Canadian Heritage Committee on June 9th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

I will reconvene this meeting. We are back in session.

Mr. Champoux, the floor is yours.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Before my speaking time begins, I would like to confirm how long the meeting is expected to last after 1 p.m., because some of us may have schedule conflicts. What kind of time extension did you have in mind?

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Personally, I would be willing to extend the meeting by 15 or 20 minutes, if that's possible.

Would anyone like to intervene?

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, QC]

Madam Chair, I have other meetings at 1 p.m., I can't—

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

You can't stay longer than that?

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, QC]

No, I absolutely can't stay longer, and I think that Mr. Waugh can't stay longer either.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Do the Liberal members have anything to add to that?

We're talking about what time we should finish because we've lost time due to votes. We have resources to continue for an extra half an hour after the meeting. We'll see how it goes.

Mr. Généreux and Mr. Waugh are not in favour of that, but we'll see how it goes. Is that sufficient?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Doesn't it take the committee's unanimous consent to extend a meeting?

I'm told no, that is not the case. If I understand correctly, a simple quorum is sufficient. That's fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

I believe that everyone is here and that we're ready to resume the meeting.

Mr. Champoux, the floor is yours.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Once again, I want to thank the witnesses for joining us.

I'm going to call on Ms. Gignac and Ms. Billet to talk, first and foremost, about responsibilities related to the infrastructure and maintenance of buildings that house theatre companies and presenters in general.

Ms. Billet, you belong to an organization, Théâtres associés, which has conducted an exhaustive study on this topic. I would like you to talk to us about the challenge posed by Canadian Heritage's disengagement from funding and maintaining infrastructure, and how this disengagement affects culture.

[Rachel Billet]

Thank you very much for the question.

Indeed, the preliminary figures published by Théâtres associés show a 53% increase in costs with 20% inflation over the same period. In practical terms, this is leading to cutbacks in variable spending, in other words, spending on artists and creation. We are talking about a 28% reduction in creation. This is what's known as “artistic shrinkflation”. It's the reason why we consider it vital to enhance infrastructure funding so that these sites can fulfill their mission.

Keep in mind that the business model followed by theatre institutions relies very little on government funds. For example, for a hall with a seating capacity of over 800, federal funding varies from 15% to 19%. The remainder is generated by box office receipts, own-source revenues and private funding.

Ms. Juneau talked about the realignment of the Canada cultural spaces fund. This fund had very limited resources, so the arts and culture community really saw the build communities strong fund as an opportunity for better infrastructure support.

However, we are still very concerned in some regards. It is imperative that minimal funding is set aside for the arts and culture sector. It is also imperative to ensure regional equity, since not all provinces are equal. In fact, some receive no infrastructure funding. This fund should be accessible in every province, and in remote regions or large urban centres alike.

Furthermore, theatre renovation projects require specific expertise related to the nature of what we do, which is to create, to appear before an audience and so on. It requires cultural expertise.

Today, I believe that our role as witnesses is not only to provide you with a list of problems, but also to suggest solutions. Apart from the funding needed for cultural infrastructure, we could also introduce measures that might not cost much, but that can make a big difference. For example, it could be offering predictable, multi-year funding indexed to inflation to cover infrastructure-related costs, as well as all the other costs associated with the property management specialists who will set up these projects.

We are firm believers in maintaining our real estate inventory. In the current economic context, it's important to clearly understand that we are not there to increase our cultural real estate inventory, but to maintain and improve what we have. We cannot ignore the importance of prioritizing accessibility, climate resilience and heritage conservation issues in relation to cultural infrastructure funding criteria.

Moreover, it's important that federal, municipal and provincial governments adopt a coordinated approach.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Since we're talking about funding, do you think the government understands that part of the work your members do and the energy and investment it takes? It must be absolutely gruelling. As you said, it's not expertise you can necessarily find just anywhere. You have to spend time on things other than your art.

When you talk to government officials, do you think they understand your reality?

You said there needs to be funding specifically for the cultural sector, because the expertise required is different from that of other sectors. Do you have the sense the government understands what you're talking about when you're making your case?

[Rachel Billet]

As I said, the challenge isn't just about funding; it's also about carrying out projects. The big challenge we have in Quebec is the lack of predictability when it comes to technical audits, for instance. It's tough to find the resources and professionals available to do the technical auditing and plan for the next 10 to 15 years.

