Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Issue No. 48 - Evidence - Meeting of June 14, 2018
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 14, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade met this day at 10:33 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, the committee has been authorized by the Senate to study the impact and utilization of Canadian culture and arts in Canadian foreign policy and diplomacy, and other related matters. Under this mandate, the committee is pleased to continue its study today.
I will ask the senators to introduce themselves.
Senator Bovey: Pat Bovey, an independent senator from Manitoba.
Senator Dawson: Dennis Dawson, Quebec.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: René Cormier from New Brunswick.
Senator Massicotte: Paul J. Massicotte, a very independent senator from Montreal.
[English]
Senator Oh: Victor Oh, Ontario.
Senator Greene: Stephen Greene, very, very independent senator from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Housakos: Leo Housakos, a very Conservative senator from Montreal.
[English]
The Chair: I’m Raynell Andreychuk from Saskatchewan, chair of the committee.
Thank you for coming before us today. We have, by video conference from Vancouver, Dr. Ron Burnett, President and Vice-Chancellor of the Emily Carr University of Art and Design. Dr. Burnett, can you hear us?
Ron Burnett, President and Vice-Chancellor, Emily Carr University of Art and Design: I can hear you, but I can’t see you.
The Chair: That might be a blessing for you. We do have difficulties with video conferencing from time to time. We will continue, and the technicians will look into you gaining vision as well as sound for this meeting.
In Ottawa, we have before us Jean R. Dupré, President and CEO of Orchestre Métropolitain; and Brigitte Proucelle, Cultural and Scientific Counsellor, Embassy of France to Canada.
We thank all of you for coming. We know that you have different perspectives and different interests, and we are trying to make sure we can hear as many witnesses as we can during this very difficult time in June when we have so much legislation coming through. We appreciate you sharing your different perspectives with us.
I will go to the video conference first to ensure that we still have at least the audio. Dr. Burnett, I’m going to ask you to start with a short intervention, because we do want to save time for questions. Welcome to the committee. The floor is yours.
Mr. Burnett: Thank you very much. It really is an honour to meet with you all. I appreciate the opportunity to give you a short presentation and answer your questions as they arise.
Very briefly, I’ve visited over 20 countries during my 22-year tenure as president at Emily Carr. In general, the support I received from federal and provincial governments varied depending on locations I was visiting. It also depended in large measure [inaudible] a given country.
In general, the actual awareness of Canadian diplomats [inaudible] is good, but it is not at the top of the priority list of work and engagement. This is largely because culture in Canada is divided into regions, and often the amazing amount of cultural work going on in this country is not recognized from within, let alone abroad. Some of our icons in literature are recognized, but this is a very small number.
For example, we ran a major design exhibition at Canada House in London. This happened because the ambassador at the time was interested in Canadian design and its history. Emily Carr played a major role in designing the exhibit and choosing the items to be displayed. We also helped to promote it. However, the exhibit was limited to achievements in British Columbia. This was in 2015, but there has been no follow-up since then, even though the exhibition was well attended and reported in the British press. No Canadian press outlets responded or showed any interest.
I’ll give another example. In the fall of 2015, we organized a major opening of the first comprehensive European exhibition of works by Emily Carr, with the aid of the Royal Bank. Emily Carr is arguably one of our greatest painters and is internationally renowned. This exhibition at the Dulwich Picture Gallery in London, one of the oldest museums in England, was a major breakthrough for Canadian art in Europe. The opening was attended by the Canadian ambassador and Prince Charles. This should have led to increased activity around the role and importance of Canadian painters and artists, but there was very little follow-up. In fact, attendance from the Canadian diplomatic community in Canada was paltry. The press in England and Europe celebrated the exhibition.
I present these two examples to you because I want to talk a little bit about how — and I’ll have some suggestions at the end of this short presentation — difficult and challenging it is to really bring Canadian culture to the forefront of our diplomatic activities.
I’ve attended meetings in Shanghai and Beijing about the importance of Canadian art to Chinese artists. Many of the top Chinese artists have received honourary doctorates from our university. Notwithstanding press releases and efforts to communicate these events to Ottawa and Foreign Affairs, little was done to build upon the foundation we were establishing, and no further interest was shown by Foreign Affairs.
Too often, I have found that the knowledge base of Canadian diplomats and attachés is limited by their own experiences. It was not so long ago that Canadian embassies had extensive publications available on Canadian culture that went far beyond a few disciplines, but it is rare to see these now. Many of our international activities across a variety of areas are so decentralized that it’s hard to develop coherent and shared policies in Canada, let alone overseas.
As another example, arts education has the potential to be a connector across the world. I was the first international representative to sit on the board of the European League of Institutes of the Arts. There are over 300 such institutes in Europe and, by comparison, only four in Canada. During my tenure on the board, I received many requests for information about Canada and tried my best to inform people about the diversity of what we do and the uniqueness of our input across our wonderful country.
The Government of Canada has a lot of information available when it comes to trade in cultural products, but far less available on specific cultural activities from province to province. This emphasis on trade is not a bad thing but should not exist in isolation of cultural production and output across a variety of disciplines. The lack of federal cultural institutions in places like Vancouver, Calgary and Regina means that the general knowledge in Ottawa about what’s happening in the West is very limited. This makes it even more difficult to promote our cultural work abroad.
Of course, all of this takes investment and, from that point of view, there has over the last few years been a vast improvement in the availability of funds for cultural promotion internationally, but do we have any organizations like — House or the British Council? These are organizations of experts in a variety of fields who actively participate in local events around the world and get to know local stakeholders and often invest significantly in local events in Canada. This is the same with the French and Italian embassies and consulates across the country.
This is often about the promotion of culture in general and is not tied to any specific outcomes other than the recognition that culture is the heart of how any community defines itself, and there may be peripheral impacts ranging from simply knowing more to actual economic benefits.
Let me return briefly to a major challenge for the future and offer some solutions. For example, we have a robust and growing design and technology area in Canada that covers everything from architecture to video games. We need internal policies in the country around these areas so those policies can be translated into the international arena. Yet, if you read the Creative Canada report put out by Heritage Canada, you will find the following points made. The discussion centres on Canadian creative entrepreneurs, asks for more diplomats to be made aware of the Canadian cultural industries and suggests greater investments in international trade fair and talks about the first federal trade cultural mission. These are all good and important efforts. The challenge is that much of this work cannot be done without a profound change in attitude about culture and cultural producers and creators.
Federal support for the arts has increased in recent years, but this comes after a decade of cutbacks. If we cannot build internal coherence and strength, how can we promote the diversity of what we create to the rest of the world? Although the budget of the Canada Council has increased in the last few years, it is not close to the level needed to sustain our cultural activities internationally. Only a tiny proportion of grants at the Canada Council is targeted for international relations and, even so, these have had a major impact. Imagine what a cross-ministerial, multidisciplinary effort internationally might do for the country and for our culture.
