THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, April 27, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with videoconference this day at 4:01 p.m. [ET] to study Bill S-203, An Act respecting a federal framework on autism spectrum disorder; and Bill S-208, An Act respecting the Declaration on the Essential Role of Artists and Creative Expression in Canada.
Senator Ratna Omidvar (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I call to order this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. My name is Ratna Omidvar, senator from Ontario, and chair of this committee.
I will cast our memories back to March 6, the last time we met. We proceeded with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-203. As a reminder, we addressed all of the proposed amendments, and we’re at the consideration of appending observations to the bill.
Prior to continuing our discussion on observations, we must determine whether the bill as amended shall carry. Are there any objections that the bill, as amended, carry? If none, it is agreed.
I now suggest the committee proceed in camera to continue our discussion on the proposed observations to this bill.
Are there any objections to proceeding in camera?
Senator McPhedran: It’s not yet an objection, but I wonder if you could just help me and others from the public understand why you feel this discussion should be in camera.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator McPhedran. I believe it is standard practice to go in camera on observations because of the need to clarify the language and make sure it corresponds to appropriate parliamentary rules. That is my understanding. Let me ask the clerk.
Our clerk reminds us that we ultimately do go in public again after discussing the observations and can, if the committee so wishes, read out the observations in public.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you so much.
The Chair: Is that your will, colleagues, that I read out the observations?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. Are there any objections to proceeding in camera? If none, it is agreed. Thank you, colleagues.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: As discussed, I will read out the observations that have been approved by this committee and which will be reported back to the Senate.
The first observation is from Senator Petitclerc:
Witnesses pointed out the lack of consultations with autistic persons themselves, in Bill S 203 in particular and more generally. This could be remedied in the development process for the federal framework on autism spectrum disorder, as well as in all other ongoing initiatives. Your committee believes that the community of autistic persons in Canada, in all its diversity, should always be party to any discussions that directly concern it.
Thank you, Senator Petitclerc.
Observation number 2 comes from Senator Kutcher:
Your committee notes that the Canadian Academy of Health Sciences Assessment on Autism, commissioned for the development of a national autism strategy, will be released soon and, therefore, recommends that further study of this bill and framework development take that report into account.
Thank you, Senator Kutcher.
Observation 3 comes from Senator Bernard:
Your committee heard from multiple witnesses about the importance of language, both in Bill S-203, and in a future federal framework. In particular, witnesses, including autistic self-advocates, emphasized the importance of shifting from a deficit model of autism to using strengths-based language, as well as discussing the use of “Autism Spectrum Disorder” as opposed to “autism.” Your committee therefore suggests that as this bill and the proposed framework evolve, consideration continue to be given to evolving language and vocabulary.
Thank you, Senator Bernard.
Observation 4 comes from Senator McPhedran:
Your committee notes that the use of the term “autistic Canadians” in the preamble of Bill S-203, while intentioned to be inclusive of all individuals diagnosed with autism, nonetheless excludes autistic individuals residing in Canada that do not meet the definition of Canadian citizen, such as refugees, permanent residents, and others without citizenship status. Therefore, your committee calls on the government to be cognizant and reactive to this reality in the development of this framework.
Thank you, Senator McPhedran.
Colleagues, are there any objections that I report this bill, as amended and with observations, to the Senate? If none, it is agreed. Thank you, senators.
This concludes our work on Bill S-203.
We will now proceed with our next item on today’s agenda.
We are beginning our examination of Bill S-208, An Act respecting the Declaration on the Essential Role of Artists and Creative Expression in Canada.
We welcome the Honourable Patricia Bovey to speak as the sponsor of the bill.
Senator Bovey, you may begin when you are ready. Please remember that you have five minutes for your presentation.
Hon. Patricia Bovey, sponsor of the bill: Thank you, chair and colleagues. I look forward to the discussion on Bill S-208, An Act respecting the Declaration on the Essential Role of Artists and Creative Expression in Canada.
I believe Canada has needed it for a number of years. The arts have to be de-siloed. They have been regarded as a frill for those who have money and time rather than being the essence of society and connecting with every part of society. There is an unequal sense and different legalities across the country, and I feel the federal government has a responsibility to try to address some of those concerns.
This has been on my plate academically for many years. I drafted a version 11 or 12 years ago for an academic conference which was attended by politicians of every stripe at every level. Their support was so encouraging that I must say that they wanted to find a way that I could bring it forward in a legislative context.
There was no mention of arts and culture in the British North America Act, 1867 or the Canadian Constitution. So many arts reports talk about the arts fitting nowhere, and they found themselves rather fuzzily in both the federal and provincial responsibilities.
Laws regarding the arts and the status of the artist differ across the country, and the sector has long been asking for an overarching national cultural policy. This bill provides an important foundation or framework for the beginning of that policy.
Over decades I have measured the impacts of the arts in every dimension of Canadian society, qualitatively and quantitatively, by examining empirical and anecdotal data. The impacts are substantive, ranging from health and wellness to crime prevention and reduced recidivism, rural sustainability, the economy, employment, education, the environment, climate change and tourism, so they are everywhere, but the impacts are not really known.
Bill S-208 recognizes the vitally important role played by artists and the arts in every aspect of society and the need to respect and promote the role of artists and ensure that all residents of Canada, including those with disabilities, have equal opportunity to access and enjoy artistic expression. This bill was developed through my in-person and online focus groups and consultations with over 600 artists and arts workers across the country, from every region, north and south, every generation, every discipline and many cultures.
It actively includes Indigenous peoples, recognizing their diverse identities, cultures, languages and customs — a need which was dramatically apparent to me even in the early 1990s. Then, as a member of the board of the Canada Council for the Arts, we inaugurated new diversity in Indigenous programs. More recently, a number of university presidents have clearly articulated culture as intrinsic to reconciliation, key for Canadians to understand and respect each other.
This bill’s action plan includes consultations with ministers of labour, Crown-Indigenous relations, justice, health, the chair of the Canada Council for the Arts, provincial government representatives, arts organizations, Indigenous artists and art organizations and “all other interested persons or organizations the Minister considers appropriate.” That leaves it open for increased and wider consultation.
Perceptions of the arts must move from frill to that of anchor, and in so doing, care must be taken not to increase, create or perpetuate cultural ghettoes. In building cultural agency in every part of Canada, memory and expression of honesty of our past and present is critical. The arts do that, and society needs that.
One person commented, “The power of the arts is being increasingly recognized as a non-negotiable fundamental principle as to who we are.”
It sets out guiding principles, vision and values for creative expression and access and for policy and legislative development. It will assist in balancing multi-dimensions of society and will become a foundation for all arts and cultural frameworks going forward, including those needed for a holistic national cultural body. Embodying sustainable communities’ recognized fourth pillar, cultural capital — which joined social capital, human capital and natural capital — it ensures a balanced society. Bill Ivey, former chair of the U.S. National Endowment for the Arts, noted the three human behaviours categories as expressive life, work life and family life.
