House of Commons Hansard #25 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was competition.
Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness ActAdjournment Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker
Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4) the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been withdrawn. The House will now resolve itself into committee of the whole to study all votes under Canadian Heritage in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2005.
I do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of the whole.
(Consideration in committee of the whole of all votes under Canadian Heritage in the main estimates, Mr. Strahl in the chair)
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Chair
I would like to open this session of committee of the whole by making a short statement. Tonight's debate is being held under Standing Order 81(4)(a), which provides for each of two sets of estimates selected by the Leader of the Opposition to be considered in committee of the whole for up to four hours. For many members this will be the first time they participate in such a debate, and even for experienced members this is a relatively new procedure, so I want to explain how we will proceed.
Tonight's debate is a general one on all of the votes under Canadian Heritage. Earlier today the House adopted a special order that established for tonight only the rules of debate. They are as follows.
Each member will be allocated 15 minutes. When a member is recognized, he or she should indicate to the Chair if the 15 minute period will be shared, what portion will be used for speeches and what portion for questions and answers. When time is to be used for questions and answers, the Chair will expect that the ministers' responses will generally reflect the time taken by the questions since this time will be counted in the time originally allotted to the member.
Though members may speak more than once, the Chair will generally try to ensure that all members wishing to speak are heard before inviting members to speak again, while respecting the proportional party rotations for speakers. Members need not be in their own seats to be recognized.
As Chair, I will be guided by the rules governing committee of the whole that were agreed to a little earlier by the leaders of all parties in the House. Nevertheless, in order to have a productive debate, I am prepared to apply those rules with discretion and flexibility.
The first round of speakers will be the usual all-party round, namely, the official opposition, the government, the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party. After that we will follow the usual proportional rotation.
At the conclusion of tonight's debate, the committee will rise, the estimates under Canadian Heritage will be deemed reported to the House and the House will adjourn until tomorrow.
We may now begin tonight's session.
The House in committee of the whole, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), the first appointed day, consideration in committee of the whole of all votes under Canadian Heritage in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2005.
Bev Oda Conservative Clarington—Scugog—Uxbridge, ON
Mr. Chair, thank you for giving us this opportunity. I look forward to the next few hours. I think this is a very important discussion and debate to be having. It is important to this side of the House that we make sure we have a strong and vibrant arts and cultural community.
I would like to begin questioning today on an important arts and cultural program, Tomorrow Starts Today.
My staff has contacted the minister's office seven times over the past six weeks and has been unable to obtain any information. The Library of Parliament, a non-partisan agency that helps all members, has been unable to obtain any information. Just this morning, the minister's office told my staff that I would not understand the numbers and that the numbers would be open to misinterpretation unless explained by the minister to me.
Unfortunately, I was unable to obtain detailed financial data on this program until only a couple of hours ago. This funding represents $500 million of government money. These numbers should be readily available to all members and to all Canadians.
The members on this side of the House would like to be assured that this money is getting out to the creators and artists who need it.
On behalf of the arts and cultural communities, on behalf of all Canadians, I ask the minister, can she tell us how much of the $500 million went directly to creators, artists and cultural organizations?
If I may apologize, I know I was to do some housekeeping first. I will not be sharing my time and there will be a short preamble before each of my questions.
Liza Frulla LiberalMinister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women
Mr. Chair, I want to tell you at the outset that I will express myself in the language of Molière, in which I am more comfortable than in the language of Shakespeare.
In response to the question of the hon. member, the Conservative Party heritage critic, with respect to the importance of the Tomorrow Starts Today program, she is in fact right. The federal investment in this program is one of the largest since the creation of the Canada Council for the Arts in 1957.
Government intervention in arts and culture affects a lot more people in all regions of our country. So, when I am asked what amounts went to creators, I could say that the whole of those amounts has gone to creators, to authors and to those who support them.
For instance, in 2003-04, Arts Presentation Canada funded 569 arts presenters, who also serve creators. Festival Saison has reached 212 communities. Almost all of them are represented here, which means a 247% increase compared to 2001, that is, before we had the Tomorrow Starts Today program.
In its first three years, Cultural Spaces Canada invested $75 million in 216 projects in over 100 communities, and an additional $466 million came from private sources, both provincial and territorial.