To be quite pragmatic, I have some suggestions. The challenge we have is visibility in a very competitive world. Creative work in Canada is on par with any country, but we are not good at promotion and don’t have institutions and organizations that can maintain an awareness of what we do at the international level. Awareness happens over time and requires continuous work over decades, not years. An audit needs to be done of our major international embassies to determine the extent of expertise of Canadian diplomats involved in promoting and connecting Canadian culture.
A second suggestion is that the heritage minister has announced she will establish a Creative Industries Council co-chaired with the Minister of Science, Innovation and Economic Development. This new council should have the added mandate of exploring investing in Canadian culture overseas.
Third, the role of Canadian design is not understood internally or externally. We need to strengthen internal knowledge of the richness of Canadian design as the foundation for external promotion and establish a Canadian design council to achieve as much as the British and the Dutch have.
Number four is to mandate Statistics Canada to be more current in its figures on Canadian culture as a priority in order to more fully understand the key role of Canadian culture nationwide and tie this work into work at the international level.
Five, consider hiring more attachés with an intimate knowledge of the creative sector in Canada and provide more training and information to our consulates and embassies.
Finally, number six, Canadian artists are experimenting at the cutting edge of areas like virtual and augmented reality, social media, new forms of distribution for traditional media, new materials, 3D printing, the digital reinvention of sound technologies and outreach in Indigenous and Northern communities using digital technologies. I could go on and on; we are so rich in our cultural forms and expressions. These activities are parallelled in other countries. We need some ground-level strategic thinking about how to promote all these innovative activities from our creative sector, and we need it urgently because, quite frankly, at the international level, in Asia, where I have been many times, we are deeply respected, admired and loved to some extent in many of the countries I’ve visited, but in the end we haven’t provided enough information to those countries to fully understand who we are. Sometimes exchanges and visits work, but in general we need something of a broad strategy in our international area regarding culture.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Burnett. I will now turn to Mr. Jean Dupré for the next presentation.
[Translation]
Jean R. Dupré, President and CEO, Orchestre Métropolitain: Thank you. This invitation to provide my comments probably has something to do with the recent international tour of the Orchestre Métropolitain, or OM, and the great success and incredible impact it had as a result.
Culture is a universal gateway, a way of rapidly establishing one’s presence, a way to make contacts on neutral ground and to encourage mutual exchanges and discoveries of values. The culture of a people is the best window through which to know and understand them. The culture of our people is the best way to make ourselves known and understood. At a time when religious, political and environmental issues may divide and compromise those exchanges, using culture as a lever and a tool of diplomacy makes good sense and is all-important. Like sport, culture also plays a role as the emblem of a nation.
The role of an orchestra conductor is often likened to the role of a leader. The key elements of cultural diplomacy are, in our view, reflected in those who assume respectful, positive and innovative leadership roles. They exemplify bars being raised, models of wise management, both administrative and human, and organizations that embody inclusion and span generations.
There are just as many examples of major economic levers and new ways of governing, of building bridges, of communicating with each other. These values are at the core of the Canadian government’s focus and are symbolized by its artists, such as the OM and its director, Yannick Nézet-Séguin.
The OM made its first foray abroad with high-quality recordings and, very recently, with its first European tour, which was a huge success. What a unique opportunity for the Canadian government to be part of everything that might be seen through such a Canadian window! A young Canadian conductor, in demand around the world, and a hundred trained musicians, who left, dressed in the Canadian designs of Marie Saint Pierre and Aldo, to give concerts that included Canadian and Quebec works with internationally recognized Canadian soloists, performing in the most prestigious European concert halls and achieving a stunning success.
But the Canadian government did not seize that opportunity for diplomatic dialogue, supported by the presence of Yannick Nézet-Séguin and the musicians of the OM as its major Canadian ambassadors.
The OM was able to undertake that tour because of its donors, its private sponsors and the good will of key people abroad who agreed to welcome our orchestra. Of the budget of $1.4 million, 44 per cent of the costs came from private donations, 36 per cent from the European venues that welcomed the orchestra, 15 per cent from a grant from the Conseil des arts et des lettres du Québec, and only 5.5 per cent from the Canada Council for the Arts, the sum of $90,000 in a budget of $1.4 million.
Is that the position that the Canadian government really wants to be in? To the extent that the government claims to recognize the importance of cultural diplomacy, it will come as no surprise to you if I seize this opportunity to encourage the federal government to step to the forefront, to work in advance to support organizations that so powerfully showcase Canadian culture and our talented artists overseas.
Each of the seven concerts on the tour was a triumph. In cities where the greatest orchestras of the world vie for the stages, a German critic even called the OM an orchestra that is setting new standards. In our view, the federal government’s involvement in such a fruitful project, with its incredible diplomatic potential, was simply nowhere to be seen.
Provincial authorities, on the other hand, did take the initiative to contact us and to organize various opportunities for interaction in Europe. We invite the Senate to reflect on the reasons that led to this lack of leadership from federal authorities, at a time when everything was in place and the situation was very favourable for Canada to benefit from it.
When the Senate asks us what strengthens or limits the use of cultural diplomacy nationally and internationally, one observation stands out: international players are much more forthcoming in terms of initiative. They recognize something unique in Canadian talent. Our own nation seems to notice, encourage and support that talent only as an afterthought.
In that context, we recommend that, as a nation, we encourage the spread of Canadian talent with funding models tailored to the needs and the projects of the organizations. We would like better support in exporting Canadian culture. Currently, cultural organizations have to respond to the themes, the directions, the standards and the priorities of the government, even to the point of being entirely distanced from their mission. This is to gain access to budgets that, while helpful, are designed for less relevant projects that are outside their mission, short-term and with little possibility of expansion. Therein, we see a danger of cultural missions losing their very nature.
We also urge the Canadian government to adopt a more global and more equitable vision when allocating its grants to culture. You may be surprised to learn that the OM receives the equivalent of 3 per cent of its total revenue from the Canada Council for the Arts, even after last year’s complete review of its files. This figure places the OM thirteenth and last among major Canadian orchestras, which, on average, receive amounts equivalent to 8 to 10 per cent of their total revenue. This imbalance is much less conspicuous provincially, where the Government of Quebec contributes $1.6 million to our orchestra.
Paradoxically, the interest in Canada on international stages is conspicuous. We feel eyes constantly turning to Canadian talent. Many celebrated Canadians are securing renown for our country from international stages. Canada is an incubator for talent, and the government should be a major supporter of the organizations and the artists that want to develop their art. We must not forget that the return on investment is very real. The benefits from the OM’s recent tour are huge. They are evident in Montreal, in Quebec, in Canada, and now overseas. As testimony thereof, we have upcoming international partnerships, including a second recording on the renowned Deutsche Grammophon label next November, and a second tour very shortly to be confirmed for the 2019-20 season.
Our director Yannick Nézet-Séguin has serious questions about the funding provided to the OM and to the world of culture. He has drafted a letter that will be sent in the coming days to the Prime Minister’s office, asking for a meeting to discuss the difficulties our orchestra is experiencing in gaining the ear of federal authorities, specifically the Canada Council for the Arts, and to gain recognition of the true value of an organization like ours that does so much to promote Canadian culture at home and abroad.
