THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 30, 2017
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade met this day at 10:30 a.m. to study on 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, we will begin our meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
Before I start, I think we’ll institute in this committee that members can introduce themselves and the province they come from.
I’ll start to my right.
Senator Housakos: Leo Housakos from Quebec.
Senator Greene: Stephen Greene from Nova Scotia.
Senator Ngo: Thanh Hai Ngo from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: Paul J. Massicotte from Quebec.
Senator Cormier: René Cormier from New Brunswick.
Senator Dawson: Dennis Dawson from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Bovey: Patricia Bovey from Manitoba.
Senator Cools: Anne Cools from Ontario.
Senator Ataullahjan: Salma Ataullahjan from Ontario.
The Chair: I would like to note that this is the first meeting with the new committee and on a new study, and we have Senator Cools recently elected as our deputy chair. I welcome her to the committee in the new capacity, and Senator Dawson, the third member of the steering committee. We hope we will serve you well as a group as we embark on our new study.
Today will be our first meeting beginning the committee’s new study on the impact and utilization of Canadian culture and arts in Canadian foreign policy and diplomacy and other related matters.
As you can see, our topic is rather general and broad, and that was to give us an opportunity to reflect on how to approach the topic.
We have two excellent witnesses who have agreed to come to start our study. As you know, we indicated that we would start with a general look at our topic before we get into any particular areas and aspects. So we’re absolutely delighted that the witnesses who were proposed by members of this committee to start our study were actually available to come today.
I first introduce Mr. Colin Robertson, Vice President of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute; and Dr. Sarah E. K. Smith, Assistant Professor, School of Journalism and Communication at Carleton University. We thank you for coming. We should note that your biographies are well known to us. They have been circulated. We just didn’t want to take the time to read your long biographies because you do have extensive experience and expertise in this field and with broader issues that we will be studying.
Welcome to the committee. I will start with Mr. Robertson.
Colin Robertson, Vice President, Canadian Global Affairs Institute, as an individual: Thank you, chair. The great English art critic John Ruskin observed:
Great nations write their autobiographies in three manuscripts—the book of their deeds, the book of their words, and the book of their art. Not one of these books can be understood unless we read the two others; but of the three, the only quite trustworthy one is the last.
The arts.
After 33 years in the Canadian Foreign Service with postings in New York, Hong Kong, Los Angeles and Washington, I know first-hand the importance of cultural diplomacy both as an end in itself and as a vital instrument for advancing Canadian objectives in peace and security, trade and investment, immigration and development.
This is what I learned: First, we need a cultural diplomacy strategy that draws and collaborates with other levels of government — provinces, territories and cities and the private sector. This will create a critical mass to advance Canadian culture and arts. Specifically, we need closer collaboration among key federal government departments and portfolio agencies such as Canadian Heritage, Global Affairs Canada, the Canada Council for the Arts, Telefilm, the National Film Board, the CBC, national museums and national art galleries, as well as with private and not-for-profit sectors, especially those with expertise in digital and animation. We need to draw inspiration from existing initiatives like the Advisory Council on Economic Growth and the Business and Higher Education Roundtable.
Where responsibility for promotion finds a home — the Canada Council, Global Affairs Canada, Canadian Heritage— is less important than that it exists. It does mean dedicated officials, dedicated budgets and a minister dedicated to being its champion.
Second, make Canada a world platform for cultural productions. Specifically, develop a turnkey policy of tax credit and regulatory environment at the local, provincial and national level that recognizes the rapid convergence between content, production and technology. Bring together the content of culture with its delivery means — in person, on screens, in games, through virtual experiences. Launch a “Brand Canada” that draws from the positive experiences of other recent nation branding campaigns. Great Britain used cultural diplomacy very effectively to position the U.K. brand, GREATBritain, as an innovative country that is open to tourism, international students and investment. The Calgary and Vancouver/Whistler Olympics significantly advanced a global sense of Canada as a northern country and a nation where pluralism works.
Third, promote Canada’s key missions as cultural spaces and exchanges abroad to project Canada’s progressive social and economic dynamism. Specifically, rebrand our cultural presence in key culture and media places like Paris, Berlin, London, Tokyo, Shanghai, Delhi, Seoul, Jakarta, New York, Los Angeles and Mexico City through the creation of Canada houses, as we do currently in Paris, for stand-alone cultural spaces abroad. Set up artist exchanges in priority countries, starting with our G20 partners, to share Canada’s artistic excellence. Develop a cadre of entrepreneurial cultural attachés with a long-term career path that would include stints at Canadian and international cultural institutions. In a practical sense, this could include an assignment with the Canada Council or Canadian Heritage, helping to manage a symphony or dance company, museum or cultural centre, experience in digital media combined with postings abroad. In short, develop a career trajectory that attracts and retains practical cultural experience with an appreciation of the bottom line. This would apply not just to Canada-based but also to our locally engaged, who really are the backbone of cultural promotion abroad.
Encourage missions to innovate. For example, when I was in Hong Hong in the late 1980s, we began a children’s film festival, and through our films, most notably those of Rock Demers and Contes pour tous, we underlined Canada as a place to live, study and work. Exposure also helped Rock Demers sell his films for distribution into China.
Fourth, create a modernized Canadian studies program to highlight, amplify and contribute to Canada’s research excellence. Focus for study would include the integration of migrants into big cities, effective pluralism, agri-food, clean energy, Arctic development, oceans management, climate mitigation -- all areas in which Canada has or is developing expertise.
Youth exchanges, like we used to do through programs like Canada World Youth, create long-term goodwill. For example, the current Indonesian ambassador and his wife are both Canada World Youth alumni.
When it comes to culture and the arts, we punch way beyond our weight. That’s why it’s odd that, in recent years, successive governments have cut back on their investment in the promotion of our cultural industries. Programs have a natural life cycle and should be re-examined for effect, but the curtailment of support for our cultural industries abroad was extreme.
As an example, when I was Consul General in Los Angeles, we created an online talent guide for Canadians working in the industry that helped to win us more production in Canada. We should recreate this so it appeals not just to Hollywood but to Bollywood as well as European and Chinese film production.
Advancing our cultural industries brings collateral benefits. In the wake of 9/11, then Prime Minister Jean Chrétien led a Team Canada mission to Los Angeles to help to sell western goods and services but to also underline Canadian solidarity with the U.S.A. He came with the Western premiers. I enlisted my friends Paul Anka and David Foster, and we hosted an event at the J. Paul Getty Museum that drew international attention, and it also helped to sell Canadian products and draw investment into Canada.
When you consider that we do a million dollars a minute in business with the U.S.A. alone, it makes you wonder about false economies. If we continue to treat cultural diplomacy as an afterthought within Canada’s international relations, we miss opportunities to use our foreign policy to generate economic, political and security benefits for Canadians.
Canadian culture and the arts should be a major pillar of Canadian diplomacy and foreign policy. Others — Australia, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Mexico, Korea — derive real economic and political benefits from their much more strategic use of short- and long-term cultural, educational and scientific exchange programs.