International, scientific, medical and social humanities research has proven “that the act of participation in and with the creative spirit is essential for human and societal growth.” This declaration is not about money or any one cultural agency. It is about developing a framework and connections with multiple ministries to assist in meeting their individual and collective goals. It is about understanding the needs of artists, audiences, arts workers and presenters in order to better all societal aspects through society-wide involvement.
In closing, I want to thank all who have participated in developing this bill: my colleagues, who responded to my request for people to consult, and those who provided their passionate support following the bill’s introduction in the chamber.
May we together take this next step respecting Canada’s creators whose work is so often siloed away, seemingly only for those with time or money to enjoy, when in fact it is the soul of who we are. Thank you. I look forward to the discussion.
Senator Poirier: Thank you, chair, and thank you, Senator Bovey, for your bill and being here today as a witness.
The House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is currently undertaking a study on the Status of the Artist Act and its impact on improving basic working conditions for artists. How might Bill S-208 and the review of the Status of the Artist Act be complementary?
Senator Bovey: That’s a very good question, and I thank you for it. They are complementary. It is long overdue for the status of the artist legislation to be reviewed. As we know, some provinces, but not all, have their own pieces of legislation regarding the status of the artist.
That’s embodied in this, but this is bigger. This is about the conditions of artists and thus will be complementary to the status-of-the-artist pieces of legislation across the country, but it’s also about the rest of society understanding the role and the importance of artists and how artists can help better segments of all sectors of society. So, Senator Poirier, I think the two coming in at the same time is good. They reflect and build on each other, but this bill includes far more than just the status of the artist.
Senator Poirier: Is Bill S-208 intended to modernize the Status of the Artist Act? What potential costs, if any, do you anticipate may be associated with the development and implementation of the action plan?
Senator Bovey: This bill is not about the detail of the improvements of the Status of the Artist Act. This bill does not have associated costs with it. It is a bill to encourage the Minister of Canadian Heritage to consult with various other ministers, some of which are listed here. However, as I said, it’s open-ended to have others take part as well. I’m going to answer this in a slightly different way, if I may.
My research over many decades, both empirical and qualitative, has rendered many actual facts as to how inclusion of the arts affects many aspects of society. Governments haven’t recognized that yet. Arts organizations are beginning to recognize that, and the corporate sector is beginning to recognize that.
This bill is to try to encourage the Government of Canada to recognize how artists can help them and each ministry fulfill their goals at the same time as ensuring artists get fair due as other citizens of Canada in terms of working conditions, which will be addressed in the Status of the Artist Act. This is an aide-mémoire on that case to say, look, the arts are the third-largest employer in Canada, and artists make up the greatest percentage of the working poor living below the poverty line.
By addressing this and the consultations that this bill requests that the ministry do, I think we’ll come up with a much healthier platform for Canada to understand the role of its artists, the essential role they have in every aspect of society, and find ways for artists to do their work in safe, accessible ways with fair compensation for what they do. Likewise for arts organizations. The number of arts organizations that do huge amounts of work for almost no money is considerable.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Senator Bovey, thank you so much for all the work you continue to do in this extremely important area.
[English]
My question is about process. I’m interested in knowing more because, when I look at the schedule and declaration, it’s quite detailed. I sense a lot of thought and work has been put into it. I’m interested in knowing how you came up with this content, this list.
We’ve had similar conversations in the past. How confident are you about whether this will withstand the passage of time, given that art changes with technology, with time and with different kinds of expressions?
Senator Bovey: Thank you, senator. I think that’s a very good question.
The process for developing this was long. As some of you know, I’ve been talking about it for a very long time. To be honest with you, I did a lot of international research to see if there were equivalent documents in other countries. I was very interested in a paper I read by Bill Ivey, the former chair of the U.S. Endowment for the Arts under the Clinton Administration. He proposed a bill of rights for artists. The bill of rights had a few similar clauses, not all of these. I found that really interesting. That forged my research those years ago.
As I contemplated how to do this, I did draft one. I drafted one in my arts language, not the legalese language that you have here. I drafted one with eight points. I’ve sat on enough national commissions to know you can have too many recommendations.
I started this with eight. Before the pandemic, I started doing live focus groups with artist groups across the country. We went through my language once, and it was improved considerably. It grew to 10 points out of the consultations. I guess it was at nine when the pandemic started. Then we started doing online focus groups. In the end, it reached over 600 people. Some were one-on-one and most were focus groups. Many of my colleagues in the Senate gave me names of people to include. Other artists gave me names of people to include. So it wasn’t I wanted to speak to so-and-so and so-and-so; it was all-embracing and as inclusive as we could make it.
It grew as I went through it, and it was improved with every iteration. It was an iterative process. That’s how it happened.
We then took it to Senate legal, who turned it into legalese. I then took the legalese to a lawyer who has lots of background in the arts and asked about the sensibility in my arts language, what was lost in the legalese and what the sensibility of the legalese added to it. I wanted to make sure that the essence of what I heard from the people I consulted was in here. That answer came back: “Absolutely.”
Your next question was about whether I think this will stand up. Yes, I think it will stand up in the test of time. We don’t define the cultural diversities. Those will grow as immigration grows. I would like to say that immigrant artists from multi-cultures, whom I consulted, “got” the fact that the arts permeate all of society. I found that really encouraging. I did hearings in French and with Indigenous and Black artists. I had them all mixed up — every generation and every part of Canada. I think it was as inclusive as I was able to make it.
Senator Lankin: I have questions in a couple of areas, but I’ll start with the thorniest one. Before that, I’d like to say thank you, Senator Bovey, for the work you’ve done here and for the extensive nature of the consultations. It really has built a sense of momentum behind this. You’ll know from our previous conversations that I was an involved, supportive individual in the bringing about of the status of the artist legislation in Ontario, and I support the intent absolutely.
Let me get to the thorny issues. Section 3 of the action plan is about the matters the minister must consider. Within, there is a really strong push for inclusion and accessibility, and there’s a lot of language like “recognizing the essential role,” “increasing access” and “improving ability.” It calls for, as the bill does, an action plan.
However, the action plan is to be based on a declaration. This is not a declaration that exists already. This is a piece of work that’s developed out of your writing and the consultations that you’ve done. In the language of the schedule where the declaration is set out, most of the language is based on a rights-based approach. I have a significant concern, not about the intent or the arts sensibilities, but about the legalistic sensibilities.
There’s nothing I disagree with, but to say that people, for example, have the right to take part in arts through attendance at artistic events — many of us have worked over the years, for example in the United Way and with major donors, to create ticket pools for people who can’t meet the financial accessibility. Those are really good programs. Some of that is done through philanthropy and some through provincial. But to base this on a right — that they have that right — makes me concerned about how that gets litigated and what it means. You immediately go to the litigation side.