The OM’s first international tour was a triumph. Will our Canadian government take advantage of other upcoming major projects of the OM and of other export-oriented Canadian cultural organizations? Will the government understand that it has a responsibility in terms of the support provided to those cultural organizations and that the responsibility manifests itself by capitalising on the opportunities provided by their success?
The OM has been fighting for the place it deserves in its own country for around 40 years now. We hope that this time is coming to an end and that the OM has finally proved its worth in the eyes of its own government.
The Chair: Thank you.
The floor now goes to Ms. Proucelle.
Brigitte Proucelle, Cultural and Scientific Counsellor, Embassy of France to Canada: Honourable senators, first of all, I would like to thank you for giving France the opportunity to provide our testimony in terms of the issues you are considering. I would also like to take the opportunity to say hello to Ron Burnett, with whom we work marvellously well throughout Western Canada. Good morning, Ron.
In France, we have developed what we call cultural diplomacy for use beyond our borders. This cultural diplomacy is very firmly anchored in our national cultural policy. It is deliberate and structured; it is built not only on the talents of French artists and experts, but also on an interaction between the state, the regions, the départements, and the cities. It forms a continuum from our heritage to our most contemporary creation, and, of course, includes training, which provides the constantly revitalized environment for our cultural diplomacy.
Cultural diplomacy as we know it is a very lively youngster, exactly 100 years old. The first mention of cultural diplomacy was precisely in 1918. The date is not at all anecdotal; these are the weeks and months following the horrors of the First World War. That is where our cultural diplomacy was founded, together with its common themes of understanding between peoples, of mutual knowledge and interaction, and of art as the language of international peace and shared prosperity. This initial definition expresses an absolutely inherent, fundamental intent and objective, which subsequently allowed tools and strategies to be tailored as required.
This initiative from 1918, about which we must be precise, because there is nothing vague about it, was the brainchild of a small group of men imbued with that philosophy, a small group made up of leading artists, collectors and politicians who put the proposal to the ministère des Beaux-Arts, the predecessor of the ministère de la Culture, and to the ministère des Affaires étrangères, a proposal for them to unite to promote creativity in the world. This historic event is important because it perfectly expresses what continues to inform our foreign policy in cultural terms, with all the adjustments and complexities of our world today.
So what of the situation today? I feel that is important to explain the overall architecture of our cultural diplomacy, as it will likely suggest a number of angles that you may wish to explore.
First, our cultural diplomacy relies on a very strong network around the world built on four major pillars. The first pillar is education. We have 500 schools, with 350,000 students and 9,000 teaching staff. The second pillar is cultural action itself, in the broad sense, meaning cultural, educational and scientific. We have 822 Alliances françaises around the world; they are self-financed, and have staff numbering about 5,500. We have 154 cooperation and cultural action services directly attached to embassies, such as where I myself work. We have 98 cultural institutes and 27 French research institutes around the world. The third pillar is higher education and research, with 31,000 annual travel opportunities for students, researchers and experts. The fourth and final pillar is the close relationship with economic diplomacy, which of course includes tourism.
These pillars are supported and well supplied with expertise by various agencies and organizations. The Agence pour l’enseignement français à l’étranger, the Institut français, headquartered in Paris, for the arts, education and cultural industries; an organization called Campus France for student travel; Business France for creative and cultural economic matters; the Bureau Export for contemporary music, for everything to do with music, and musical and audiovisual industries, and so forth.
We have in total about a dozen agencies in France that bolster this system abroad. And this is done with a budget of a little more than 800 million euros. This is just the contribution of the Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs, because added to these 800 million euros are the contributions of all the territorial communities, that is to say the cities, regions and cultural organizations that also benefit from generous subsidies from the French government. I’m thinking of the large theatres, ballets, orchestras, art centres and so on.
I will now address the heart of this architecture. Its heart is quite simply the human being and his or her skills. At the core are human beings and their skills, grouped together around a common objective, present at the national level and all of the embassies, in keeping with the context of the embassies. It is thus a very rich network of men and women who have expertise to contribute and are, especially, connected to the French ecosystem in their given field. They can analyze another ecosystem and identify the points where it can connect and converge with ours.
In the service I manage, for instance, all of the agents are professionals from their sector, recruited because of their skills, over a period of two to five years. I am the only diplomat, and that is in fact a very recent development, since I come from the private and professional cultural milieu. This is conducive to a large-scale renewal and a precise, regular adjustment process, necessary for a permanent evolution in keeping with what is happening in the world.
Thanks to this, we capture talented people who in turn capture other talented people who will interact with the country we are in. It is a general system that works for the arts, but also works for cultural industries, science, research, and all of the related areas that concern us.
This mobility and regular renewal also allows us to be as in touch as possible with all of the innovations in all sectors, and to identify and enhance unique, original expressions, as this is what is important to us, as we deal with strengthening identity. What makes us good in certain areas, what makes it possible for us to work in complementarity with knowledge from other countries? This of course makes us stand out from formatted mass consumption products. That is one of the issues. It can be said that through the co-operation and cultural action services of the embassies, we are in fact exploratory outposts, often for highly specialized entities. In research for instance, we are the relay for the Centre national de la recherche scientifique, of the Institut national de recherche en informatique et en automatique, and for the agriculture, oceans and other research laboratories. In addition, we benefit from annual and multiannual flexibility in terms of relevant strategy, which we can revise in keeping with the state of the world, political progress or the vagaries of politics, of course, while taking into account the sociological, political and economic human context of each country. We look for specificities that will mesh well with our own specificities.
We base our action on cooperation, co-production, and shared values and strategies, in order to strengthen our presence in our global world. Let’s take artificial intelligence, for example, a very timely topic, to which Canada and France have developed the same approach, especially where ethics and a humans-first approach are concerned. In the face of this considerable, worldwide challenge, and vis-à-vis other powers that are taking what we might call, to keep things light, divergent approaches, this Franco-Canadian rapprochement of expertise and values is, more than ever, desirable. The researchers and experts of our two countries are allowing us to make great strides in our chosen direction, thanks also to their mobility.
The “soft power” or diplomacy of influence we develop in this way through cultural diplomacy has, in addition, direct effects on the economy and what I call “intelligent markets,” which allow high quality cultural products to gain the lion’s share in terms of market penetration, and avoid the standardization of goods, which of course becomes the standardization of minds. It is what one might literally call providing a public service, while energizing economic systems.
We also work with existing international networks that allow us to strengthen each other mutually and that also open up opportunities. I’m thinking, for instance, of the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie, since we have the good fortune of sharing that language. Such networks have a highly effective multiplier effect.
I might add that what inspires us and brings us together, what completes us and makes us different and interesting, and those points where we interact, literally generate innovation. It is a diplomacy that is adapted to the context, which acts on a continuum where culture, the arts, sciences, education and the economy are closely related and have mutually beneficial, reciprocal effects.
Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Bovey: I would like to thank you all and welcome you here. I very much appreciate your insights and certainly, Dr. Burnett, the long number of years you’ve been working in this internationally.
I want to sum up what I’ve heard and turn it into a question. It seems, Mr. Dupré and Dr. Burnett, that you’re both talking about a missing link. We can name many other organizations and artists who have brought their work on to the international stage and have certainly had individual success, from the Emily Carr exhibition to the subsequent one of David Milne at the Dulwich Picture Gallery, to concert tours and all. What concerns me is that you both seem to be pointing out the fact that we, as Canadians, or the Canadian government, Canadian diplomacy, does not know how to take those individual successes and transform them into a broader platform to underline who we are as a nation, who we are as a people, and how to open up the economic connections that Ms. Proucelle has talked about that France has done.
What is the best way to make those linkages? I know Emily Carr University has done a lot of work on international design, worked with business, worked with building materials and that the work of your students and faculty have made huge contributions to the economic success of Canada. Can you talk a bit more, both of you, as to how we can create that missing link? How do we fix that missing link so the reality of what is going on with the arts and with artists and cultural diplomacy really is understood in the economic presence of Canada abroad?
Mr. Burnett: Thank you, Senator Bovey. It’s a pleasure. I would say that there are a variety of potential ways in which we can actually respond to that question.
I really appreciate what Brigitte has been talking about with regard to France. It’s astonishing to me, in dealing with particularly some of the European countries but also some of the Asian countries, how well-developed their understanding of cultural diplomacy is and how deeply embedded from a structural and infrastructural point of view their attitudes are.
If you take, just as an example, what the French consul does in Vancouver, it is quite extraordinary. It’s the same with the Italian consul. They support events that are local in order to promote local culture while at the same time bringing together the international strand and inviting and promoting and paying for visitors from their countries.
Similar processes do exist in Canada. There are examples, but it largely depends on who is the ambassador in any given country at any given time. I have known and interacted with many of our great ambassadors and deeply respect all of them, but it is very difficult to sustain the process if you don’t have infrastructure available to support it. In Canada, you probably do need the equivalent of something like the Alliance Française or equivalent strength being put into each of the consulates and embassies. That means people with a deep knowledge of Canadian culture, a deep understanding of the intersection of culture and economic activity, and even more so, a profound understanding of how international ideas are exchanged.
This is my key point: You can’t expect a quick resolution. The point Brigitte was talking about with respect to 1918 as the starting point was very significant. It takes decades to build this infrastructure and these attitudes out, but we do have to start. It is a shame to me, given the variety, extent, strength and actual sheer beauty of the work that we do in Canada, that we don’t actually know how to say to our partners, friends and even in some cases to those who are not that friendly with us, “Here. This is who we are and, as a consequence, look at what we do.”
But it can’t happen without infrastructure, Senator Bovey. I don’t see evidence in any of the recent reports coming out of Heritage Canada or Canada Council of a deep enough understanding of how we weave together local, national and international funding.
Mr. Dupré: Thank you for your question. I think you summarized very well what I tried to express in my presentation.
We have to focus on realizing, number one, as a country, that we can be defined by our culture. Unfortunately, we do not sufficiently utilize the fact that we have so much cultural talent in our country. This talent is exported in various ways, as Mr. Burnett explained and as I tried to portray in using the example of the orchestra.
With regard to the funding priorities, the Canada Council for the Arts has to review its priorities. As I tried to explain, it’s not the priorities of the cultural Canadian world; it’s the priorities of the government. Culture has to align with the priorities of the government, which we think is counterproductive. It can be dangerous — a denaturalization of our culture.
Regarding how to better use the fact that we have Canadian ambassadors as cultural ambassadors when we are travelling overseas showcasing Canadian talent, there should be a link between the Canada Council for the Arts and Global Affairs Canada that understands that in such a country as ours, at such a period of time, there is Canadian talent. How can we better utilize or take advantage of showcasing our culture to a specific area around the world where our talent is performing? That’s what I would like to add to that.
Senator Bovey: Madam Chair, I might suggest that we underline the fact that the French example has been growing since 1918. If we take a look at our Canadian examples, as Dr. Burnett and Mr. Dupré mentioned, we seem to be stopping and starting.
The Chair: Thank you for the comment. I may make a comment at the end to further the debate, but I would like the other senators to have an opportunity.
Senator Cormier: I have a lot of questions, but I will restrain myself.
The Chair: I’m sure you’ll select the best.
Senator Cormier: Yes, I will.
[Translation]
I would first like to thank you for the remarkable work you do. I would like to highlight, in particular, the extraordinary work done by the OM and Maestro Nézet-Séguin. He is one of the great ambassadors for Canadian culture in the world. We must, as you said, build on these initiatives.
We are trying here to determine how cultural diplomacy can structure itself in Canada. We talk a lot about our relationship with other countries. However, I would ask you to look within our country, while taking inspiration from the cultural policy of France and its regional cultural authorities. I am trying to understand and highlight how culture must get organized here, domestically, in order to allow it to have maximum outreach and to showcase our diversity.
[English]
Mr. Burnett, you talked about decentralization.
[Translation]
We know that in France, all of these regions are organized. My question is in the same vein as Senator Bovey’s. How can we ensure that the creators from different regions of our country can connect to do outreach at the international level and act in the area of international diplomacy? How should we structure our culture here, in Canada?
I have a complementary question. You have a long tradition in France. What is the relationship between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the French regions, with regard to cultural diplomacy? How is the link between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the regions established?
Ms. Proucelle: I must say one thing: that link was not built in a day, as they say about Rome. Things started in 1918. Objectives were set, and on that basis, the mechanism was built, and made official in 1922. It was not random that a musician and orchestra conductor became its head, precisely to gather up French talent and allow them to exhibit their creations outside our borders and begin to establish cultural contacts.
Thanks to modern technology, there is an acceleration, which would allow us to go much faster today if we were setting things up in France. This all began in 1918, in an era when there were no cell phones and no Internet.
As for the relationship between the regions and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the latter can tap into all of the competencies of the French ministries. It works with all of the French ministries. The regions are connected to the entire French government. In addition, they have a contractual relationship with the state for some parts of their actions, such as for the universities or for culture, for instance.
Before this, I was the Director General of Cultural Affairs for the City of Bordeaux, which is a huge unit. In that city, I managed 1,200 people who dealt with culture for the city of Bordeaux alone, which has 235,000 residents. Its opera house, which is enormous and one of the oldest in France, had a contract with the state, the region and the city. Common objectives were developed at the regional, national and international levels, each one contributing economically and being a part of the board of directors that manages the governance of that opera. The opera housed an orchestra, a ballet and a choir.
[English]
Senator Cormier: Mr. Burnett, how do we do this in Canada? They have regions in France, and we have provinces in Canada. How do we do that missing link that Senator Bovey is talking about?
Mr. Burnett: I’ve mentioned infrastructure and structure. I’ve studied the French model very carefully because it is so impressive.
