing internationally.
Ms. Clarkson: I think, Senator Bovey, the whole thing about how successful our artists are in the world and in Canada, in the cultural world, can be built on with the sense if you know that Ed Burtynsky will have a show in Great Britain, then you should build on that. You don’t have to start from zero. You already have this person.
If you have Atom Egoyan being featured at the London Film Festival, as he was some eight years ago, you don’t have to say, “Gee, have you ever heard of a guy named Atom Egoyan who makes these queer films?” You have it built for you, so you build on that. Therefore, your staff in the embassy should be — and they have always been, in my opinion. They have just been underfunded drastically or there has been no policy. We really should build on that.
Atom Egoyan is going to be at the Berlin International Film Festival. He’s either going to be a juror or he has a film in there, whatever. How can we build on that? How can we then have a mini festival of his films? How can we get him into — not only interviews in papers. That’s always being done by the public affairs office. That’s not what counts. You want to get him into other things so he penetrates the culture of that country.
Our 6 Degrees Citizen Space have been invited abroad to do our citizen space, which is about belonging, culture and identity. We have been invited to The Hague, where we had a successful time. We have just been to St. Gallen, Switzerland. We have been invited to Berlin in November. Where are we going? We’re going to the Barenboim-Said centre, which is the finest concert hall built by Frank Gehry. It just opened a year ago.
It has the most perfect acoustics. That’s where we will hold it and have cultural events.
Embassies are working closely with us to expand and prepare the ground. Any time the embassy knows something is coming, build around it. Nobody goes out there alone. In culture, people who know, know. You want more people to know and say “that’s Canadian” and “that’s what Glenn Gould represents.” How many times have we who live abroad been told, “Oh, is Glenn Gould Canadian? I thought he was from the States.” Let’s show Glenn Gould’s Toronto film in that context. When you see how attached he was to his country, to his geography and to the things that made him what he was — growing up in the Beaches in Toronto. These are the things you build on. You don’t pretend it doesn’t exist.
In the past, I’ve been discouraged. When I was doing the only cultural program CBC ever did for about 50 years — I’m not kidding, because I did it after 25 years of them doing nothing, and I did it for 12 years. There isn’t anything now.
The other thing we are missing is the CBC, when it was doing cultural programming, would be involved in an organization called MIPCOM, which was the whole of public broadcasting in all the world and would exchange programs with very little money changing hands. We would be able to introduce them, cut them up and inter-produce them. That’s the thing we are now missing out on completely. We have no access to other people’s cultures that way to bring them in and also promote ours. The number of shows we put forward to them was tremendous, particularly in music and visual arts. Now we have no entry into that whatsoever. In a changing digital world, we are not going to.
Susan Peterson d’Aquino, Member of the Board of Directors, The National Arts Centre Foundation, as an individual: How one interweaves cultural diplomacy with other diplomacy — I know you have had witnesses from Global Affairs Canada as well as Canadian Heritage. I’m sure they can tell you it used to work better in our embassies abroad than it has of late, although things are being beefed up a bit. I can’t see there’s any other way to do that except to make it a priority and keep at it. We are a G7 country. We are rich not just economically, comparatively speaking, but culturally as well. Culture can and should be a powerful part of our diplomacy.
You and I were both at the Governor General’s Performing Arts Awards on Saturday. One of the things that struck me is our Governor General talked about the launch of the Voyager 1 40 years ago and told us it is now 12.5 billion kilometres from Earth and still sending back signals. What she did not mention was that on the Voyager 1, there is something called The Golden Record. It is called The Sounds of Earth. It exists in case any life out there ever finds it. There are 27 recordings chosen to be the best of human musical civilization. There is one Canadian among the 27, and that is Glenn Gould playing Bach, which is amazing.
Canada has to know its own stories better in order to tell them. Certainly, the Glenn Gould Prize is an international prize with an international jury from around the world. Jessye Norman is the latest to be honoured. The Glenn Gould Foundation is now poised to make that really big on the world stage, akin to the Nobel Prize, but these would be in the arts.
There is a lot going on. Someone said, “It’s a rebirth of these things.” Things like this could really take off.
I’d like to tell you one story, because I think it’s fascinating to show what one person can do for international relations through culture. This is Canada-Russia relations, where things are not always easy.
Bob Kaszanits was Director of Museum Services at the National Gallery for some time in the 1990s. Five Picassos were stolen from the Sternberg Palace in Prague. The Czech government asked him to come over and tell them how they could better protect their artwork. This led to a call from the Russian Embassy. He was asked to go to the Hermitage in Saint Petersburg and tell them how to protect their artwork, not just from theft but from sunlight. He was there for 10 years modernizing the museum’s operations. Putin asked him to go back and keep doing this.
This did amazing things for Canada-Russia relations. Putin presented him with the Presidential Award for Distinguished Service, which I think only one other Canadian has ever received. This has the potential to still turn around Canada-Russia relations.
This is an extraordinary gift Canada gave to Russia. What did they do in return? They have loaned amazing works of art to Canadian museums. There’s one person who really put Canada on the map and helped with relations with Russia.
Senator Massicotte: Thank you to all of you. We are honoured to have you here this morning. You have all done so much for Canada and for culture. We can be forever thankful.
Maybe because of my business background, I have a prejudice, if you wish, where if you want to achieve great things, you have to define what your objective is and develop a plan. Maybe what I see from the government is a sprinkling of money, a little bit everywhere. I’m not sure there is a cohesive plan. I have immense difficulty finding out what we spend for cultural diplomacy.
I appreciate your approach, Mr. Levine and Mr. Garland. You say if you rank us relative to our performance, we’re not doing well. You have a solution or tool to try to get us there.
Could you start with the first point? How did you gauge the fact we are not doing so well relative to our efforts? Many witnesses have said if it’s food or anything that comes from Canada that a lot of people have a strong impression of it being healthy or good. Our bread is quite good; we maybe don’t know why. Could you help me with that issue?
Mr. Levine: I’m going to rely on a couple of anecdotes, and this is from experiences of just last year.
Our organization co-presented, partnered or participated in the Canada 150/Glenn Gould eighty-fifth birthday projects around the world — in eight countries. Particularly since it was tied to the Canada 150, we found the level of resources we were able to secure for international presentations related to the country was almost non-existent. Finally, I believe the funds flowed after Canada Day — there was a fund opened up at Global Affairs to allow embassies to apply for funding to have projects related to Canada 150. My understanding is it was under less than $2 million divided among all 170 plus of our missions.
Earlier in the year, we were involved in a project in Havana with one of leading performing arts ensembles in the country. They did three Glenn Gould/Canada 150 concerts sprinkled throughout the year. We asked the embassy if they could provide us with funding to capture the first concert on video. They had none. I complained before the second one and asked them if he couldn’t do something. After some hemming and hawing, they told us that, with a little built of juggling of categories, they might be able to come up with $100 for piano tuning.
We put on an exhibition of art photography in conjunction with the Verviers festival last year, one the most important music and arts festivals in Europe, and one where there’s a lot of money. Switzerland repeatedly has a few dollars. These are places we want to show ourselves well. I asked the festival director, a Canadian, if he had gone to the Canadian embassy to seek some funding to help with the presentation.
He said, “Yes, I spoke to them and they told us that what they could offer us was three Muskoka chairs with Canada 150 logos on loan.” I have several other examples.
Senator Massicotte: The answer I’m getting is not enough money. I’m not convinced if we increase the money from the mass sprinkling we will achieve a result or that we can measure the result.
Mr. Levine: That’s my second point. It’s something we developed a bit in our written presentation. It has to be focused. First, we have many national objectives related to arts and culture, hence the increase in funding to the Canada Council. What we are talking about, however, is how we communicate our message abroad. This has implications that are diplomatic and are about business and prosperity.
