Canadian Heritage Committee on June 2nd, 2026

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Chair, I have just a quick clarification. The chair, of course, has the prerogative to ask questions, but generally in other committees, it then counts towards the round for that political party. Certainly when I've taken the chair, I've treated it that way, and so I'm curious about how you're treating it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

No, for every committee I've sat on, the chair just has a prerogative when they want to ask a question, so I did not add it on. I know that the Conservatives had an extra two minutes on their last question, so I thought it was an appropriate time to take that.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

No, it's a great clarification of rules for the future when I'm in the chair. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Go ahead, Mr. Myles.

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

Thank you very much. We have fun in this committee.

This is a really important study and one that I'm so glad we're doing. I thought it was important to bring this study forward. Jonathan spoke about this in particular. We often celebrate artists once they're exporting, once they're in the big rooms. However, the reality is we will not have artists in the big rooms unless we support them when they're in the small rooms. It requires a lot of risk, a lot of failure, like every other business that we invest in in Canada. They don't always work. Not every show works. It's about experimentation and creating spaces in which people can take those risks without breaking the bank.

This group today has been really important. We've talked about the importance of networks.

I think networks like RIDEAU are very important in Canada.

Particularly since we have an artist here, it's important for us to have a sense of that journey.

You've talked about playing in the basement of a burrito restaurant.

[S.E. Grummett]

That was not me, but it is very similar.

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

We've all experienced that—where you start to what it looks like to support that bottom rung of the venue ladder.

What did the bottom rung of the venue ladder look like? Was it anywhere near public funding? In lots of cases, it's some sort of all-ages venue. It's a basement somewhere in which you put up your own lights, or whatever.

What did the journey look like for you? Now you've arrived at a place where people are going, “Yay, you're exporting. You're doing us proud.”

What did it look like in the beginning?

[S.E. Grummett]

We're still at a place where we're putting up our own lights. As I said, I started on the Canadian fringe circuit, and I think uniquely because I'm from Saskatchewan, I was able to access Creative Saskatchewan's touring funding to support that Canadian fringe tour, and we could ourselves a living wage, because otherwise we're making lunch money. From there I was able to scale my work up, hire other people to come on as directors or outside eyes; I think lots of artists have to keep it in the basement of a burrito restaurant. That funding doesn't exist in other provinces, so lots of other artists can't take their work from those fringe spaces to a more professional stage or invest in tech, other people, outside eyes and even marketing, which is so important when you're trying to stand out in these big festivals of 4,000 shows. That was the bottom rung.

With the Creative Sask funding, I was able to make another show and then start sneaking my toes into international venues. I think I am not a unique artist in that it wasn't until I took my work abroad that I got recognition at home and doors opened to me back at home. They were completely shut to me for a very long time, until I was getting reviews from abroad. I could then take them it to venues and go, “See, The Guardian loves us. Please let us into your space.”

I'm currently in this weird middle space in which I'm not quite emerging anymore, but I'm not quite established. Yes, I'm still putting lights up in my own venue, but that's okay. That's a bit of the bottom rung.

If I wasn't able to access that provincial funding, and then eventually Canada Council funding and Canadian Heritage funding, I would never have been able to continue to tour, scale up my work and take those creative risks that have resonated so deeply with audiences around the world.

Speaking to what is “Canadian” about this Canadian heritage, we don't expect work from the U.K. to speak about the Queen or work from the States to speak about the founding fathers. We have this weird pressure as Canadian artists in which we always have to be speaking about our history or where we come from. Some of the work that has broken through from Canada—things like The Kids in the Hall; a movie called Dead Lover, which been sweeping the indie film circuit; and Nirvana the Band the Show—are weird pieces of our realities and our life. It's not always a historical play. Yes, I think encouraging funding for work that is unexpectedly Canadian....

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

I certainly agree. There is a difference between history and culture. Culture is a living thing—it moves forward—and it's certainly not up to parliamentarians to decide what that is, I would say.