I’m not going to go through all of them. But if we did this as a committee, or if you did it and you questioned yourself on each one of those where it’s a right that is embedded, you will find that some already exist under the Charter. There’s no problem reiterating them to take down the arts silo that you talked about, but some of them are not in federal jurisdiction and some are not things that we can actually, I believe, commit a government to. The action plan is what the bill asks. It says to affirm the declaration and build an action plan. But in affirming the declaration, it becomes — lawyers here could tell me better — a reference and part of the law. I’m concerned and think we might want to deconstruct some of this.
Could you talk about that in general and the decision to go to a rights-based approach on everything, not just in regard to the artists but also the community access?
Senator Bovey: It comes from three points, if I can. It’s a good question. My simple answer is that the final writing of all of this came from legal, so I’m going to throw that back to the lawyers. But the real answer comes from several things. I had wondered about calling this a bill of rights. I spent a lot of time on that, and I want to thank Senator Bellemare who suggested the word “declaration.” She thought a declaration was much more open, and it allows for evolution, if you want.
You’re right that some of these rights are in the Charter. For some of these, the word “rights” was really pushed by the people I consulted with. They felt so disregarded and thrown to the wolves. They felt that they didn’t have the rights that other Canadians have, such as the right for people to engage in artistic creativity. They felt very strongly that with the budget cuts — and this is provincial, of course, so we don’t use the word “education” — across the country to social programs, education programs and community centres that used to give hands-on artistic opportunities for seniors. With all those cuts, they feel that right of participation has been taken away. That’s where my consulting came to.
With artists having the right to intellectual property and copyright for their work, we know that’s absolutely inconsistent in the Copyright Act, like the Status of the Artist Act that Senator Poirier mentioned that’s under review. In many cases, this will dovetail with those other pieces.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Bovey. We have many questions lined up. If we may move on.
Senator Kutcher: Senator Bovey, congratulations again on this bill. You and I have had numerous discussions about how arts are part of achieving health and promoting healing. Can you give us some concrete examples of how my area of medicine and the arts come together to do that? Would your bill actually enhance those kinds of collaborations?
Senator Bovey: Thank you for the question. I believe this bill will enhance those collaborations. Let me answer with a quick story. My research over the years has found that people who engage in the live arts — in other words, audiences who attend events — tend to live two years longer than those who don’t, get out of hospital two days earlier after elective surgery, miss less work and cost the health system less. Based on that, I started a public art gallery that also gave music and dance presentations in the Buhler Gallery at St. Boniface Hospital. I started it with doctors’ support to see if we could further that research. It corroborated all that research.
A third of the visitors were patients, a third family and a third public. What we found was that people’s blood pressure went down, staff blood pressure went down and health outcomes were better. From a mental health perspective, we found that participation for art therapy has been really positive. When I started the gallery, several health ministers came to me and said, “Oh, what are you doing these days?” And I said, “Oh, I’m helping with hallway medicine.” That’s absolutely demonstrable in studies that were done in Britain, the U.S. and Sweden. As well, I think the work being done in Montreal now, as I mentioned in my question to the minister, is superb. I think we’re seeing more and more evidence.
During the pandemic, I had artists call me. They were absolutely destitute, and all I could do was say, “I’m not allowed to come and see you, but turn your camera on and get to the studio or to your keyboard and let’s talk tomorrow.” I think I called you in the middle of one of those. I was worried one night that somebody was going to commit suicide. He got back into the studio. His son was a musician. The son was living with him at the time. They started working together, and this artist is in great shape.
The Chair: Senator Bovey, we have lots of questions, and if I give five minutes for every question and answer, we won’t get to all the questions. I would advise my colleagues to be tight in your questions and you as well.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you, Senator Bovey, not only for this bill but for your lifetime of work in promoting and protecting the arts.
My question is more geared to education. Very quickly, as a prof, I regularly took students to the UN for a human rights course, and that always included visits to key museums where there are, as you know, amazing original works of art that depict a whole range of human rights issues.
My question relates to the intersection of this bill and the 10-point declaration that you have in section 2 and the reality that artistic education, for the most part, is provincial jurisdiction. That’s our Constitution, so we have to work with that.
The declaration alludes to a number of arts-related rights, as Senator Lankin has referenced, and there are exceptional ideals, and I completely support them. But there’s a different reality in many parts of our country, particularly with the cuts to public education that provincial governments have decided to make.
We have lots of examples. I think some of the most extensively described have been the impact on music programs and the shortage of arts teachers and the fact that funding gets left largely to volunteer parents very often, and of course we have the economically depressed areas being even more disadvantaged.
Can you foresee a situation where the rights that you’ve identified in Bill S-208 could be leveraged by students and parents to somehow impact, reduce or constrain provincial authority over defunding arts education?
Senator Bovey: Thank you, and you’re right. I think we have to be really careful. This does not use the word “education.” This uses the words “skills acquisition for people of all ages.” There are many seniors who want to start making art. I will tell you that it’s not just the provinces that fund what we would call “education programs.” The Canada Council for the Arts, Canadian Heritage, they all have programs for institutions, and those programs do cover education activities within the program of the institution — not the school but the institution.
I go back to what Senator Murray Sinclair said, and I quoted it this morning when I was speaking to the Canadian Museums Association. Families go to museums, and I can say arts organizations, together. They don’t go to school together. I believe in the federal government’s already existing, strong programs, and I herald them, and then we have places like the National Ballet School and the National Theatre School of Canada. Those are nationally funded institutions. So not all arts education is done within the provinces.
Can the federal government encourage the provinces not to cut the arts programs? I can tell you with the work I’ve done with the impact of the arts on recidivism and kids getting into trouble with the law, those that are involved in the out-of-school programs for arts, the recidivism rate in some of the states I’ve looked at has gone down by 48% for kids ranging in age from 11 to 14. The fuzziness I talked about with the arts not being in the BNA Act or the Constitution, that fuzziness has helped serve, but this calls for the federal government to meet with the provinces too.
Senator Dasko: Thank you, Senator Bovey, for putting this forward. It’s really fascinating. My question is going to be very brief so other colleagues can ask questions.
We’ve seen, in this committee especially, legislation around frameworks, special days and so on, and I haven’t seen a piece of legislation that looks quite like this in terms of its format, the way it’s laid out, the way the goals are put together.
Did you use any other legislation as a model for this? Is there some other piece of legislation — as I say, we’ve seen the frameworks here at SOCI. You know them well, framework legislation. We’ve seen other formats legislation, the special days legislation. This is here, and to me it looks quite different from the kinds of bills that have come to this committee. That’s my question.
