Okay, Mr. Gourde.
Evidence of meeting #31 for Canadian Heritage in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was artists.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #31 for Canadian Heritage in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was artists.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1 p.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I thank my colleague for allowing me to put one last question.
Could you describe in a few minutes your vision of the future of cultural diversity? What do you see for the coming 10 or 15 years?
1 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh! Oh!
1 p.m.
Conservative
1 p.m.
National Director, Canadian Conference of the Arts
This is not something I can tackle in 30 seconds here, and even if you gave me an hour, I'm not sure I would be ready to answer that question point blank.
I am stating that our society is culturally diverse. We have not gone the melting pot route. We are trying to honour and respect the various cultural traditions and backgrounds of the mosaic of Canadian society—which is more of a mosaic than it was when a book was written on that in the fifties—and to say that we should invest in that diversity in genres. I think you had in front of you a native lady from Saskatchewan last Tuesday, who came here to express that she is doing something that doesn't belong anywhere. That's creativity.
I have a problem when we are told that 60% of the people.... I don't know the source of the statistic, but what if 60% of the people who received money from this program that's been abolished also received money from FACTOR and MUSICACTION? It just goes to prove that you go from creativity to commercial viability, and it's just like saying that 60% who go to the hospital for a heart attack have been to a hospital before—probably for something else. That's the point my colleague was explaining to you: the purpose was different. The purpose of this fund, administered by the Canada Council, was research and development, and the same artist can come into a genre that becomes commercially popular and viable. There is a difference between a grant for creativity and a loan for a commercial venture. My understanding is that's the system.
We're not saying that FACTOR and MUSICACTION are bad people because they look at it from an investment point of view, from the return on investment point of view—that's their mandate—but we're saying that the Canada Council people look at it from a different angle.
By the way, we are talking about 100 artists. That hides the reality that it's a 15% success rate, if I remember the figure correctly. In other words, 15% of the people who applied to this fund received money. The competition is very high; it's only the top-quality people who make it. That's why I'm saying that I'm jumping to $2 million. You are part of government, so you know what choosing is about, but I've been on peer juries for other reasons, and you have 20 out of 100 applicants who really deserve the money, but you have to stop at the tenth, because that's in line with the amount of money you have. It doesn't mean the others are not good; it means they didn't make the cut this time.
So this is a program for excellence, and it's not a program for a small minority. It's a program for the development of excellence.
1 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Thank you very much.
I must say we do appreciate your candid answers, and thank you very much for coming.
The meeting is adjourned.