Canadian Heritage Committee on March 4th, 2009

[Pierre MacDuff]

Well, there can be a variety of scenarios. When we tour, eight people leave to perform abroad. If it's a symphonic orchestra or the Royal Winnipeg Ballet, for example, the transportation costs are much higher, because 50 or 100 people have to take a plane. However, the fees a company like the Royal Winnipeg Ballet receives abroad are in no way comparable to those of a company such as ours. Everything is proportional. Based on our estimates, transportation costs generally represent about 20 per cent of a budget. In any case, the funding we received through PromArt was less than that, on average. It was only part of the financing package.

Some may be wondering why we don't just charge more for the show. Indeed, the action could be that, if it is so little money in terms of percentages, we could probably do without it altogether. Well, no we could not, because in this industry as in every other, people make comparisons. There are certain prices set for shows, and our prices were already competitive. There is no lack of good shows available abroad; they are available in every country. The same applies to exhibitions and all the arts. So, when someone decides to put on a foreign show, they are already prepared to pay more.

I was also director of a theatre festival. I have worn the other hat, as someone who brought in shows for a theatre festival in Quebec City which still exists. The presenter expects there to be a contribution from the country, unless it is what is known as a Third World country. Sometimes, we know that there are countries from which we cannot possibly expect to receive assistance. If we bring in a production from Africa—and we ourselves have done this, as a company; we have co-produced with Africa—we know that conditions will not be the same. Canada is part of the G-8, so it is expected to make a financial contribution, as is the case in other areas. This is something that has been built up over the years. It represents decades of diplomatic and cultural efforts, that will now just collapse like a house of cards. It's a real disaster.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Just quickly--

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

We're past our time, Mr. Angus.

I'll move to the next question. Mr. Del Mastro, please.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for setting aside the time to come and speak with the committee today.

I'm sure you're all aware--this isn't going to surprise anyone--that governments have finite amounts of money. There is only so much to spend, and some of the decisions that have to be made involve asking where the best area is to spend money. Where are you going to get the most results with the money you have, the tax dollars that Canadians have entrusted us with?

One of the things that we have decided is a priority for our government is investment in arts and culture. In fact, the department has seen--by percentage, I'm certain--some of the largest increases of any department that we've actually allocated funds to.

Now I want to go back to a question by Mr. Rodriguez and I want to get some response to it. I notice, Mr. MacDuff, your company was incorporated in 1975, so you've been around for quite some time. In 1992--I'm reading from the Canadian Theatre Encyclopedia--there was a report presented by the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture that stated that funding in the cultural sector had failed to keep pace with inflation.

Did you take part in that study at that time, Mr. MacDuff? Were you a witness at that? Do you recall?

You don't recall? Okay, that's fine. The only thing I'm getting at is that Mr. Rodriguez keeps asking folks if they were consulted before there was a cut. Well, in 1992, there was a report that came forward that said that funding in the cultural sector hadn't kept pace with inflation. But then in 1995, in the Liberals' budget, they cut funding across the board to arts and culture. Infrastructure programs were cut by 44%; multiculturalism projects were cut by 71%; and transfers to provinces were cut by 40%. They did all of that without consulting any arts groups. Now they would argue that they made those decisions because they were faced with tough circumstances, and that may very well be; I wasn't elected in 1995. But I'll tell you that I find it a little bit surprising to ask people whether or not they were notified when I know for a fact that when these massive cuts occurred under the Liberal government, nobody was consulted.

Now, Ms. White, you talk about an increase to the Canada Council. Are you aware that prior to 2006, the Canada Council's total budget was $100 million?

[Lucy White]

That sounds about right.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

And you're aware that it's now $181 million under our government?

[Lucy White]

Yes, I am.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Good. I just wanted to make sure that you're aware of the very substantial increase that we made to the Canada Council and of the fact that $22 million from the Canada Council actually goes in support of international exhibitions and touring. Are you aware of that?

[Lucy White]

Right, and the number we're looking for is to increase that, so the Canada Council is offering some kind of competitive funding as compared to other jurisdictions such as Arts Council England, which has a $22-per-capita contribution to the arts.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Okay. No, that was just for clarification. I just wanted to make sure that you understood where we came from and where we're going, and I understand. I served on the finance committee in the last Parliament, and I'll tell you, very few groups come forward and say they want less. Most groups come forward and say they'd like more. I think we're trying to do as best we can with that.

I'm surprised at your marquee festivals comment. I know groups that I've spoken with, including the Stratford Festival and so forth, have very high hopes for this program. We have Just For Laughs in Quebec and the Toronto International Film Festival. These are marquee events that draw an awful lot of tourism. I think the marketing, or the understanding of what these events are about, is internationally well known. They drive an awful lot of tourism. They've seen an awful lot of their advertising revenues and sponsorships decline. That's why we brought this program forward. I'm surprised that you wouldn't embrace this program.

[Lucy White]

Certainly the vast majority of the theatre companies in the not-for-profit sector will not benefit from the marquee festival funding. It's not aimed at them. It's aimed at the high-level festivals.