[S.E. Grummett]

It's up to audiences, and I think audiences are speaking to that.

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

I agree.

Jonathan, can you speak quickly to how space plays a role, and supporting space, in the artistic journey?

[Jonathan Bunce]

Absolutely. The music equivalent of the burrito place is sometimes a burrito place as well.

As I was saying, there are spaces that exist in the commercial sphere that have taken on an accidental role as cultural centres, such as for the concertgoer who's going to the El Mocambo, Club Soda or the Commodore Ballroom. Concertgoers view these spaces as being culture centres. The showgoer often doesn't know where the funding is coming from and may not be aware that these are often places that started out as bars that booked entertainment in order to sell more alcohol. It's the old 20th-century economic model that these spaces are based upon. That is not working anymore.

In my opinion, these important spaces are the first stages that allow people to springboard up the venue ladder, to build their careers and to get to that level of international acclaim. They need to be viewed more like cultural community centres or libraries and given a modest investment of public funding because they provide important public health, economic, vibrancy and safety benefits for communities, in addition to providing this fertile ground in which artists can experiment and launch their careers.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Thank you.

Mr. Champoux, you have the floor for roughly two and a half minutes.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I really enjoyed the last few moments of this committee, Madam Chair.

I'm a bit fed up with hearing that, when we fund culture, we expect something in return. S.E. Grummett said it well. I don't want us to ask to see maple syrup, moose antlers and poutine in every production we invest in. I'm fed up with that.

When we fund culture, what we're funding is our talent, our creativity. We also want to show the world that we can compete with other nations, such as the Americans and the Europeans, who have more resources than we do. When people ask where the poutine was in the film that we funded with public money, it frustrates me to hear that, you have no idea.

The other thing that deeply frustrates me is the fact that culture is still seen as an expense, and people expect a production that yields a profit, like that of S.E. Grummett. Artists are told that they have been given money and are then asked how much the production made. However, culture shouldn't be viewed as project‑by‑project funding, which will bring in money per project. Culture is an investment in society that generates $65 billion in gross domestic product, or GDP. The GDP of culture in Canada is $65 billion. Every dollar invested in culture yields $29 in benefits of all kinds. We shouldn't just look at the individual production of one organization or one troop. We have to look at everything that production generates in general, including with restaurants, hotels, the taxis we take to go see a show or film, the babysitters we hire to babysit our children, and so on. Money flows when we go see a show, far beyond the ticket we buy and the popcorn we buy when we get there.

I am fed up with this narrative that portrays culture as an expense and a luxury. It's a societal need. It's part of our identity, and I would like us to start seeing it that way. That applies to the opposition parties and the government, in the way we create programs. We have to stop saying that we can't afford to increase the funding for this or that program. No, we can't afford not to increase it. We can't afford to underfund culture. I'm really sick and tired of us holding every production to account because it didn't have enough maple syrup, antlers or hockey. It's becoming unbearable to listen to.

I'm looking at the figures that were published in a Canadian Chamber of Commerce study. This wasn't published by a Quebec lobby group peddling its rhetoric; this was from the Canadian chambers of commerce, people who must know a thing or two about grants and investments. Are we going to turn our noses up at tax revenue for governments to the tune of $17 billion per year, just because we think it's a luxury to fund culture, or that S.E. Grummett's production won't bring in enough money to pay back what we have invested? It's a bit ridiculous to think like that.

Thirteen jobs are generated per million dollars of production. That's still from the same study. That's more than oil and gas, if that works as an argument for my colleagues. I think the government should start considering culture not as an expense, but as a need, a necessity. It's our identity that we're expressing. It's being exported, and we must not attach requirements and conditions when we decide to fund culture in all its forms.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

That's very well said, Mr. Champoux.

Mr. Hardy, I would like to apologize: I didn't know you were a francophone the first time I spoke to you. You now have the floor for five minutes.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair. No problem.