Without support from governments — federal, provincial and municipal — travel by our world-class orchestras and dance groups and exhibitions of our visual and digital arts are severely constrained, but our arts have been, and again can be, important tools in advancing our foreign policy objectives, as well as an end in themselves.
In her recent speech outlining Canadian foreign policy goals, Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland asked the following question: “Is Canada an essential country, at this time in the life of our planet?” My answer is yes. We are an essential nation, especially in our daily practice of pluralism and in how we compromise with our geography and climate.
With acknowledgement to John F. Kennedy, I look forward to a Canada that will reward achievement in the arts as well as it rewards achievement in business or statecraft. I look forward to a Canada that will steadily raise the standards of artistic accomplishment and that will steadily enlarge cultural opportunities for all of our citizens and then show it off abroad.
With commitment, we can do much better when it comes to promoting Canadian culture and the arts. Our sense of what it is to be Canadian is nurtured and reinforced by how we are seen beyond our borders. Investment in our cultural industries is both profitable — it creates and sustains jobs — and a positive boost to our identity.
Sarah E.K. Smith, Assistant Professor, School of Journalism and Communication, Carleton University, as an individual: Thank you for the invitation to speak. Cultural diplomacy is understood to encompass a range of activities orchestrated by diplomats employing cultural products to advance state interest, for instance, involving art, literature and music. Only considering initiatives aimed at foreign publics that are propagated by state actors is, however, limiting. I suggest the committee consider cultural relations in a broader sense -- one that might contribute to their study as a better frame of reference for understanding how culture can be productively deployed to project a positive perception of Canada abroad. You might consider the operation of culture beyond government actors, acknowledging the role of diverse networks of cultural exchange in our globalized world. Such actors can include, for instance, artists, students, cultural institutions and non-governmental organizations. Put another way, cultural relations allows us to think about people-to-people relations, in addition to the state-to-people relations of cultural diplomacy.
Cultural diplomacy is a crucial means by which Canada can engage in the world and effectively respond to current issues. Its significance lies in the fact that it is a non-oppositional means to respond to potentially destabilizing forces, such as radicalization and hyper-nationalisms. Moreover, cultural diplomacy fosters authentic connections between people, organizations and states and also builds the foundation for subsequent targeted and strategic interactions. In making clear the benefits of cultural diplomacy, I would like to draw the committee’s attention to a 2012 report by the British Council, entitled Trust Pays. This study provides substantial quantitative evidence for how cultural relations, which they define as arts, education and English-language activities, fuel trust in the U.K., which, in turn, drives business and trade. These findings are pivotal to grounding discussions of cultural diplomacy in quantitative evidence.
There is increasing interdisciplinary academic interest in cultural diplomacy and cultural relations. I am a founding member of the North American Cultural Diplomacy Initiative, which is an exciting multidisciplinary partnership of academics, policy-makers, cultural organizations and practitioners from North America and beyond. I provided a statement on this group to the committee. Led by Dr. Lynda Jessup at Queen’s University, we are deeply invested in thinking about cultural diplomacy as a critical practice and a valuable tool in international relations. This research dovetails with growing government interest in deploying culture to advance Canada’s aims. As such, I suggest that government-academic partnerships are a key means by which new thinking on cultural diplomacy programs might take shape.
Cultural diplomacy, of course, is not new to the Canadian state and has been successfully employed in the 20th century. For one example, I refer to the work of Dr. Jessup, who argues that the circulation and exhibition of fine art was a key means by which the Canadian state engaged with other countries. For instance, Canada was amongst the first Western countries to engage with China following the cultural revolution. Jessup’s research reveals that the Canadian state facilitated the display of an exhibition of Inuit art in China in 1972, just two years after diplomatic relations between the two countries had been restored. In 1973, Canadian again sent an art exhibition to China, this time a display of historic landscape paintings. Beyond demonstrating that Canada was keen to establish a productive relationship with China, which is now Canada’s second-largest trading partner, these case studies speak to the range of players engaged in transnational cultural relations. In these cases, the National Gallery of Canada and what was then the Department of External Affairs collaborated to deploy Canadian art abroad.
What these interactions make clear is that so-called elite culture was initially prioritized. In the late 1970s, however, as Canada-China relations continued to warm, the category of Canadian culture widened, and new culture initiatives travelled to China featuring Canadian folk culture. For instance, in 1976, the Cape Breton men’s choir of working and retired coal miners, Men of the Deeps, toured the People’s Republic of China. In the later 1970s, Canada also sent school groups on exchanges. All of these cultural initiatives normalized Canadian relations with China and established crucial and long-standing relationships.
In conclusion, I would like to provide three key points for your consideration in the formulation of policies in support of the use of Canadian culture and arts for the purposes of foreign affairs.
First, there exists a broad lack of understanding of what cultural diplomacy encompasses and how it is being used. This includes a lack of recognition of the many actors involved in cultural diplomacy. A better articulation of what cultural diplomacy is will help actors engaged in these initiatives to better understand their role and its benefits to Canada.
Second, it is important to create policy that is sympathetic to the overlapping interests of groups engaged in cultural diplomacy. At the federal level, cultural diplomacy falls within the purview of Global Affairs Canada and Canadian Heritage. As well, other arm’s-length government organizations, such as the Canada Council for the Arts and the National Gallery of Canada, bring Canadian arts and culture to their extensive web of international connections. Additionally, cultural producers must be acknowledged. This cursory view gives a sense of the complex landscape in which Canadian arts and culture is deployed.
Third, questions about cultural diplomacy’s efficacy have led to an interest in metrics, as we try to quantitatively assess the function of Canadian culture abroad. While studies of the cultural diplomacy of other nations, including Australia, South Korea and Germany, have shown how positive cultural climates facilitate productive trade relations, I would like to emphasize that quantitative and economic metrics can be limited. These metrics fail to fully address the long-term benefits of investment in cultural diplomacy. Culture is both an economic and a social good. As such, there is a pressing need for qualitative assessment. In an age that seems increasingly characterized by radicalization, by the resurgence of right-wing nationalisms, by the urge to close borders and by the reintroduction of protectionist measures, Canada is seen on the global stage as a voice for moderation and tolerance. It is “Canada’s moment,” so let’s take advantage of it.
The Chair: Thank you. Both speakers have initiated a list, so I will turn to Senator Massicotte first.
Senator Massicotte: I very much appreciate your presentation. I think all of us are inclined favourably to the whole concept of using culture to our interest. My own experience in life is that when you want to achieve something, you have to focus on what is the objective and somehow find a way to measure it. Ms. Smith, you spoke a bit to that.
Mr. Robertson, you emphasized initially promoting our culture, that is, making our culture well known. You talked about the benefits of soft power. Can you name one or two things that we expect to achieve? How will we measure that achievement to make sure we’re getting there, because if you can’t measure it, then it goes everywhere. Do you have any sense of what kind of budget we need to allocate to get there?