I’d like to propose that at least some thought be given to this in terms of marketing, specifically marketing our country around the world. We should approach it as we would marketing a very valuable brand — brand Canada. We do things that are occasional and on an opportunistic basis; that is, as the opportunity arises. As I suggested, that is unfocused, not strategic, not based on a plan and tends not to have a lasting impact. It’s good for the artists and a variety of other considerations, but as far as branding our country it gets forgotten.
We need, first, a clear understanding of the message. That message needs to be based on what our international partners, and in some cases adversaries, will respond to. That is, not necessarily the domestic message but what they value.
For example, since we have the president of France here, he spent 10 years studying to become a classical pianist. He cares about that. We have Glenn Gould. There are 16 million classical piano students in China. We have Glenn Gould. This is a bit of a self-serving example, but you can see the point. We may not have a booming market for classical piano in our country, so we may assume that we don’t want to present that abroad. However, we have the greatest classical pianist of the last 100 years and around the world people love that. Let’s focus on messages we think will have uptake abroad. Then spend strategically and be continuous in the messaging so it won’t be forgotten.
Senator Massicotte: Given your experience, is there any comment on what you have seen on the inside and from the outside?
The Chair: We will have to shorten questions and answers because I have a long list.
Ms. Peterson d’Aquino: It’s difficult within government to get people together to get a decision that it’s a priority and then get everyone working from the same hymn sheet. But it’s worth the effort. It can be done. You have to know what the hymn sheet is, as others have said. It can be done, but it’s not easy. It takes more than one champion to say, “This is important. We can do it. We will do it. Let’s figure out how.”
Senator Massicotte: Thank you.
The Chair: We will try to get as many witnesses in as we can before our summer recess. I’m going to plead with everyone to shorten things up. I still have three senators who want to ask questions and one on a second round.
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you all for your presentations this morning.
Mr. Garland, you briefly touched on comparisons to other countries in terms of cultural diplomacy. What are some of the best practices we could learn from them? What do you think of the government’s funding and some of the initiatives they have to promote cultural diplomacy?
Mr. Garland: Well, I’m not perhaps as qualified as Brian to respond to that question. I’d like to point out, however — and this is a marketing plan; this is about creating culture Canada as a brand — from my experience that, as Senator Massicotte said, it’s necessary to establish a business plan and then execute it and stick with it over time.
It was easier, in our business developing luxury hotels around the world, to run up a flag and the identity between Canada and luxury, quality product was quite clear. It’s a little harder to do in the area of culture.
I’d also like people to think more broadly than the artists and what we currently think of as artistic achievement. This is about creativity and innovation. This is what our country is desperately anxious to develop. It expands beyond tech and goes into medicine and biochemistry and a lot of things. If Canada develops a reputation through the arts and culture to be a centre of creativity and innovation, I think that will help us in a vast array of areas.
As to the specific question, I’m not sure I can comment.
Mr. Levine: We cite the example of the Great Britain program, which I think was a successor to the “Cool Britannia” program launched in 2012 by the U.K. to inspire the world to think and feel differently about the U.K. now and in the future and demonstrating that it is the best nation to visit, invest in, trade and study. It is active in 144 countries through 252 diplomatic posts and was budgeted at £113 million and the British equivalent of the Auditor General has estimated it will generate £1.6 billion per annum in direct and indirect economic benefits to the U.K.
That’s the only best practices example I will give you because we have proposed we throw best practices out the window in formulating this because we are talking about creativity and best practices, which is polling what other people are doing and then, in one way or another, adapting or emulating it. We should create something wholly original that reflects Canada. We should use our creative minds to come up with a plan and not try to be like others because that will ensure we keep occupying that comfortable middle-of-the-pack ground.
I know we all love best practices because it gives us easy cover, but this is time for boldness, courage and originality, kind of like Glenn Gould.
Senator Ataullahjan: We have a special Minister of Innovation now so maybe there is hope.
Senator Cordy: Thank you to all the witnesses. You make me excited about cultural diplomacy. Maybe we’ll send you all around the world talking about Canada and cultural diplomacy.
Going back to Senator Massicotte’s question, I guess that’s where I am. I see the Department of Canadian Heritage sprinkling money — that’s the term he used and that was a good term — so everybody gets a bit but nobody really gets to do anything together and have organizations pull together.
Ms. Clarkson, when we talk about cultural identity of Canada, you said people think Glenn Gould is an American. I’m sure there are many other Canadian stars that people think are American because, unfortunately, many go to the United States to make money, really.
I want to talk about the brand Canada. Do we have a brand Canada? If we don’t, how do we develop a brand?
Mr. Garland, you spoke about being in private industry and business and developing a strategy and business plan. I think maybe that’s what we need for the arts community and culture and arts is to develop a business plan. If we are going to market the arts in Canada and people involved in the industry, then we need a plan.
In case the chair cuts me off, I’ll ask my second question at the same time.
This study started by Senator Bovey is a great start. It’s certainly an eye-opener for me. I’m learning about the importance of cultural diplomacy and how to market Canada through the arts. We will be writing a report after we hear all our witnesses and we will be making recommendations to the government. Right now we have silos. We have Global Affairs Canada, Heritage Canada and who knows what other government agencies working in isolation. How do we pull them together? How do we make a brand Canada? What would your recommendations be for us to put in a report?
Mr. Garland: That’s a big question. If you’re looking for short answers, I’m not sure that will be easy.
The one thing that applies in business and in this case, it has to, as has been said more than once this morning, be consistent long-term and relentlessly applied. That means going through different governments, different policies, different economic times. There has to be a basic plan in place. Even if it can vary up and down over time, there has to be focus on creating knowledge and creative industry that’s identified with Canada.
I don’t know exactly what that looks like. The basic message for me would be the government has to make this a priority and look at it as they would sending spaceships to the moon and create a fundamental framework. The artists and the artistic and cultural community are anxious to participate.
The Glenn Gould Foundation is there. We exist and operate year in and year out.
The artists are out there. If you look at what Soulpepper Theatre Company did in New York last summer, we got almost no funding. I was part of Soulpepper. We raised money to do that ourselves.
There has to be a way of putting this in place.
Ms. Peterson d’Aquino: I read the testimony Jeremy Kinsman gave. You’ve heard from lots of people. I found it was interesting. He was saying there are people who know the arts world and the connections there, and you have Foreign Affairs officers abroad, and they don’t. You have to get the two of them linked together.
If we’re talking about cultural diplomacy and using it outside the country, which is what all this is about, the embassies abroad have to be knowledgeable and act as facilitators. We have to have people who can make connections and know what is going on in Canada.
There are so many embassies around the world that you can’t do this everywhere. One would have to, in putting together a plan, have priorities and good reasons for them. There will always be wonderful happenstance things that come along, and you have to have people on the ground in embassies who are agile and have some money at their disposal and can help make this stuff happen.
It will require something going on in our embassies abroad in order to be in a position to welcome opportunities that other people bring to their attention, as well as then get to know their own bailiwick well enough that they can be movers in their own right.
Ms. Clarkson: Could I intervene for a moment and answer this?
The Chair: Very quickly. I have two more questioners.
Ms. Clarkson: I don’t think it can be done just by the embassies or just by a particular group that wants to push certain things. There has to be a government attempt to promote what we are and make that the brand. Make that the thing that we are so we can understand in Canada what we are being promoted as abroad and that people will recognize us in a different and surprising way. That goes right through our tourism films and everything.