I agree with my colleague on the core of his thinking. Culture is extremely important. It's a foundation of society. We need it in order to move forward and know where we have come from.

That said, it's a bit funny to hear him say that we shouldn't associate it with figures and then hear him give us all the figures related to return on investment in his next sentence. The principle is the following: Public funds come from taxpayers. I agree that every dollar invested yields a return on investment of $29. We need to support culture. It's very important. We need to support our artists.

I'm really proud of what you answered, S.E. Grummett. You said that, as a result, you have been able to make a living from your art and showcase it internationally. You're the Canadian artist who is now making a name for themselves everywhere, so it's a good investment.

However, when it comes to asking whether there's something Canadian in a production funded to the tune of $151,000, I'm not asking to pour maple syrup over the world's head. That's not the point. Will someone who goes through the experience understand that it's offered by Canadians? That's why I asked the question earlier. It wasn't a question to oppose what's being done. If someone goes out, experiences something in Boston just a few steps from their house, goes back home and has no idea that they just had an experience that was paid for by Canadians, then we may be missing the mark.

It's important to stay focused on the objective, because the program, as it's defined—I may go back to this question—is meant to promote Canadian culture. It states that it aims “to increase export revenues for Canada's creative industries”. That means it's directly linked to revenue. That's stated in the definition. We aren't attacking culture when we ask for a return on investment. We're just linking the very definition of the funding program to the expectation of a return on investment. The goal of that question wasn't to tell everyone to put on antlers and wear plaid. That wasn't the point. We want to support culture, and we agree. However, if there's a publicly funded program that aims to export our knowledge and increase our export revenues, then I think it's normal to ask questions about those revenues. I don't understand why my colleague lost it, saying he's fed up of hearing that everyone has to wear arrowhead sashes. That isn't the point.

I just want to say thank you again, S.E. Grummett, because you're an example of a success story who has been funded and has a return on investment internationally. Bravo.

Ms. Straughan, you said that people watch American content and that, in the meantime, a Canadian artist loses their work. Is that what you said?

[Kelly Straughan]

Are you referencing Come from Away?

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

No.

I'm referring to the chair's question. I think that you told her that many people are turning to American productions and that, in the meantime, artists here in Canada receive less media attention or coverage, which results in the loss of their work. Is that right?

[Kelly Straughan]

No. I think it was in reference to Come from Away. When you're talking about developing new Canadian work, and specifically a large-scale work like a musical, we are not able in a meaningful way to give the amount of investment needed for new musicals to happen in Canada.

Come from Away was developed by two Canadian artists, two Canadian writers. They shopped it around—so to speak—in Canada, asking, “Can you invest in this product? Can you invest in this story?”

It did have some investment from Sheridan College, which had a musical incubator program at the time, run by Michael Rubinoff. Sheridan gave them some workshop time.

It's just like we're doing for our national summit. We invite producers from across the country to tell them, “Here is a story that has legs, could make some money and is excellent art that ticks all of the boxes.”

Canadians didn't invest. It was actually Americans and voices from the regional theatres that incubate to Broadway who said, “Okay, come over here, and we'll invest.”

When something commercializes, when it moves from a not-for-profit model to commercial model, you need investors. The investors were almost exclusively American. This means that every time the show is produced anywhere, other than the Canadian writing team—and there were a couple of Canadian actors who were invested in it—it's Americans who are making the money.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

So, basically, it's—

[Kelly Straughan]

What a loss for Canadians. I think that's what I was referencing.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Thank you for that clarification.

Mr. Ntumba, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Santiago Keenan, as a child, my mother attended a school in her village where Canada had a presence through educational and cultural initiatives. Later, when the time came to choose the country where she wanted to raise her children, she chose Canada. I'm one of her children. Today, I have the honour of being before you as a member of Parliament. This shows how the ties between Canada and communities around the world can have a lasting impact on future generations.

My question is the following. How can cultural spaces—