Mr. Robertson: Thank you, sir, for the question. Regarding the budgeting question, my sense is if we look at what other countries are spending, you’re probably talking somewhere between $50 million and $100 million if you want to do this properly. We’ve tended to put a few million or a few hundred thousand in from time to time. But if you look at the British, Australians, French, Germans, Japanese, they devote significant funding to make this happen.
How do you measure this? As Dr. Smith said, how do you measure when you have a symphony or -- when I was in New York -- when the Royal Winnipeg Ballet comes to town, and the provincial government is trying to float bonds in that market. We bring the bankers and those from Wall Street to this event and they come away and say, “If a country can do this, maybe this is a country worth taking an investment out of.” That’s very hard to calculate.
When I was in Los Angeles we created a talent guide. Canadians who worked in the industry and the studios were looking for this list because they were looking to do production in Canada. We could draw some economics from it. We were doing about $700 million worth of production in Vancouver and in Toronto at the time, but within four years we were close to $1 billion. There is a return. You’ve seen just the last couple of days the fact that “Suits” is produced in Toronto. Prince Harry’s new fiancée does “Suits” production there. These things count. The Toronto International Film Festival that we bring up has really become one of the great festivals in the world. It’s an opportunity not only for films from all over but also for Canadian films to also have a showing and then to sell in other markets. I think these become metrics, but they are difficult to do the cause and effect with. Again, as Dr. Smith has pointed out, this is always one of the challenges. But it works. When I’m in Hong Kong and we’re doing a children’s festival at the time of Tiananmen Square and we’re seeking to attract the best talent in the world to come to Canada, we go from 1,800 to 40,000, partly because we don’t have quotas on migration.
I remember that at one of our screenings for children’s film somebody said, “I have a choice to go to the United States, Britain or Canada, but any country that can do children’s films like you do it and have an appreciation of nature is where I want to bring my family.”
These are intangible, anecdotal pieces of evidence that became translated, because we did see the rise, for example, in the number of migrants who came from Hong Kong to Canada and changed forever the face of our big cities like Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal.
Senator Massicotte: You have to find a way — either by polling or something — to measure it.
Let me put another question to Dr. Smith. You put emphasis on creating a positive impression about Canada to the outside world — not only promoting our culture for the sake of their own benefit economically or otherwise. Should that be our principal focus, namely, to cause a better impression or a better reputation for the sake of their learning or for the sake of a favourable disposition to our country and our soft power position?
Ms. Smith: In terms of end goals, I think it’s very important to grasp the power of culture. Culture is key to international conversations. It’s a way of life. I really do think that, rather than focusing on the positive perception of Canada, it’s important to understand that a strong cultural diplomacy program by the government could increase the profile of Canada’s progressive international agenda, which is, of course, a reflection of Canadian values and interests.
I like to think about cultural diplomacy in terms of how it could connect to the agenda items of the government. That is, how this could connect to the human security agenda or conversations around climate change. I do think it’s important to have a positive brand for Canada, but I think it can be more than that. I would encourage the committee to think about the social spaces that occur around expressive culture. When I say “expressive culture,” I mean when we talk about cultural objects. Perhaps when we send art exhibitions abroad, not only are we sending them abroad but we are creating social spaces for conversations to take place about Canada. These could be conversations between artists, diplomats, cultural producers or politicians. These often involve sponsors. This could spark business conversations. We can also think about the virtual dimension, virtual social spaces employing technology. Here I’m thinking about things like social media and how that can be harnessed.
Senator Ataullahjan: My question is very similar to Senator Massicotte’s. As a child growing up in Pakistan, and being in a boarding school in a convent, we would get videos from the Canadian embassy shown to us on a regular basis. The image we saw invoked that desire in us to come and visit Canada. In the subcontinent, I often see the images that they see of Canada and a desire to come and make movies here. There are a lot of Bollywood movies made in Toronto. It generates revenue for Canada, and interest -- I know it does with my family, when they’ve seen images of Canada -- to come and visit Canada.
How much is cultural diplomacy part of the Global Affairs agenda? We were in Taiwan earlier this year, where there was great excitement because the embassy was promoting Canada 150. They had made these small fans, which cost them cents, they said. When you put on the hand-held fan, it said “Canada’s 150th.” Everyone who came to the event was so excited to get one. It’s all good. We’re promoting Canada in a positive way.
You already discussed the issue with funding. I know the embassies have limited funding, but how much of the agenda is to promote Canada? That is, apart from the diplomats and the governments talking to each other, how much is to improve the people-to-people ties?
Ms. Smith: In terms of quantifying it, I’m not sure how much is on the agenda, but your question raises two interesting points. First, it seems to me that it is rather ad hoc in certain missions and individuals really do quite a lot with cultural diplomacy and access certain funding, but for others there might be opportunity. I really do think there are a lot of opportunities in terms of cultural diplomacy to think about a more coherent strategy that links in all these diverse players and focuses on key government priorities.
The other thing that your question raised for me is this idea of certain moments when increased funding is available and we see people making use of that. Of course, around Canada 150 there was a lot of funding for arts and culture. I think that’s a great example of seizing on that. Multiple initiatives went on and that speaks to the desire for people to implement more of this cultural programming.
Mr. Robertson: Senator, I would say that we need to recreate something we used to have, which was a cultural affairs division within Global Affairs, and academic relationships. All of this has disappeared. We were further ahead in 1980 than we are in our sesquicentennial. You need a critical mass to sustain, particularly for the orchestras or galleries and exhibitions that work on a five-year scale. If you do this all ad hoc, so suddenly 2017, oh, we can do A, B and C, but it only lasts for a day, that doesn’t work, particularly in the promotion of arts and culture. You have to have a critical mass.
In 1994 I appeared before this committee as the president of PAFSO with Peter Roberts, who had been our ambassador to Moscow and then later headed the Canada Council. At the time we were arguing for the maintenance of cultural affairs within what is now called Global Affairs; they were thinking of moving it to the Canada Council.
As I reflect 25 years later, I’m not so sure it was a good thing to leave it there because what happened is Foreign Affairs just whittled it away because it was not seen as important enough; so it’s done on an ad hoc, geographically scattered basis.
Where you put it, as I said in my remarks, is less important than that it exists. You do need a minister who really does it — some place where they can take this forward; and you need civil servants who can make this thing happen. Canadian Heritage has money, Global Affairs has the capacity, the Canada Council has focus, but I think somewhere in there Global Affairs would probably be the best place to put it, but then there has to be a commitment.
It has been almost 40 years since we had a minister or a deputy minister speaking on behalf of cultural diplomacy. It truly matters that the current government has at least said the right things, and they want to restore certain programs like Trade Routes and Promart that made some of this stuff possible, but you have to do it and sustain it over a period of time.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Thank you very much for your presentations. Ms. Smith, I especially appreciated the points you made regarding the potential number of actors involved in cultural diplomacy. Given the diversity of actors who can play a role in cultural diplomacy as well as the diversity of objectives, the arts and culture sector and cultural industries have their own objectives for the development of their international market. Canada’s objective is to position itself internationally and to promote its culture and arts.