In my discussions with the British Columbia government, I’ve been quite emphatic over the years in emphasizing the importance of international relations and the role of culture in it. There is no particular infrastructure available in British Columbia to support that.
I believe, from the federal perspective, there needs to be a multi-ministerial council established that crosses between Canadian Heritage; Global Affairs Canada; and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. That multidisciplinary council would define itself in a way that would allow people, actual employees with a dedication to Canadian culture, to learn and develop their expertise over time. This would be a 20- or 30-year experiment, so it’s not going to be quick.
Its purpose would be, among other things, to assemble a picture of the international impact of Canadian art, design, music, performance and theatre on the world. It would go beyond just a report and into an actual council that has as its goal the promotion of Canadian culture in all the regions in which we interact and in which we wish to interact.
I don’t see any other way other than through a genuine investment of real money that we can actually achieve this. We’ve been very amateurish up until now.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Mr. Dupré, do you think that the fact that the OM and its conductor are better known outside Canada than within Canada has an impact on the funding and support you receive from the Canadian government?
Mr. Dupré: Indeed. I think we have to be aware that there are inequities in the current system. As I am sure you know, orchestras function according to three main models around the world. There is the European model, whereby musicians are employees of the state. There is the American model, which involves only patrons of the arts, and where the government is not involved in culture. In Canada, we have a hybrid model which depends quite a bit on private patronage. As I mentioned earlier, if we had not received donations for 46 per cent of our $1.4 million envelope, we could not have done this tour. The government has to play an important role.
As Mr. Burnett mentioned, it would be wonderful to have a platform to promote and export talent. However, what can we do within Canada to be better known? Through institutions like the Canada Council for the Arts, we must ensure that our Canadian talents are well recognized here, first and foremost.
Senator Massicotte: I want to thank all of you for being here with us. Your testimony is very relevant for our study. As you know, our study is about a particular aspect of cultural diplomacy, that is to say the benefits at the artistic level of the export of our cultural products.
Ms. Proucelle, in this regard, we have talked a lot about the scope and impact of all your efforts, which are important. You briefly alluded to the issue of benefits and soft power. You referred to the economic aspects. According to your vast experience, what are the benefits of those efforts? From the cultural point of view, they are easy to determine, but at the financial level, from the perspective of the French citizen, what are the advantages for your country of investing so much effort in various parts of the world?
Ms. Proucelle: I also spoke of market share. It is also beneficial in that regard.
For instance, for all audiovisual content, that is cinematographic and television content and current music, we can have access to everything on the market with a mainstream product — pardon my use of English — which is a type of international standardization using the same sounds. There is also a cultural policy that allows people to differentiate and create, and citizens and consumers of music or audiovisual content wait for this very expectantly. It is in this regard that we work at the national level. We identify the talents who contribute a different voice and are truly involved in creation and innovation. Of course, we work with the private economic system. We work with recording companies, with film and television producers and we have entities where all of this connects so that we can organize meetings abroad. In fact, that is what the Bureau Export de la musique does. When there is a talented French artist or group of artists producing current music, that is to say on the market economy, we work together because we believe that the sound and the quality of that group can be interesting for Canada, for instance.
What is also interesting is that these artists come to perform in Canada. They benefit from this and we try to facilitate this, for instance in Calgary, thanks to the National Music Centre. We arrange meetings and common productions between France and Canada, which generates enormous savings for Canadian and French citizens. In addition, this allows our artists to work and to be a part of a virtuous circle of positive economy.
There are also zones of excellence in Western Canada for everything that relates to creativity in digital arts, video, video games, that is to say everything that is very popular on the western seaboard of Canada and the United States. At the origin of this digital economy are artists and experts who are arriving into the economic field, if they have the opportunity, if they are given the necessary hand up to access the market economy and develop their industrializable creative products.
That is also what we do. We draw a very clear link between the artistic work of creation, and innovation. We give artists a financial helping hand to help them to create their enterprise and develop together with other startups in Canada. It is a way of investing in a totally innovative and creative market share.
I hope I answered your question with those two examples.
Senator Massicotte: Yes, thank you, this is very relevant for our report.
Three months ago I had the opportunity of appreciating the talent of Yannick Nézet-Séguin at the New York Opera House. It was a very enjoyable evening. You did an American tour, and now you are doing a European tour. Is the financial assistance you received from the Canadian government and provincial governments for your American tour — I think I was present on the very evening you were in Washington — comparable to what you received for your European tour?
Mr. Dupré: Just for the sake of accuracy, it was our first international tour. We have not yet done a North American tour. The OSM did a North American tour last year which took it to Washington. I can’t talk about the financial assistance the OSM receives. However, if you look at the programs that are currently in place, the level of funding is probably similar. It would be at the same level as it is now, which is somewhat aberrant.
Senator Massicotte: What percentage of your income does it represent? Is it 6 per cent or 3 per cent?
Mr. Dupré: The Orchestre Métropolitain receives 3 per cent of all its income from the Canada Council for the Arts, as opposed to the other large orchestras in Canada, which receive between 8 per cent and 10 per cent. That is the point I wanted to raise.
Senator Massicotte: Other Canadian companies receive between 8 per cent and 10 per cent and you receive 3 per cent.
Mr. Dupré: Yes.
Senator Massicotte: What was the percentage five or 10 years ago?
Mr. Dupré: It was 1 per cent. Before last year, it was 1 per cent.
Senator Massicotte: There was a considerable increase but it is still very low.
Mr. Dupré: A 2 per cent increase is not very much.
Senator Massicotte: What is the government’s response? Your arguments are quite solid.
Mr. Dupré: The answer that the government’s priorities are different and they don’t intend to make up the historical inequity that exists with regard to our orchestra.
Senator Massicotte: Even if the other orchestras receive a much higher percentage.
Mr. Dupré: Quite so.
Senator Massicotte: In fact, that isn’t very logical.
Mr. Dupré: That is why I wanted to emphasize that aspect today. We have to take these realities into account.
Senator Massicotte: Thank you.
Mr. Dupré: My pleasure.
[English]
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much for coming before us today. I think it’s important that we’re discussing this, and it’s good for Canadians who are listening that they hear these discussions.
One of the challenges that we’ve heard from previous witnesses and that you have reiterated today is the challenge that we have with visibility of artists, culture and arts in Canada, but particularly Canadians who travel outside of Canada.
Mr. Burnett, you spoke about Canada not being particularly good at self-promotion, and I would agree with you on that. You also said that few Canadian media outlets report on overseas Canadian achievements in the arts and culture field. We also heard from previous witnesses that Canadians who are receiving monetary awards or receive achievements outside of the country have great publicity in Europe, but it’s barely covered, if covered at all, here in Canada, which is the home of the particular artist.
You spoke about additional funding and more focused funding and a different way of dealing with things, but do we need cultural attachés as we used to have at embassies?
