THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 15, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with videoconference this day at 4 p.m. [ET] to study 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: Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. I am Ratna Omidvar, a senator from Ontario and chair of this committee.
Today, our committee is continuing its examination of Bill S-208, An Act respecting the Declaration on the Essential Role of Artists and Creative Expression in Canada.
For our first panel, we welcome Simon Brault, Director and Chief Executive Officer, Canada Council for the Arts; Clayton Windatt, Artist-Run Centres and Collectives; and Scott Walker, Executive Director, Canadian Senior Artists Resource Network. Thank you so much for joining us today. I apologize for the many rescheduling issues that you’ve had to work with us. Many thanks for always being ready to accommodate our moving schedule.
I will now invite each of you to provide your opening remarks. I remind you that you have, at the maximum, five minutes for your opening remarks, which will be followed by questions from our members. Senators, as we only have 45 minutes for this panel, I will only be able to accommodate four minutes each for questions and answers.
Simon Brault, Director and Chief Executive Officer, Canada Council for the Arts: Thank you for this opportunity to address the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
I would like to extend my congratulations to Senator Patricia Bovey for sponsoring this bill, which continues her steadfast commitment to the vital presence of the arts in the lives of Canadians, a commitment that I obviously share.
[Translation]
The Canada Council for the Arts is the main funding body for artists and arts organizations across Canada. The council is independent from the government of the day.
[English]
We have this arm’s-length relationship that is really important. That independence has served the arts sector and wider society well by allowing the council to act nimbly and responsively to help the arts meet the challenges and opportunities of the moment. Those challenges and opportunities are constantly shifting.
The council’s work aligns strongly with the central tenet of the bill: recognizing the vitally important role played by artists in the cultural sector and in every dimension of Canadian society. Specifically, the council supports artistic and literary creation, and fosters increased access to the arts across Canada and globally. We invest directly in every part of the arts ecosystem, arts organizations of all sizes, groups and individual artists.
[Translation]
To do this, we use a number of levers. We have direct grants for creation, dissemination, training and skills development. We also have a substantial budget to purchase works from living Canadian artists. These works are held in the Art Bank, which is administered by the council.
We also provide significant funding to all literary creators, illustrators and translators under the public lending right program. Finally, we are involved in various partnerships in the arts sector or between the arts sector and other sectors of society to further support for the arts.
[English]
Our current strategic plan, Art, now more than ever, which was published last year, mirrors this bill in many ways. One of the central directions in our plan is to amplify the benefits of the arts for society. To do this, we have made commitments to, first, help the sector rebuild on a more inclusive, equitable and sustainable foundation; second, improve access to funding for underserved and marginalized communities, including Indigenous, Black, racialized, deaf, persons with disabilities and 2SLGBTQIA+ communities; and finally, we champion improved working conditions and financial security for artists, notably in the form of a stronger social security net. Obviously, we see all of that in the context of a decolonized future for the arts.
[Translation]
In closing, let me say that, right now, many concepts and beliefs that underlie the very definition of the arts sector and support for the arts are being called into question by various social movements, including the decolonization movement. All concepts of artistic excellence and concepts related to merit in supporting the arts are currently in flux. It is very important that we have a dynamic vision of the arts system and support for the arts in the coming years. It is for this reason that we are interested in the bill under consideration.
Thank you very much.
[English]
Clayton Windatt, Director, Artist-Run Centres and Collectives: I would also like to take a moment to thank Senator Bovey for the consultations that took place over the period leading up to this and for all the hard work that has gone into this bill. I appreciate it very much. I feel like my comments will probably mirror Simon Brault’s slightly but maybe from a little bit of a different perspective.
The Artist-Run Centres and Collectives represents approximately 180-plus artist-run centres and arts collectives across Canada. These spaces and groups of people have a very wide array of art forms and practices, and primarily revolve around supporting each other and coming together to build professional practices and engage in public actions through those practices.
I’m going to reference the bill directly. I’ll do that as quickly as possible to make sure I stay on time. It’s very celebratory.
The proposed Bill S-208 expresses the need for the Government of Canada to develop an action plan that ensures equal opportunities for accessing and enjoying many forms of artistic expression by many peoples and communities. The list of considerations appears to be like a holistic account and a fair interpretation of current relationships between governments and the peoples living within Canada.
The proposed Bill S-208 outlines high levels of consultation between government appointees and various community stakeholders, although efforts to engage further would be valuable for all parties and you’ll hear me say why, but where are the formal channels for marginalized communities to engage in such consultation processes? Obviously, I know you’ll have answers to all of that. Artists and organizations are listed among the consulting groups, and I hope that will include many who rarely have the opportunity to provide input on plans such as these.
As you can tell, I work a lot with the not-for-profit arts sector, and the groups I work with comprise large, mid-sized and small organizations operated by the equivalent of tens of thousands of employees and volunteers across Canada. Within that group of approximately 5,000 organizations, comprising the full not-for-profit sector, many organizations and collectives represent marginalized voices and underrepresented communities in Canada. Those groups exist in that giant pool of people — groups and organizations that represent peoples who have lived, inherited or shared experiences, cultures and backgrounds and that have been underserved by previous government funding programs.
On March 21, the Prime Minister stated that we come together to reject all forms of racism, and he went on to talk about how too many people still face discrimination and hate based on the colour of their skin. This is an example of the fact that we’re still working through issues, and we’re not there yet. We’re working towards goals.
I know many government programs have begun to incorporate ways of providing new forms of support and resources that provide current actions, but I think they almost fall inadequate when considering levels of inflation, the rising cost of living and the power imbalances because many marginalized groups attempting to hold agency for themselves must build support over time while the majority of large-scale arts organizations within Canada are already well established. While existing organizations struggle to find ways of increasing inclusivity within their staff, board and volunteers and attempt to understand differences in languages, culture and world views, the needs of various marginalized groups continue to go unaddressed outside of those organizations.
Overall, what we’re going for is finding pathways for mutual benefit, respect and creating spaces of reciprocity, which I think is something that most of us, if not all of us, aspire towards since conducting this work is commendable, but I don’t want the work within those major institutions to somehow overshadow the need for self-representation within Canada and for groups to have agency to present self within the context of their own community and peers.
There’s a great amount of need for resources to be transferred to underrepresented groups and organizations so that, over time, agency can be built and stabilized on mutually beneficial terms. This is also a key measure of success for groups that are not representative of underrepresented communities, as having representation groups operating outside of larger institutions basically provides higher levels of scrutiny and creates an environment of peer networks that can hold each other to account.
A key area for me is clause 4(3)(g), where it states, “encourage greater investment in all areas related to artists, the arts and creative expression in Canada.” I hope that investment will be made strategically to allow for specific communities in need to access resources instead of creating an open pool of resources that somehow gets divided up and furthers the status quo.
Earlier in my comments, I talked about how people give access and feedback and that hopefully it gets done. I will say I was happy to see the National Culture Summit: The Future of Arts, Culture and Heritage in Canada take place recently. My hope is that, with the success of that event, the continuing conversation with the larger arts community will happen and that we will find those pathways to move forward together.
Scott Walker, Executive Director, Canadian Senior Artists Resource Network: Honourable senators, ladies and gentlemen, I bring you greetings from Canada’s elder professional artists. Greetings as well from someone many of you know, our chair and former senator, the Honourable Marie Charette-Poulin. She sends her warmest regards.
CSARN, the Canadian Senior Artists Resource Network, engages professional artists who either by age or years of experience consider themselves seniors in their artistic disciplines. This includes all disciplines in all regions of the country: performing artists, craftspeople, storytellers, writers, composers, visual artists and professionals who work behind the scenes to add value to creative works. We are committed to diversity, equity and inclusion among our community, on our board and on our artistic advisory. We provide a range of programs, from webinars, conferences and facilitated discussion groups to a health care assist program. Elder professional artists want to contribute to the excellence of their younger colleagues by passing on their knowledge and experience. CSARN facilitates a paid mentoring program that has helped mentees produce new works and has brought some of them international recognition.