From your point of view and in your experience, Mr. Robertson, how can these objectives be effectively reconciled in a cultural diplomacy policy? What are the issues in reconciling these various objectives?
Mr. Robertson: Thank you for your question, senator. In my opinion, we have to adopt a strategy and set objectives. We have to focus on a few objectives in order to establish a strong policy, in particular for the promotion of our orchestras and the arts. We have to decide each year which organizations we will focus on in the coming five years. This year, we are focusing on the National Gallery and the Royal Winnipeg Ballet. We have to create a framework with achievable objectives. We have to plan with our missions abroad in order to create the necessary impact. We have to harmonize the missions, for example, with prime ministers’ or ministers’ visits in order to strengthen our objectives. That takes time, but first we have to create a strategy. That is what is missing right now.
[English]
Ms. Smith: Thank you for that question. You are hitting the nail on the head when you talk about how to reconcile all these different actors and agendas to something that is coherent.
A realistic, revitalized cultural diplomacy program would have critical mass support, broadly based. It needs to connect key cultural diplomacy assets to the government’s priorities. We should think about the government’s priorities broadly. We should think about Canada’s progressive international values. We should think about fostering cultural diversity, tolerance, recognition of diversity as a means to defuse global issues. All of this will fuel innovation and trade.
I also see increased funding, as necessary, but for me what would reconcile the different actors and the different objectives would be increased education, really, an understanding of all those players involved, from cultural producers up to people who are managing cultural diplomacy programs, understanding of what they are doing, and the fact they are all working in concert, whether they are in different municipalities or different federal government departments. This knowledge or understanding of everyone involved in cultural diplomacy initiatives for me is key. Again, it’s about harnessing to specific government priorities that everyone knows about.
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
Senator Bovey: Thank you for your presentations. You raise lots of issues, from strategic to dollars to time frames.
I want to go back to a few quotes that I’m sure we all know. John Ralston Saul once wrote that Canada’s profile abroad is largely its culture. So that may underline some of the profile components.
A report called, I think, Culture: Keeping Doors Open in Difficult Times, wrote that at times of political difficulty, when diplomats are not even able to sit around the table negotiating, culture can keep the doors open until relations improve. I’m not sure if that’s a soft or a hard response.
Both of you have mentioned trade, and the real impact this sector has on trade, understanding that some of these things are harder to measure than others, but there is a cadre of statistics gathered over the years.
My question is on understanding the role of digital importance or digital aspects of culture. We know from many studies that it is the real things that have the real impact and engagement with citizens.
You mentioned the role of cultural attachés, and my colleague mentioned a story that underlined the ad hoc nature of cultural diplomacy. Do you think that having cultural attachés in key embassies, or all embassies, would stabilize that ad hoc approach to the presentation and understanding and involvement of culture in all aspects of Canada’s foreign affairs?
Ms. Smith: Yes, I think that’s a great point. As you mentioned, key positions, having people embedded at missions whose job is devoted to cultural programming, yes, of course, that would help very much. But I also think that Mr. Robertson raised a good point when he talked about career trajectory.
There is perhaps a sense that this cultural programming is done by employees at missions who are at a certain level in their careers, and it doesn’t necessarily continue as they advance perhaps in the foreign service. Having a sense of the importance of cultural diplomacy, having a sense that it is valued by people at different levels in government departments, that could help. Having a sense that if we have devoted cultural attachés, there is a career path for those devoted to advancing Canada’s cultural diplomacy.
Mr. Robertson: I think that Professor Smith is correct. I fear that where once it was seen as an essential skill for our diplomats, now it’s seen as, “Well, that’s nice, but it’s not what will move you forward.” We have to re-establish this as almost a career stream. We have political economic officers, trade commissioners and immigration officers. We need a cultural stream that has a trajectory, as I pointed out earlier, with which you have broad experience and it becomes part of the mission objectives and the overall foreign policy. In the mandate letters, Prime Minister Trudeau has identified this for foreign affairs as one of the critical priorities, but it hasn’t taken effect yet. This is a norm that used to exist but needs to be re-established.
I don’t think it’s difficult because it does support so many of the other objectives. Again, as we’ve tried to point out, when we’re talking about economic objectives, it’s a means in its end as well as part of who we are as a country, especially at a time in a particularly messy world, when the brand of the country is best expressed through arts and culture. And there is an appetite for what we do because they’re seeing around the world increasingly that Canada does something different from others, and the best expression of that comes through our arts and our culture.
Senator Bovey: You talk about organizations like the Royal Winnipeg Ballet and artists and exhibitions going abroad. As we take a look at the opportunity to have cultural attachés, can we look at exchanges of personnel who work in the arts industry and do international exchanges and encourage that as a way to begin to broaden the role of Canada’s missions abroad and strengthen the role if we can reintroduce some cultural attachés? Is this a way to begin to pave the way to have some of the major players and our arts organizations work abroad for a while? We seem to be hiring many from other countries, so I wonder about pushing it the other way.
Mr. Robertson: Yes, but then you have a cultural attaché at the embassy who knows who the talent is in Canada, when these kinds of positions become available and it serves Canadian interests for us to put forward Canadian names. We used to have a grid system by which over a five-to-seven-year period, in terms of our big orchestras and our ballet companies and the visual arts touring exhibits, visits were planned. Of course, those who have experience in this field know that your planning cycles are five to seven years, and so we could, as I said earlier, link this and start planning visits. Look, we’ve got the ballet here so it’s a good time for the Minister of Finance to come down to pitch Canada for investment. You can then play the backdrop being the excellence we have in the arts, and it really does work.
Ms. Smith: On this idea of professional exchanges, it’s important to remember, especially in the arts industries, that a lot of professionals are already connected globally. International linkages are key; they’re already there. Cultural diplomacy led by the government needs to recognize those existing networks, which is really important. Professional exchanges funded by the government could be very helpful.
Another layer of that is, of course, thinking about student exchanges. In my report to the committee, in one of the footnotes, I point to the recent Go Global report. This idea of exporting Canadian youth as an expression of Canadian values, again, is this idea of gaining international cultural competencies, and this will help build Canada’s workforce when these students return home.
Senator Housakos: Welcome to the guests. It is fascinating to listen to your perspectives, and I just wanted to basically give a different perspective and get your thoughts on it.
The reality is clear that for a number of decades the federal government and successive governments have cut funding when it comes to culture. It seems that a number of politicians on the other side believe that it’s an easy cut to make because pressures continue to mount when it comes to various areas of demand on budgetary requests by the government. When we look at the current fiscal situation in Canada, it’s not getting any better. We have a deficit that’s growing and, of course, various needy sectors, including an important sector like arts and culture, that are making their ask. Today you spoke frequently about how we need to increase funding.
Again, I don’t want to be the poor sport around the table, but I think it will be rather difficult in the next decade to find funds. Let’s just say we won’t have much more success finding funds over the next decade than we did the last decade. We’ve been in a process over the last 10 years of cutting embassies. This government talks a good game about putting money into various areas of need, but, of course, they’re starting to realize that once you are in power there are fiscal restraints and constraints you have to live with.