When I was agent general for Ontario, we were putting out films that show beautiful lakes. I said, “Why doesn’t anyone swim in them?” They said to me, “Because no one abroad thinks that we swim in our lakes. They’re too cold.” I said, “You are supposed to break that. Show people jumping into the lakes. You are supposed to break the images of what we are.” As Brian said, the British, they don’t have the federal system, and they can do one thing at one time, but the “Cool Britannia” idea, we could have “Cool Canada.” We are very cool. Now is a wonderful time to do our kind of culture, bilingual, creative, all of that in the world. We have never had as golden an opportunity to reach the world as now.
[Translation]
Mr. Théberge: It is odd that we are talking about Canadian culture, when the cultural products of a Red River Metis artist, an Acadian artist or an anglophone artist from Toronto would not be presented in the same way. When Gillette launches a new razor, it studies the market that razor is being targeted to. We recommend creating a multi-stakeholder working group, one that could include artists, young people and even newcomers. The idea would be to entrust individuals who represent the full spectrum of Canada’s communities with the development of strategies aimed at promoting our artists and cultural products. The strategies would be tailored to the markets for those products. It’s time to stop, as you said, sprinkling the money around, and to adopt product- and market-specific strategies.
Senator Saint-Germain: My question is for Ms. Morin and Mr. Théberge. We are very much in agreement on this. When we talk about Brand Canada in French, we refer to Marque Canada or Enseigne Canada. Since we began this study, I have noticed that French and Canada’s francophone culture are at a disadvantage when it comes to Canadian cultural diplomacy. They are at a disadvantage because, all too often, their reach is limited to the international francophone community.
I think that, more and more, we need to set our sights on the broader international market. We need to spend time and energy leveraging our potential to target promising markets so that we can raise our visibility at international marquee events, which are multilingual, after all. It is therefore essential that Canadian diplomacy take a more inclusive approach to the languages and cultures unique to Canada. We live in a multicultural society, and that will help us gain more ground internationally.
Recommendations will have to be provided to Global Affairs Canada. You proposed a working group, anticipating the question. I’d like to hear your thoughts on other possible solutions.
[English]
As well, our colleagues, anglophones and the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson have some pragmatic ways to work together with all Canadian artists that are successful around the world in order to have a real Canada brand that would be multicultural and a brand for all Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Théberge: As I mentioned, a single brand for all of Canada strikes me as a bit odd, fundamentally speaking, so I think multiple strategies could be developed.
There are artists like Joseph Edgar, who records in the Czech Republic, and the group BAM, which works in Asia. That is already happening.
Canada also has a few examples of targeted measures that have proven fairly successful, taking available resources into account, and they could serve as models. A strategy for promoting Acadian artists on the international stage, Stratégie de promotion des artistes acadiens sur la scène internationale, comes to mind, as does the Initiative de promotion de l’industrie musicale francophone de l’Ontario, which seeks to promote Franco-Ontarian music. Both are measures we could look to for guidance in terms of how to support Canada’s francophone artists.
No doubt Quebec and English-speaking Canada have their own initiatives as well. I think it would be a good idea to create a working group to come up with market-specific strategies that could be put in place. The focus should be, not just on what artists have to offer, but also on what appeals to target markets, what they like. Market studies would help identify Canadian cultural products best suited to a particular market.
I think a working group would be an inclusive way to come up with concrete solutions fairly quickly in order to pack the best punch, if you will. The effort could start there.
[English]
The Chair: I’m not going to ask questions, because we have run out of time. I will make one comment at the end and give Senator Bovey and Senator Massicotte a chance to put in a question, and maybe we can have quick answers. I don’t want to stop the dialogue. We are having a fruitful dialogue.
I send people home with homework. The thoughts you are starting to develop for us today are very important. I hope we continue the dialogue, first in additional briefs, and maybe coming back together once we have heard more witnesses would be very helpful.
Could I have the two senators just place their questions?
Senator Bovey: We had an amazing night the other night with Angela Hewitt playing Bach and inviting a young street urban dancer to perform with her. Here is this wonderful Canadian, living in London, this young man performing an art form that he has made Canadian. I want us to talk about not just the brand. Let’s talk about expanding the brand in its multi-generation so it’s not a series of silos; it’s really pulling it together.
This brings me to my question, a yes or no. I respond with great pride when our artists receive monies from other countries to be able to perform or exhibit in those countries. I also respond with a great deal of sadness when those countries are funding them and ours are not. Do you share my thoughts or am I very selfish on behalf of Canadian artists?
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: To follow up on what you said, Mr. Théberge, I would say that the idea of a brand conjures up a mental image. It’s important, however, to ensure consistency with that image; otherwise it loses its value.
I have no problem with your suggestion of including different artists, but what makes you think we should have different brands depending on the country or artist? I have trouble with that part because it doesn’t align with the image we are supposed to be bolstering.
[English]
The Chair: On the first question from Senator Bovey, who would like to respond?
Mr. Garland: You want a yes or no. Yes.
Mr. Levine: Yes.
Mr. Garland: Yes and yes.
[Translation]
Ms. Clarkson: May I respond to Senator Bovey’s question?
[English]
The Chair: Yes, quickly.
[Translation]
Ms. Clarkson: I don’t know what you mean. Are you asking about artists who make money but are not supported by us? In other words, they work in another country and that is where they make their money. I’m not quite sure I understand your question or comment.
[English]
Senator Bovey: Your excellency, I am really talking about Ed Burtynsky. The award was wonderful but it was the British government that helped him get there and put him up. I’m concerned about the number of young artists who are getting their international debut with no support from Canada, but it’s the British council or the French government or the Japanese government or the German government giving them the financial base to be able to take part in the festivals or to present their work.
It’s lovely seeing recognition from abroad. I would like our country to support them too.
Ms. Clarkson: I think it’s great that our country would support them. I think artists always want to get money for their work, no matter where it comes from. If it’s clean money, yes, fine.
The Chair: That seems like a modern statement these days, “if it’s clean money.” Thank you for that.
As you can see, we have started a dialogue here, and we would like to continue it. It’s extremely helpful. I hope some of our comments reflect back.
One area I want you to reflect on is I think sports have done better to unify Canada in many ways than arts and culture. That is one of our dilemmas too. We are so varied and so broad — again, our big country — we need to get acquainted with each other, as well as project it. We should be selling each other’s products — I’m using the word “product,” Senator Massicotte has had a great influence on me — in different varying parts of the arts and cultures.
I want to thank all of our witnesses. I hope, on behalf of the senators, we can continue this dialogue. We very much appreciate your presence, your knowledge, your experience and we are honoured to have had you.
We’ve 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. We have two witnesses, but we are having a technical problem. I think Ms. Charron can hear us, but we can’t hear her. Or it’s vice versa. They’re going to work on it. We’re going to start with our other witness in a moment. While I have this moment — hopefully the technicians can get going — there was a request from the deputy prime minister of Ukraine, with her delegation, to meet with our committee and with the foreign affairs committee in the House. What has been agreed to is that we don’t have time. We don’t sit on Mondays and Tuesdays. There is a breakfast meeting, informally, of the two committees, the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House and our committee, to meet with the delegation Tuesday, June 12 at 8:30 to 10 a.m., in room 325, Wellington Building. You will receive a notice this afternoon.
It is the deputy prime minister. She is in charge of European integration. She was in charge of NATO. I think Senator Cordy knows her, Ivana Klympush-Tsintsadze. Very good value, and she will be with an all-party delegation. If you are not in committees or otherwise, I think it would be well worth your while to attend that breakfast. That is from 8:30 to 10.
I see the technicians have not come back. I’m going to turn to Aldo Mazza, Founder and Artistic Director of KoSA Music. Welcome to the committee. We’d like you to give your short presentation, and then we will go to questions. Hopefully, we can include Ms. Charron as quickly as possible. Mr. Mazza, welcome to the committee.