Ms. Proucelle, I think your background in the arts and culture certainly has been very helpful to France and having your embassy here in Canada. As it seems to be now, it depends on the interests of the ambassador that happens to be situated. I believe Mr. Dupré or Ms. Proucelle spoke about the linkages that artists have with one another. We seem to be depending on the interests of the ambassadors and the linkages with the artists themselves rather than an overall Canadian government position of promoting the arts and culture.
Mr. Burnett: I can quickly answer the question about attachés. I worked in the 1970s and 1980s at McGill University. McGill was very active in attachés at that point and I was actively involved myself in that.
I can tell you that the cultural attaché system practised in France and, in particular, in Italy but also some other countries in Asia, is fundamental and a kind of ground on which the particular embassy can stand. There’s an active interest by these various attachés both in the local culture they’re living in and, then, how to connect people from Canada to it and vice versa.
I think you’re addressing a much broader and more profound issue we obviously don’t tend to debate, and that is the internal lack of coherence in our cultural policies in terms of promotion and recognition. The example of the orchestre de Montréal is a good one in the sense that we don’t stand by our own institutions.
What is paradoxical to me is that somewhere between 3 and 5 per cent of our GDP is actually in the creative sector and, if you bring in technology, that rises to 7 to 9 per cent. I say these as a range because Statistics Canada is so far behind in maintaining any kind of connection to the cultural activity in our country that we don’t have current 2018 stats. In fact, on the Statistics Canada site, they rely on 2010 to 2015.
The overall level of cultural activity in a country from a GDP perspective suggests we are missing the boat with regard to what we can do at the trade level and the industry level, and we’re also missing opportunities that many other countries have recognized, which is that culture is actually something that everyone can benefit from, both financially and, of course, from a cultural and human point of view.
I think we have a lot of work to do, but I’m very optimistic we can do it. There’s a lot of talent around that can actually take advantage of this.
[Translation]
Ms. Proucelle: If I may, I would like to add that scientific, educational and economic cultural co-operation is a roadmap which the French government provides to every embassy, and it has done so for many years, as I pointed out.
In addition, a very good knowledge of the ecosystem of our own country is absolutely essential if we are to go forward to meet up with the ecosystems of other countries. That is what I wanted to add. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Cordy: Dr. Burnett, you spoke about culture in Canada being divided into regions. Could you expand on that? We did hear from Indigenous witnesses who spoke about there not being one Canadian culture and that there is, in fact, an Indigenous culture and a francophone culture. You’ve spoken about regional aspects of it. Is there what we’ll call a Canadian culture, or is the Canadian culture made up, as Canada is, of a mosaic of a lot of people? We’re not a melting pot. In fact, I think we respect cultural differences and respect the multicultural aspects of Canada. How do we export a Canadian culture overseas?
Mr. Burnett: Well, that’s a very important question and thank you for it.
Canada, to me, is defined in large measure by the tension between the regions and not by the similarities or homogeneity of our culture. Indigenous peoples are a good example of that tension. We have different kinds of approaches in different cultural contexts and different provinces and within the provinces themselves and in different regions as well.
Nonetheless, if we share a common Canadian goal, it would be to actually promote that diversity and to promote the harmony that Canada has developed among its regions and among its different culturally creative people. That harmony, which often doesn’t exist in other countries, is something that we can stand up and say, “Hooray, look at what we’ve actually done.” We’ve managed to figure out how to stay somewhat balanced and, sometimes less balanced, among all our differences. Those differences are represented by how our different cultural creators express themselves. It’s a rainbow and should be done in a systematic fashion.
I think the problem is, first of all, we tend to define Canadian culture in a very limited way. As you can tell by how the French do it, they define it across a variety of different areas. Second, because of those limitations, we don’t recognize the diversity and we don’t know how to talk about it. We don’t have enough going on, frankly, in the education system. It’s a real systemic issue in the country that is actually teaching the history of culture in Canada.
I’ll give you one concrete example. We just launched a Canadian design exhibition, and that is one of the first times in Western Canada that we’ve actually had an exhibition of Canadian design. This is cross-cultural, cross country and historical. The exhibit is on at the moment at Emily Carr. When I tried to get some press coverage of that in British Columbia, forget about that. I can’t even get The Globe and Mail, which is presumably the national paper, to look at it.
So there’s some kind of problem here about recognition, about understanding diversity and how it works, and understanding how our tools of communication and our various forms of social media need to be refocused — this is where government comes in — to express diversity across the country. I support that diversity and I want that diversity, but I don’t think the world knows the extent to which we’re actually very good at what we do.
The Chair: We’ve run out of time. We’re actually a bit over. I want to thank our witnesses for coming. You’ve opened up a dialogue, and somewhere down the line we’re going to have to answer the question: To what extent should we ask the Canadian government to define cultural diplomacy as opposed to the cultural community but, also, Canadians at large?
This is one of the issues that I think has almost created an allergy for governments to get into, and that, I think, is somewhat unique for Canada. I think other countries have it. It’s been excellent to have the French example. They’ve approached their cultural diplomacy in their way, and it’s instructive, and it’s good to hear from Canadian sources who bring an element of pride in what you do to this committee. It has enlightened us. It has given the public an opportunity to hear from you, but I think you’ve given us even more to ponder so we may have to reach back to ask more questions of you. Thank you for being here today.
In our next panel, we have Mr. Alain Chartrand, General Manager and Artistic Director of Coup de cœur francophone. Welcome to the committee. We know that you’ve been told by our clerk our study is on cultural diplomacy. We’re looking for your perspectives from your unique experiences. Thank you for accepting our invitation to come before us. If you have an opening statement, please proceed. Senators will then put questions to you.
[Translation]
Alain Chartrand, General Manager and Artistic Director, Coup de coeur francophone: First I want to thank the members of the committee for having invited me to testify in the context of this study. How can I contribute to this reflection, given that the topic is so broad? I can probably best do so by sharing my experience in the field, as regards the presentation of performances internationally.
My testimony will concern a specific artistic expression, which is French-language song. This is a popular art par excellence, as song brings us together and reflects our reality. Like a chameleon on a Scottish kilt, it adopts all of our patterns. It is the standard-bearer and accomplice of our accents and our culture, and the song will always be one of its most formidable guardians. As Gilles Vigneault said, it is “a pocket mirror.”
To put my intervention into context, allow me to talk about history a little. After a rather prosperous period, francophone song experienced a difficult moment in the beginning of the 1980s. In an attempt to create opportunity where there was none, I participated in the creation of Coup de coeur francophone at that time; it was the first Montreal festival dedicated to francophone song. In November 2018, we will present the thirty-second edition of that festival.
Thanks to the creation of its national network, the festival now tours in over 45 Canadian cities, at the heart of francophone communities. Based on a culture of alliances and partnerships, it aims to highlight the richness of this artistic expression by facilitating the movement of Canadian artists all over our territory.
Our international involvement goes back more than 20 years. Over the years, we participated in various initiatives aimed at encouraging the mobility of Canadian artists on the international scene, initiatives based on the principle of reciprocity and a shared common vision. As an example I would mention our participation in the Association des réseaux d’événements artistiques internationaux, AREA International, which includes France, Belgium, Switzerland and Canada, and whose mission consists in encouraging the movement of our artists in our different countries.