What is the arts community in Canada doing to generate wealth and money in the coffers from the private sector? We look at the most powerful cultural nation in the world that dominates culture, and it’s the United States.
Can you share some thoughts? How much public money goes into the support of cultural and arts programs in the United States as opposed to private sector money? What can we do in Canada to reach into that private sector, which is sitting on far more significant potential capital than the federal government, in order to promote arts and culture?
Ms. Smith: I acknowledge your question, of course. It is difficult to find funding to fund the arts. There is a culture of almost distress or disbelief when it comes to advancing the worth of culture. Thinking about quantitative evidence such as that British council report, which clearly tied cultural initiatives to increased trade, is a good way to educate people to make the case for more culture funding. But, of course, the private sector is a key resource and one that you can see is funding a lot of initiatives in the States, which has a very different arts system than we do.
I would say again that it goes back to education and understanding the worth of cultural diplomacy so that the private sector sees it as a valuable thing worth funding. Here I would also point to the fact that cultural diplomacy is multi-directional. We gain from contact with others, we learn different values, we are better able to articulate our own values, and these are grounds for multilateralism.
Mr. Robertson: I would say that philanthropy supports a lot of the arts in Canada already. Some of our bigger institutions are some of the biggest givers to make possible the arts across Canada. How do you translate that abroad? It is difficult, but I would also argue that culture is an industry that deserves to be supported, and the government had a program a few years ago called Trade Routes. I used the example of creating the Los Angeles talent guide because then we could point out the Canadian talent the studios were looking for to do production in Canada. As a result, production in Canada rose because we had the talent, we were building the commercial studios not because it was a cultural thing to do but because we could make money from it in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal.
A lot of production takes place in Canada and it employs Canadians. It is a big chunk of what Richard Florida talks about when he talks about creative communities and what makes a country attractive. There are times when we are looking for talent abroad. As migrants, students and visitors to Canada one of the best manifestations of that is through the arts.
Earlier a senator talked about growing up and seeing films of Canada. Certainly I saw that when we were able to show our product abroad, it helped us in our commercial objectives and in our objectives in seeking the talent that we need as a country to grow this country.
Senator Housakos: I appreciate those comments, Mr. Robertson, and I agree. In your comments you said there is already a great degree of philanthropy when it comes to supporting the arts, and you also mentioned, and appropriately so, that we have a lot of vibrant arts and cultural sectors that are doing well because they’re profitable.
I think we have to find a way as a government, along with our arts and cultural community and with the private sector, to create more understanding on the part of the private sector that the arts are not philanthropy. I consider the arts an important economic part of our society.
I have done a few missions and trips both as former Speaker and as a senator. I remember going to a couple of countries in Europe on trade delegations and cultural exchanges, and I was so proud as a Quebecer and as a Montrealer to be in places in the world when Cirque du Soleil was performing and in places where Cavalia was performing. And I can tell you there is nothing philanthropic about it. They put out for public display the best of what we have as Canadians in terms of artists, performers, athletes, and they are very economically viable. They generate wealth to the public coffers, rather than eat it up. We should be trying, as governments, through tax credits and encouraging the private sector, to invest in that community. We should look at it as an investment.
I hear all the points, and they’re all valid. With this committee, we’re in the early stages of our study. I believe the objective here is to try to find a cohesive way to connect all of those things together.
Mr. Robertson: I think both Cavalia and Cirque du Soleil would tell you that, in their early stages, they did receive some support from the Quebec government and the federal government, and they became extraordinarily successful, of which all Canadians can be proud, Cirque du Soleil with their permanent show in Las Vegas and Cavalia that tours and does well. Certainly, we would then use their visits as a means to put the spotlight on Canada and what we can do and the talent and creativity we have as a country.
Senator Dawson: I’m old enough to have been there when Cirque du Soleil started close to Quebec City, when they had their first participation financially by the federal government when they had Québec 84. So the small thing became big, and now we have to latch on to Cirque du Soleil. But, to make them big, we have to support them. That’s why I think this type of action is important. We have to get the small people. We know we can use Cirque du Soleil to promote culture, but we can use them to promote Canada now.
You talked about “Suits.” They sold out of all the white coats they had in two days. There is a Korean television show being produced that’s produced in Quebec City. Thousands of Koreans now come to Quebec City. My son works at Théâtre Petit Champlain. They come to a little red door, a quite banal red door, and hundreds of people get their picture taken — my son tries to get into the picture obviously — in front of the red door. It’s promoting tourism. You have to support them when they do productions like that. That’s cultural diplomacy also.
What discourages me is that I have been to Paris and London a few times in my life, privately and as a parliamentarian, and we have a less of a presence in London and in Paris than we had 20 years ago. You’re giving me a list of 20 places we should be going. We should address the fact that those two capitals should be revisited as far as Canada House is concerned. Yes, I would hope that we would go to those 20 cities you mentioned, but we have to start by re-establishing our presence in London and Paris, which are the two hubs that we have been neglecting for many years.
What is the historical reason why we reduced our presence? You were probably at Foreign Affairs in those days. Why did we reduce our presence in those two capitals?
Mr. Robertson: Well, it was simply a matter of budget pairing and the argument of whether we could demonstrate the financial return to Canada of cultural diplomacy. That’s why I say that you can’t as you can in terms of a business proposition, despite best efforts. You could say that Cirque du Soleil became a great success and no longer needed government support. Cavalia to an extent as well. There are a lot of our production companies. There is Contes pour tous and the Anne of Green Gables series that we sell abroad and people see. The Japanese regularly troop to Prince Edward Island. It came down to simply that you couldn’t demonstrate the financial return, and I concluded, over time, that there are some things you simply have to invest in.
Dr. Smith talks about the trust factor. You use this because it demonstrates who we are as a people, but it supports other programs in so many different ways.
Ms. Smith: I believe one of the reasons the Canadian cultural centres abroad lost funding is that there was a Woods Gordon report, which dates to the 1980s, commissioned by External Affairs. In doing some research, I’ve come across the fact that it was leaked to the press, and it was kind of a whole discourse around cost cutting and that there was no reason to value the arts and this funding to cultural centres in London and Paris. That led, I believe, to the closure of the one in Brussels at the time.
There was this fascinating, innovative, edgy experiment called 49th Parallel, which was a test project that External Affairs commissioned. It was a supposedly privately run gallery in New York’s SoHo district. It ran for just about a decade in the 1980s. What is interesting about 49th Parallel is that it took a new approach. It was at arm’s length, though it was run initially fully by External Affairs, and it was trying to deploy avant-garde contemporary Canadian art in SoHo, which is, of course, New York’s key art district. There was this idea that the best of Canada’s contemporary art was going to be displayed there and that it would hold its own and be integrated into that milieu. This was groundbreaking at the time, and there’s a lot of evidence that people from other countries were looking to Canada in terms of this pilot project. There are reports that people from Australia, all over the place, were looking to see what Canada was doing with contemporary art and how this was new and very different than what it was doing in its cultural centres, which had a different type of objective, to show a very representative type of Canadian culture abroad, with attention to all different types of media, artists from across the country. 49th Parallel really focused on advancing key avant-garde projects, and I think it’s a case study worth going back to because it was operated under several different models. At issue and eventually why it closed is that there was not enough long-term support for this kind of innovation in cultural diplomacy, and it was never quite given a chance. Again, it goes back to that notion of trust.