[Translation]
Aldo Mazza, Founder and Artistic Director, KoSA Music: Thank you very much and good morning.
[English]
Dear senators, I have had the privilege of having an over 40-year career in the arts as a professional musician, author, educator, composer, producer, promoter and successful businessman worldwide. I am very passionate about all I do, especially when it is related to my love for music and the arts.
I came to Canada as an Italian immigrant at the tender age of nine. I have always embraced this incredible country, which has such diversity of people and talent. This is why I am here today. Canada has so much potential and a lot to offer to the world. We need to have a very strong and active cultural policy in order to give Canada its place in the global marketplace where it belongs.
Culture is not only beneficial to people’s minds and well-being, as many research studies have ascertained, but it is also an important economic engine. By investing internationally in our culture sector, it enhances the face of Canada to the markets of the world. It also enhances the perception of what Canada is. My own experience with my highly reputable percussion ensemble Répercussion, which toured, in our 45-year career, all over the world representing Canada, with the support of the Department of External Affairs, has proven this very point. I can clearly remember the astonished comments from people in Beijing, when we first performed there in 1987, when they realized that Canada was a country with refined culture. In Mexico City, the dignitaries hosting us after the concert, made frank comments about their surprise in discovering Canada was not just a country of great forests, oil and minerals. Canada also had high-level performers and sophistication. We were very happy to represent Canada in this way, and we recognized the importance in changing the world’s perception.
For the past 23 years, I, along with my musician wife Dr. Jolan Kovacs, have founded an organization called KoSA Music which has created music camps, festivals and events around the world, in the U.S., China, Canada, Europe, and Cuba. I have also published a method book, which is now in its second printing and has been distributed internationally. It is being released in Spanish for Cuba and has just been translated into Chinese. Our organization is not only a revenue generator, but it is also building bridges to people around the world and, naturally, back to Canada.
Despite our company’s success in the music world, I have seen and experienced erosion and a slow death of Canada’s cultural presence internationally in the last two decades. Sadly, since the early 1990s, things have changed as several of the past federal governments seemed to not understand the relationship between the economy and the arts and how enhancing the perception of our country had a great impact on Canada’s economic activity on a global scale.
Before 1971, Canadian musicians could not get their music played on any radio stations in this country. I was directly affected by this. This absurd situation was finally changed in 1971, when the Trudeau government established the Canadian content policy or the CRTC. This ensured that 25 per cent of the content aired was Canadian. The direct result is that, today, Canada is one of the biggest music producers of the world. We represent such legends as the late Leonard Cohen, Drake, Celine Dion, Rush, Arcade Fire, and the list goes on. In the American Music Awards and at the Grammys, this year, there were more Canadian artists than ever before. In 2016, three of the top five most-streamed artists in the pop music world were Drake, Justin Beiber, and The Weeknd, all are Canadian. We were able to get to this enviable position in the world because of the government putting in a policy that was aggressive, serious and well capitalized. The economic returns on this policy are immeasurable.
Here are the main points I would like to see this government consider reinforcing with regard to the promotion of the arts and culture in Canadian foreign policy: One, recognize that Canadian arts and culture have concrete value on the global world stage. This can be done by establishing a significant capacity, at Global Affairs in Ottawa, that would fund and coordinate Canadian artists touring abroad.
Two, each embassy in major markets should have a cultural attaché, with major resources and expertise, to deal with our Canadian artists, as in the past. The role of the cultural attaché would be to effectively liaise between the touring artist and the local community in each country to help to promote Canada.
Three, have the government recognize and promote the view that culture and the arts have a prominent place in our society and should be valued just as health and education. Culture and the arts should receive similar support from the government as an essential and fundamental social good.
Four, finally, there are serious media shortcomings. CBC should be given new resources so we know what Canadians are doing and achieving abroad. CBC should have a tie-in with our international embassies, who keep us and the world abreast of what we are doing on the world stage.
I am happy the present government is taking on the mission of building a new international cultural policy for Canada. The arts brings people together and music is a universal language.
Culture is a significant economic engine and investing in the arts internationally is not only an economic imperative, but really places us on the world map. Some of our legendary Canadian artists, such as the late Leonard Cohen, Glenn Gould, Oscar Peterson and, now, the Montreal Symphony and Diana Krall, among countless others, have changed the international perception of what Canada is, and thus our negotiating position and our dealings with other countries on an academic and commercial scale.
The Chair: Thank you. I should tell you, as well as our other witness, we do circulate the biographies. I don’t introduce background to save time for the dialogue.
I’m going to turn to Esther Charron, Co-Founder and President, Pôles magnétiques, art et culture, via Quebec City, with a little plea that the video conference continues to work properly. Welcome.
[Translation]
Esther Charron, Co-Founder and President, Pôles magnétiques, art et culture: Good morning, honourable senators. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about the impact of Canadian arts and culture on Canadian foreign policy and diplomacy.
I am a musician and pianist. I have worked as a civil servant and diplomat, as both a cultural attaché for the Quebec delegation in New York and an advisor in Quebec’s Ministry of International Relations. I am a cultural manager and entrepreneur. In 2005, I founded Pôles magnétiques, art et culture with my partner Bernard Gilbert, and since then, we have been hired to deliver hundreds of management, production planning and international market development projects, as well as an array of studies, all in the performing arts sector.
Having spent the bulk of my life in Quebec and New York, I have gained, over the years, an in-depth understanding of the international arts and culture market, including the place and role of each player and the negotiation of successful international partnerships. All of that expertise is based on a diverse range of experience and a 360-degree vision.
In my presentation today, I will endeavour to list the advantages of cultural exporting and artist mobility overall through the vector of diplomacy, identify the shortcomings of the system and national and international structures, and provide some realistic and promising solutions.
Performance and show tours, as well as other international cultural events, yield numerous benefits for governments. Artistic works, whether consciously or unconsciously, embody the values and identifying characteristics that make us who we are. Among the values and characteristics conveyed are open-mindedness, diversity, creativity, beauty, relationship with the land, freedom of expression and democracy. Canadian artistic works are often characterized by sophisticated and avant-garde elements that demonstrate artists’ boldness, leadership and great talent, attracting the admiration of all. That creative spirit and leadership are also evident in our international collaborations, foreign policy and arts funding programs.
Artists are front-line ambassadors. Responsive, articulate, engaged and curious, they travel, discover, discuss, speak their mind, teach, learn, collaborate, share and return home all the richer, benefiting from new knowledge and new connections. They are a source of inspiration, and their influence can be felt.
The media coverage of Quebec artists with international visibility is considerable but, above all, positive. For instance, the numerous press clippings singing the well-deserved praises of Quebec’s artists in Quebec’s delegation in New York is one of the reasons why the then premier wanted Quebec to have its own season in New York in 2001.
The cultural sector’s contribution to the economy cannot be overstated. In 2016, it generated an estimated $53.8 billion, representing 2.8 per cent of GDP. At the same time, the Canadian market is as small as the country is vast. In order to extend the life of an artistic work, keep crews employed longer and get the best value for money, artists must look to international markets.
Success is rewarding. Performance fees are paid in foreign currencies, which are then reinvested in our economy. The top touring companies often derive more than 80 per cent of their income from international performances. Ex Machina, for instance, earns 80 per cent of its income abroad but spends 80 per cent of its budget in Quebec.
International recognition can attract major investments in local projects. For example, a powerful Japanese businessman contributed $1 million towards the construction of Le Diamant, a new theatre in Quebec City.
Achieving success on the international arts and culture stage is far from easy. Supply far outweighs demand. Not only does it take talent, but it also takes time, human resources, money, determination, tact and assistance.