The point I was trying to make was that it seems to us at this early point to be an inconsistent policy directive to cut a lot of the international touring and market development, which often seeds the works that finally, when they reach their highest point of popularity, go to those festivals.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I understand.

[Lucy White]

I worry what will be appearing at those festivals in two or three years' time.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I understand, but I would counter that we happen to agree with these festivals that came forward and specifically said they were major economic drivers.

The other thing I would put forward is for the small theatres, especially not-for-profit. I can't tell you how many of them came forward and said the donation exemption on taxes for the donation of common stock and capital holdings really contributed substantially to those organizations. That was something our government brought forward in 2006.

[Lucy White]

Yes, that was greatly appreciated.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you for that.

Now we move to Mr. Simms, please.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm starting to discover a theme in the last few go-arounds, in the last round of guests and this one, and I appreciate your all coming.

Export is a basic need for this. We have a cultural deficit of $919 million in 2004. Is that correct?

[Lucy White]

Yes.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Between PromArt and Trade Routes, have we now created a deficit for international touring to the point where the product is not getting out?

One of the things I've also noticed, and there seems to be something underlying here, and maybe it's a bit of a discovery for me, is that although we're talking about the grand scheme of things, if PromArt or Trade Routes—well, PromArt mostly—gave you that little bit of money, did that little bit of money allow you to leverage for a bigger amount of money on the other end, like foreign investors, like the private sector, and that sort of thing? It seems to me you're losing that base by which you could get more money. I would like you to comment on that, whether I'm right or wrong, or whatever it may be.

The other part of it was it's not just export from these programs but the import, which, Ms. House, you brought up, in effect the ECMAs, and the fact that you're importing investors, which is something new to me. I never realized either. I'd like you all to comment on that, how important it is from a financial aspect. I hear this a lot. Why are we giving money for people to bring their product, export it outside...? In your case, Ms. House, you have to export across the country, and that is difficult enough, so much so that the provincial government had to step in and pick up where the federal government left off--a common theme. I want you to comment on that, because I think that's a part of this that a lot of people don't get.

[Amy House]

What I see in our province alone is that getting across the water to the rest of the country requires an exorbitant amount of money. Getting people to come in to see what we're doing and that kind of trade, i.e., Trade Routes.... For instance, the Australian market and the “Ten Days on the Island”...we identify a lot with that festival because we have found Australia and Newfoundland to be a lot alike culturally. We have found a partner in Australia, a trade partner, whereby our artists are getting to bring their work to Australia, creating a lot of work for them, not only individual artists but bands and theatre companies.

These buyers who come in to see what we're doing in Newfoundland at trade shows and at festivals.... When Magnetic North Theatre Festival came to Newfoundland, a lot of people from international markets came to see that festival. They saw what Newfoundland was like and have invited our companies out.

That is the part of the trade we're talking about that PromArt and Trade Routes certainly instigated and helped stimulate. ECMAs, our musicians--that's a major vein for them to find a way to market to the outside world and across the country.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. MacDuff, I'll go to you on this one. Would I be fair in saying that although you may see this as a “small” cut in A-base, this actually is a much broader cut to the effectiveness of what you do than what people realize?

[Pierre MacDuff]

Yes, absolutely. In fact, it is an economic lever. The cultural reality has several sides. You will hear groups talking about statistics or about the conditions in their sector. However, my reality is that of a company involved in research and creation that has been around for 36 years, that is known for the quality of its work—it's important to say it like it is—but whose very existence was made possible through touring. That kind of cultural outreach is not only limited to the artistic side. A lot of what people want to see abroad involve works that are the product of research and creativity that are new and unconventional. People are curious to know about the kind of things that are being done.

So, there are financial consequences associated with the money that we receive. It represents a very significant portion of our independent income. For one thing, we are a non-profit organization. As a result, we do not operate on the basis of the same logic as a for-profit organization. However, that does not mean that we do not follow sound management principles. After 36 years, we are still here, but achieving the necessary financial balance is never a sure thing. We are having more and more difficulty selling our shows. Our bookings for next year and the following season are not the same as in previous years, because of uncertainty among foreign buyers. They are waiting to see, quite legitimately, whether there will be a contribution towards international transportation costs from the country sending over its artists. Unfortunately, that will no longer be possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

We have to move on now to Mr. Pomerleau, please.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank our four witnesses for being with us today to present their views regarding funding cuts to be made by the government in a number of different areas that will affect them.

Ms. House, you used the expression “new creative economy” a number of times. I really think that is exactly what we are talking about. The arts economy does not result in any costs in terms of human time, it doesn't damage the environment—at least, not as far as I know—it doesn't require the use of natural resources or anything else. As you so aptly explained, it is profitable in a number of different ways, not only financially. It also has an impact on the image we project, both here and abroad. It is an economy that harms no one.

The traditional economy, as it currently operates, is on a downward trend. Or, as they say in English:

If you do more of the same, you're going to get more of the same.

If we persist in doing things that way, we will continue to see the economy deteriorate. That's why we have to spend more money on the creative economy of both the arts and education, in particular, which do not rely on the traditional economy.

Do you not think that cutting this funding is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing, not only in terms of the arts, but economically as well?