Senator Dawson: I certainly hope, chair, that we are looking forward with this study, but I think that a historical perspective and witnesses that give us that are useful. Even though we want to look forward, I think we can learn from the past, and getting that type of analysis historically would be useful to the members of the committee.
The Chair: Our analyst is pointing out that we have given you some backgrounders, so it would be interesting to find out what areas you would like. We have started with a backgrounder, and we need your feedback to say what else you would like to dig into. We have some comments here that we should look at.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you for your remarks. You said, Mr. Robertson, that we need to review Canada’s international brand. You made suggestions that involve the creation or renewal of certain programs or even certain tax credits. I believe that Canada’s brand should be reviewed and modernized. Like you, I believe that culture is a very broad sphere, which can include the environment and education, and all aspects of the arts. I would be very disappointed personally if we were to end this study with recommendations that would add bureaucratic red tape for Canada abroad. In 2017 and the coming years, I think we can benefit greatly from opportunities involving companies, business people and artists that are already big teasers abroad in all fields. We should focus instead on better coordination within Canada and on the opportunities that arise abroad, very broadly speaking, that are offered to us by Canadian artists, academics, researchers and scientists.
Working from this premise — if you share it — how can we make sure that embassies, Global Affairs Canada, the federal government in general, and departments take the most innovative approach possible in order to seize the opportunities abroad and to optimize our dealings with all actors involved in Canada? How can we make sure that there are economic benefits for both cultural diplomacy and culture?
Mr. Robertson: Thank you. That is a good question. In my opinion, in order to create a straight line, first we have to call upon Global Affairs Canada to establish programs. There are small public diplomacy groups at Global Affairs, but a policy is needed to establish that type of program. In the past, there was a policy to promote the arts, to establish the framework to support the Grands Ballets Canadiens and the Orchestre symphonique de Montréal, for instance.
We need a group to promote academic relations with universities abroad. That does not exist now. We need to find the people at Global Affairs Canada to do that.
In some cases, there is something, but it is not systematic. We have to strengthen the strategy through budgets. We also need a minister who is prepared to spend the time and promote cultural affairs and the arts.
Senator Saint-Germain: So you would agree that if cultural attachés or embassies abroad, regardless of the titles or status of the individuals, are not supported by a strong networking strategy in Canada, they can look for and identify all the opportunities they want, but they will not get an answer. I served as deputy minister of international affairs for the Quebec government and I worked with the federal government on these files for 17 years. I remember that, in many cases, business opportunities were identified, but nothing was done to take advantage of those opportunities and make the most of the potential abroad.
As a starting point then, we really need a strong strategy for Canada. I must say again that there is no point in strengthening the embassies first without this cornerstone. This work must be done in partnership. So, in 2017, we will also have to find innovative ways of following through on a cultural diplomacy strategy.
Mr. Robertson: I completely agree. The Government of Canada must truly understand the importance of strengthening objectives in the world of commerce. The Quebec government did this by investing in the Cirque du Soleil and other projects. When I was in Los Angeles, we worked with the Quebec delegate to win a prize for the film Les invasions barbares, with Denys Arcand and Denise Robert. This initiative was carried out with the Quebec government. We invited Céline Dion and the Cirque du Soleil. That was the only time we won that prize. We had an objective, a campaign and a strategy. In that case, it worked.
[English]
The Chair: I want to pick up on this before I go to second round.
We seem to be talking about concepts that we talked about when you started in Foreign Affairs, Mr. Robertson, when I was there. Yet when I travel now, I’m more preoccupied with the new generations, who don’t really want the same levers. They’re doing business differently, they’re mobile, et cetera.
You just mentioned Celine Dion. You can go anywhere in Africa, to a roadside kiosk, and you will hear Celine Dion. They don’t know she’s Canadian; they know that they like her, and she’s just popular. They’re using new devices and new ways. They’re less concerned about the source. Twenty or thirty years ago, if you went to a British area that had roots to England, you would hear a lot of music from there. If you were in the French part of Africa, you would hear a lot.
Do we need cultural attachés? That’s kind of a concept of the past, whereas what I’ve heard all of you say, both the senators who questioned and your responses, is that we need to be competitive in our trade, our business, our politics, et cetera. We need to put the best of Canada forward to maximize the benefits for Canada.
I’m wondering whether the old tools of cultural attachés, et cetera, are really the way to go. Surely we don’t want someone over here sitting and doing cultural stuff when trade is over here and politics is over here. There should be some retraining in the mentality of the foreign affairs officials that it’s just an obvious part of being Canadian and selling what Canada has.
I challenge you to look at culture as something perhaps every ambassador overseas should have a mandate to carry, as the flag person. They are anyway. They’re the heads of state over there. Shouldn’t they be carrying that banner rather than cultural attachés?
Postscript to that, some of the best cultural attachés that we still have are the locally engaged, who have worked so many years in the Canadian embassies; and they’re local, so they know their country.
I’ll take Portugal, for example. I will name her, she was that good: Madam Pashoto. She knew more about the culture in Canada and how to link it in the country, and we profited from her skills more than having someone in for two or three years and going on to the next posting and the next posting.
Do we need some new innovative thinking about what culture is in today’s modern society? For the next generations, not for the CEO of a company now, because he will be gone in a couple of years, or retired. It’s creative thinking I’m looking for. What can we say to the government that’s forward-thinking, based on our history? It’s a big challenge; I’m sorry. In other words, I’m asking you to write our report.
Ms. Smith: I think that’s a very interesting question: Do we still need cultural attachés? I would say absolutely yes, because having devoted people in those positions gives, first, acknowledgement that this is something the Government of Canada believes in; this is something that has profile, something that has devoted resources.
I see your point, and I think perhaps it would be possible to re-envision these roles and make them more innovative. This could be more innovative in thinking about what cultural diplomacy is, how it functions, perhaps how you can go beyond the traditional projects that are usually done by cultural attachés.
Here again I would go back to 49th Parallel. The reason it had such a high profile and brought attention to Canada globally, and definitely within New York, was because it was something new; it was a new approach. People are interested in the new and innovative. So providing devoted employees with devoted budgets and priorities but allowing them the free rein to perhaps experiment a bit and try something new that could draw attention.
I do see your point about more broad-based education. I think it’s important that everyone within Global Affairs have a sense of cultural diplomacy fitting into their particular sector. There should be more education so that people within trade think about different ways to bring Canada’s arts and culture into trade and into these different subsections. I think it’s twofold.
Mr. Robertson: Yes, I completely agree. Just as we reimagine how diplomats do business using all the tools of technology, the same would apply to our cultural attachés. In many ways I would put the cultural attachés under the trade function because I think a big piece of what they do is to promote Canadian cultural industries.