Senator Bovey: That’s a good question. Did I look at other legislation? I have looked at legislation for so many years, in so many different capacities and so many different aspects of the arts, federally and provincially, and have sat on commissions that have written pieces of legislation that I guess I have consulted other pieces of legislation, but I didn’t use that as a framework. I used the need for these issues to be addressed and the need for the cross-ministerial discussions, and then we turned it to the legal beagles to do the legal writing.
My answer is, yes, I’ve consulted legislation for the 50 years I’ve been in the business. I have written others, but this kind of legislation, trying to be an overall, has never happened, and the sector has been calling for it for decades.
Senator Dasko: So it’s a new piece. You haven’t used any other legislation as a model for this.
Senator Bovey: I’ve used ideas as the model, and I’m not going to apologize for the fact that I come from the creative sector and so let me be creative.
Senator Dasko: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: I join my colleagues in commending you for the impressive work you do and your commitment to promoting artists and the creative industries in all communities across our country.
In addition to health, which was mentioned earlier, arts and culture contribute to many other sectors of the economy, such as tourism and even manufacturing activities. A recent study in London, England, shows that one third of all creative jobs are in sectors that would not be considered traditionally creative. Compared to the OECD, I’d like to know how Canada ranks in terms of recognizing the role of artists.
Thank you.
[English]
Senator Bovey: Do I have to answer that? I can tell you that other countries are way ahead of us in understanding the role and the significance of their artists, and I applaud them for it. If you go to France, Japan or Britain, they have far more galleries, concert halls and theatres than we have. We’re a young country. We’re catching up, and may this declaration help that catch-up.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: I’d like to apologize, Senator Bovey, because I had the wrong time for your testimony. I’d like to congratulate you for your declaration, your intentions are indisputable. My question is about the actual impact of the declaration, considering federal-provincial jurisdiction.
The provinces have very strong cultural policies and you know that arts and culture are a provincial jurisdiction. With respect to your proposed action plan and the type of consultations you are recommending — you consulted a lot of people and I applaud you for that, I consulted a few myself — what’s the position of the provinces you consulted about this? My concern is that, it’s a great declaration in its intent, but I’m seriously wondering, since the Quebec government recently introduced artist status legislation, how could passing this bill have a real impact on the ground in health or education, which are under provincial jurisdiction. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Bovey: Thank you for this. It’s a good question. I’m going to respectfully disagree on one point. The arts are only partially a provincial responsibility. If they were just a provincial responsibility, we wouldn’t have the Canada Council for the Arts or the National Theatre School; we wouldn’t have so many of the organizations and funding bodies we have. So it is a messy, shared responsibility.
I spoke with provincial arts organizations. I have spoken with a number of provincial arts council bureaucrats. In my pre-Senate work, I did a lot of work in Manitoba, obviously, doing a similar thing, trying to get the provincial ministries to understand how the arts could help them with their work, such as with juvenile kids in trouble, health, employment and tourism. They’re all aware of that. The difference is that Quebec is way ahead of everybody. If we can aspire, as a nation and as other provinces, to pick up some of the work that Quebec has done, I think that would be great.
What do I think the impact will be on provinces? I can give you a hope. I hope it will open their eyes that there’s much more they can do with the creative sector to help them meet their needs. If provinces help the arts community to get involved in some of the tourism organizations — I know years ago working in B.C. we did that. I think the impacts will be different in different provinces, depending on where they’re at.
I’ve been told by every person in government I’ve spoken to — and I haven’t had official meetings with ministers. I thought that was not right while I was working on federal legislation. One reason I wanted to do this federally was because I only got so far in Manitoba and hadn’t got to that legislative stage. So I think the benefits will be significant. I’m going to monitor them, and I want to be involved in them.
Senator Moodie: Senator Bovey, congratulations on this wonderful body of work that you’ve spent your life on and on this bill. I know you’ve done a significant amount of work on cultural diplomacy, including a study in the Foreign Affairs Committee. How do you see this bill interacting with our current cultural diplomacy efforts? Have you been in any way engaged with Global Affairs Canada in this regard?
Senator Bovey: Interesting. I thank you for that. The effect of the cultural diplomacy report was immediate. I have to thank the Canada Council and Global Affairs; they each immediately set up a special department for international cultural affairs. The reason Global Affairs was the leader of that one rather than Canada Council — and we’ve had those discussions — is because Global Affairs has property all around the world, and Canada Council and Global Affairs are working together, as seen in the work we’re doing on the Pan-African Heritage World Museum. Both agencies are with us. I’ve been talking to both about that. Both know about this declaration and have been supportive. But no, I didn’t consult Global Affairs about the detail of this.
Some of the 600-plus people we talked to were well aware of what happened as a result of the declaration, because some organizations that we consulted were now applying to have their work go abroad. I’m going to go back to my land of hope — ever hopeful, right? — that if this has the same kind of impact that has, I’ll be really pleased. Likewise with the work we did on the Arctic in the Special Senate Committee on the Arctic, because that again brought the visual arts back into issues of climate change and social change in the North. It’s all intertwined.
I’ll close with this, if I may. This comes back to the need to de-silo. The fact that we’re looking at things as though this is here and this is here and this is here. Let’s poke holes in those silos and get those various arms and tentacles talking so the engagements can be properly celebrated and we’re not spending as much money and repeating things everywhere.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Bovey. I have a little time to ask one question. Senator Moodie asked my question, so let me ask another question.
I sort of align myself with Senator Dasko’s comments. This bill is unusual. For me, it is unusual in the sense that it is highly prescriptive. It has a declaration, and you asked the government to confirm to provide a framework for the implementation of the declaration. Why did you choose to go this way as opposed to asking the government to consult and to develop a declaration and implement it?
Senator Bovey: I think that’s a very good question because I feel very strongly that the Senate and the Government of Canada have a responsibility to listen to Canadians. We listened hard as we put this together, hence the schedule. The government has a responsibility to do its own consultations, which is why we’ve listed some ministries. There could be others. If I was writing it today, I’d add the Department of National Defence. This is where the clause “all other interested persons or organizations that the minister considers appropriate” allows that to open up. If in their consultations some of these clauses change, they’ll change it. I have a feeling that it’s important to get the legislation through and get it through quickly, and if after their consultation there needs to be an amendment at that point, that’s fine. I think when we look at the pandemic and how the arts have carried society through, this is a very simple thing to give back and have another opportunity for the arts to move forward.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Bovey, for being with us today. For the public, we should all thank Senator Bovey for her contribution to the arts. If you walk the hallways of the Senate, the many beautiful curated exhibitions, Senator Bovey has a hand in them. Thank you for your work.
Senator Lankin: I’m asking this question now so there might be some time while we’re onboarding people for the clerk and others to provide advice to us when we come back.
Normally, when we go through a bill — and people have talked about the structure of this — we will consider in a clause-by-clause the actual clauses of the bill. Most often, we don’t go into the schedules, but that might be one of the processes that we have available to us; I don’t know. Some of the 10 points I have no concern with, particularly where it’s clearly in the federal jurisdiction. The call for an action plan to engage the provinces, that’s great. But some of these, which are written in rights-based, the federal government perhaps doesn’t have the scope or capability. We should explore this. I would like to know, procedurally, when we come back, what the process would be for us to examine and deal with the actual wording in the declaration itself.
