Canadian Heritage Committee on April 4th, 2022

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

What I might share with the committee is that the department had been planning to launch a survey of artists and creators just prior to the pandemic, and we pivoted, once the pandemic hit, to adjust that survey to take into account the pandemic so that we would really be getting a texture from creators and artists. It went out to thousands of artists and creators. We had about 4,700 reply.

Some of the key takeaways from it are that we saw a quarter of these artists report that their income from creative work fluctuates by at least 100% from year to year. Furthermore, 35% indicated that it could fluctuate by 50% year to year. We know that the majority of these respondents—57%—said that they earn under $40,000 in pre-tax income. That compares to a national pre-tax median of $71,000, for example.

We know that the majority of them work in their creative profession part time. These are entrepreneurs. They're businesspeople. A minority get to work in their creative profession full time. The survey also highlighted that 62% of that 4,700 who replied reported some loss of income during the pandemic and that government support, whether at the provincial/territorial level or the federal level, was really critical to supporting them through it.

I hope that gives you a flavour, Mr. Louis, but I would be happy to go into further detail.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

It does, and I wish you could, but I'm out of time.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

Thank you, Mr. Ripley and Mr. Louis.

Mr. Champoux, you have six minutes.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Ripley, do not go too far because I think we still need you.

When Mr. Waugh asked you questions earlier, you said that the Department of Canadian Heritage currently did not have a plan to amend the Status of the Artist Act, but that you were open to recommendations from the committee. That is nice to hear.

A previous version of the Act contained a provision recommending that the Act be reviewed jointly by the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Labour every seven years. This detail was repealed in 2012.

Was it a good idea to repeal that provision?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Champoux.

I am still available to the committee.

As I mentioned in my response to a previous question, we currently have no plans to review the Act.

It is certainly a good idea to ensure that legislation remains consistent with current trends. We will definitely pay attention to the committee's recommendations, if you think that certain concepts or aspects of the Act are out of date. That being said, we believe that all the fundamental principles of the Act remain pertinent.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

The Act has needed a review for a long time now. There once was a recommendation or a directive that required a review of the Act every seven years. That directive probably should have been left in place. We are suggesting that it be reinstated in the Act following our study.

In 1992, the Status of the Artist Act called for the creation of a Canadian council of the status of artists. Did you know that? Do you know why that council was never created?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Yes, we are certainly aware of that. My colleague Ms. Beaton knows the history behind the creation of that council. I will ask her to answer the question.

[Kelly Beaton, Director General, Arts Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage]

Thank you very much, Mr. Ripley and Mr. Champoux.

As you know, in 2010, if I am not mistaken, the government decided to review all activities in order to make the system more effective. It decided to abolish certain agencies, including the council you mentioned.

In the meantime, the department is actively leading consultations and discussions and giving an overview of the issues and challenges that matter to the artistic community.

For example, thanks to the discussions that were held this week and over the past few weeks at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage as well as at other committees, we now have a fuller understanding of the issues.

As Mr. Ripley mentioned, part of our daily work consists in establishing contact with stakeholders, clients, artists and especially our colleagues at the Canada Council for the Arts. If there is any issue, we are at their disposal to talk about it. Obviously, we are here today to listen to the interventions and see what we might improve.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

In the testimony we have heard since beginning the study, a number of people spoke about amendments to be made to Part II of the Act in order to strengthen the parties' bargaining power, particularly when a party is facing another party that is much more powerful than it is. More precisely, this is the provision that allows for arbitration, to facilitate bargaining and avoid reliving situations like the one that arose in the past, where it took as long as five years of bargaining to achieve a scale agreement.

What do you think of that recommendation, which has been made several times so far?

Mr. Ripley or Ms. Beaton may answer the question.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Champoux.

The obligation to have a scale agreement is not mandatory. So the witnesses are correct on that.

My colleague Ms. Brazeau may have some observations to make to the committee. Of course, responsibility for Part II lies more with our colleagues at Employment and Social Development Canada, so it would be up to them to determine whether changes need to be made to the framework.

I would note two things, though, Mr. Champoux.

Certain commitments are underway. For example, in the mandate letter of the Minister of Labour, he is asked to evaluate the framework for self-employed workers. As well, the mandate letter of the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion asks her to determine whether there is sufficient support for self-employed workers, who do not have access to employment insurance.

We are certainly going to work with our colleagues in those departments to ensure that the interests of cultural workers and artists are reflected in that work.

I don't know whether Ms. Brazeau would like to add something.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

We are unfortunately out of time for that round. If Madame Brazeau perhaps wants a quick 20-second answer, I would allow that.