Although certainly understandable, the temptation to associate ourselves with established names such as Cirque du Soleil, Céline Dion and those Mr. Mazza mentioned, it is important to bear in mind that stars are not born overnight. There is much to be gained from having the foresight and courage to support promising artists, who are genuinely in need of encouragement.
Now, I would like to draw your attention to the shortcomings of our system. Under the previous government, cultural workers who depended on our cultural exports suffered greatly because Canada’s foreign policy lacked the vision, strategies and mechanisms necessary to support their work. On a practical level, they condemned the elimination of cultural advisers and attachés in Canada’s consulates and embassies.
Diplomacy is not immune to competition. As Canada showed the entire world its lack of interest in its own culture, cutting positions and programs that provided international tour support, other countries stepped up to fill the void by introducing initiatives to showcase their own culture, which were all the more effective. Artists suffered, as did the sector, not to mention the country as a whole. It is time to rebuild, and it can be done.
Recognition and support are sorely lacking for those who work as agents. There aren’t many to begin with and those interested in joining the profession are in short supply. Entrepreneurial people, agents are passionate advocates who play a leading role in creating jobs. The requirements in some countries with respect to work permits, payroll tax and the overall tax burden can be onerous and complex. Supports to attract and welcome international buyers to Canada are inadequate. It pays, however, to welcome concert hall and festival directors, artistic directors and commissioners. When they come to Canada for a festival or fair, they meet many creators and see and buy numerous shows. They also pay attention to our system, listen to our jargon, enjoy our fine cuisine, experience what our day-to-day lives are like and, above all, talk to their compatriots when they return to their countries.
At a very general level, I would recommend that Canada adopt a cultural diplomacy strategy largely focused on recruiting cultural attachés and advisers. They would work hand in hand and in conjunction with existing organizations, such as Heritage Canada, the Canada Council for the Arts, Quebec delegations, trade associations, institutions and companies, to promote Canadian culture and help it prosper.
These cultural teams could offer a range of services and ensure the implementation of consistent, useful and effective measures in numerous areas: promotions, public and media relations, buyers missions, digital platforms and so forth. They could provide local consulting services to artists, producers and their partners such as monitoring and guidance with respect to work permits and tax rules. Diplomatic support would also be beneficial to assist with a variety of challenges including tour-related border issues, copyright infringement — as we see happening in China — and the labyrinth of payroll and tax rules for vocal artists in France. In addition, these employees should have access to ongoing professional development opportunities including encounter programs and annual training in Canada.
Cultural attachés and advisers play a key role in building and maintaining specialized networks in a given country. When equipped with the right vision, skills, knowledge and financial resources, these individuals can become effective economic, cultural and diplomatic liaisons for all the reasons I mentioned.
Thank you.
[English]
Senator Oh: Thank you, panel. It is truly wonderful. Thank you to both of you for promoting cultural outreach diplomacy which has put Canada on the international stage.
I understand culture has growing events in China and Cuba. You had a very successful KoSA annual event in China in 2015. Can you share some of your other international initiatives?
Mr. Mazzo: Yes, the list goes on. I’m one of those tireless people who ask: How do you do this? I’m the type if I believe in something and have the passion and love for something, I just do it. In the past, we had the Canadian government supporting this, and at one point that kind of dropped by the wayside.
Fortunately, the Quebec government is still in place and we have a cultural policy in Quebec that has been phenomenal. I had the pleasure of working with Ms. Charron when she was in New York. Recently, when I launched my book in New York, the Quebec delegation was very involved. Canada was kind of present by telephone.
China, as well as the other programs we initiated in Cuba — I was first in China in 1987. We went back several times with my group. Consequently, nine years ago I was contacted by an organization called NINE BEATS. They have private schools supported by the state and they are kind of a franchise. At the time, nine years ago, there were 40 schools. Today there are 850 schools. They reached out to us because they saw what we were doing in our programs and thought we could be the window to the West for them because of our methodology and how we were bringing arts on a global scale. When they realized we were Canadian, that was another surprise because they thought we were from New York or Los Angeles. So this began.
I designed a program where we would help them look to the West as far as classical. But in China, they practically own the classical world now. But they want to own the rest, which is a good thing.
We are helping them along as far as content, education and performance levels. We began doing these events, camps and festivals there. Now there is an international competition going on in Tianjin and Beijing as well as Shanghai. It started eight years ago.
The one you referred to is one of the annual ones we are doing. Consequently, my book is coming out in Chinese. And I have to interject with this. Not to be negative, but each year I would go to the Canadian embassy and meet Mr. Ning, who was the cultural attaché. We had a nice chat every year. I would bring him up to date every year as to all the great activities we were doing. Then I was asked, “We would like to have your book here.” Imagine, we have 850 schools in this one network, and there are probably 1,000 networks like this. The possibility of cultural exchange, the exporting Canada to another country such as China is enormous. As we all know, it is a question of numbers.
Then I asked Mr. Ning, because in China you have to have a collaborator locally as a publisher, “Can you help me with this?” Many emails went back and forth and nothing ever happened. This is nine years of meetings. They tried to do it, but they had no resources and there was no policy. Of course I’m not putting him down.
Naturally, we did it ourselves. We found someone there. The book is coming out this year. But imagine, if there was a concerted effort where everyone knows what everyone is doing and we could work with each other in a bilateral way. It would be amazing.
Senator Oh: Are you on the trade mission to China called the Canadian Creative Industries Trade Mission?
Mr. Mazzo: No. I was invited, of course, and it is nice we have these efforts. I’ve also seen some of the other comments from the other presenters. I think we’re all saying almost the same thing. We do need this policy.
I have to also interject a difference. Canada is a cultural mosaic, so, of course, you will not have one face. It’s like saying Cuba has Cuban music. Well, there is not one type of Cuban music. There are many streams with different many paces.
Here we have the Aboriginal, which is phenomenal, and the Francophones and Newfoundland. Every corner has their own.
I once did a project on Parliament Hill on July 1 called Canadian Heartbeat, the Canadian Mosaic. I invited many groups across the country to perform. I had percussion as the base to perform with each, and I coordinated everyone to perform with each different group representing the different cultures. It had one common thread, each representing themselves, and then finally this is the Canadian reality and here is where we are.
I think this is where we should be going. The communication factor is important and coordination and people who are knowledgeable in each of these markets.
The Chair: I’m going to turn to Senator Bovey to ask the next questions. You will see a different person in the chair — a much improved Senator Dawson — because Senator Cools and I are being called to an urgent meeting of another committee that needs to report to the Senate. I’m sure I will be able to read the transcript of the comments.
I’m going to ask Senator Bovey to start and Senator Dawson to take the chair.
Senator Dennis Dawson (Acting Chair) in the chair.
Senator Bovey: Ms. Charron, I really liked your statement that artists are our front line ambassadors. You both have spoken about the erosion, the slow death, and the suffering. I come back to the question I asked the earlier panel, where our wonderful artists are performing overseas, but does anybody really know they are Canadian?
You both spoke about the need to restore the support or cultural attachés. My question relates to some of what we’ve heard from other witnesses who have said, “Yes, but not necessarily cultural attachés.” With your international experience, is it one-size-fits-all? In some countries, is it appropriate for Canada to have cultural attachés? Is there another structure that might work better in other countries? You’ve worked in a diversity of countries. I just wonder if we need one solution or do we need a solution that has a flexibility that may work better.
[Translation]
Ms. Charron: You raise a considered point. It’s an excellent idea. Cultural attachés are nothing more than individuals with marketing expertise specific to a given country. Marketing experts would tell you that they don’t use the same strategy for every market. When they come from the local population, they are a tremendous resource because, as products of the culture, they are well versed in the work habits, ethics, values, et cetera that prevail in the country they work in. That means they are ideally positioned to negotiate on behalf of our cultural workers and artists when they begin working in a country or region; they are also the right people to meet with and talk to our cultural workers and, above all, ensure they are well-informed.