The Chair: That’s a very good point, Senator Lankin.
Senator McPhedran: I want to build on that and ask for advice on whether, in fact, this is a question that we should be asking legal to answer.
The Chair: That was going to be my response between this meeting and the next. Rest assured, the clerk and the legal team will come back with a proposal to us as to how to examine it.
Again, thank you very much, Senator Bovey, for your contributions.
Senators, we move on to our second panel in our examination of Bill S-208. For those of you joining us live, we are reviewing Senator Bovey’s Bill S-208, An Act respecting the Declaration on the Essential Role of Artists and Creative Expression in Canada.
Today we welcome from Canada’s National Ballet School, John Dalrymple, Executive Director; from Mass Culture, Robin Sokoloski, Director of Organizational Development; and from CARFAC, Canadian Artists Representation, April Britski, National Executive Director.
Thank you so much for joining us all via videoconference. I now invite you to provide your opening remarks. I remind you very kindly that you have only five minutes allocated for opening statements, followed by questions from our members. You may begin, Mr. Dalrymple, when you are ready.
John Dalrymple, Executive Director, Canada’s National Ballet School: Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s great to be here. I’m representing Canada’s National Ballet School, which is a globally significant ballet school and the largest arts training organization in Canada.
I think what makes us distinctive globally is that we are Canadian. We deliver the broadest range of community-facing programs of any ballet school in the world. These programs focus on holistic health outcomes for all dancers in the programs. We look to assess and measure our programs for how they foster human flourishing and a sense of belonging. This is something that is not intrinsic to every ballet training culture around the world but something we are proud of at the National Ballet School.
We do this program delivery at scale. We are a national organization. In the last five years, we engaged over 750,000 Canadians in these health-promoting community dance programs as well as professional dance training programs. We obviously pursue the resources we need to try to impact as many people as deeply as possible.
In my testimony today, I will focus on what I thought were three of the considerations that were particularly relevant to the school and add some colour from the field and the ground, from where we’re working.
So looking at consideration A, which was recognizing the essential role and contribution of the arts to the health, social and economic well-being of everyone in Canada. This is really what the 300 staff that work at Canada’s National Ballet School believe. This is why we get up every morning and do what we do. We focus on the full continuum of life when it comes to our programming.
We work with kids at the earliest stages through the public school system and all the way through to the Canadians living in long-term care with advanced dementia. It doesn’t matter about the talent or the aspiration; we see the impact that dance teaching, quality and excellence can bring when tailored to the needs of those communities.
A couple of examples of how versatile the arts can be within our society is one partnership we have with the Canadian Centre for Victims of Torture. These are individuals who have seen and experienced horrific things. Working with children who are part of that organization, kids who don’t speak English generally and don’t speak the same language as the other kids in the room, we had profound experiences bringing creative dance and movement programs into these spaces. Dance is so universal and is something that promoted healing and social inclusion and had powerful outcomes.
Another example is looking on the other end of the spectrum with older adults. Dancing is the number one thing you can do as you age. The cognitive, emotional and physical benefits of dancing are singular, and, of course, it all drives from the creative expression that comes from being an artistic endeavour.
We have a program we’re working on with the University Health Network here in Toronto as well as Baycrest Health Sciences called “Dancer Not Dementia.” It is a campaign funded by the Public Health Agency of Canada. They don’t often fund arts organizations, but they do fund this activity. It’s to take the stigma out of living with dementia for people who have the disease and the people who care for them. It really celebrates the dancer and not dementia, because when you dance, that humanity really comes to life.
When I thought about a second consideration, I looked at consideration C: improving the ability of everyone in Canada, particularly children and youth, to engage in the arts. I think this is essential to this bill because when you’re involved in arts education experiences, and you can do that at any stage of your life, you get better at everything else. That’s completely proven. We’ve seen that in the programs we run in public school systems. When the kids who were struggling at math or struggling to behave in the classroom do these creative movement exercises regularly, they are completely transformed.
Something else that is interesting is when we look at the professional students in our program who are Olympic-calibre talent and spend their entire childhood with us doing their academic education and ballet training, their careers are short. Unlike a professional athlete whose career is also short, they don’t have multi-million dollar endorsement deals to fall back on. So they have to re-career and do something else around 40 years old. Our alumni have an exceptional track record as lawyers, neuroscientists, teachers — you name the profession — re-careering in profound ways because their creative arts background has given them such a leg up in terms of other academic pursuits later on in life. In the 12 years I’ve been at Canada’s National Ballet School, the graduating class in Grade 12 has always been honour students. They have an A average every year, every kid. These are kids who are here to dance, not to do math, but they’re succeeding at that as well.
Lastly, I want to share letter “E” in terms of the considerations, and that is representing artists in Canada and the rest of the world. We all know that artistic and cultural content is soft power; it speaks to that cultural diplomacy priority. The more global awareness and appreciation there is for Canadian culture, the more influence we have. I think Canada is consistently punching above its weight. Globally, our artists are celebrated — we are a small, not-well-populated country.
I want to add an example from Canada’s National Ballet School. We have dancers and graduates in over 80 companies around the world, and we’re proud of the fact that there are more graduates of our school who are artistic directors leading professional companies and schools around the world than graduates of any other ballet school, and that’s coming from a small country like Canada. Again, showing the power of the arts.
Thank you very much for the time and the opportunity to share.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Dalrymple.
We will go on Ms. Sokoloski.
Robin Sokoloski, Director of Organizational Development, Mass Culture:
Thank you for inviting me to come and speak. My name is Robin Sokoloski, and I’m joining you from Toronto or Tkaranto on the traditional territory of many nations, including the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishinaabeg, the Chippewa, the Haudenosaunee and the Wendat peoples, and is now home to many diverse First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.
For the last two decades, I have had the great privilege of working in the Canadian arts sector alongside hundreds of artists, arts workers, funders and, most recently, researchers and academics within my current role as the Director of Mass Culture.
Mass Culture is a national charitable organization that works with the arts community to harness the power of research to learn and generate new insights, enabling the arts community to be strategic, focused and adaptive.
A fun fact about Mass Culture: although we are a young organization, we carry with us the legacy of the charitable number we transitioned into in 2019, which belonged to a long-standing organization founded 77 years ago known as the Canadian Conference of the Arts. Senator Cormier was actually once a board member of the CCA, and for quite some time the CCA served the arts and cultural community in Canada by providing research, analysis and consultations on public policies affecting the arts and cultural institutions and industries.