Recent media reports have documented the aging of Canada’s population. Concern has been expressed about the more than 5 million Canadians who are approaching what is generally referred to as retirement age. But elder professional artists do not recognize the concept of retirement. It’s just not in our DNA. I say “our” because I’m also a working professional artist. I’m a musician, actor, radio host and voice performer. While most Canadians are looking forward to retirement, we are looking forward to our next creative venture. According to a study that led to the founding of CSARN, more than three quarters of Canada’s elder professional artists say they never plan to stop working and creating. A large majority say they are doing their best work today. Some say their best is yet to come. What that means is that most senior professional artists will continue contributing to society, enriching our culture and paying taxes.
But being a professional artist has always been a challenge. Consider, if you will, that professional artists are more highly educated than other workers. Many Canadians believe the arts have value and that artists should be compensated for their work. Studies consistently show that the work of artists promotes good health and a wide range of social benefits. Cities with a vibrant cultural scene attract skilled workers. The cultural sector is a $57 billion industry. Yet, according to the latest data, the average annual income of artists is almost one-third lower than the national average, so there’s a disconnect there. Studies show that artists’ incomes can fluctuate wildly from year to year. Total taxes paid in each year are greater than if the income were averaged over a number of years. We need to bring back income averaging. Artists are the original gig workers, working contract to contract and needing to work without pay between contracts to keep their skills sharp and to find the next gig. Artists don’t enjoy the benefits available to many other workers. We have to pay both the employer and employee CPP premiums, and we don’t have company pension plans.
Elder artists face those same challenges, but they also face ageism. Many arts funding agencies, galleries and presenting companies place an emphasis on emerging artists. Producers and media are also focused on the young.
CSARN welcomes Bill S-208, and we thank Senator Bovey for all her hard work on this bill. We applaud the things it recognizes: the vital contribution our artists make to society; the right of artists to freedom of expression and association and to control and benefit from our intellectual creations and copyright; and the importance of gaining exposure to Canadian and global audiences. The declaration calls on governments and others to continue to provide arms-length funding support to artists, their organizations and producers of cultural works.
CSARN believes the bill could be made stronger by acknowledging specifically the right of senior professional artists to continue to create, to be funded equitably and to be free from ageism. This would ensure older artists can live their lives with dignity and respect. When adopted, with modest changes, Bill S-208 can provide a powerful framework to support CSARN’s ongoing efforts with government departments and agencies to gain recognition for our work and support for senior professional artists.
Thank you for listening.
The Chair: Thank you very much to all of you for your opening remarks. We will proceed to questions.
Senator Poirier: I didn’t think I had a question to start off with, but I just received a brief letter. I want to quote some parts of it. First, thank you to the witnesses for being here. It’s greatly appreciated.
I received a brief letter, and because of the time constraint I can’t read all of it, but I’m going to quote certain parts of it and ask Simon Brault for an opinion on it. The letter comes from the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française, or FCCF.
From the outset, it is essential to salute the ambition and efforts of Senator Bovey in drafting and tabling Bill S-208 …
However, several elements essential to the support and ideal development of the arts and culture sector seem to be missing from Bill S-208 …
… the FCCF considers that an amendment should be made to the preamble of the bill in order to expressly recall the nature of the country’s international commitments towards the country’s arts and culture sector. The preamble of Bill C-81 could be an excellent example on which S-208 can build.
Issues and particular needs of artists and cultural workers in the Canadian and Acadian Francophonie.
In particular, the declaration intends to include the individual cultural specificities and origins of all Canadians. Such an approach is insufficient to take into account Francophone minority communities whose specific realities and needs have a collective dimension.
The crumbling or erosion of the artistic and cultural sector in the Canadian Francophonie has a double challenge: that of the viability of its organizations, but also that of the viability of a community that lives its culture in French. Amendments must be made to the bill in order to recognize the specific issues of sustainable cultural development of Francophone minority communities. Specifically, for example, Francophone minority communities (FMCs) must imperatively be named in section 2 of Bill S-208.
Mr. Brault, I wanted to know whether you agree with that. What are your thoughts on that comment? As I said, you really need to read the whole brief to see the whole picture of what they’re saying, but I’d like to hear from you on that issue.
Mr. Brault: Obviously, I know the FCCF very well, and I agree that it’s something that is missing at this point. It opens the door for me to a general discussion of the bill.
As I said, I do support the content of this bill, but I find it a bit challenging in that it’s a bill with a preamble, a declaration and that moves directly to an action plan. The problem is that between the preamble and the declaration, a lot of people argue that Canada would need a cultural policy or a cultural policy framework, which we don’t have in Canada for a lot of historical reasons.
Any idea of organizing a plan for the cultural development of this country means that we need to deal with different jurisdictions; we need to deal with many ministries, even at the federal level; and we need to take into consideration different perspectives and realities, including those of the communities represented by the FCCF and the North of Canada and I can go on and on.
Moving directly from the general intention of the bill to an action plan will appear to be quite complex because of the reality of the cultural system in Canada. This is why I think we need to be very aware of what we have in Canada. We don’t have that cultural policy, but we have different institutions and mechanisms in order to support film, television, arts, architecture and literature. All these different institutions have specific mandates and are not coordinated by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who, according to the bill, is supposed to present a plan.
Even if the core and the intentions and the ideas of this bill are very solid, very generous and very relevant, I guess, on the question of making those ideas actionable in the context of this country, we’d have a lot of work to do in order to attain the goal that is there.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: My question is also for Mr. Brault. Actually, I have two quick questions.
The first one is fairly specific. It pertains to the same letter that my colleague Senator Poirier mentioned, which refers to the recent modernization of Quebec’s status of the artist act.
In your opinion, how does this bill line up with that modernization? Will there be conflicts or rather are the bills complementary? Do you have any comments about possible harmonization?
Mr. Brault: That is a very good question, in fact, if you compare Quebec’s act with... There is also a federal Status of the Artist Act, but it applies only to artists who work for institutions under federal jurisdiction. So it applies to a small percentage of artists in Canada. Other artists are protected by provincial statutes, where they exist. Once again, this act is not under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, which has specific requirements in the bill under consideration.
That is why I say there is work to be done to clarify how we can define intentions, and they are noble and relevant intentions, and how they can be applied given that arts and culture fall under different jurisdictions in Canada, and given the multiple stakeholders, including both federal departments and institutions, such as the Canada Council for the Arts, Telefilm Canada, and so forth.
This issue is important to everyone in the system, including the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française (FCCF). Every time a plan is put forward, you must ensure that it includes all the elements that have to be considered. At the Canada Council for the Arts, we publish a plan every five years, make financial commitments, report on our financial commitments and, of course, we are fully aware that we have to work with other jurisdictions and other partners, and that we have to consider all these realities.
The council is independent and if the minister were to issue a plan, as stipulated in the bill, it would have to respect the council’s independence and the applicable privileges of each jurisdiction. This makes it all very complex.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Brault.
I think Clayton Windatt would like to comment on both the previous question and this question. Am I right in interpreting that, Clayton?
Clayton Windatt: Yes, please. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I wanted to agree and to thank the FCCF for advocating so well for their members by writing that letter. This is absolutely what I was referencing when I was talking about ongoing communication and pathways for groups. The FCCF is advocating specifically on behalf of francophones, and I think that’s a very important group to be including. There just have to be pathways for this to happen more.
For me, right now, it may be difficult to summarize a list in that group without starting to establish a process. As Simon Brault has stated, the idea of going from the declaration to a plan without having the communication of how it’s building a consensus within the larger sector is really the idea.
One of the things I think about is I hope that would not prevent the bill from moving forward because, honestly, I think the bill is only a starting point. As we know, once these things are on the books, that’s just the beginning of culture shifts and ways of acting within communities. For me, the larger communication being ongoing is more important, but the bill is still very important.
The Chair: Thank you so much.
Perhaps I may ask a question of Mr. Walker. Your words resonated with me, in particular. I’m no artist, but I will be retiring soon, so perhaps I’ll become a member. Who knows? I want to know whether your group is consulted in the mainstream of consultations when consultations happen, or are you not consulted because you’re not a big major arts institution like the National Council on the Arts?