I must say with regard to this program that a federal-provincial meeting was held three weeks ago in Halifax with the provincial ministers responsible for culture, and all provinces unanimously brought forward a motion requesting that the government renew the Tomorrow Starts Today program.
Tomorrow Starts Today has made available 600 new Canadian collections and exhibitions concerning Canadian culture on-line. There is also the Trade Routes program which allows small and medium-sized businesses to increase their export capacity on the international market, which means that we have an 80% increase in the export of cultural goods and services.
All this to say that--
Bev Oda Conservative Clarington—Scugog—Uxbridge, ON
Mr. Chair, if I understand the rules as you explained them, the amount of time to respond to a question should be relative in terms of the amount of time taken to ask the question.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Chair
Let me explain again. That is correct. The amount of time given for a ministerial response should be roughly the same as the time given for the question. We were just a little short here. We are actually going to use a stopwatch and try to be accurate. I am going to be a little flexible as well, but when I give a signal to wrap it up that will be for either side of the table. We will try to keep it fairly close.
Bev Oda Conservative Clarington—Scugog—Uxbridge, ON
Mr. Chair, I will ask the minister if there is a problem with the program Tomorrow Starts Today. This side of the House has never indicated it does not support the program. In fact, what we want is to ensure that the maximum dollars are going to those it was intended to support.
Why is the minister unable to provide the information I just asked for, which was a dollar figure that goes directly to creators and artists? Also, why is the minister being so alarmist and creating an unfounded sense of panic among the arts and cultural community? Why is she saying, as is reported, that the program is under serious attack, that it might not be renewed, that it is facing its sunset? In fact, she said that there is a very real chance it will not be renewed.
Is the minister unable to convince the government and her colleagues to support this program's continuation? If anyone is placing this program under serious attack it seems to be the minister herself and her own caucus. Again I ask the question: how many dollars went directly to creators and artists?
Liza Frulla Liberal Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Mr. Chair, I thank the hon. member. I would like to clarify one small point. We are not alarmists, but we must be realists. The program concludes in 2005.
So, yes, we are renegotiating to have it renewed and it is not me who is being alarmist; it is the community that depends on this program and wants to see it renewed, in the first place.
In the second place, when I am asked if the money went to creators, I can reply that all the money has gone to the creators, and I can tell you why. For all the programs the average administrative cost is 11%, which is very effective.
As for Cultural Spaces Canada, these are spaces where the creators and artists are able to perform. We spent $75 million. In Arts Presentation Canada, there are three components: project support, programming support and development support.On this program we spent $35,222,000. On the National Arts Training Contribution Program—these numbers have all been verified—we spent $40,283,000. All of it goes to the creators.
Bev Oda Conservative Clarington—Scugog—Uxbridge, ON
Mr. Chair, I would like to move on.
Given that the last reported figures show that $4.3 billion of production was done in Canada in television programming; given that, of that, the largest portion or $1.9 billion was foreign interest or foreign service production, primarily American production; given that these levels of production also represent over 133,000 jobs in Canada, with government support programs going only to television programs and film, but little into capacity building and with the rising Canadian dollar, with the American movement to produce more in the U.S. or Europe, with the Americans initiating legislative measures to keep more production in the U.S., we are already seeing a drop in the production industry's level of activity here in this country.
What has the minister included in these estimates to build capacity and to strengthen the Canadian production infrastructure and keep those 133,000 jobs in Canada?
Liza Frulla Liberal Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Mr. Chair, I will get the exact figures.
Still, I can say that we have doubled our $100 million annual investment in feature films. The hon. critic is correct. I am very pleased that she takes an interest in our television industry because it is worth, as she said, nearly $5 billion.
First, we must understand that the total volume of foreign production in Canada increased by 73% over the past five years. Why? Because we have taken steps to welcome foreign films. What are these steps? We have increased our income tax credit from 11% to 16% of eligible production costs. It is true that some American states and some other countries have imitated us and now have similar tax credits, which means that foreign and American productions now have a tendency to stay home.
On the other hand, it is cyclical. I want to reassure the hon. member that in Montreal, for example, the season started very slowly, but this fall four or five American films worth over $50 million were shooting in the streets of Montreal.
I can go on if necessary.