I do not take the obligation of maintaining this legacy lightly, with the acknowledgment that Canadian society and the arts sector itself have changed significantly over the charity’s life. I am very proud to be part of what it has evolved into, as Mass Culture’s current role generates capacity within the arts community to conduct research that allows us to know ourselves better as a sector and to develop the tools and evidence to demonstrate art’s value to society.
We are only one small piece of a much larger arts research and policy infrastructure needed to support, not just a thriving arts and cultural sector, but a healthy society by centring the arts, specifically artists, at its core. Bill S-208, the Declaration on the Essential Role of Artists and Creative Expression in Canada, is the connectivity needed to fortify a robust arts research and policy infrastructure.
Last fall, I taught an arts policy, equity and activism course at Centennial College. April, who is also a witness here today, was one of my guest speakers. This gave me an excuse to revisit the history and current standing of the Status of Artist Act, which as was mentioned, is being studied by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage this month. Frankly, I find the federal Status of the Artists Act as it is currently in place disheartening, as it doesn’t do nearly what it needs to do to protect our Canadian artists.
When teaching this emerging and yet quite savvy group of arts managers on the Status of the Artist Act, questions immediately arose such as what guidance it or other forms of legislation provide on cultural appropriation and Indigenous cultural knowledge. Unfortunately, the Status of the Artist Act has not been updated for quite some time for it to include those types of considerations. I firmly believe that Bill S-208 has the potential to lead us towards the unpacking of old systems of support as well as further connect the arts community to new ways of working. For example, I see a strong correlation between this particular bill and the possibilities provided by Bill S-216 in fostering a more equitable charitable sector.
The sentiments held within the 10 items listed in Bill S-208 resonate with the conversations that have taken place this week during the annual Canadian Arts Summit, which I have been attending, and I’m confident they will continue to be discussed during next week’s National Culture Summit, which is hosted by the Minister of Canadian Heritage and will be examining “The Future of the Arts, Culture and Canadian Heritage.” The reason? Because Senator Bovey did the enormous task of engaging with and listening to the arts community. Their voices are reflected in this bill and if passed, which I happily endorse as is, will be foundational, instigating an action plan for future generations of arts workers and artists to stand on. I look forward to Mass Culture remaining as a stakeholder and convenor of the arts community in support of the implementation of the action plan.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Sokoloski. Ms. April Britski, you have five minutes.
April Britski, National Executive Director, Canadian Artists Representation: Thank you for the opportunity to speak today and especially to Senator Bovey for giving us such a wonderful reason to gather virtually. I’m the Executive Director Of CARFAC, the national association for professional visual artists. Our organization advocates for artists’ economic and legal rights and better working conditions. We provide industry standards for paying artists, and we are certified as the collective bargaining representative for visual and media artists under the Status of the Artist Act.
There are over 21,000 visual artists in Canada, working in such mediums as painting, sculpture, printmaking, photography and more. This bill is important to us because half of visual artists earn just $20,000 per year. I am going to say that one more time because we all know how hard it is to earn a living as an artist, and we often become desensitized to statistics like this, but is important to really acknowledge that half of all visual artists earn just $20,000 a year, from all sources of income. That’s less than half of what the average Canadian earns. Most artists are self-employed gig workers, and their creative income is not predictable. Some years might be great, others may be dire. Even senior, award-winning artists can have a bad year. At the end of 2020, our office was flooded with calls and emails from artists who received CERB repayment letters. They applied for CERB because they earned at least $5,000 in gross income in 2019, but they didn’t earn $5,000 net. For many of us, that reality is unimaginable. For some artists, 2019 was their bad year and they hoped to bounce back the following year.
The pandemic has been disastrous for our sector in many ways, but it has shown us what is possible if those who need a social safety net in times of hardship can access one. Other countries, like Ireland, have introduced a basic income guarantee for artists as part of their recovery strategy because they know that arts and culture have value for all and that artists must benefit from big policy thinking. That’s what this bill it. It presents us with opportunities to explore similar meaningful change for Canadian creators.
I want to thank Senator Bovey for making such a big, bold declaration about the importance of Canadian artists and the importance of the arts to Canadians. It’s an important starting point, and we must start somewhere. In 1980, UNESCO made recommendations about the role of the creative worker that led to the Status of the Artist legislation in Canada. This law has made a huge difference to visual artists who would otherwise struggle to organize for the purposes of collective bargaining. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was a similar milestone in the protection of Indigenous rights, and with legislation coming into force in Canada, I look forward to seeing how it will help Indigenous nations, communities and artists protect their traditional knowledge, art and cultural expressions.
A declaration on the importance of artists and cultural expressions on its own is not enough. We need calls to meaningful action, and those recommendations cannot sit on a shelf until someone decides it’s a priority. We need copyright legislation that protects artists. There are some very good things in the law for visual artists, like exhibition and reproduction rights, but copyright infringement and cultural appropriation are rampant, and there is very little you can do to fight it when you make $20,000 per year. The key is strong incentives for prevention, but artists also need affordable access to justice.
Visual artists need an artist’s resale right in the Copyright Act. The resale right is a percentage royalty that visual artists already receive in 94 other countries when their work is sold in a secondary market. It would be especially beneficial for Indigenous artists. In Nunavut alone, their government estimates that the arts and crafts sector contributes $33.4 million to the territory’s GDP. A lot of that comes from work in the resale market made by Inuit artists. It also aligns Canada with our trade partners, and it is one of many ways that the government could help visual artists recover from the pandemic. It doesn’t cost the government anything. We just need a legal amendment.
There is support for this proposal in the federal government, and steps have recently been taken to work towards implementation. I’m hopeful that it will pass long before the minister’s action plan mentioned in this bill is completed and that we have your support when the time comes. Five minutes is not enough time to talk about all the ways that arts and culture enrich our lives — I didn’t even talk about tax — and all the ways we can start to rethink how we see the arts as a real profession and artists as workers with real value, but it’s a start and for that I am very grateful.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you so much, Ms. Britski and all our witnesses for enriching our understanding of the arts as they are played out in different parts of life. We are now going to proceed to questions from senators. Just as a reminder, we are conducting a review of the proposed legislation before us, and I would encourage everyone to keep their questions and comments on the bill.
The first question goes to Senator Poirier from New Brunswick followed by Senator Bovey.
Senator Poirier: I just have one question with two parts so I’ll do it all together. The 10-paragraph declaration on the essential role of artists and creative expression in Canada is included in the schedule of Bill S-208, An Act Respecting the Declaration on the Essential Role of Artists and Creative Expression in Canada.
I want to know what concept, if any, is not currently identified in the declaration that you feel should be included.
Part two of the question is about the fourth clause which defines specific measures the Minister of Canadian Heritage must consider when developing the action plan. What other message, if any, do you think should be included in the development of the action plan?
The question is to any of the witnesses who would like to answer.
The Chair: I think that is a question they will all want to weigh in on so one minute per answer if that is at all possible. We’ll go first to Ms. Britski and then to Ms. Sokoloski and then Mr. Dalrymple.