I know that Canada’s consulate and embassy network is made up of 181 offices abroad. That is a lot, much larger than Quebec’s network of delegations. The huge advantage of that is that they cover smaller areas. In the past, in the U.S., I really enjoyed working with those people. Having been on the job for a long time, they had built up very specialized networks. They really knew their clientele and were incredibly effective. As much as possible, I think the creation of those positions should be a top priority. Now, could other methods be used elsewhere? Probably so. One option might be to go through local organizations hired by the government to carry out similar work.
[English]
Mr. Mazza: I agree with Ms. Charron. However, I would insist the cultural attaché be attached to the cultural world.
I also differentiate when we say culture, I would like to point out there are two sides. There is entertainment and there is culture, and both are valid. Cirque du Soleil is entertainment, wonderful and huge. Culture is a necessity. Shakespeare is culture. It’s also entertainment, but it’s culture.
What some of our artists — for example, visual artists — Robert Lepage, for example, has created some wonderful works. Then by that, David Bowie and Peter Gabriel came to Canada, put together a whole tour and everything was built around creativity. It doesn’t mean entertainment is not creativity. We have to distinguish that both are important.
I think someone who comes from the field is much better prepared to understand the intricacies and differences and be able to guide the ship a little bit better. That is my opinion.
Senator Bovey: I have a quick follow-up, if I may. We have been talking about contemporary work today. You’ve talked about the schools you’ve developed and assisted in development. Ms. Peterson d’Aquino talked about the National Gallery staff member who helped preserve Russian treasures. We know there are a number of Canadian experts in material history and heritage who are now working in war-torn parts of the world trying to save their cultural treasures and protect them.
Do you see that aspect of the work as part of the responsibility of a cultural attaché or whatever this position would be?
Mr. Mazza: That is an interesting question. If the question is if the Canadian cultural attaché should take on the responsibility of preserving local cultures in other countries —
Senator Bovey: I wouldn’t go quite that far.
Mr. Mazza: That was my question.
Senator Bovey: I think a lot of that is done in Canada through UNESCO. When the specialists get to these parts of the world, do you see the cultural attachés in those regions having a role of protection and assistance?
Mr. Mazza: I see it as protection and assistance only — we’re promoting Canada, in my book. I’m very involved in China and Cuba especially. We have established a festival in Cuba. We have also established a portal by which Canadian products, such as musical instruments, are being sold in Cuba, instruments that were actually invented in Cuba but not available for sale there. We have one of the top Canadian manufacturers SABIAN Cymbals, who also own Gon Bops Percussion, congas and timbales, which are instruments invented in Cuba but manufactured by one of the top companies in the world, a Canadian company out in New Brunswick.
My association — I’m a artist with them — I help them help the locals but through our own channels, which obviously helps us artistically and economically. In the big picture, I tend to see things 360. There should not be one reason and it cannot be one way. It has to be working both ways all the time.
Yes, if the question was can we help that way, here is a concrete example where we have a festival each year and there is a competition in this festival. The Fiesta del Tambor, which is a Havana rhythm and dance festival, is the biggest festival in Cuba now. It happens in the first week of March. It is a national and now international competition where the winners win an instrument — a drum set, congas or timbales — but they do not have those instruments. For 17 years, I have been bringing the instruments to the schools to the winners, and along the way, I’ve been channelling the company through and now they are selling over there.
We did a great good locally, but consequently, it was a great thing for everyone.
[Translation]
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mazza. Ms. Charron, did you have something to add?
Ms. Charron: I think the attachés have to know the culture. That’s why I recommend they come to Canada once a year for professional development. A car dealer wouldn’t be expected to sell a vehicle they knew nothing about. Similarly, cultural attachés from around the world should be required to come back to Canada every so often to watch performances and meet with artists. It’s incredibly stimulating for them.
There are other countries with excellent coverage in terms of cultural services. France, for instance, has a sophisticated network of cultural services all over the globe. The U.K.’s British Council also comes to mind. There is no reason why an embassy or consulate couldn’t have a number of specialized, rather than general, positions. For example, one cultural attaché could specialize in the performing arts, another could focus on visual arts, and yet another could be responsible for cultural businesses. That way, they would be even more focused on achieving their objectives in their specific field of expertise.
To answer your question, I don’t think the mandate of a cultural attaché should include contributing to the preservation of another country’s culture. That responsibility falls on the government department for culture in the country with whom we have the diplomatic relationship. I don’t think it should be part of the mandate unless it is further to an agreement or international collaboration that also benefits our artists.
At a time when resources are increasingly scarce, these individuals need to be focused on promoting Canadian artists.
[English]
Senator Saint-Germain: Welcome, Mr. Mazza. Thank you for your value-added presentation.
[Translation]
Ms. Charron, it’s a pleasure to see you in a federal setting, after having had the opportunity to work together at Quebec’s Ministry of International Relations and the Francophonie during your time in New York. You are quite well-known. It wasn’t until yesterday that I found out you would be appearing before the committee. Before I get to my question, I’d like to make a comment.
A cultural attaché must understand not just the culture of the country they represent, but also the compatibility between the cultural product they are trying to export and the demand in the country or countries in question. Hence, a cultural attaché must have both cultural and business savvy. It takes someone with a tremendous amount of initiative and good business sense; technological advancements have increasingly moved the cultural sector into the international business realm. That cannot be denied.
Both of you, but Ms. Charron especially, talked about enhanced strategies and the importance of an international cultural policy. Something I’m noticing more and more about Canada’s cultural sector is that francophone products are at a disadvantage in relation to their anglophone counterparts.
With language coming into play, the promotion of francophone culture really seems to be limited to the international francophone community. Given your experience abroad, what could we do, through a concrete action plan, to remove that language barrier? How could we help Canada’s francophone culture achieve success beyond the international francophone community, which, after all, is limited in size and does not represent a growing market?
Ms. Charron: It’s very nice to see you again as well, Senator Saint-Germain. I agree with what you said wholeheartedly. Cultural attachés are tremendously important liaisons. They need to be well-rounded. They need to know not just about culture, but also about their country or region.
A model that works quite well, and is used by the delegations and consulates, is one where the cultural attaché works with an adviser who is usually a member of the government working on site. The benefit of a team like that is that each person complements the other in their work. They end up stimulating one another, working in tandem and collaborating effectively. They need to be incredibly savvy and have the ability to see beyond existing opportunities. When they hear about a new museum or theatre being built and it ties in with one of our cultural strengths, they have to reach out to those people and let them know what our fortes and talents are, tell them what we have to offer, and start building those relationships at that early stage.
As far as the Francophonie goes, as much as I love the French language, I, personally, have had little experience working with those networks in the last few years, despite doing a lot of work with people in the francophone theatre community. You make an interesting point. When I was posted in New York, I couldn’t really rely on francophone networks. I would often commiserate with a colleague of mine in London, who was also working in an English-language market at the time. We felt as though significantly more resources were allocated to the cultural services of Quebec’s Paris delegation than to those provided in English-language markets, even though we knew they held tremendous potential.
At the end of the day, artistic works can be translated, subtitled or surtitled, in the case of a theatre production. It’s child’s play nowadays with all the new technology.