Mr. Walker: Thank you, Madam Chair, for a very good question.
It’s a little of both, really. We were consulted on Bill S-208. I’m very pleased and gratified that Senator Bovey chose to include us in her consultations and to include many of our community members. We had focus groups among senior professional artists to get their input into this bill. We were very pleased to be part of this.
But, yes, you’re right; we are a small organization, and what’s more, we are a very young organization. Although we represent senior artists, we’ve only been around for about 11 years. We are still growing into a national organization. We do hope that, in the near future, we will be consulted more, especially when it comes to elder artists.
The Chair: We hope so, too.
Senator Lankin: My question is again to Mr. Brault, but there may be others who would want to respond.
The previous senators’ questions have raised the issue of the letter that we received and some concerns that have been raised. I am aware that a number of senators have proposed some amendments to try to ensure reference to francophone minority populations and impacted English minority populations in Quebec, for example, to reference the important foundation of the two official languages in Canada and other amendments to ensure that groups who are being consulted include groups who are representative of the racial and cultural diversity of our country. In the letter we received, there are also references to what they believe would be important insertions in the preamble to acknowledge Canada’s participation in international declarations and impacts with respect to arts and the culture. Do you have any comments about the proposed amendments, just the general thematics, because I know that you will not have seen them, that I have described to you?
I think that both of you referenced jurisdictional issues. This is something that has been raised in our discussions and, again, raised by this letter in which the concerns about some of the elements of this involve the provinces, and the bill does call upon provincial governments to be consulted. Do you have any concerns about any parts of this not being able to be acted on because of jurisdictional concerns, and do we need to address that in the bill?
Mr. Brault: Thank you for the question.
I think that, again, when we think about the way that this bill is structured, yes, there is a preamble that could be reinforced to include all of the differences and the communities. I agree that amendments could serve that.
My issue is more that I find it very problematic, because of the reality of our country, to move from a preamble and the declaration to an action plan. In between the preamble and the declaration, we would need a cultural policy framework that Canada, in fact, has never been able to achieve. For instance, you have jurisdictions in Canada. You have provinces, municipalities and territories that have clear cultural policies with clear goals and commitment to investments, but that does not exist at the level of Canada. I am not saying that it is absolutely needed, but I am saying that if we would like to have a plan, making sure that artists are central to the development of the cultural sector in Canada, that means a lot of coordination, a lot of consultation and a lot of negotiations within the federal government but also from the federal government with all of the different provinces, territories and municipalities. I spent all of my life fighting for those ideas.
My concern is that I want to ensure that it is practical and useful. Again, I support the intentions of that bill, but in terms of how we can make it real, there is a missing piece, and that missing piece is the question of how we can engineer better cooperation, collaboration and discussions within the entire system, because no one has the full authority to impose anything on provinces or even on the federal government.
Senator Lankin: Mr. Brault, would you support — if we were able to accomplish it as a committee — the inclusion of such sentiments as you have just set out in an observation to be appended to the bill when it is sent to the House of Commons?
Mr. Brault: I would, because I think that it would address the reality of our country. If it is ignored, I know for a fact that the Province of Quebec — I have lived enough in the system to know that there will be roadblocks, and no one can pretend in Canada that the federal government or Canadian Heritage can impose or plan the cultural development of this country alone. It needs to be done in consultation and with cooperation. There is a lot of it that is happening already. The question is whether we can bring it to an upper level with the intention of that bill. Maybe. If it is the case, then it is a good thing.
Senator Lankin: Thank you.
Senator Kutcher: On this interesting topic, and thank you, Mr. Brault, for raising it, I would like to hear the opinions of Clayton Windatt and Mr. Walker on this topic. Would that be possible, please?
Clayton Windatt: Thank you very much.
Again, I think that the bill is valuable and important. I think Simon has focused very much on some of the formalized roadblocks of government-to-government, community-to-community. I think that those are very valuable.
I also think that, in addition to those scenarios, you have to think about how you are engaging community members directly to be able to come forward and self-volunteer information or participate, because there will always be outliers that are not necessarily formally included in those governments. It isn’t only formalized and identified communities. There has to be this idea of almost essentially creating an ongoing system for input to come in.
I thought it was a good framework to talk about the Canada Council’s having a five-year plan. In other words, whatever the plan is, that is only for this time period. I think that this needs to have some sort of, “What are we doing now,” and then we get to a certain point, and where do we go afterwards.
Mr. Walker: Art isn’t easy. I think that was a quote from Stephen Sondheim, who was a perfect example of a senior artist who was still working until he died.
Neither is art policy, or the lack thereof, as Mr. Brault said. But this bill will be a foundation as far as we’re concerned. It is a basis, and Clayton mentioned that as well.
The fact that we are here talking about the arts and art policy, and the fact that there was recently the cultural summit, that is very exciting. It is high time, and it is the start of what we think will be a very big thing. I think that this bill will provide that basis and foundation on which we can build.
Senator Bovey: I thank you all very much. You know the number of people in the community who have been consulted on this. Mr. Brault, it seems to me before you were at the Canada Council and long before I was in the Senate, we had many of these conversations. I wanted to ask you a very simple question. I think that Clayton mentioned, as did Scott just now, that this bill is intended to be a foundation. Would you agree that what drives it is the fact that, over the decades, we haven’t been able to get over those various challenges in the system? Do you think that this will help to move that needle forward?
Mr. Brault: Thank you for the question.
I think absolutely it could help. When I read all of that, my idea was that the preamble can be reinforced. The declaration is essential, but I think that we should not reduce the conclusion of it to a plan coming from the Minister of Canadian Heritage. What needs to be done is broader than that. I used to say that art is so important that it needs to be a shared responsibility. We need shared leadership. My fear at this point is that it is a little narrow in terms of perspective to just land with a plan that would be presented by the Minister of Canadian Heritage. That is my comment. However, I believe the fundamental ideas are generous and important. The conversation that it is creating is essential to this country more than ever.
Senator Bovey: I hear what you are saying. I agree with the amendments that will be coming forward later. That is going to deal with some of what we have said. The idea of an observation will help move the conversation forward.
The Chair: Thank you very much, witnesses. We really appreciate your presence and your assistance in our study of this bill.
Senators, moving to our second panel today, we welcome Louise Déry, Director, University of Quebec in Montreal Gallery; William Huffman, Marketing Manager, West Baffin Eskimo Cooperative; and Ravi Jain, Co-Artistic Director and Founder, Why Not Theatre.
Thank you for joining us today, and thank you for bearing with our rescheduling, which is inevitable in the life of the Senate. Please provide your opening remarks. I would remind you that you only have five minutes for your opening statements, which will be followed by questions from our members. Ms. Déry, you may begin whenever you are ready.
[Translation]
Louise Déry, Director, University of Quebec in Montreal Gallery, as an individual: Honourable senators, I am pleased to present some thoughts as someone who works in the museum sector. I am the curator and director of a university gallery, and therefore belong to a very important network in Canada. I am also an author, essayist and teacher in the field of museology.
As we seek to create, restore and share narratives of identity that can support individual growth and foster collective thought, are artists in Canada being fully recognized for their fundamental contribution to a national definition, affirmation and expression that would not be meaningful without their contribution?
There is likely no one left today who would say that art and artists serve no purpose in social development. Yet the very idea behind this new bill, in 2022, clearly shows that recognizing artists’ role in a country such as ours remains a challenge. This bill is necessary: It sets aside magical thinking in favour of a formal, certified, legal, promoted, recognized and essential status for artists of all generation, cultures, languages and in all disciplines.
To many people, art is one of the last refuges of free thought and expression. This freedom, in a world that is losing its points of reference, means that artists have both a power and a responsibility. Why? Because artists are witnesses.
Artists witness the present in light of a continually reconsidered past and a vision of the future marked by doubt and desire. They strive to map the possible points of reference of a society that is continually transformed by the state of the world, exploring public, cultural, social, political and economic issues, as well as considerations related to private life: the self, the intimate, hope, the other, and so forth.