Senator Poirier: Thank you, chair.
Ms. Britski: What’s missing? I don’t know. As Senator Bovey said, the arts are connected through various ministries, and so as I mentioned, the challenge of figuring out how to combine labour, copyright, tax, trade, employment, broadcasting and defence, it’s a challenge, and I look forward to seeing how that may play out through the consultations and the action plan. There is a lot to think about and talk about.
Ms. Sokoloski: I would say that the 10 points as laid out are quite comprehensive, and that has a lot to do with the consultation process that Senator Bovey undertook. So I don’t, at this moment, foresee anything that’s glaringly missing.
I hope that what this does is encourage cross-ministerial work through encouraging the Minister of Canadian Heritage to work with others, as April just said. I think within the sector, even within the Canada Council at the moment, we are being encouraged to move away from that economic argument and more towards what arts have to do with social impact. So I think that it’s really important to be able to work with other ministries to be able to understand what that looks like, and I think that this particular declaration opens up conversations for that to occur.
Mr. Dalrymple: Nothing specifically is missing, but one thing I think would be important to highlight is we’ve had to make a case in the arts often, which is different from 50 years ago when it was just important to have strong arts organizations and people valued the arts in a certain way. We’ve had to demonstrate the social and economic impacts. It is incredibly valid to do that, but there is something that I think is baked into this bill, which maybe isn’t expressly stated but I wanted to say, which is that there is something intrinsic about the arts we need to respect and appreciate.
We can make lists of all the ways the arts can be intersectional and can benefit different aspects of society, but why it does that is because there’s something about the arts and the way it unlocks human creativity and expression that I think is something we need to celebrate. I just wanted to add that colour because I don’t think it should be lost in all the different ways we try to support an arts argument. The arts themselves are very profound.
The Chair: Thank you so much. Our next question goes to Senator Bovey, the sponsor of the bill.
Senator Bovey: I want to thank the witnesses not only for your presence today but for all the work that you do and the banners that you carry and the effect that you have in your communities and across the country, because you do stellar work.
I want to ask one simple question, and some of you may have heard me ask it before. Do you think this bill will help you make the connections with various ministries to help you connect to the wider society with that understanding of what you do so that you will be able to help those ministries and help other aspects of society that may not know the value of the arts to them? Do you think this will help you make those connections?
The Chair: Senator Bovey, is that question directed to one or all?
Senator Bovey: Preferably all.
The Chair: Witnesses, a minute each for your answer.
Mr. Dalrymple: I do think it will help because we’ve had our own experience trying to connect with other ministries to talk about work that we’re doing, to talk about advancing their own imperatives, and it’s often been challenging because right at the door they don’t understand why we’re there for the meeting. I think this really paves the way to have those conversations and to really appreciate that we’ve got complex challenges in society, that not one single ministry can say, “I’ll take charge of that one; I’ll take charge of that one.” It requires a concerted effort, and I think that the way, again, that the arts can unlock human creativity help us generate original ideas and help us be empathetic to situations is something that I think would benefit the priorities of any ministry. So the way that this sort of sets a context and paves the way I think could be very, very helpful.
Ms. Sokoloski: I agree. I think it paves the way, certainly. It strengthens the cause and creates a common language that we can all rally around when we are either looking at ourselves to make organizational decisions or trying to inform policy through the advocacy efforts that we make. As I said, it provides a foundational piece of a document that we can lean up against and rally around, so yes, I do.
Ms. Britski: Yes, undoubtedly it will. For one thing, we won’t necessarily have to start from scratch every time we meet with a department that isn’t specifically just about the arts. I will point out that we don’t have a minister of arts and culture. The Ministry of Canadian Heritage is as close as it comes, but a lot of the legislation that affects artists comes under other areas. I mentioned tax.
When we meet with the CRA and they try to understand the unique issues and challenges that artists have through tax legislation, we have to really explain a lot of things. This provides a really great opportunity to help make some change towards that.
Senator Cormier: My question will follow Senator Bovey’s question, and it’s for anyone who wants to answer. As you know, in the bill, the Minister of Canadian Heritage is responsible for the action plan and for the implementation. The minister doesn’t have authority on other ministries. He can consult, so what do you think the challenges will be for the Minister of Canadian Heritage to concretely involve other ministries in activities that you could benefit from?
Ms. Sokoloski: It always feels like an uphill battle when we’re asked to speak outside of Canadian Heritage with other ministries, so that’s a difficult question to answer because I always see it as an uphill battle. As April said, it’s almost a re-explanation of the value of the arts.
This provides us with the grounding to be able to lean up against and say that this is something that has been agreed upon, this is what the arts sector can get behind because their voices are a part of this declaration. That actually gives us a step up.
Ms. Britski: Yes, I think it’s certainly helpful. There are always challenges when you have more than one minister in charge of something, but there are precedents for that. Copyright always involves Heritage and Industry, and so they’ve sort of figured out processes through that.
Whether this bill exists or not, any time there is legislation that involves artists, it’s probably going to involve more than one minister anyway. So at least if everybody is starting off from the same starting point with an understanding, that certainly helps.
Mr. Dalrymple: I think you’re asking what is this challenge, and I think it actually could be an opportunity for him because there is a lot of literature. There’s been a ton of research, formal research, evaluation that’s happened around the impact of artists, arts-based interventions and other aspects of society. It’s an opportunity for the minister to work with his counterparts and to ask, “What are your pressing issues? Where are your roadblocks?” It’s sort of like when you have a meeting and you’re looking around saying: How come we don’t have any new ideas? It’s the same people around the table. Who is missing from this table?
There are lots of answers as to who is missing. One is, do we have any artists at the table? I think this is recognizing that these are solutions-oriented opportunities that involve engagement with the arts sector. As opposed to looking at the arts sector as something that requires support, it’s actually mobilizing the arts sector to solve complex issues in other ministries.
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
The Chair: It seems that I do have time for a few questions. This is a novelty for the chair, certainly.
I want to ask you about the consultation action plan list that is provided. Although it says “all other interested parties, persons or organizations,” I’m struck with the inclusion of one major cultural institution with the exception of others and that is the chairperson of the Canada Council for the Arts. I understand this is the big cultural institution in Canada, but there are others.
I wonder what your response is to the inclusion of one versus the exclusion of others. I’m just trying to figure this out for myself. Ms. Britski, why do I think you would have a response to that?
Ms. Britski: Gosh, I don’t know. I’m sure there are lots of people who are missing. They’re the obvious choice, of course. You can see why they’re there.
The Chair: Okay. Let me provide some background. When I’ve spoken to artists about equity and inclusion, most of them have said to me that the cultural institutions of the day in Ottawa and in Canada appear to disregard their reality. Then I notice in the bill itself, whilst there are messages about Indigenous peoples and peoples with disabilities, and young people, and “Canadians and residents of Canada of all ages, cultural diversities and backgrounds . . . ,” the world “multiculturalism” actually does not appear in the bill. It is one of the pillars of our society, and I wonder if it leaps out to you as it does for me.