Bev Oda Conservative Clarington—Scugog—Uxbridge, ON
Mr. Chair, the government claims to be a strong supporter of the arts. The minister is in control of the budget for this industry and this ministry. In light of the $9 billion surplus that the government has accumulated this year, why can the minister not protect the arts and creators from 5% funding cuts?
Just this weekend in Montreal the minister confirmed that the federal government will be asking all of the main cultural agencies to look at ways of reducing their budgets by 5%, including the CBC, Telefilm and the National Film Board.
It is time for the minister to do more for the arts community than tour around the country professing support for the arts. It is time for her to work to protect this important segment of our country from 5% cuts across the board. Actions do speak louder than words. If the government really supports the arts, these agencies should be exempt and I ask the minister, why are they not?
Liza Frulla Liberal Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Mr. Chair, once again, I thank my colleague. I am very pleased to see that we have unanimity in the House, that everyone supports Canadian culture and cultural expression, as we will certainly see with the other speakers.
Now, we must understand something that I tried to make the industry understand. When we talk about redistribution, we do not mean cuts. I have experienced cuts in 1990, 1991 and 1992, when I was Minister of Culture at another level of government. We talk about redistribution simply because we have included in our approach an annual review of each of our programs, of our way of administering them, to see if we can be more efficient on the administrative level.
I also said—and this is my firm intention—that our creators, our producers, our people in the film industry and our museums, in terms of collections, would not be affected. I want all of us to perform much better on the administrative level. I am convinced that all my colleagues agree with this. This is a government approach and a discipline that we want to impose on ourselves.
Bev Oda Conservative Clarington—Scugog—Uxbridge, ON
Mr. Chair, in light of the minister's response, I would assume then that redistribution would come out of administrative and departmental costs. May I then ask the minister for her assurance that no program will be cut and no funding agency will be cut, and that the levels of support will be guaranteed this year and into the next year?
Liza Frulla Liberal Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Mr. Chair, I am sincere when I tell you that this warms my heart. I was afraid that we would be asked here to reduce our budgets when, indeed, the more we have, the more we can do. We all agree that cultural expression is the very expression of our identity.
We must understand that, not only out of solidarity, but also out of respect for my other colleagues, we will carry out the review. We are doing it. We have asked our agencies to do it. They have agreed to do so. It was simply to examine their approach. I will give you some good news at the appropriate time.
Maka Kotto Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
Mr. Chair, I will not be sharing my time for this first turn. I will have just one intervention.
In this debate, we are trying to avoid getting stuck in the one-track approach of economism, which is the root of all evil and a source of anxiety, instability, insecurity and multiple cultural exclusions. When governments stop supporting culture, when culture in Quebec and Canada is completely dominated by the new Liberal dogmas of utilitarianism and adjustment, that will be the end.
Then, nothing will prevent the people from rushing into fast-food restaurants and Hollywood dominated cinema complexes, from overindulging in American culture, and dropping whatever critical thinking they have left, and no longer contributing in their own way to the preservation of their own cultural identity. We should never lose sight of the fact that we live in a situation that could increasingly be considered the stage of some yet unknown form of cultural darwinism.
Today, we no longer have the right to be gullible anymore. History, philosophy and all the social studies tell us that there has always been a natural human tendency to go along with things, to let somebody else make the decisions and chose their future identity for them.
The great strength of neo-liberal ideology lies in the fact that it managed to fully exploit this tendency by obtaining, via television, cinema and consumerism, something which no previous totalitarism has obtained before it, namely the consent of its victims. In the Bloc, we are not the accomplices of our potential executioners and we will not be.
In addition, we will not be party to any questioning of any vision, orientation or measure that would weaken, shake or destroy the field of culture, already exposed to decay. The quality of culture has a price. Therefore, we are opposed to policy on culture being devoid of substance and “McDonaldized”. Culture must make a contribution to the quality of our lives. It must contribute to a strengthening of our specific identities. That's how we view this in the Bloc.
A world without culture is a world where ignorance and self-satisfaction produce only docile, americanized consumers, and not the lucid people and perceptive rebels we need so much.
In spite of the de facto trusteeship of Quebec—not for long, at least I hope so—I encourage the minister to aim high for the quality and quantity of cultural production. The reduction or withdrawal of means in the cultural field, as advocated by some, would only lead to a decrease in the quality and viability in cultural matters.
