Canadian Heritage Committee on May 28th, 2026

[Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba, Liberal, Mont-Saint-Bruno—L’Acadie, QC]

Thank you.

Ms. Benjamin, let me ask you the same question.

[Erin Benjamin]

I would take a look at the existing policy we have in place, specifically the Canada music fund promoter program component and festivals component. I would increase the dollars flowing through those, and I would consult immediately with the broader community to understand the gaps that are not being met through those program components to ultimately evolve that policy.

Additionally, not to forget our friends on the not-for-profit side, I would understand the impact of programs like the Canada arts presentation fund today, in consultation with the community, agencies like the Canada Council for the Arts and our friends running those programs at Canadian Heritage, to increase funding to those programs. It's more important, or as important, to understand how we can continue to make sure those programs are aligned with the way all sectors of the industry are working today. That's in the short term. There are lots of ideas for the long term.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Genuis, we'll go back to you for five minutes.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

It's Mr. Diotte.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Mr. Diotte, we'll go over to you for five minutes.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

I wanted to return to the witnesses for Falun Dafa.

You just heard that we tried to move a motion that talks about the fact that the Chinese Communist Party is targeting Falun Dafa practitioners and Shen Yun performers in Canada. We've had bomb threats and cancellations because of it. We would like this committee to report to the House its unequivocal condemnation of foreign interference by the Chinese Communist Party in Canada, including efforts to intimidate, censor and suppress artistic expression and freedom of speech. Is this something that you would be enthusiastic in supporting?

[Joel Chipkar]

Yes. It's a bipartisan issue. It's an issue that affects everybody. It's not just about the Falun Gong community or Shen Yun. Today, it's Falun Gong and Shen Yun. Tomorrow, it's going to be somebody else.

When we allow a foreign dictatorship to silence our voices and our arts, we lose everything. We lose everything in Canada. We have no sovereignty anymore. We're at the behest of a foreign dictatorship.

We have support. We've appreciated the support over many years, for over a quarter century now, from Liberal members of Parliament, like Irwin Cotler, who championed our cause many years ago. We have supporters from the Conservative side as well.

Again, this is an issue that affects all Canadians, and we appreciate the support from everybody on it.

[Joel Etienne]

I would like to add something about the climate of fear in which the cultural communities are living, especially in greater Toronto. When the Chinese government can act with such presence, such force and such impunity, it affects all the other communities. Clearly, it affects the Chinese-Canadian community. However, it's not just the community of Falun Gong practitioners that suffers, it's actually every Canadian multicultural community.

So this international interference, which is preventing us from expressing ourselves culturally on our own stages here in Canada, is a serious matter. I believe that it is your prime responsibility as a committee and as parliamentarians. You are the defenders of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You are the defenders of our rights and freedoms. Your voices are heard internationally. I feel that you cannot remove yourselves from the obligation to protect the citizens of this country.

Of course, I thank Mr. Genuis for the request he made today. I hope that the members of the committee will, on a non-partisan basis, not only support the request, but will also urge action from federal sources, such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Global Affairs Canada, or other federal services. They must intervene to protect these Canadians who have the right to express themselves.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

I have one quick question. It was reported on Global News that the RCMP won't release the policing pact that was made with China, despite some pressure. It's basically saying that they signed it with China's Ministry of Public Security without.... They want Beijing to agree to release the pact before it will be released to the Canadian public. What do you think of that?

[Joel Etienne]

Generally speaking, as a lawyer I'd say that based on other matters that I've worked on, co-operation between our institutional services and the CCP has been, at certain times, unacceptable to Canadian laws and regulations. I've seen members of the Chinese MPS—actual boots on the ground—conducting investigations hand in hand with Canadian authorities. I've seen Canadian police officers involved in conducting investigations and interrogations in Chinese prisons in China. None of this is a surprise to me. I think it's incredibly important that parliamentarians have actual knowledge of the degree to which we are institutionally co-operating with the Chinese Communist Party.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Does this development upset you?

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

I'm sorry, Mr. Diotte. We're almost out of time for this meeting, and your time is up.

Mr. Myles, you have five minutes.

[David Myles, Liberal, Fredericton—Oromocto, NB]

Thank you very much.

Thanks to all the witnesses for being here for this important study.

Maybe I'll start with Jon and Erin.

My question is about whether the definition of what a “venue” or a “cultural centre” is might be too narrow. Some of the funding that has been traditionally given out for culture and heritage in Canada has been directed, obviously, towards more traditional arts centres, municipal arts centres and these kinds of things, and some of the challenges are around—Jon, you spoke to it—whether they do other things.

Can we talk specifically about the definition and how that has become a bit of an obstacle to accessing funding? I know the live music fund did help with some of that, but I think it's an ongoing conversation, so maybe we can speak to it.

[Erin Benjamin]

Jon, maybe we can handle this together.

There are two sides to this coin. There's a non-profit side and a commercial side.