It's common practice in the co-op housing sector, for example, and a requirement for non-profit organizations. In the cultural sector, we're not under that constraint, but governments do understand that the lack of predictability is problematic for us as well. Solutions are needed to address that lack of predictability. Some clarity would be welcome on that front.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

The government made the decision to shift the funding for maintaining infrastructure from Canadian Heritage to a new fund. What does that mean for you? Does it feel as though you're starting from scratch, having to make your case all over again? It must constantly feel like an uphill battle.

[Rachel Billet]

That shift created a lot of uncertainty. Canadian Heritage ended up sending out communications to clarify things around the transition, but people are definitely anxious.

Going back to Quebec and the funding programs available to us there, I can tell you they have very specific streams and deadlines. We can't submit applications that cover a whole project. It's a real headache. It's actually not possible to have funding alignment between the provincial and federal programs.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Quickly, I'd like to talk about funding, because that tends to be the crux of the issue. The cultural sector was in need of increased funding on many levels, but has instead seen modest increases here and there. Certain sectors in particular saw bold increases, but not performing arts such as dance or theatre.

The Canada Council for the Arts estimated that it needed another $140 million but ended up getting just $6 millon in the fall budget. What's your take on that? How do you work with that?

[Caroline Gignac]

In the beginning, we really mobilized to try to keep the government from reducing the budget of the Canada Council for the Arts. At the time, budget cuts were on the horizon. The government had made clear its intent to make cuts.

It isn't as much as we were hoping for, obviously. It also isn't enough to address the challenges. The $140‑million budget request took into account pandemic-level investments. Our figures show that the challenges caused by the pandemic made the postpandemic financial situation worse. It was thought that the $140 million would provide ongoing support to the various communities after the pandemic.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Do you think culture is still underfunded by the federal government?

[Rachel Billet]

Absolutely.

Further to my colleague's remarks, I'd like to share an exercise I did. I compared the funding grants the Canada Council for the Arts had given to individual artists over a 20‑year period. The difference between constant dollar and current dollar value is about $140 million, so the sector's funding request in relation to the Canada Council for the Arts was truly warranted. The idea is to make up for the budget's not being indexed to inflation.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you for coming here with figures and sharing your expertise with us. The information is very helpful to the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Next, I will turn the floor over to Mr. Garnett Genuis, who joins us online.

Welcome to the heritage committee, sir. The floor is yours for five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It's great to be back at the heritage committee.

When I was here on February 28, we heard testimony, explosive testimony, about foreign interference by the CCP in the arts sector. At the time, I moved a motion to condemn that interference. It was a motion that I felt was pretty simple and straightforward and could have been quickly adopted without interfering with witness time.

At that time, the parliamentary secretary, Mr. Myles, moved to adjourn debate on that. He said it was necessary, from the government's perspective, for them to have more time to review that motion. I suggested at the time that we set aside some time for consideration of that motion.

I understand that time hasn't been set aside so far. It has been 12 days since that motion was moved. I think the government and other members have certainly seen this motion and have had time to look at it. I think we can and should deal with it quickly. This is a very serious issue of foreign state interference trying to intimidate artists and undermine the work of the arts community.

With that in mind, Chair, I'd like to move that we resume consideration of the motion that I moved on May 28.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Thank you.

Given that this committee has had proper notice of that motion, I will declare that it is in order. I will entertain hands from the floor.

I have Mr. Diotte and Ms. Kronis for now.

Mr. Diotte.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thanks, colleague, for moving that.

One thing about the arts community is that you need to have audiences there to watch. The very fact that these artists were having a hard time even performing their art is just a travesty. I do think that it is absolutely essential that we call this kind of thing out.

As I said, it's just a travesty. I would think that it would take precedence over many of the other things we concern ourselves with when artists simply cannot have an audience because of things like bomb threats and so forth. It's from a foreign entity, which is absolutely ridiculous, in my view.

I hope we can roundly and soundly condemn this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Thank you, Mr. Diotte.

I erred in opening the floor to comments, because it is a dilatory motion, in fact, to resume debate on that topic.

I will turn to the clerk to call the vote.