Because artists are conduits. They stand back from the knowledge transmitted to them in order to project their own potential for light into the field of human experience. They show us the way as they awaken our potential for attention. They can contribute in particular to the cultural development of youth, which can only reassure us, with a view to creating a well-equipped, responsible, open and well-rounded society.
Because artists are thinkers, often with a university education, in a society whose concepts of art have been confirmed as knowledge, and of the artist as an intellectual as well as a creator.
Artists’ works offer an original experience to help us revive our ability to perceive, understand, listen and look.
Because artists are citizens. Through their works, they activate the development of a shared culture, take on a variety of roles such as a peacemaker between individuals, cultures and countries. They serve as guards or regulate tensions in a society marked by conflict, false realities and the risk of isolation. They are provocateurs to challenge accepted ideas, kinks and biases of all kinds. Through their work, they accompany and inspire people’s lives, relieve distress, enrich existence and encourage understanding of other cultures.
Because artists are responsible. They have the intrinsic power to project the ambivalence of human existence differently. Their power operates in a very complex system, but so as not to be completely dependent on this context —
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Déry. Would you kindly wrap up in less than a second?
[Translation]
Ms. Déry: The implementation of this bill will require a critical and clear-minded review of current cultural policies and will have to ensure that we get closer to the dream of the democratization of art.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. We will now proceed to Mr. Huffman.
William Huffman, Marketing Manager, West Baffin Eskimo Cooperative: That was beautiful, Ms. Déry.
Madam Chair, members of the committee, thank you.
Today I’m representing the West Baffin Eskimo Cooperative, of which I’m a member of staff. Our organization was established in 1959 by the Inuit community of Kinngait, then known as Cape Dorset, in an effort to create an infrastructure that would support and encourage the production of fine art prints, drawings and sculpture.
In 1959, and still now, the prospect of having some of our country’s most celebrated artists emerge from a small hamlet of 1400 residents located in the Canadian Arctic is almost inexplicable. I’m sure each of you has some familiarity with the exquisite artwork created by those Kinngait studio artists, many of whom are household names. Their artwork appears on our currency and postage stamps and is held in museum collections across the country and abroad. I would venture to say that what many of us consider to be quintessentially Canadian is linked to the visual output of Kinngait. Moreover, no foresight could have predicted that the visual arts would become the largest and most profitable industry in this remote Arctic region. Clearly, the Inuit community of Kinngait knew something we didn’t.
I would like to share a statement with you from the president of the West Baffin Eskimo Cooperative, Pauloosie Kowmageak. He says:
Creative expression has a very special place in Kinngait, providing not only a vital economy for the region but also a source of deep community pride. Art making has afforded our artists a unique skill set that has garnered them international recognition, while at the same time giving them the opportunity to teach this important craft to successive generations as has been the tradition of creative mentorship in Kinngait for the last 62 years. Art making is the nexus of our community, and every aspect of life in Kinngait is connected to it. Without art making, this place wouldn’t be as vibrant, as progressive, as resilient, and the West Baffin Eskimo Cooperative wouldn’t be one of the leading social enterprises in Canada and beyond. The Inuit of Kinngait know for certain that artists and their creative expression are essential, and now is the time that everyone should know this.
Compelling and informed words from our president, and words that speak to lived experience, illustrating the broad importance of creative expression and its transformative potential.
I have worked with the West Baffin Eskimo Cooperative for seven years. I have spent a considerable time in our Arctic region. I have experienced the momentum that visual arts lend to this community. I have also witnessed the challenges of living and working in Kinngait. In many respects, creative expression has provided the means to overcome those challenges and, in fact, to thrive.
As President Kowmageak mentioned in his statement, art is the nexus, and I know that it provides the community a unique agency. Visual arts in Kinngait is intrinsic, and that means that it connects everything from tourism to justice, from education to family services, from mental health to recreation. I have seen this, and my organization is vital to this. When we think about what is intrinsic, what makes us who we are, what makes us Canadians, it gives us pause — a moment to consider everything from personal ethos to nationhood.
I am providing this testimony from Warsaw, Poland, where I am tending to the final stretch of a major exhibition of temporary Inuit art from Kinngait that I have curated here. Presented at the National Ethnographic Museum, I’m proud to report that the project received vital support and encouragement from trade commissioner services at Canada’s embassy in Poland, and we’re very grateful for that.
This is my second visit to Warsaw. My first was a mere two weeks after Russia invaded Ukraine. During my collective time here, I found myself building a network of Ukrainian cultural colleagues, all of whom are refugees who fled their homeland. I have heard so many stories. I have been privy to phone calls with cultural workers in Kyiv who are living in bomb shelters but who, amid devastation, still talked about their craft. I wanted to include a short collective statement from a group of colleague Ukrainian curators. They say:
We call for the international artistic community to use all our impact in order to stop the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Guns may hurt our bodies, but culture changes our minds. This war is a clash of civilizations — a free and civilized world is attacked by the barbarian and aggressive one. If we continue being passive observers of the situation, we will lose everything we work for and all the heritage of our predecessors — art, love, freedom of expression and the ability to create.
As Canadians, we’re not at war, and our identity is not imminently at stake, but we do have with this bill an important opportunity to enshrine what makes us unique in the world and protect what we’ve all worked so tirelessly —
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Huffman. We will proceed now to hear from Mr. Ravi Jain. You have five minutes, Mr. Jain.
Ravi Jain, Co-Artistic Director and Founder, Why Not Theatre: Hello everybody, I’m so honoured to have an opportunity to speak to you on this bill, which I applaud.
Senator Bovey has done an incredible amount of work, and I can see it is really well intentioned. However, I approach it with a lot of hesitation. In order to explain why, I will tell you a story. In fact, it is a history.
The 1951 Massey Commission was a landmark report that investigated the state of the arts and culture in Canada. The commission was successful in many ways, including the establishment of foundational institutions for the arts, but those institutions were mostly rooted in Eurocentric and colonial values. Moreover, the commission had included extremely racist rhetoric, particularly in regard to First Nations and Indigenous arts. I quote:
The impact of the white man with his more advanced civilization and his infinitely superior techniques resulted in the gradual destruction of the Indian way of life.
… since the death of true Indian arts is inevitable, Indians should not be encouraged to prolong the existence of arts which at best must be artificial and at worst are degenerate.
The Indian arts thus survive only as ghosts or shadows of a dead society.
This is at the heart of a document that paved the way to exclude the voices of Indigenous, Black and artists of colour to this very day, and I will show you how.
From the 1950s to the 1960s, the commission helped establish major national institutions for the performing arts — the Canadian Opera Company, National Ballet and National Theatre School, as well as regional theatres in major cities across the country. Most of these institutions were based in Eurocentric and American stories, prizing classics as a measure for excellence.
Then, in the 1970s, Canadians started to ask, Where are the Canadian stories? Where are the stories of the Maritimes, the Prairies? You know — Canada. This gave birth to Canadian playwriting centres. These political venues found the voices of the people and used them to define a new Canadian voice. They were creating Canadian culture.
In the 1980s and 2000s, we had another wave of voices that were excluded from the term “Canadian” who asked: Why does Canadian mean straight, white male only? People of colour, women and queer voices who had no places to tell their stories formed companies of their own, companies that were formed to fight hard to put Black, women, queer, Indigenous and multicultural voices as part of the cultural landscape that was Canada.
At each stage of this evolution of Canadian identity, less and less money was available to support each wave of change. Over time, the structures of funding primarily supported the major institutions, giving them the majority of funds, valuing stability over risk. The history of these institutions continued to focus primarily on the European cultural story.
I shared with you all a chart. There are two pyramids, and on one side you see the oldest companies where there are the fewest, and they get the majority of funds across the country in terms of arts funding. In the distributions of funds, there is less money for where there is the majority of people at the base of the pyramid, which is the most economically vulnerable. They are the uninstitutionalized artists, those who are mentioned in the bill. They are the most economically vulnerable, the most diverse. They are the people who have the least amount of funding because we prioritize the institution. This chart is also mirrored in the philanthropic side. I want to honour Senator Omidvar’s article about white supremacy in philanthropy, and that is mirrored in the structures that we have on the government side.