The government did have such a program, the Trade Routes program. We had a half-dozen trade commissioners whose job was to promote Canadian cultural industries. I think it was quite successful, but it suffered from budget cuts, and they disappeared. But I think that we were moving in the direction that you describe. They simply were not cultured as a kind of isolated piece of the embassy; it was integral to what the embassy did and it was particularly aligned to our commercial, political and economic objectives. That’s where I think we have to get back to. But at the same time, culture as a commercial enterprise is something that we should be promoting, but it has more than simply a commercial purpose; it’s also a part of the Canadian identity, and I think there’s an appetite for that abroad, and that has a broader advantage.
Dr. Smith talked about the 49th Parallel. I was at the opening of the 49th Parallel. Over the period of time we were there, we had a couple of Wall Street bankers who came; we would have receptions and that’s where we would do business, making the pitch for them to invest in Canada because it provided the ambiance to which they were interested in coming. They weren’t terribly interested in coming to the residence or the embassy, but you could see them in this space where they were interested in this other dynamic of Canada, this edginess: “If this country can produce this kind of art, maybe this country is worth investing in on other fronts.”
The Chair: Another question: One of the issues is who gets to benefit in the cultural communities? I recall the 1994 study,and you mentioned something about appearing. We had a joint committee on foreign policy between the two houses. One of the issues was cultural diplomacy at the time. The panellists who kept coming, it almost became a competition as to whether it should be the large symphony, the national gallery, or should it be someone in one of our provinces doing something innovative. So it’s the balance of the large and the small, the regional, et cetera.
How do we not encourage the competition but encourage the broadening of the cultural definition beyond those that are already at a national level? I recall having great discussions at that time about what form of dance. Is it the polka? Is it the Irish jig? Is it the ballet? That becomes a real issue.
The other thing is that provinces do some of this, and Quebec, of course, has been leading in this area. How do we balance the provincial responsibilities of identifying Canada as well as the national? Those are two broad areas that you might help us in framing. Either one of you can answer.
Ms. Smith: That’s a very difficult question and one that’s certainly worth thinking carefully about. I would hope that a recommendation to reinvigorate Canada’s cultural policy would allow for a diverse amount of programming that of course paid attention to large players but as well highlighted emerging cultural producers. That’s where a lot of innovation comes from. These are the cultural producers who can benefit the most from a boost up to connect globally.
I was also thinking about transnational connections. There are so many points of mutuality and convergence for a lot of these cultural producers, for instance, connecting indigenous artists from all over the world. We can think of examples such as in Ottawa, the National Gallery of Canada’s recent Sakahàn, the global indigenous biennial which happened a few years ago, and the idea that there are these certain moments when there are certain interest groups or certain discussions where there would be an impetus to bring together different cultural producers. It’s a tricky question but important to have regional representation.
Mr. Robertson: Senators, you may recall programs that were designed to help emerging artists. I remember people like Janina Fialkowska and Gilles Dubois, who, when I was in Hong Kong and New York, had not yet made it. When I was in Los Angeles, there was this unknown artist who had a voice almost like Frank Sinatra introduced by David Foster and Paul Anka, and he would come and sing at our receptions. Today Michael Bublé doesn’t need anything like that.
This was the point of the program at the time, to help those who were coming up, as Senator Dawson pointed out, Cavalia and Cirque du Soleil. I remember Guy Laliberté coming to me when I was in Hong Kong seeking opportunities. Now they don’t need that. That’s exactly the kind of success that I guess I would say to some senator who asks, “Give us the margin.” That’s when they no longer require government, but they reflect extremely well for Canada and allow us to advance other objectives in other fields, the peace and security, the trade and commerce side, because you use artistic excellence as a lure.
I will say that for the big symphonies and orchestras you do have to have a planning system. I come back to the grid, the importance of doing this not just as a one-off but being able to do this in sequence. That’s the only way we can bring that kind of artistic excellence abroad.
Senator Cools: I think, chair, what’s becoming clear to us is this is quite a large subject and quite a massive one, I would say, and we should make sure that we do it justice.
I would like to thank the witnesses for appearing before us. I would also like to throw out the possibility that culture is a transforming fact that can alter human behaviour, human relations, and can bring out the best in people. The thing about culture is that we spent a lot of time — I did — in earlier years at university studying culture as an anthropological fact. Remember those big, huge textbooks on anthropology, when you looked at the mating behaviours of the people of Samoa and Tonga or the South Seas Islands? I don’t think we’re interested in that side of culture as an anthropological fact. I think what we’re wanting to look at is culture as a creative fact, as a creative element which is able to allow human beings to uplift themselves and other people in deep and profound ways.
I’ve been sitting here trying to figure out culture. What does that mean, and what are the dimensions to it? I’ve come up with a quite a lot. I’ll list some of them: literature, poetry, music, drama, film, science, dance, art, sports, poetry, languages, speech, gymnastics, whatever. I could go on for quite some time. The point of my intervention is the following: I was 15 years old, in Montreal at the time, and I had a personal experience watching the ballet. That transformed, I will tell you, the entire audience in terms of attitudes towards Russia and the Russians. I speak of the first visit out of the Soviet Union of the Bolshoi Ballet. For those of us who saw it, I have seen nothing quite like it before or since.
I had the privilege of watching Galína Ulánova; she was the star, the prima ballerina. That affected me so deeply, and the whole audience, the whole performance was one encore after another. The show was having difficulty presenting everything its way.
I always remember that. It was not a grand theatre. Montreal didn’t have a grand theatre then. It was in the forum where they used to play hockey. It was transforming to a lot of people, the skills of the dancers and the years of practice. I think that is the culture we should be looking at as these things employ a high degree of creativity and artistry. I think we should be staying on that side of the cultural experience. I hope I made some sense to you.
The Chair: We have it noted.
Senator Bovey: Rounding some of these circles that have been mentioned, I’m delighted we’ve heard so much about the 49th Parallel, Centre for Contemporary Art. One of its longer-term directors is none other than the director of the National Gallery of Canada, Marc Mayer.
To Senator Housakos’s point about private sector funding, in my experience, the seed money that came from some of the early work I was doing in international cultural exchanges, the federal intervention was no more than really critical seed money that allowed us to raise the balance of the funds to get artists’ exchanges. I think there’s always been a partnership.
But there’s another audience we haven’t talked about today, and that’s the Canadians living abroad. They’re really important. Many are living abroad because there aren’t opportunities for them to be working in Canada. I know they are desperate to be able to access their home culture, whether it’s with authors reading and all, and I’m aware of those.
My question is around the role of the CBC in the international cultural dimension of Canada and the number of young people living abroad who have been complaining to me about the decreasing access to Canadian broadband and CBC overseas. They are feeling cut off from their home base, not only because there aren’t jobs here but because they don’t have access or have less access to home through Canadian culture wavelengths.
Can you comment on that importance, if it is important?