In a number of regions, people speak numerous languages. For the past few years, I’ve been doing a lot more work in Europe than in the U.S. When I go to festivals or business meetings, it’s exciting to see that my counterparts are multilingual. They speak French, English and German fluently. There is less of a language barrier in the European Union, as compared with the U.S. or the United Kingdom. Clearly, the passionate individuals working in the field are looking, first and foremost, for quality, skill, originality and creativity, all of which transcend language. All that to say, once again, that if a French-language play or creative production is excellent, I think it’s easy to eliminate the language barrier and move beyond the traditional Francophonie networks.
Mr. Mazza: I completely agree with Ms. Charron on that. I’d like to share with you my view, if I may. Fortunately, Canada is a multicultural country, but we have two official languages. I don’t think it’s all that important to give one more of a boost than the other today.
The image we project is that we have no barriers, whether in terms of francophone or anglophone culture. That’s great. At the end of the day, it is the essence, the work and the talent that matter. Speaking French or English is good, but what really makes Canada great is that we speak both languages, and we should be proud of that, proud of the fact that we use both languages to express our talents, culture and everything we do.
In terms of the Francophonie and cultural products, the creative component should matter more than whether or not words are used. More than anything else, the support should focus on the creative dimension. I have often heard it said that we should study the market and see what people like. To me, that’s a red flag. It’s a no. And the creators?
[English]
No, we do not service a need. We create.
[Translation]
We create something that is Canadian. Otherwise, we stop. Just imagine if, before creating a work of art, Dali had stopped and thought to himself, “What do people want to see this week?” We would never have had Dali.
Canada’s openness of mind may be due to the fact that it functions in both languages. There are things we do not know, so we open ourselves up to the possibility of learning something new. We each take our place. Therefore, we need to support creativity. The last thing I would be in favour of is promoting a project in order to satisfy market demand. Instead, we should express what we want to say, no matter where in Canada we are.
Senator Saint-Germain: Many thanks to the both of you. Your comments have been very insightful.
The Acting Chair: You brought up linguistic duality. We have the marketing services provided by the Quebec government, specifically with respect to Quebec, and services for English-speaking Canada, known as the rest of Canada. Do the two levels of government work together at all? Whether it be in New York, London or Paris, do the Canadian embassy and the Quebec delegation work together closely? Conversely, if one invites Mr. Mazza to Paris, does the other have no idea? Is there any sort of cooperation?
Mr. Mazza: That’s a very good question. I’m glad you asked. In my experience over the past 20 years, I can tell you, in no uncertain terms, that there isn’t much in Beijing. There is no policy.
[English]
There is no policy in place and nobody knows what to do so it’s, “Okay, we are here.”
[Translation]
My book launch was held in New York, back in November. My book was released internationally by the largest publishing house in the world, Alfred. Luckily, the Quebec people know me. Mr. Dion and Ms. Charron were there. They got in touch with me and asked me what we needed. They saw it was worthwhile. I invited many of my famous American friends to perform as part of a concert. The answer I received from Canada was, “You have to wait; there is a committee and we have to see who is available.” A representative ended up coming, but Canada was not present because of the lack of a policy.
[English]
There is no policy at the moment. There is no money. Luckily, Quebec is at the forefront and supports us.
[Translation]
Cuba is another great example. We’ve been organizing these events for 17 years. I am often invited to give concerts. We have a huge presence in Cuba. Three years ago, we had to practically force the embassy to play a role in the celebrations marking the seventieth anniversary of unbroken relations between Cuba and Mexico, or Canada — one of the two. I was standing there with the then ambassador, Mr. Gagnon, and I watched the Minneapolis Symphony Orchestra play two nights in a row. The concert hall was full. I was standing next to him and I said:
[English]
“I don’t know about you, but I don’t like watching the parade. What do you think?”
[Translation]
He understood exactly what I meant, and luckily, the trade commissioner who was there stepped up and said that the occasion would be celebrated. I pressed the matter and, through the Canadian community — not through the embassy because there was no policy or budget — he found a way to mark the occasion. We held a big concert in San Francisco Square, in Old Havana, in front of 5,000 spectators. I helped put on the show along with two Canadian artists and two Cuban artists. We organized a huge show, but there was no follow-up because it wasn’t further to a policy. It was great, but that’s where it ended.
Quebec opened an office in Havana last September. A woman named Myriam — her full name escapes me, unfortunately — attended one of our festival concerts. She came on a night when I was being honoured with an award. That solidified our place, because, at the end of the day, I was representing Canada. I am a walking billboard for Canada. She realized that it was a good idea to organize shows with us. I put forward a proposal, and it was accepted. It was a collaboration with a Canadian artist playing in the festival and a Cuban artist playing here. I also proposed an academic collaboration. Cuba has a school equivalent to Juilliard called ISA, and it often collaborates on activities with the U.S. When I was in the dean’s office one day, I invited her to the festival, but she told me that she couldn’t attend because she would be at UCLA for a conference. I told her I thought that was strange and asked her why not Canada. I said that Canada was ubiquitous and one of Cuba’s biggest economic supporters. She thought I made a valid point, and said that the idea had never been proposed but that it sounded interesting. I then told her that, if she agreed, I would push ahead with the idea.
Within a week, the project was feasible. I said that, if the parties were interested, we would move forward with it. With Quebec’s support, we obtained a small grant. It wasn’t a lot.
[English]
It represents serious inroads finally, in just months, that Quebec is there and representing Canada. Yes there is support and we have this in place.
[Translation]
The Acting Chair: Ms. Charron, is it helpful or harmful for you to have two sources of support?
Ms. Charron: There are 180 consulates and embassies around the world and 20 or so delegations, so there are very few places that have both.
The delegations were very helpful when Canada withdrew its support, cultural attachés and advisors. During that dark period for the culture sector, Quebec artists were very fortunate to have delegations they could count on.
Broadly speaking, the culture sector already receives funding from three levels of government: major cities, the province of Quebec and the federal government. That is something artists are used to dealing with. When they arrive at a location, it is in everyone’s interest for them to receive some cooperation from the consulates and delegations. Is there cooperation? I think it depends on the location and the person in charge. Some are happy to cooperate while others feel they are in competition. The foreign policies and objectives can differ. The cultural attachés and advisors have to adapt to the directives from their boss, the services offered, and the opportunities for cooperation.
When I was a cultural attaché in New York, I got on very well with the cultural attaché at the consulate. Our cooperation was very beneficial. We could do more by pooling our resources rather than working separately. Our actions had more impact. We were often in the same locations. We talked regularly to find out what the other one was doing so as to avoid duplication. Of course she looked after artists from the rest of Canada, so she had clients that I could not help. There were times when we were operating at different speeds, when I helped launch a company, and the Government of Canada stepped in once the company was already there, when it was popular and was of greater interest to them.
To answer your question, I think it all depends on whether there is a good relationship and I think having both in the same location is helpful.
Senator Massicotte: Thank you both for being here this morning. My question is for Ms. Charron. Let’s back up a bit. When assistance is provided to artists, it is because the country has an interest in doing so and it also helps the artists. The purpose of our study, however, is cultural diplomacy. In other words, we are looking at how supporting artists outside the country benefits Canada.
From that point of view, what would our country’s objective be? How does it benefit Canada to support artists outside the country? How can we measure that impact?
Ms. Charron: The presence of artists in other countries is an incredible opportunity to showcase Canada’s brand, something that is difficult to achieve through strictly economic products or other things that get lost in the wake of globalization. Through their works of art, artists convey strong and original values. Members of the public who take in their works will be amazed by what is happening in Canada and will wonder why.
When I attend German, Swiss, American or Italian performances, I see a work of art, but the source country is always part of it. The brand is very strong and Canada can benefit from that.
You will recall what happened when support was withdrawn a few years ago. I still travel abroad a lot. I cannot tell you how many people asked me what was going on, saying that they had always admired us and that we had a presence. There was real admiration for the artists and programs. It was a very strong message. Then suddenly people were confused by this withdrawal.