The history of funding has caused a stasis in the system. Another way to look at it is there is only one Stratford, one Shaw, one opera, one ballet in each city. With few exceptions, it is impossible to build a new institution of the scale and size of those built under the Massey Commission. Canadian Heritage continues to fund those major institutions. You just have to look at the endowment incentive programs to see who is getting the lion’s share of the funds. This is the system as I’ve experienced it, where the institution is prioritized over the artist. I’m not saying we do not need institutions. We need them. But in the bill, you are talking about artists, and artists in the current system of funding at Heritage have been historically forgotten.
My concern is that the bill has the right language, but like any good piece of writing, without action, to quote Hamlet, it is just words, words, words. My fear is that I don’t know how you will interpret these words or what actions you will take and that the 600-plus artists who gave you their perspectives will be used to perpetuate a system that does not work for the majority of them, because this is what has happened in the past.
Some thoughts: How will you equitize the historical inequities of funding? How long will that take? Will this bill translate into more support for institutions, or will it go directly to artists? For example, there are more South Asian dance schools in the basements of Scarborough, Ontario, than professional schools in Toronto, but none of them are funded by the government. Who is an artist? Who participates? How will you make that process accessible? It talks about deaf artists. Do you understand the costs of what it is to work with deaf artists for hearing artists like me? Have deaf and blind artists been consulted? I work with a deaf artist who currently lives in Finland because the Finnish government provides interpreters to her and the Canadian government does not —
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Jain. We may have to get back to you on that story. It is compelling. We will go on to questions.
Senator Poirier: Thank you to the witnesses for being here.
[Translation]
My question is for Ms. Déry.
A letter from the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française says the following:
Amendments must be made to the bill in order to recognize the specific issues of sustainable cultural development of Francophone minority communities.
The FCCF also expresses concern about the viability of French-Canadian arts and culture organizations and the viability of a community that experiences its culture in French.
Do you agree with the FCCF’s concerns and can you comment on that?
Ms. Déry: Thank you for the question.
There are a great many issues relating to diversity and inclusion and problematic situations that many of us are considering today, but they are not sufficiently documented as regards the francophonie.
I do not know what Senator Bovey would say, since she worked in the museum sector for many years, but in my experience we have lost a form a contact in a national conversation.
I remember grants that the Secretary of State used to provide to assist with translation, but those grants no longer exist. There is a magical idea that everyone in Canada has access to funding for translation, which is not the case at all.
I will talk about what I know. I think there is breakdown in the visual arts; there is a loss of contact which leads to increasing isolation of francophone and anglophone cultures in Canada.
I fully understand that new groups, which want to take part in the national conversation in view of cultural diversity and the inclusion of Indigenous communities, have expectations and concerns as to the challenge of truly sharing culture across Canada. In my opinion, this sharing is quite inadequate.
[English]
Senator Moodie: I’d like to offer Mr. Jain the opportunity to finish his story, please.
Mr. Jain: Thank you so much.
My deaf colleague lives in Finland because she has supports to have interpreters. One of the things that’s so important to note as a society is that if the artist isn’t supported, they can’t do their work. If Indigenous folks don’t have water, they can’t make work. If racialized artists are disproportionately jailed, they can’t make work. If you can’t have an interpreter in a hospital, you can’t make work. So artists become community activists, and rarely do the funds trickle down to communities where people need it and where art is actually effecting change.
When I heard the gentleman from the National Ballet of Canada speak on the recording — if I had more time — it was infuriating that we keep funding institutions to work in communities when community artists who are trying to use art to change their lives, because they are affected, don’t get the funds. Those are artists without infrastructure.
Another thing to consider with this bill is accountability. Clayton Windatt mentioned this: Is there a way that you can share the metrics with us as artists as to how you will understand success as being achieved with this bill? How can we hold you accountable?
History is important here. You have a choice with the words that are in this bill, and the choice lies in how you interpret the words “Canadian heritage.” It’s an interesting phrase. “Heritage” means property that is or will be inherited. Heritage, in this instance, could mean preserving the past, the values rooted in the Massey Commission and ideas of what the role of art is and who it’s for. Or heritage could mean forward thinking: It could be about the inheritance of future generations and a vision of culture that is really invested in a legacy that is truly democratic, plural and full of a wide spectrum of expression.
My company has worked in this sector and has been advocating for a long time. We’re a great example of what can happen when artists get the support they need.
I see the barriers. The barriers have been removed from us, in instances, and I see how, in this bill, you want to support artists. The infrastructure you have in place — the systems that are in place — primarily support institutions, not artists. I really want to encourage you all to look for a process that centres the artist in this bill. It’s a beautifully written bill. It’s the right message and the right spirit, but the devil is in the details of how.
I’ll leave you with that. I just summed up the end there. Thank you for that time.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Senator Moodie and Mr. Jain.
Senator Dasko: I’d like to ask both Ms. Déry and Mr. Huffman a question. Ms. Déry, can you can tell us what you think about the bill? Can you tell us what you think its strengths and weaknesses might be? I will have the same question for Mr. Huffman. Thank you.
[Translation]
Ms. Déry: I want to say that I am in favour of every possible way of recognizing the work of artists in a society such as ours because we are not there yet. We have not yet attained full recognition of artists’ work. We do not think of including artists’ work in educating young people, for instance.
There are arts courses, but in teaching history, geography and all disciplines, we have not recognized the fact that artists absorb research like sponges. Bringing together all artists in Canada is a way to reflect their mind-boggling knowledge.
Through their art, artists have that ability to teach us a lot of things. Yet our society continues to see art as something extra, after the essentials have been looked after.
I think this bill is an important tool to reiterate to ministers and individuals in positions of authority in all spheres of life in Canada, whether political, economic or other, that artists must occupy a significant place. There has to be an end to budget cuts that allow them to be citizens who contribute and who are full members of society. That is why I am open to this bill.
Actions plans and mechanisms are indeed problematic as regards support for artists and support for all those surrounding the arts field.
I fully understand what my colleague Mr. Jain said, but I think the professionals who gravitate around artists, those who write about their work, promote them, are just as essential. So we have to talk about recognition not just of artists, but also of those who surround and support artists and communicate their work to society.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Huffman, the same question is also for you.
Mr. Huffman: It was mentioned a couple of times that this begins a discussion; we now suddenly have a conversation that we didn’t have before. As I’ve discovered, at least in the research I’ve done, this is rare in terms of legislation anywhere in the world. I think this is an important moment for Canada to be a leader in this.
Ravi talked about these things happening in the basements of Scarborough structures and the fact that a lot of this activity is virtually unknown. I’ve discovered that in my capacity now working with the cooperative in the North, namely that there are connections that art makes to every other sector. They are largely completely and totally invisible. The more heft we can provide to this discussion and the more we can instigate people to explore and be forced in some cases to explore this, the more we’ll find the effectiveness of what arts and culture does and what creative expression is responsible for in a way that we don’t know now.
For us in the cultural sector, there’s no need to convince us. We’ve all been responsible for contributing to that discourse and action, but this legislation is the beginning of something that is going to be hugely important. I’m not speaking to any of the details and the elements within it or how it should be restructured or what amendments there should be because there are a lot of really gifted and smart people within the administrative and advocacy world.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Huffman.
Our final question goes to the sponsor of the bill, Senator Bovey.
Senator Bovey: I want to thank all of you.
You know my background and how many years I’ve been in the field. In many ways, this bill, would you agree, is really an attempt to try to start those discussions again? They have fallen flat. Artists working on their own and in small organizations have not been heard. Would you agree that this bill can start that discussion? If it goes off in another direction as those discussions take place, that will make it even stronger. Would you agree that there’s a strength in this foundational approach to move the discussions forward? Because the world has been very quiet. I’m asking each of the panellists, if I may.
Mr. Jain: Yes, I think absolutely it can open up these conversations, and they are vital.