Mr. Robertson: Senator, at one point CBC had Radio Canada International.The budget was something like $6 million a year — it was channelled through Global Affairs Canada. It was to have a separate pillar of the CBC to do exactly as you described: to get the Canadian voice abroad — take the best of CBC and Radio Canada. It was through shortwave. Now, you can do it much more cheaply through technology. That is something that is worth reconsidering.
I look at the success of Al Jazeera. Many of the people who worked for the English network were those who had worked for the CBC. The voice for Canada abroad, certainly through the medium of Radio Canada International, would take much less money than it took in earlier years, simply because technology is so much cheaper.
There is an appetite for the Canadian voice, but it would have to be part of a strategy.
When we did the human security strategy back in the 1990s with Lloyd Axworthy, land mines, child soldiers and the rest, a piece of that was to be investing in getting the Canadian voice abroad to what we then called the sixth pillar. But the funding didn’t materialize, and it died.
You’re onto something there. They’re serving the Canadian expatriate population, which grows bigger and bigger. Also, don’t forget that that diaspora is important for us for access to markets. The Prime Minister is considering trips to China and Asia. Our real entry into these markets will be the Canadians who, through family connections — because half our migration has come from Asia since 1980 — will make the difference. Keeping them informed through a public broadcaster that served that community abroad makes a lot of sense. It worked extremely well for almost half a century, but in recent years it has been pared back to almost nothing.
The Chair: I think many senators were vocal about that CBC International — a little bit of history I’m putting on the table.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Before I ask my question, I would like to pick up on a few comments that were made. It is clear that a future cultural development strategy for Canada is closely related to the way we implement our cultural policy within Canada, the way we see our economic develop and Canada’s international relations. In other words, our vision focuses in some cases on our major institutions and large networks, attachés at embassies, and large economic networks. Getting back to the provinces, there are also many smaller networks that serve to promote Canada and further its economic and cultural development.
With regard to immigration and regional economic development, for instance, in my home province of New Brunswick, the Acadian population has developed a whole strategy through its cultural production of economic ties with certain regions in France in order to attract immigrants.
In many cases, these networks are not highlighted by our major institutions. My question is the following. Since there are many networks related to various art forms, different cultural productions or different territories, which do indeed produce quite strong results at the regional and provincial levels, how could the government rely more on existing networks as part of a cultural diplomacy strategy?
[English]
Ms. Smith: They need to, first, acknowledge those projects that are ongoing and how they have been successful. I keep going back to this, but after moving on from value in cultural diplomacy, there should be a broader sense of looking around at what is happening in Canada and what types of things — for instance, Acadian communities connecting with France — at different levels, from small cultural producer connections internationally to larger, more formal cultural diplomacy programs.
It’s important that everyone take a moment to look at what’s going on and to acknowledge the successes, and then build on those existing networks. Part of acknowledging those successes is the federal government acknowledging them and building on the networks to hit their larger strategic goals. It’s a very important point that you’re raising.
[Translation]
Mr. Robertson: You used the right word. It is a strategy. We have a lot of heart in Canada, but we lack the brains to link all the networks. There is in fact a network, but no strategy… In the past, there was one. That is why we must first create a centre to establish a strategy to link all the networks.
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: To pick up on the point, we have an immigration base — some of it more historic, some of it more recent. They have their links back to their own countries. There’s an awful lot of multicultural activity going on in Canada in groups, individuals being brought to Canada, and Canadians fostering some growth and initiatives in the arts and culture in the other countries. There is funding that goes to these groups in Canada, nationally, all over the place. Should we be trying to determine how many of those are around and how to build on those linkages?
I think of India, Ukraine, Vietnamese groups, et cetera. There’s already a willingness to network and build on our comprehension of the areas, as well as maximizing the diasporas we have in Canada. Can anyone comment on that, or am I going too far afield now?
Mr. Robertson: There are some advantages to the idea of “let a thousand flowers bloom,” but there is also an advantage to knowing our priority countries. I’m suggesting we use the G20 as an example. But there would be other countries where we have a defined interest beyond that, for example, Ukraine, where there’s a large Canadian population of Ukrainian descent. We have made it a designated country for support through successive governments.
Again, this takes you back to foreign policy. The foreign policy of each country reflects its interests and its objectives. In terms of culture, we don’t have that right now. I applaud this committee for taking this challenge on. As we’re finding, as you can see, it’s sometimes a bit like a bowl of jelly or bits of spaghetti as you try to pull it together. At least the effort has been made when it hasn’t been for many years.
Ms. Smith: I concur with Mr. Robertson, of course. I do think in order to seize on the potential of cultural diplomacy, it is important that Canada put forth a coherent and strategic approach, whether you’re directing it around the G20 or whatnot, having strategic priorities in terms of communities or states or other issues around which you are cohering.
The Chair: I think the committee will have to struggle with, first of all, defining cultural diplomacy in a productive way for our foreign policy, and that’s why we’re here; we’re the foreign policy committee. We won’t be into defining all of the cultural diplomacy that could exist nor defining cultural advantages in Canada. Somehow or other we’re going to have to reduce it into a manageable focus, and what I’m hearing from both of you is that has been the problem. There has not been a strategic focus, on at least some of it, as a starting point with continuity. I think this committee will have to wrestle as to how we approach this.
As a final comment, you mentioned the G20; that may be one approach or it may be another approach we’ll have to take. We’ll have to think about that. I think I heard you, Mr. Robertson, more often than not, point out Germany, the U.K. and Australia as ones that have already wrestled with this and have put something together that they believe benefits their country. Are those the three countries that we should be using, by way of comparison or examples as instructive directions we may go into?
Mr. Robertson: I think all three of them, in recent years. And as Dr. Smith pointed out, Great Britain, through the Great Britain Campaign, made some substantive efforts and have done studies.
Yes, these are countries that have well-established programs -- the Germans through Goethe-Institut, the Alliance Française for the French and the British Council for the British. Australia has its own approach. Other countries, Korea, Mexico and a number of middle powers, have tried to define and use cultural diplomacy to further their ends. And I do think in an era when the international order is being questioned that middle powers -- and Canada I would include us in that group — really do have to stand up and through our efforts preserve the rules-based order. And one of the tools you do it through is cultural diplomacy.
The Chair: On behalf of the committee I want to thank both witnesses for coming on short notice as we reconvened our committee. I think you have opened our eyes and made us think about cultural diplomacy in a broader sense and then how to bring it back to foreign policy.
It is a struggle we will continue with, hopefully with some positive results. If you have any further thoughts you want to add to the committee, we may even ask you to come back to continue a conversation that’s very necessary.
Senators, we will adjourn today, and we will continue. We had some witnesses that have been proposed on a general study, and we intend to proceed with that. We now have a steering committee, so we hope that we can get together and focus on how to construct the rest of the witnesses. We’ve got a pretty good list. I’ve met with the researchers and they have title heads with the witnesses, but I think in fairness we have a new steering committee that we have to bring it forward to.
We have time, but we will continue with the general study, and with the long list we have, even if we pare it down and put panels, I think we are going to be studying this into next year. I am just pointing that out to some of the new members of the committee.
Again, thank you to our witnesses, and we are adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)