On the commercial side—especially during COVID, when the government put $70 million into the independent concert promotion and venue sector to save the infrastructure—there was a very comprehensive conversation at Canadian Heritage about what would define the eligibility criteria. In my opinion, it was too narrow, and we lost a bunch of venues as a result. However, there are a few pockets on the commercial side where.... In the province of Ontario many years ago, for instance, we had something called “Vision for Ontario's Live Music Industry”, which we prepared in partnership with the government at the time. We defined what a venue is, a commercial venue.

There are different jurisdictions that have looked at the amount of Canadian content on stage, the size of capacity, and the business-model shapes, such as whether it's owned by a sole proprietor or a conglomerate, etc. There's that side of things.

Then there's the non-profit side. Typically, a program like the Canada arts presentation fund would outlay eligibility criteria and have something like a development component to bring smaller venues into that space to help them scale over time.

I think it really depends on what aspect we're looking at, but certainly there's a conversation to be had about understanding the way the business is today. It's changed fundamentally, and not just because of COVID, but over the last many years. What do artists need? What do audiences need? Where are the gaps? Where are the opportunities? Again, I'm a broken record today, but how can policy respond to that?

[Jon Weisz]

I would say that venues are where artists play. Our network presents thousands and thousands of shows a year. Almost every artist who tours in Quebec is playing in our venues.

We could get into the weeds of how to structure eventual programs for venues, but the reality is that you have to start at the beginning, and the beginning is that venues are where artists play. A lot of those spaces are structurally excluded from existing funding and have been historically, so everything Erin said is correct. There's a much longer conversation to be had there, but it's helpful to work backwards.

[David Myles, Liberal, Fredericton—Oromocto, NB]

Can we talk specifically about what has been structurally excluded, though? Is it the small commercial venues? Is it the case that if you make a certain amount of money or are not a non-profit, you are excluded? Can we just get into some specifics there?

[Jon Weisz]

A big part of it is definitely about the way certain venues are structured—the not-for-profit and the for-profit divide.

Traditionally, the federal government has seen venues as not-for-profit theatres and performing arts centres. I'm painting with a bit of a broad brush, but that's a pretty good way of putting it. A lot of operators don't necessarily want to structure as not-for-profits, but that doesn't mean they're making money hand over fist. They're still investing in the same types of expenses. They're still paying artists' fees in the same way that theatres and performing arts centres do. They've just chosen to structure differently for reasons that are complex—and which are too complex to go into today.

The for-profit and not-for-profit piece is a big one. Over time, my sense is that this divide has become ingrained and instantiated in the way federal funding has been rolled out. It's as if it's assuming structurally that for-profit venues shouldn't be funded because they're for profit, but when you look at the profit margins in these spaces, they're incredibly low. For example, in the U.S., I think 64% of independent venues lose money. In the U.K., I think it's 54%. Even if I'm getting the numbers slightly wrong, it's a majority of independent venues, most of which are for-profit, that are losing money. The average profit margin in the U.K. is about 2%. We don't have these numbers for Canada, but anecdotally I can confirm the same thing is true in Quebec.

I believe we have to rethink the way we determine eligibility and the way the assumptions are baked into the system about where artists play and where they earn their money.

[Erin Benjamin]

I'll jump back in very briefly.

The Canada music fund was structured, I believe, to keep this segment of the industry out. The thought was—

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Thank you. I'm sorry, but I can't give you the floor. We're out of time.

To conclude, Mr. Champoux, I am giving you the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair. You know that I am very strict and precise on matters of time. I will do this quickly.

Mr. Kearney, in your opening statement, you brought up the matter of Live Nation. I know that Jon Weisz and the people from SMAQ have, in recent months, had an open letter published, in Le Devoir specifically, to express their acute concerns and to alert media and politicians alike to the matter.

You talked about the number of performance venues that belong to Evenko and Live Nation, and about their grip on a number of major festivals.

Have you witnessed any practices that show that Live Nation and Evenko are trying to have greater control, to exclude smaller players, and to prevent them from being part of the kind of ecosystem that is developing around the multinationals?

[Patrick Kearney]

Mr. Weisz will be able to add to my answer, but I can say that those companies do indeed have complete vertical control. In Montreal, they even control beer sales because Evenko is part of the Molson family. Live Nation's unique approach is to make acquisitions without really saying so. I doubt whether they would announce that they have just acquired a new talent agency, for example. So they control the entire ecosystem, from selling tickets to the venues or festivals, and—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Forgive me for interrupting you, Mr. Kearney. You talked about beer sales. So, for example, if I have a small venue or, as a producer, I have a contract with a Quebec microbrewery, could that mean that I would have to squeeze that microbrewery out in order to bring in products that—

[Patrick Kearney]

Exactly.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Okay, so it does have a kind of impact—

[Patrick Kearney]

When I went to Europe and talked about that, people were astonished to see that the control has gone that far. If we compare our situation with the one in Europe, we see that Live Nation has one-third of the festivals in England. That means that people actually control their own culture there and have the say as to where to promote their artists. Here 70% of the artists in the lineup at Osheaga are in Live Nation's catalogue.

So saying that there is no American influence in our festivals and our venues is failing to grasp the reality that is staring us in the face.