I want to pick up on what Simon Brault said, that it shouldn’t just be up to the Minister of Heritage. If there’s a larger collective of people, that would be really smart. Because you celebrate artists so much, think about us sitting at that table with you. We can bring a huge perspective. You’ve talked about how we effect change. You’ve talked about how we understand the grassroots, the ground, the inner workings of the problems. Have us at the table. That’s what you’ve done beautifully. I agree; you’ve opened up that door. Let’s have the courage to sit at the table together so we can be part of this process and ensure that it’s done healthily, responsibly and that it doesn’t repeat the mistakes of the past.
Senator Bovey: I did consult artists living with disabilities and artists who are deaf.
[Translation]
Ms. Déry: In my opinion, this bill does not so much begin a conversation as prolong it. In retrospect, there are many rich points of view — as Senator Bovey’s consultation showed —, but I think we have to look at the blind spots and see, at this time, how we can now readjust our recognition of artists’ role and how we can connect them to institutions, small and large, so that everyone can more effectively recognize their role.
[English]
Mr. Huffman: Foundationally, it’s a great piece of legislation. I think, like good legislation, it needs to be malleable; it needs to be iterative; it needs to change and respond, as the community change and respond over time. That opportunity is there moving forward, certainly.
The Chair: Thank you so much Mr. Huffman, Ms. Déry and Mr. Jain for your time. You have helped us understand your reality in a much better way.
Senators, this completes the witness testimony that we will receive for this bill. We will now proceed to clause-by-clause consideration. Before we do so, I would like to remind senators of a number of points regarding this process.
As chair, I will call each clause successively, in the order they appear in the bill. I will remind senators that when more than one amendment is proposed to be moved in a clause, amendments should be proposed in the order of the lines of a clause.
If at any point a senator is not clear where we are in the process, please ask for clarification. I want to ensure that we all have the same understanding of where we are.
If a senator is opposed to an entire clause, I would remind you that, in committee, the proper process is not to move a motion to delete the entire clause but, rather, to vote against the clause as standing as part of the bill.
I would also like to remind senators that some amendments that are moved may have consequential effects on other parts of the bill. Should this be the case, it would be useful if a senator moving an amendment identified to the committee other clauses in this bill where this amendment could have an effect. Otherwise, it would be very difficult for members of the committee to remain consistent in their decision-making.
As chair, I will do my best to ensure that all senators wishing to speak have the opportunity to do so. For this, however, I will depend on your cooperation and ask you all to consider other senators by keeping your remarks as concise as possible.
Finally, I wish to remind senators that if there is ever any uncertainty as to the results of a voice vote or a show of hands, the most effective route is to request a roll call, which obviously provides unambiguous results. Senators are aware that any tied vote negates the motion in question.
Are there any questions on the above? Seeing none, we will now proceed to clause-by-clause. You all have a copy of the bill.
Colleagues, is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-208, An Act respecting the Declaration on the Essential Role of Artists and Creative Expression in Canada?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the clause which contains the short title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 4 carry?
Senator Lankin: I have two amendments. The first one is regarding clause 4, page 2. I move:
That Bill S-208 be amended in clause 4, on page 2, by adding the following after line 18:
“(d.1) the Minister responsible for official languages;”.
Madam Chair, would you like an explanation?
The Chair: I would. I think we all would like to hear that.
Senator Lankin: Thank you. This follows on the discussion that we had at an earlier committee meeting about the importance of ensuring that the bill is grounded in not just the diverse cultural communities but understanding that it is in the context of Canada and our two official languages. Subsequent amendments will be addressing that issue in this clause and in the preamble. It is therefore important that, to the list of ministers who will be consulted and engaged in this whole process, we add the minister responsible for official languages. I have had discussions with the sponsor of the bill, Senator Bovey, and she has graciously agreed to support this amendment.
Senator Bovey: I certainly agree with this, and I probably should have had it in there in the first place. I admit that I was working with the fact that — it’s so ingrained in me that we are a bilingual country, and the minister should have been there, as should some of the other amendments. Anyway, I am in full agreement.
The Chair: That is the best outcome. It is moved by Honourable Senator Lankin:
That Bill S-208 be amended in clause 4, on page 2, by adding the following after line 18 —
Shall I dispense?
Hon. Senators: Dispense.
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, colleagues, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Senator Lankin, could you move to your next amendment?
Senator Lankin: Thank you, Madam Chair. This is again regarding clause 4, page 2. I move:
That Bill S-208 be amended in clause 4, on page 2, by adding the following after line 24:
(g.1) French-speaking artists and organizations representing those artists;”.
Once again, in light of my previous comments — I won’t repeat them, but this appears in a series of bullet points in the bill which refer to organizations that would be engaged in and involved in the process of building the action plan. Thank you.
The Chair: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Lankin:
That Bill S-208 be amended in clause 4, page 2, by adding the following after line 24 —
Shall I dispense?
Hon. Senators: Dispense.
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Moving on, I believe Senator Dasko has an amendment.
Senator Dasko: I do have an amendment. I move:
That Bill S-208 be amended in clause 4, on page 2, by adding the following after line 24:
“(g.1) artists who represent the ethnic and racial diversity of Canada and organizations that work on their behalf;”.
Would colleagues like me to discuss —
The Chair: It’s quite self-explanatory, but if you’d like.
Senator Dasko: I think so. As I recall, colleagues, this is something that came up at the very beginning of our discussions of this bill several weeks ago — whenever it was we first met to discuss it. I think it will add to the meaning of the bill. I think it follows very well from the two amendments that Senator Lankin has just introduced, and I think it even reflects the conversation we had today from our witnesses about the importance of recognizing this in the bill. I believe Senator Bovey is supportive.
The Chair: I believe, then, I should read the motion. It is moved by the Honourable Senator Dasko:
That Bill S-208 be amended in clause 4, on page 2, by adding the following after 24 —
Shall I dispense? On debate, Senator McPhedran.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you. I have a question for Senator Dasko as to the wording. I wondered if there was a clear decision to not mention “linguistic” in your wording.
Senator Dasko: My intention was to focus on the diversity of Canada. I feel that’s a larger clause that can actually encompass linguistic differences, ethnic differences and diversity. I think it encompasses most aspects of the diversity that I had in mind in putting this together. I did consult with the law clerk on this. I had slightly different wording originally, but this one is better because it actually makes it quite clear that we’re talking about artists and organizations that represent them. That’s the thinking on that.
Senator Petitclerc: I don’t have a problem with either amendment. In fact, I support them, but my concern is that we’re taking this bill and now we’re adding those amendments that make it more — not prescriptive but certainly descriptive. By adding specifics like “official languages” and “racial diversity,” we’re not being descriptive when it comes to artists living with disabilities. Even in this community, I’ve always thought that less is more sometimes. I don’t have an amendment, but I just want to put it there that while we’re being specific on some things, we’re leaving out others.
Senator Bovey: I don’t disagree with these amendments. I’m quite happy. But I do agree with what Senator Petitclerc said. In the original crafting, the words were chosen to be inclusive, not exclusive. I think if we get into too many bits of definition, we begin to be exclusive. That’s all I want to say. The idea is that this was meant to be inclusive and a platform. It was not meant to be so descriptive that it became something it isn’t.
Senator Kutcher: Listening to the issues raised by Senator Petitclerc and Senator McPhedran, and in respect of our work, Senator Dasko, would it please the committee that if we removed “ethnic and racial” and just said “diversity,” then that would encompass everything? It would include “linguistic,” “disability” and all other diversities as opposed to singling those out. If that were a willingness of the committee, I would be happy to present a subamendment to that —
The Chair: Senator Kutcher, just to clarify, I understand you’re putting a subamendment on the table. Could you propose your subamendment?
Senator Kutcher: Certainly. Thank you. I would propose:
that (g).1 be further amended to read, “artists who represent the diversity of Canada and organizations that work on their behalf.”
The Chair: Thank you. Debate?