[Ginette Brazeau]

I would simply add that binding arbitration for a first agreement or for subsequent agreements is not part of the current framework, although it is found in the Canada Labour Code. As to whether that is the logical next step, that is a policy decision that should be made by the department, given the experience we have with the Act in its present form.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

Mr. Julian, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to our witnesses for being here today. We hope that you and your families are staying safe and healthy as we now hit the sixth wave of the pandemic.

Mr. Ripley, I would like to start with you.

You gave us an excellent presentation that talked about the unprecedented needs of artists. I want to know, internally within Canadian Heritage, to what extent Canadian Heritage is doing an analysis of what other countries are doing. We are seeing, for example, countries like Ireland putting in place basic income for artists. To what extent is Canadian Heritage monitoring these best practices in other countries, and what analyses have you done of these programs?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

We do monitor what goes on in other countries. My colleague Kelly's team, for example, does a regular international scan.

You're correct that there has been movement in several jurisdictions, which are looking at primarily pilot projects around support for artists and creators. You mentioned Ireland. There are a number of cities in the United States that have looked at pilot projects, such as San Francisco; St. Paul, Minnesota; New York, New York state. Internationally, we see that France and New Zealand and Finland have also been looking at this issue.

We do that monitoring. It's the question, again, of a labour framework, and this is what I was trying to communicate to Mr. Champoux.

We are certainly there to support our colleagues at ESDC as they reflect on these questions, but it's not a core responsibility for our minister. However, we will work to make sure, obviously, that the interests of artists and creators are reflected as that reflection moves ahead postpandemic.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you.

You answered the first part of my question completely, but the second part of my question is with regard to the analysis you do and the recommendations you provide.

When we see other countries moving forward with these kinds of supports for artists.... As you said in your presentation, there's an unprecedented need for artists and support right now.

To what extent is the ministry doing an evaluation and providing recommendations to the minister to suggest the advantages of some of these programs that have a proven track record?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

We are doing that reflection. Some of the statistics and information I shared with Mr. Louis go to that. We are working to understand the modern realities of artists and creators. As Monsieur Brault highlighted in his opening remarks, they continue to be precarious.

We've worked hard with the minister to support the pandemic emergency relief. We have a particular role in the ecosystem, primarily supporting arts and culture organizations. The role of other institutions, like Canada Council, is much more that direct support to artists.

To your question, fundamentally, do there need to be changes to the Canada Labour Code? Do there need to be changes to the EI framework? Those aren't decisions for our minister. Those are going to be recommendations that the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Employment bring forward. However, we are in contact with our colleagues in those departments.

To the point of this committee and the work you're looking at, artists and creators have an interest in those questions as we rethink some of these issues postpandemic.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Ripley.

I now want to address Ms. Brazeau.

You said that you can't comment on policy. Regarding the regulatory framework around the Status of the Artist Act, however, a number of stakeholders and witnesses have put the idea forward that there be binding arbitration, so that artists are able to bargain on a more level playing field with the arts institutions under federal jurisdiction and with the private sector.

Do you recommend that binding arbitration be adopted under this Act, as some recommend?

[Ginette Brazeau]

Thank you for the question.

This is a tool that exists in the Canada Labour Code and, as we know, the Status of the Artist Act was modelled on the Canada Labour Code. For numerous reasons, at the time, the department decided not to include that provision in the Act.

The Act has existed for 25 years now. Should it be reviewed to incorporate provisions to parallel those of the Canada Labour Code concerning binding arbitration for a first scale agreement? That's a very good question, one that will have to be studied carefully. It is a tool that is provided in the Canada Labour Code that could be incorporated into the Status of the Artist Act if, when this study is completed, your committee or the department concludes that it would be a good approach to achieve the desired results.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

Thank you.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

In other words, you can't take a position on the question.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

I'm going to have to end it there.

Thank you, Mr. Julian. Perhaps we could come back to that in a future round.

That concludes our first round. I'm going to propose a quick second round of four minutes, four minutes, two minutes and two minutes, if that's acceptable.

With that, we'll go with four minutes to Mr. Uppal.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

I'm going to start with Mr. Ripley. Looking over the last four mandate letters, the last four annual departmental results reports and the last four departmental plans of Canadian Heritage, we don't see the Status of the Artist Act mentioned at all.

Can you elaborate on how much of a priority this is for the department, considering it hasn't been mentioned at all?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Our role is to provide policy advice primarily with respect to part I of the act. That's the piece of the act that our minister is responsible for. If you look at the act, it's principles-based language that primarily reflects the value that artists bring to society and the recognition that they deserve for their contributions. That sets the framework and the policy statement that then flows into part II. Part II is not under the responsibility of our minister.

The reality is that our day-to-day role for the Status of the Artist Act is a limited one, in that my colleague Ginette, who is at the table, has the job of overseeing the day-to-day implementation of it. The Minister of Labour is more broadly responsible for any kind of policy decisions affecting that part II framework.