I think they are very glad to see how things have changed course. It is extraordinary. The budget of the Canada Council for the Arts has doubled, and it is the only such organization in the world to have done so. Because of the economic crises, budgets have been cut. Many people are envious of this and it conveys a strong image.
The most valuable thing that civilizations have left us over the course of history is culture. People visit big cities like Paris, London, New York, Berlin and Rome for the culture. I firmly believe that this is something that can benefit all of Canada, including its citizens, politicians and businesses. This kind of support opens doors.
When well-known artists visited the Quebec delegation, suddenly my colleagues from tourism, business and public affairs invited their clients to attend those performances. The clients were delighted, inspired and reassured. They took in our wonderful culture and saw what great collaborators we are. For all these reasons, I think we have a great deal to gain through Canadian cultural diplomacy.
Sometimes a country will host an art exhibition or concert at their embassy. In my opinion, that is not the right approach. More can be achieved by becoming part of the cultural life of the capital cities and by working with them. There is much more media and public attention, in general, as opposed to holding activities at places that are rarely visited by the local people.
Did I answer your question?
Senator Massicotte: Yes. Earlier, some witnesses talked about our brand. They maintained that we must always have an objective and promote our chosen brand. They strongly recommended that the brand that we should promote is one of credibility combined with innovation. Do you agree with that suggestion, the image that we should aspire to in order to present Canada in a different light as opposed to the perception of us as farmers and that Canada is above all recognized for its natural resources? Do you have any comments on that?
Ms. Charron: The image of credibility and sophisticated culture involves all culture sectors. I was thinking earlier about those Visa credit card ads that ended with the message that experiences are priceless. The ad showed people at an opera or cultural activity. How many times have I been at a concert hall where my country’s artists got a standing ovation? What an incredible sense of pride! That illustrates the strength and impact that these artists have on a foreign audience.
I returned from a tour in France where I was part of a production. It was our first international tour and we were a bit nervous. We wondered if the audience would like our show. The reception was just incredible. I am not just saying this because I am proud of the show’s success, but also because it illustrates that what is created here — and that is inspired by who we are — can cross borders more easily than any economic product.
[English]
Mr. Mazza: I’m totally in agreement with this. Thank you, Madam Charron, this is fantastic.
On top of that, there are two levels. One is the economic engine I spoke of — the auto generation — 100 per cent of money invested in culture spends 100 per cent. We know, an economic engine — these are statistics: $1 in, $6 out.
On the other side, what it does for Canada and Europe, Senator Massicotte — it changes the face. We clearly see it all the time. In my full life of touring, as Ms. Charron has shared with us, we see the difference. The perception — then you buy things.
I’ll give you a couple of examples. We all remember in 1972 that famous hockey game — Russia and Canada. It was very close. We won in overtime. First of all, we didn’t know they played hockey and at that level. How many Ladas did they sell us following that hockey game? It was a question of perception; we suddenly changed.
Cuba is another example. Last week, in this effort to change the way they are seen by the American public — imagine — they rented the Kennedy Centre in Washington and sent in 25 of their top artists for a major concert. That is PR movie. Cuba, of course, is known for its culture. They have exported it. They want to change that face that many people have wrongly — it’s a clear indication.
Why do they go through such great expenses? They know, and we know. Those of us who travel a lot see directly that perception sells; that perception changes our negotiating position, our position of respect and that sophistication we are showing.
It’s not false; that is real. There is so much here on all sides. It should be shown.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much both. You have really contributed a lot to the dialogue as we work on developing a report.
My question is for Mr. Mazza. You spoke about 1971 when Prime Minister Trudeau — the first Prime Minister Trudeau — brought in the Canadian content policy. I remember that. I wasn’t very old. I do remember. It wasn’t without controversy at the time, but it did a tremendous job of promoting the arts, particularly the film industry and the performing arts in Canada, I believe. We still see the results. Although with changes in technology and so on, it probably doesn’t have the impact it had in 1971.
Mr. Mazza, you also spoke about serious media shortfalls in promoting the arts. You spoke about the role of the CBC. CBC is our national broadcaster. It is funded in part by Canadian taxpayers. What should the role of CBC be in promoting the arts in Canada? Are they doing enough? What more should be done?
Mr. Mazza: That’s an excellent question, thank you. Before I answer the CBC question, I wanted to refer to 1971. When I said I was involved, I was 15 years old. I lived in Ottawa at the time. I played in a band that was discovered. We recorded a great song in Toronto. Then a record company, an American multinational, at the end of the day looked up and said, “Oh, but you’re Canadian, so you will never get airplay.”
Do you remember The Guess Who? They got that name because they were popular locally at the time, but when they recorded, they said, “This is a great hit.” They recorded in Detroit. Then they said, “Let’s not put our name on it. Guess who?” they asked. It was sent out, and it stuck. “Shakin’ All Over ” was the song. It became an international hit.
At that time, there was a great debate in Canada when that happened, because there were a lot of groups in Canada — Lighthouse — many groups were having a difficult time getting airplay, just because we did not own our distribution system, the air waves, et cetera.
That was a forced situation that had great benefits we are benefitting from today.
Getting to the CBC, it’s a great system we have. It’s a great model and well respected around the world. It has been cut down to the minimum. It can only do what it can do. It’s struggling. Number one, it has to be funded and kept up to be objective, so it doesn’t become a FOX or any of that. That’s the wonderful thing — to promote Canada. It’s like the railway. The national railway brought Canada together. The CBC did that and should continue to do that.
I see Global Affairs as a way for what we do as Canadians, as artists or anyone in the world — what is going on in the world reported back to us and for to us know what is going on. It is, after all, our tax dollars — also represents us. It’s good to see that — and also promote locally, through our network that would be established. It has to be well funded, of course — someone to report back and report locally.
I had the experience when we went to Hong Kong at one point. Somebody from CBC contacted us and did a report. By the time we got back to Canada, theOttawa Citizen, the Gazette — I live in Montreal now — big articles on the success of this Canadian group. Then there was an article in Hong Kong that we performed these Canadian works. There were compositions by Canadians.
It adds to the discourse. That media connection, for me, is very important. It’s market. Also information — it’s important. It should not just be Twitter; it should be real reporting that is objective.
[Translation]
The Acting Chair: Ms. Charron, you may make one last comment. Please go ahead.
Ms. Charron: When I was in New York for the CBC, there were cultural correspondents there whose reports were being relayed to Montreal and the whole CBC network. They were also in other major cities. When I was the director of Violons du Roy, I did some amazing projects with CBC Radio 2, which was not only a media partner, but also a partner that invested in projects. I remember for instance taking La Chapelle de Québec to perform Handel’s Messiah at Disney Hall in Los Angeles, which had just opened. The CBC and the producer were present. The show was broadcast in all the zones and on the international network. These platforms provided outstanding visibility. In my opinion, there is a role for non-commercial radio to educate, inform, cultivate and inspire. It is unfortunate that its budget has been cut in recent years.
Ultimately, I have two passions in life. The first is culture. The second is understanding and discovering what is happening around the world, bringing people on the planet together. My work is satisfying for me day. I continue to bring together artists and their overseas partners to create projects which, I hope, will be long-lived. Since we were invited here today, I hope Canada will give serious thought to establishing new long-term measures that will make a difference in the work of people such as Mr. Mazza and me.
The Acting Chair: Thank you. That is the purpose of our committee. You both illustrate that this meets a need. You can count on us. Our study will lead to a report.
[English]
We heard the message loud and clear.
[Translation]
Many thanks to both of you. You can follow our study’s progress over the Internet.
(The committee adjourned.)