Senator Dasko: Senator Kutcher, I feel that should be in a separate clause, because I think this bill recognizes Indigenous artists and communities. In Senator Lankin’s amendments, it recognizes French-speaking artists and organizations representing those artists. When we mention ethnic and racial diversity specifically, that is very important. I feel if that’s not there, then I think we’re missing something. I think we’re missing a clear statement about the importance of ethnic and racial diversity in Canada when it comes to artists. I would suggest that might be another clause that could be added that might speak to other forms of inclusion that have been raised.
The Chair: I’m going to step out of the chair for a minute and propose a solution. Senator Kutcher, how would you feel about this subamendment to your subamendment? It would say:
(g.1) artists who represent the ethnic and racial diversity and all other diversities of Canada and organizations that work on their behalf;
Senator Kutcher: Thank you, Madam Chair. I suggest a subamendment to the subamendment of the subamendment — no, I’m just teasing. I’m good with that.
Senator Cordy: It’s good to have a sense of humour.
The Chair: Colleagues, we’re going to have a vote on the subamendment to the subamendment.
Is it agreed, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in subamendment that paragraph 4, page 2, be amended in clause 4 by adding the following after line 24:
(g.1) artists who represent the ethnic and racial diversity and all other diversities of Canada and organizations that work on their behalf;
Are we in agreement?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment as subamended?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
Shall clause 4, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 5 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 6 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the schedule carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble carry? Senator Lankin has an amendment to the preamble.
Senator Lankin: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Preamble, page 1, I move:
That Bill S-208 be amended in the preamble, on page 1, by adding the following after line 12:
“Whereas English-speaking artists and French-speaking artists, as integral parts of the two official language communities of Canada, should have equal opportunities to pursue their artistic endeavours in order to enhance the vitality and development of English and French linguistic minority communities;”.
Madam Chair, I have spoken in general to the issue that gives rise to this particular amendment. Committee members will know that I had an original amendment that was to the body of the bill and that expressed something very similar to this. In working with Senator Bovey, it was her preference that this be included in the preamble with only a couple of minor changes not to the intent but to the wording suggested by the law clerk. This was actually written by Senator Bovey. I have said to Senator Bovey that I believe that changes in the preamble are less impactful than changes in the bill itself but, in the spirit of collaboration, have agreed to move the language that she has proposed.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Lankin.
It is moved by Senator Lankin:
That Bill S-208 be amended in the preamble, on page 1, by adding the following after line 12:
Whereas English-speaking artists and French —”
Shall I dispense, colleagues?
Hon. Senators: Dispense.
The Chair: Is there any debate, colleagues? Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble as amended carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the bill as amended carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
Is it agreed that the law clerk and parliamentary counsel be authorized to make necessary technical, grammatical or other required non-substantive changes as a result of the amendments adopted by the committee, including updating, cross-references and renumbering of provisions? Senator Lankin?
Senator Lankin: Not on this issue, thank you.
The Chair: Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report? We can do so either in public or in camera. What is your preference, colleagues?
Senator Lankin: I’m fine in public.
The Chair: We can go in camera at any time we wish, but let’s do it in public.
I have two observations that were sent around. Let’s take them one by one.
I will read the first observation:
Your committee did not hear from (the Department of) Canadian Heritage on Bill S-208. As such your committee did not gain perspectives on the impact of this legislation on departmental policies and programs.
Agreed?
Senator Cordy: May I ask a question?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Cordy: Is it the policy of a minister or a department to come before us for a private member’s bill?
The Chair: Senator Cordy, I can only give you my experience in the last six months. I have had a number of private bills, and every time the department has shown up vigorously and rigorously.
Senator Petitclerc: I have a comment on translation.
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Petitclerc: The French version is saying that your committee did not invite, and the English says your committee did not hear.
The Chair: And there is a difference. Because we did invite.
Senator Petitclerc: I would ask that we choose what we want to say in both languages.
The Chair: We are going to make that correction in French. Senator Lankin, you have your hand up.
Senator Lankin: Yes, Madam Chair. I do not have a written copy of the observation submitted. This came up as a result of the receipt of the letter from the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française, and I spoke to this earlier and I think that the analyst was looking at it. The essence of it was to capture, in particular, Mr. Brault’s comments about the lack of a national cultural policy and how important that —
The Chair: Senator Lankin, may I just ask you to stop? I would like to have agreement on the first observation.
Senator Lankin: I’m sorry; my apologies.
The Chair: Do we have agreement on the first observation with the correction in language?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Poirier: I have a question.
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Poirier: It says that the committee did not hear from the Department of Canadian Heritage. That leaves it open as if we did not hear from them. Why? Did we not invite them?
The Chair: We did invite them.
Senator Poirier: Yes, but should we be saying that? Because if we’re just saying, “Your committee did not hear” from them, it gives the impression that we maybe didn’t bother to hear from them.
The Chair: I was trying to be neutral there, but if there is a preference —
Senator Poirier: I know. I’m just stating that it is misleading.
The Chair: We have 20 minutes left. You know how it is when we start wordsmithing in committee, but let’s try it.
Senator Bovey: Madam Chair, I think that it is important, if we are making this observation, that it is clear that they were invited. I think that it is important to the arts community. They’ve been very invested in this bill from across the country, all aspects of the community. I would mention that they were invited and were not able to attend or did not attend or did not respond to our invitation.
The Chair: Senator Petitclerc had something to say.
Senator Petitclerc: The same thing. I think that there is a way to be polite, but I think that it is good for the committee as well to see that if someone chooses not to appear, they are responsible for choosing that.
Senator McPhedran: I just wondered, Senator Omidvar, if you could consider two words at the beginning, “Although invited” followed by a comma.
The Chair: That is very nice, very helpful. Laura, are you able to quickly turn that around? All right.
Then we go on to the next observation. Senator Lankin, perhaps you did not see the observation that was crafted while we were in committee.
Senator Lankin: I haven’t. I have about six screens open right now. If you could read it to me, I would appreciate that.
The Chair: Yes.
Your committee heard some concerns that before the Department of Canadian Heritage implements the proposed declaration on the essential role of artists and creative expression in Canada, the Government of Canada would first need to develop a cultural policy framework in consultation with the provinces and territories. Witnesses noted that this had proved difficult in the past and might provide a barrier to fully realizing the principles of the declaration.
Does everybody have that?
Senator Bovey: I am going to be a little defensive here. I’m sorry. I am going to be defensive because I have worked in the field for over 50 years, and the community has been asking for a Canadian cultural framework for 50 years. To say that before they do this, the Government of Canada would first need to develop a cultural policy framework is killing everything.
I do not have the right words yet; I need to think about it. The goal of this was to be a foundation so those policy frameworks could be developed. You cannot do the policy framework before. This is calling for the consultations. I agree there needs to be a cultural policy framework in consultations with provinces and territories, but I would say using this declaration as a means to developing a cultural policy framework in consultation. They are trilateral meetings that happen all the time.
The Chair: Senator Bovey, I want you to tell me which words you would want to change here. We will give you a minute for that while we go to Senator McPhedran.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you. This is partially a procedural question, because my understanding of observations is that, typically, they are observations of the committee. Typically, they make a point that the committee is comfortable making. I do not know what this is supposed to be doing. I say that with respect and in all honesty. Are we as a committee saying that we share these concerns? Are we as a committee agreeing with the witnesses about this being difficult in the past? Are we as a committee saying that there is in fact a barrier and we want that barrier taken down? I just do not see a clear message here. I am trying to understand better.
The Chair: Senator McPhedran, if we agree to the observation, we are agreeing with those conclusions, so it is up to us to say whether we agree with this observation or not.
Senator Poirier: The wording is a bit strong, and I fear this may slow something down. I just wonder if instead of saying that “the Government of Canada would first need to develop,” we could say something along the lines of “the Government of Canada should consider developing.”
Another option would be to say:
The witnesses we heard recommended that the government should possibly consider, going forward, developing a cultural policy framework in consultation with the provinces.
That way, the recommendation is not as strong. However, it would also give the impression that what we heard out there is that they hope it would be looked at in the future.