From 2006 to 2016, I had the privilege of chairing AREA, which is the largest group of presenters and programmers in the francophone space. I am mentioning that example to emphasize the importance of developing and maintaining communities of practice, both nationally and internationally. It is the very nature of networks to bring together organizations and actors who share a common vision and projects to make them a reality. Whatever the artistic expression, the chain that leads from creation to dissemination is made up of many stakeholders who work together so that the creation can reach the public.
In the area of international dissemination, one of the links in that chain is the structure that programs the artists, and this plays a crucial role in this regard. In developing a policy based on cultural diplomacy, it is important to consider ensuring the necessary resources for the development and maintenance of that ecosystem made up in particular of networks and communities of practice in Canada and abroad.
My experience has taught me that beyond the best protocols signed between partners, human relationships play a determining role in the success and sustainability of international collaborations. With regard to cultural diplomacy, I subscribe to the definition given by Cynthia P. Schneider, quoted in the report entitled The Place of Arts and Culture in Canadian Foreign Policy published in 2007 by the Canadian Conference of the Arts. It is the use of creative expressions and the exchange of ideas, information and persons to enhance mutual understanding. Allowing us to better understand each other is what culture, which represents people in a very singular way and brings them closer together, allows us to do.
In 2006, journalist Anne Richer, speaking about Coup de coeur francophone, wrote the following in the daily newspaper La Presse:
This annual event devoted to francophone song succeeds where politics sometimes fail: it conveys francophone values from coast to coast.
This comment illustrates the impact of a cultural project on a community. If these values travel from one ocean to the other, they travel just as well from one continent to another.
In addition to supporting the development of networks of interests and communities of practice, the principle of reciprocity also contributes to creating effective strategy for cultural diplomacy. That reciprocity can be seen in our ability to welcome foreign performances in Canada. This is in part due to a political will to put in place programs that encourage that reception.
It also seems important to me that the foreign policy of the Canadian government in cultural matters, particularly with regard to the francophonie, takes provincial policies and regional initiatives into account, and does its best to align with them in order to optimize its impact. Sometimes our international counterparts lose their way in this.
In conclusion, as put forward in the document I quoted earlier, I would say that the representation of culture abroad can only be strong to the extent that Canadian culture is strong here. With regard to francophone song, the focus of my presentation, there is no doubt that in Canada it is strong in every way, and a foreign policy must take it into account. Thank you for your attention.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. I have a list of senators. We will start with Senator Massicotte.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: Mr. Chartrand, thank you for having accepted to appear before the committee this morning, we appreciate your presence very much. You have a lot of knowledge and experience in the artistic domain. You gave us a definition of cultural diplomacy which is, I think, still very timely. In your opinion, what are the economic and social advantages of exporting Canadian culture? Do you have any more concrete examples that show that this has been very positive?
Mr. Chartrand: I think we have the ability of transmitting our reality and our imagination at the international level, thanks to the vision of different artists, and this is one way of ensuring that different countries can understand each other. Culture conveys a variety of values that belong to the country we inhabit, and in my opinion, it bears witness powerfully to what Canada represents on the international scene.
Concretely, as far as I am concerned, on the ground we work a lot with several networks involved in presenting performances. There is thus a multiplier effect in working that way that means that when we position an artist on the international stage in the context of these networks, that artist can perform before a range of foreign presenters from different countries who can subsequently represent him or her.
Aside from that, I think that there is something universal in culture that reflects what we are and is a very effective way of painting a picture of Canadian society.
Senator Massicotte: You speak of effectiveness, and you are very involved in the music field. There are different ways of communicating our image and our reality, be it through music or sport. Is music a more effective way than others of projecting our image?
Mr. Chartrand: All cultural expressions are effective. Song has the particular feature of being a popular art par excellence which travels light, which travels well and reaches everyone. Some of you are particularly fond of contemporary music or experimental theatre, which is not the case for everyone, as these are more esoteric arts. However, everyone likes song, everyone has a favourite. And when I say “popular art,” I mean an art that reaches everyone in some way, which some more exclusive artistic disciplines do not do.
Senator Massicotte: Thank you, Mr. Chartrand.
[English]
Senator Bovey: Thank you very much for being with us today. It is very interesting.
I particularly would like you to expand on the comment you made — I’m paraphrasing — that the arts are successful where politics have not been. I wonder if you can enlarge on that in terms of what role you think cultural diplomacy could be doing, going forward, to enhance the international understanding and economy of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Chartrand: That is a vast question. A journalist from La Presse said that our initiative sometimes manages to achieve things politics cannot with regard to the francophonie. What is wonderful about the project we developed, in my opinion, is that we have managed to connect all of the francophone communities through a common project. Of course, that common project is music, and its dissemination throughout the country.
There’s a common denominator in the expression of song, which also expresses the diversity of expression, accents and the history of each community, and this unites the Canadian francophonie around a common project created by a Quebec organization.
In the beginning, there may have been a certain lack of understanding with regard to what we were seeking to achieve by reaching out to all of our partners throughout Canada. It was a desire that was directly linked to the dissemination of song, but it allowed me, over the years, to get to know all of this diverse reality. There is a plural francophonie; just as no two songs are alike, no two francophonies are quite alike in Canada.
This work which has been done in Canada and has brought us together for more than 25 years in this network, this wealth of francophonie, helps us to create links with the different countries of the francophone space, under the theme of the francophonie. It is clear that it creates a corridor for circulation and reciprocal exchange with other countries internationally, around this little treasure that is the French language.
I could not tell you exactly how Canada can benefit from an economic or social point of view. However, I can tell you that this draws us together into a community that permits an exchange of values and allows us to paint a picture of these different communities.
[English]
Senator Bovey: Thank you for that. I think that’s very positive and very worthwhile.
You did say that culture abroad — I can’t remember the word you used, but you compared it with culture at home. Would you agree there are francophone musicians — I know there are anglophone musicians — who are better known outside of Canada than inside of Canada?
[Translation]
Mr. Chartrand: Do you mean Canadian artists?
Senator Bovey: Yes.
Mr. Chartrand: For music in general, for an artist to be able to succeed abroad, he must begin by having some success in Canada. That recognition often allows him to go abroad.
I would continue by saying that, in a very practical way, I have seen the perception colleagues on the international scene have of the Canadian francophonie, which was of course often strictly related to Quebec and Acadia. Our diversity, and the fact that the francophonie is present throughout Canada with its own particular flavours, is something our colleagues did not know.
I now see, particularly in the context of the networks we work with, all of the promotion that takes place around a francophone artist, whether he comes from Alberta or Manitoba, et cetera. The origin of the artist is really specified, and there is a small educational side for the foreign public which is brought to better understand the diversity of the Canadian francophonie.
Senator Bovey: Thank you. Is it true that several of our visual artists are well known outside of Canada, but not here?