Ms. Britski: For me, the fact that arts organizations such as ours and Mass Culture and others are listed, I would think that representation would come through. There are a lot of arts organizations in Canada, so to name all of us . . . Certainly, we do know who they are and could contribute recommended lists of groups that should be part of that process. I think it would have been pages long had they all been listed. That’s definitely a valid concern but one that I think the sector would figure out for ourselves.
The Chair: That’s a good response. The sector should figure it out for itself.
Mr. Dalrymple: One suggestion, because paragraph 4(2)(g) is kind of a catch-all, it’s like any organization, but maybe be specific there and say organizations that represent racialized artists and disciplines, something like that. Because I think your point is very well made. The Canada Council does get that feedback from racialized artists in general, that they have not been successful in accessing that or there’s disproportionate money going to more established institutions. As someone who runs an established institution, I understand the responsibility to address that. That could help a lot, maybe just being specific in there that consultation must include certain historically marginalized groups.
The Chair: Perhaps that could be an observation that I may make. That’s to be seen.
Senator Bovey: I wondered if it was appropriate for me to weigh in.
The Chair: As long as it’s in the form of a question.
Senator Bovey: First of all, I’m going to say the reason for having other organizations is because they’re always evolving. So do you think that by the time we’ve had another panel with artists representing different groups in the country that we will have begun to address that? I know time is always difficult. Would it be appropriate for me at some point to give you some of these other lists of organizations, many of which were part of the 600 people we already consulted? I’m asking you what’s appropriate for putting some of those lists together, because they do take pages.
The Chair: That’s actually not a question to the witnesses but to the chair.
Senator Bovey: Would you agree? The question is very well taken, Madam Chair, and I appreciate it. Thank you for considering.
The Chair: Since I have the time, I’m going to needle at this a bit, leaving aside lists because lists, by virtue of being lists, are exclusive because they’re lists. What about my comment about the absence of the word “multiculturalism?” Any response?
Ms. Sokoloski: Can I ask the difference you see between multicultural and cultural diversities?
The Chair: I think there’s a difference in policy and there’s a difference in legislative — we have a minister of multiculturalism or we used to. I keep forgetting. The words change. Now it’s the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth. There’s an underpinning in laws that could have an impact. But more pertinently, I’m looking at this bill from the point of view of a racialized artist, and I wonder if I feel included. That’s just a comment there. Let’s have a response to that, if possible. If not, we can move on to other questions.
Ms. Sokoloski: I would say, specifically from my own perspective through all the consultation work we did in bringing Mass Culture to fruition, it was always a priority to ensure that we were reaching out to those who aren’t normally around the table. I think that it’s very challenging to do that if there isn’t something to come around the table for. So at the very least, this declaration is something to do that, to bring us together, to debate, to further inform and to better understand where the sector’s priorities are at. I do think that this provides an opening to many people and many voices who desperately need to be represented within the arts sector when it comes to legislation.
The Chair: Thank you. I also wonder if the world “multiculturalism” is falling out of favour. That’s just an observation I make, and I think it should not be out of favour for obvious reasons.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: I looked at point 9 of the declaration; one of the witnesses was talking earlier about it being hard for artists to earn a steady income. The declaration states that in Canada, every artist, arts organization and production company has the right to take risks and invest in creative innovation while serving communities and the public interest, and they should have the independent support and means to do so. When they are in creative mode, artists don’t have the time to seek funding. With respect to organizations like yours, which do very interesting work, could the government provide funding that would give — I am thinking out loud — guarantee a basic income for artists? Could this be included in a bill? Do you feel something could be added to the declaration or the bill to ensure artists receive basic financial support? Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Who is that question to?
Senator Gerba: Any of them. Maybe Mr. Dalrymple.
The Chair: Ms. Britski, you commented on the Irish model, so perhaps we could hear from you on that point again.
[Translation]
Mr. Dalrymple: I speak a bit of French.
[English]
I didn’t understand the full question, unfortunately.
Senator Gerba: I’m wondering if we can add something to this declaration so that we may give some financial supports to the artists. Is it possible to add something in the declaration or in the law? I don’t know, maybe laws are not supposed to be financially — but what can we do to make sure that artists are supported while they are creating?
Mr. Dalrymple: I think there would be a challenge. I would hate to see the bill stifled by creating a responsibility for a ministry to fund something that they haven’t prepared themselves to fund. I do think that under the considerations in paragraph 4(3)(g) around encouraging greater investment tries to address that.
There may be great opportunities beyond just direct funding from the government, but how could understanding this role that the arts can play — intersectionally addressing lots of different societal issues — create opportunities to find financial supports that are non-traditional and not conventional in terms of just straight grant funding or something like that? I feel like the way it’s written recognizes that there needs to be greater investments but doesn’t prescribe exactly where that investment comes from, which I think gives it some flexibility.
Senator Cormier: I will ask my question in French. I want to make sure that you have interpretation, because I want to be more precise.
[Translation]
The senator’s declaration and bill contain what are called rights. To me, other elements seem more like broad principles on the role of the arts than rights. My question is, based on your own needs, does this bill — as the saying goes, one shouldn’t bite off more than one can chew — is this bill focused enough that you can find your way around and establish priorities? Basically, this bill covers a lot of ground and that’s what makes it so great. Do you feel you can take what’s on the table here and set priorities for the conversation you will be having with the Minister of Canadian Heritage in your consultations with the minister down the road?
[English]
Ms. Sokoloski: I would say, Senator Cormier, that I think that it is all-encompassing. I would agree; its strength is in how much it includes. I think Senator Bovey has gone in a very important direction of making sure that we have something foundational to really get our minds around. It does include quite a bit, but I think that it provides what is needed.
This has been asked for a very long time, so of course it’s going to include quite a bit. I think it’s warranted. We need to think broadly in this way so that we can find ways of working together within our very diversified arts community, with many different priorities, to find some common ground. I do think this particular bill provides that common ground.
Ms. Britski: I think the holistic approach of it allows us to really think about what our needs are. They have changed over time — certainly over the last couple of years they’ve changed pretty dramatically — and so it gives us the space to not just have a list that we may have come up with a few years ago but to also think beyond how things have always been and how we thought we would address the challenges to think about what’s possible. I think that’s what’s really exciting about it.
What’s nice about the consultation part and the action plan is that we can start from here and figure out what it is that we want, how we want to do it and how that might work through potentially legislative processes or policies — or who knows?
The Chair: Thank you, witnesses, for your participation today and for sharing your wisdom and experience with us. We truly appreciate it. We will continue our study next week. You’re welcome to join us. If there is no other business, honourable colleagues, this meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)