Senator Lankin: I don’t agree with the way that the observation is currently written. I thank the analysts for taking that and quickly trying to turn it around. However, what I intended by raising the issue of an observation on this was to acknowledge the remarks that we heard, particularly from Mr. Brault, that Canada, despite many years of calling for it, does not have a national cultural policy. This has been a barrier in the past to the development of a more fulsome and inclusive set of policies and rights with respect to artists, and the committee urges the government to begin work on the development of a national cultural policy in consultation with all of the groups who have come together to support this bill. If something like that could be expressed, I think it would be strong. I think it expresses what we heard and, if the committee agrees, our agreement that it would be an important step. It also does not set it up as a precondition for moving on this bill.
The Chair: I am going to ask our brilliant Library of Parliament analyst Laura Blackmore to work on this, even as we speak.
Senator Dasko: Chair, this is about the status of observations. I am certain that in some of the bills that we have looked at recently, we have had individual names attached to individual observations. Am I wrong?
The Chair: Not in the report itself. In this discussion, we have had individual names attached to individual observations.
Senator Dasko: I see. So this is —
The Chair: Once they are in the report, they are nameless. They are the observations of the committee.
Senator Dasko: I thought I recalled that we had actually —
The Chair: You recalled correctly.
Senator Dasko: Thank you.
Senator Bovey: Madam Chair, I would suggest something like this, and it may need a bit of editing, as this was done on the fly:
Your committee heard of the need for the Government of Canada to develop a national cultural policy framework in consultation with the provinces and territories and all arts groups.
The Chair: I see heads nodding. That is a simple way of pulling this together. I am sure that Laura can quickly turn it around and get it translated into French. Please read it one more time.
Senator Bovey: Let me tell you what is going on in the world out there.
The Chair: Please, read it back.
Senator Bovey: All right.
Your committee heard of the need for the Government of Canada to develop a national cultural policy framework in consultation with the provinces and territories and all arts groups.
Now, I should say there is a call for a museums policy. There is a call for this. There is a call for that. There are all sorts of octopus tentacles out there. What this does is say that there is a need, but it does not say that one has to happen before the other. The sector is happy to have any of this happen, and they are desperate.
The Chair: Senator Lankin?
Senator Lankin: This is a separate observation. You finish this one first, Madam Chair.
The Chair: I believe that we have agreement on this one. It is being turned around quickly by our clerk. Senator Lankin, to you.
Senator Lankin: Yes, thank you.
This is a proposal — without language; I’m sorry — arising from the brief that we received today. There was specific language in that brief that talked about the need for the development of a more fulsome definition of “artist.” I do not know what the actual words were in that. That could be pulled out. I would ask Senator Bovey, who knows more about this than I do, what the appropriate expression is. I would like to see the committee’s observations include that the government should be working with the arts community on this.
Senator Bovey: Everybody is asking for definitions. The Canada Revenue Agency has one definition of an artist. The Canada Council for the Arts has another definition. Academics have another. Honestly, it is revised all of the time. It comes up from grassroots definitions. I would not be in favour, Senator Lankin, of putting that in as another observation. It would be a part of the policy framework. I can guarantee that it will come up. It comes up any time the budget comes forward or tax laws come forward. It comes up with every redefinition of criteria from the Canada Council. You heard one person today mention crafts. I can tell you that five years ago, they were not considered an artist. I would not be in favour of that.
Senator Lankin: Thank you very much, Senator Bovey. That is helpful. I withdraw my suggestion, Madam Chair.
The Chair: If I may make a point, I do not know whether it is an observation or not, but I was struck by the testimony of Mr. Ravi Jain about the predominance of historically established cultural institutions in this country, which comes at a cost to artists on the ground. I am not sure that I have the language, but if we want to reflect that in an observation, I am sure that we can suspend for two minutes while the clerk pulls something together.
Senator Poirier: The motion or amendment that we just approved, wouldn’t that answer — let me just find that — the part about ethnic and —
The Chair: Yes, it was Senator Lankin or —
Senator Lankin: No, Senator Dasko.
Senator Poirier: Here it is. It reads “artists who represent the ethnic and racial diversity of Canada.” Wouldn’t that of sum that up?
The Chair: Colleagues, does that work for you?
Senator Bovey: It’s involved in the schedule. In fact, it is the plight of small organizations, individual artists, immigrant artists and refugee artists that, in many ways, spurred on conversations I had prior to my Senate days that made me realize this is something that we really need to start moving on. I agree with him. He is right. I think Senator Dasko’s amendment carries it. It is also included in a number of clauses. The sensibilities are included in the clauses, and they were consulted as well.
Senator Lankin: I appreciate Senator Bovey’s comments. I thought, Madam Chair, what I heard from the witness was both what has been addressed through the amendments — and I agree with what Senator Bovey has just said — but the absolute expression of the frustration about the inequity in the funding system for established institutions and the inequity with on-the-ground, smaller organizations. I don’t think that an observation with a recommendation is required, but I think we need an observation that says that we heard this, and this is something that the government should review in the context of building an action plan to support this bill, or something of that specific context. Thank you.
Senator Petitclerc: I agree with what Senator Lankin is saying, but I do believe that Senator Dasko’s amendment — well, first, it falls under the consultation division of the bill. It really requires consultation with those specific representative groups. If we want to put it on the record that we heard that, that is one thing, and we can do it via an observation, but if we just want it to be done, I think the bill will take care of it.
The Chair: Colleagues, what is your will? We have a hard stop at 6:00.
Senator Lankin: I will not take until 6:00 to say this. Again, I am not talking about what we have already done in the bill on consultation. I am talking about observing that we heard a very clear condemnation of the inequitable distribution of arts funding in this country between large cultural institutions and on-the-ground, smaller organizations, and we draw this to the government’s attention for their action as they are implementing this bill.
Senator Poirier: We already have an amendment, so I don’t see the harm in accepting an observation that kind of clarifies what’s there, if it’s important. I have no problem putting it in the observations. It just kind of redoubles what we are doing, so there’s no issue with that for me.
The Chair: It is different because we’re talking about large institutions.
Senator Lankin: And funding.
The Chair: And funding. And artists as well. Help me here, colleagues.
Laura, did you capture that? Can you repeat it back for us, if you did? [Technical difficulties.] All right. Let me try and —
Senator Cordy: What about something like this: The committee heard that arts funding is not always distributed equitably. We also heard — and what he said was — that institutions are prioritized over artists. Do we just want to put something like that down?
Senator Bovey: That’s only partially true. I think we need to say that we heard the need to level the funding field. The problem is that small and large organizations get money. Established and unestablished artists get money. What we don’t want is an observation that flies in the face of what’s really happening. We need to have an observation that says we heard that the government should ensure that mechanisms are there for equitable funding for emerging and established and non-established artists and organizations.
The Chair: That’s not quite what I heard Senator Lankin say, but I am now feeling anxious, colleagues, even though we are on camera.
Senator Cordy: I think that covers it. We could sit for another half-hour, and we do not have a half-hour. What Senator Bovey says covers the essence of what we’re trying to say, that we want equitable funding. I think what she said was fine with me.
The Chair: Acceptable, yes. Senator Lankin, acceptable to you?
Senator Lankin: Acceptable to me. Thank you, Senator Bovey.
The Chair: We heard that the government should ensure equitable funding between emerging artists and institutions.
Senator Bovey: Emerging artists and organizations and established artists and organizations —
The Chair: Emerging artists and organizations, first, and established institutions next?
Senator Bovey: Use “organizations” rather than “institutions.” And established artists and organizations.
The Chair: Laura, have you got that? She is saying yes.
Laura Blackmore, Analyst, Library of Parliament: Almost.
We heard that the Government of Canada should ensure equitable funding for emerging artists and organizations and established artists and organizations.
Period?
The Chair: Yes. Thank you, colleagues. Are we agreed on that observation?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Are there objections to the following motion:
That the draft observations be adopted and that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to approve the final version of the observations taking into consideration this meeting’s discussions and with any necessary editorial, grammatical and translation changes as required.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Colleagues, is it agreed that I report this bill as amended, with observations, to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. Our business is done.
Senator Lankin: Congratulations, Senator Bovey.
Senator Bovey: Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)