Mr. Chartrand: I would say that the same is true for dance, and in several other domains as well. But with regard to music in particular, it seems very rare that an artist who is not well known here explodes on the international scene.
Senator Bovey: This was very interesting. Thank you very much.
Senator Cormier: Madam Chair, first I want to say that my comment will not be objective, because I am very familiar with the Coup de cœur francophone. I am aware of the strength of this network, I know its outreach, and in my previous life, I took part in many activities of Coup de cœur francophone. And so I wanted to say that from the outset, to disclose that I have some in-depth knowledge of the capacity of this organization to create networks here in Canada and also internationally.
My question is the following, and it’s not a trick question, Mr. Chartrand. One gets the impression to some extent that Coup de coeur francophone does not need the Canadian diplomatic apparatus to function, because it functions well thanks to its robust networks, and launches solid international activities that are successful in their outreach. First, does the Canadian political or diplomatic apparatus contribute to your activities? If so, does it have an impact? And if it does not, what difference could the presence of embassies, attachés and political representatives in other countries make for your network?
Mr. Chartrand: I think there are two parts to your question. On the one hand, without necessarily talking about cultural diplomacy, the ability to export Canadian culture is also related to the existence of programs that make that possible. Where music is concerned, Canadian Heritage is quite active, as is Musicaction. We have seen this over the past 20 years, and I am thinking in particular of Musicaction, which put in place programs that were very specific to francophone communities, in a context where there was a music industry in Quebec, but not necessarily outside of Quebec. There, there are community groups.
With regard to cultural diplomacy, I might refer to various partnerships we have to produce events that provide visibility, either contact events or events that gather the entire market in an area. I’m thinking, for example, of the Biennale internationale du spectacle that is held in Nantes over two days, every two years in January. There is an exercise that takes place there under the management of the Government of Canada, in co-operation with the Government of Quebec, on a rotational basis. Both entities co-operate with the Société nationale de l’Acadie, as was the case the last time, or with the Government of Ontario.
The pooling of these resources also means the pooling of diplomatic resources, which are present on site and work together. It is important that the work be done in harmony, because Canada develops programs, just like Quebec and Acadia do as well. At a certain point, it is a good idea to have these programs converge in order to have maximum impact.
To reply to your question on cultural diplomacy, yes, the presence and the participation of the Embassy of Canada or the Quebec delegation really contributes to encouraging the exposure of Canadian artists abroad. I cited that event as a very specific example, but there are several events of that type that take place in other areas as well. With regard to music, there is metal, songs with lyrics, et cetera. There are different networks. There is no doubt that cultural diplomacy plays a role, and if it did not, there would not be as many possibilities for the positioning of our artists.
Senator Cormier: If you had to put in place a program to bring together the actors you just spoke of, what would the three priorities of that program be?
Mr. Chartrand: I don’t know if I would put a program in place, but I would certainly organize a meeting. This is, of course, something all of the actors do so that they can speak with a common voice. When I said that sometimes, international actors get lost, I meant that over the course of my experience, which goes back to the time when my hair was brown, I sometimes got the impression that there was a small “war of flags” going on. I must admit that my international colleagues could sometimes be confused by this.
It is quite normal for Quebec to create its own programs, and for Canada to do so as well. We are familiar with the enthusiasm of the Société Nationale de l’Acadie with regard to positioning, but I think that we have to harmonize our efforts as much as possible. I don’t think there should be one single overarching program. We have to let each province and culture have some leeway to decide how they want to position themselves on the international scene. But in the final analysis, when a francophone musical artist performs in a showcase event or a large-scale event, he remains a Canadian artist who does have the particular quality of coming from one region or another.
Briefly, I want to say that I listened to the intervention of the previous witness who talked about diversity and the difficulty of connecting all of that. I work in France a great deal. In France, when you come from Toulouse or Lille, yes, there is a francophone culture, but each area has its distinct features. The French are very attached to their specific features. And so, of course, in our country of vast spaces, we find it quite normal that we have different accents and characteristics, but we are all united by the fact that we express ourselves in French.
Senator Cormier: Thank you. I want to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Chartrand for his incredible work and his sense of humour, which he did not manifest often today, but which is one of his great qualities. Thank you, Mr. Chartrand.
[English]
The Chair: We’ve been talking about how to put Canada and its culture or cultures as part of our foreign policy. We did hear one perspective, that perhaps the best way to do it is to increase the number of exchanges, at whatever level — professional, amateur, what have you — with other countries, artist to artist, and that international understanding will grow from that and Canada will be able to prosper from that, that that’s the way to approach it rather than trying to get a brand of Canada out there.
Do you have any reflections on the exchange is the value and therefore it is not what Canada is trying to project; it’s understanding that the other country also profits and learns, and it’s a mutual understanding and a mutual growth?
[Translation]
Mr. Chartrand: It is worthwhile to have many exchanges among artists, of course, and we have to understand that there are different types of artistic expression. There are theatrical co-productions, and there can be collaborations in the visual arts. This is certainly interesting, but I’ll go back to what I was saying and mention that the chain that goes from creation to dissemination, that is to say the meeting between the artist or his production and the public, involves various stakeholders. We can have very many meetings among artists, but when it comes to music, this remains an interesting human form of exchange.
In my opinion, that is not necessarily what will give Canadian artists the opportunity to perform on the international stage. There are many other stakeholders, and that is to some degree the gist of my intervention. I am talking about the networks of show programmers. The artists may create, but how does their creation get in front of an audience? As I said, from a human perspective, this type of meeting is of course interesting. In certain areas, for instance, in alternative rock, that principle is the basis of co-operation.
I was talking about reciprocity. As an example, a French team may say, “We are going to work with these artists and this group, we will invite them to be the opening act for our tour, and in exchange, in Canada, we will do the same thing.” I have experienced reciprocity, and I have witnessed it in certain communities. I’m thinking in particular of our friends in Wallonia-Brussels. For some years, they have had the impression that there is a deficit in terms of circulation. They feel that there are more opportunities for a Canadian artist to perform in Belgium than the opposite. As for the public, this reciprocity is important to allow these exchanges between the two communities.
Since I was asked to take part in this discussion, I have heard this question about Canada’s image and the tools related to foreign policy. Artistic expression is a universal form of expression. This is where countries eventually get to know each other better and to understand each other. In my opinion, artistic expression cannot be used as an element of propaganda. We have to encourage a natural mobility to arrive at a mutual understanding and a meeting of common values. We have to let things flow naturally. We can’t put a framework around artistic expression to turn it into a propaganda tool.
[English]
The Chair: That’s a good note to end on, one that we’ll keep in mind as an admonition that we should not be crossing over to a line of the government inappropriately utilizing our cultural capacities in Canada. Thank you for the work you do, but also thank you for your reflections here before the committee.
Senators, I presume we will not have a meeting next week, but it is all in the hands of the leaders as to how long we are here. If we don’t meet again, I wish everyone a pleasant break, refreshing moments with families and otherwise, and that we come back with renewed vigour to complete this study.
(The committee adjourned.)