However, providing culture with better financial means is a priority because, contrary to what is advocated by some people, the focus of culture is not the individual but the elevation of the individual's soul and spirit.
I would like to mention a comment that has been going around for a while. Since last August, the Minister of Canadian Heritage has been talking about a possible Canadian cultural policy, which is an issue that we discussed recently in our debate on Bill C-18.
On October 28, the minister said to Nathalie Petrowski that such a cultural policy was one of her dreams. On November 9, she told the Academy of Canadian Cinema and Television that we needed a Canadian cultural policy.
Clause 9 of Bill C-18 refers to the policy with respect to culture and says what it will be. What is this cultural policy the Minister of Canadian Heritage is talking about?
Are the $8 million dollar cuts at CBC, a reduction, in the last year, of 183 hours in the drama series on the French television, the translation of Canadian animation programs produced outside of Quebec and the direct cuts in the funding to creators, all elements of the cultural policy that the Minister of Canadian Heritage is contemplating?
Liza Frulla Liberal Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Mr. Chair, first, I want to congratulate the Bloc Québécois critic on his text. One can see that the hon. member not only has a lot of depth, but also a lot of experience as an actor. It is always a pleasure to hear him.
There are two things here. Let us talk about cultural policy. The cultural policy is of course different, because we are in Canada, but it based somewhat on the same objectives as Quebec's cultural policy, in that it has three objectives. The first and most important one is to put the creator at the core of our concerns. The second one is to strengthen our Canadian identity. Finally, the third objective is to promote accessibility. We want to ensure that people not only appreciate what our creators do, but that they have access to their work.
Given these objectives, we have to work with what we have. What do we have here in Canada? We have extraordinary organizations and institutions. The cultural policy would therefore be based on institutions that are pillars, such as the CBC, the NAC, Telefilm, the NFB and all the museums. The idea is get all these key players at the table to develop this policy, again with these three objectives in mind.
It is also important to have an integrated cultural policy. Let me give an example. We talk about creators and also about the precarious situation of actors. This is the case all across Canada. Quebec has its own policy with its status of the artist act. We also have similar federal legislation, while provinces such as Ontario and Saskatchewan want to draft such an act. All this to say that when we have an integrated cultural policy and put creators at the core of our concerns, it is very easy for me to tell my colleague, the revenue minister that we made a government decision and that we have this cultural policy which provides, in the first of its three objectives, that creators are important. I would then ask the minister how to improve the status of the artist, which is so important to us, knowing that labour laws come under the jurisdiction of the provinces.
Since I come from Quebec, I also want to say that the Canadian cultural policy would be in harmony with those of the provinces, and not in conflict with them.
Maka Kotto Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
Mr. Chairman, in an article published in the daily Le Devoir on August 21, Stéphane Baillargeon quoted the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who said regarding a Canadian cultural policy “I am thinking about it and I am consulting ...”
We would like to know whom she consulted.
Liza Frulla Liberal Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Mr. Chairman, as far as consultations are concerned, I started talking to the heads of these organizations, Mr. Herrndorf, for instance, and Mr. Ben Simon.
I am still waiting. Two big building blocks were missing. The first one was the president of CBC-SRC whose mandate we just renewed and who was so graciously welcomed yesterday by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage . We are still waiting for a new Telefilm Canada president, who will likely be appointed shortly. We will start with these two building blocks.
In the meantime, I asked my department to do some research on various countries' cultural policies, at the international level, and compile this information. Usually the way things are done is that first we ask a group to do some research, develop principles for a cultural policy and present them to a ministerial committee, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for instance, only then can the said committee start consultations.
In Quebec we carried out one of the most extensive consultation process in the history of Quebec with a view to developing a policy involving 22 departments. It must be said. The work of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage will be of paramount importance. We do not intend to reinvent the wheel. We want to look at the research, see what was done and integrate the results.
Yes, this is a long undertaking, but I am convinced that if we are all committed and willing to work for the good of the arts and culture, we will do it together. What matters is that such a policy is unanimously adopted, as was the case in Quebec.
Maka Kotto Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
Mr. Chair, I would now like to speak of the surpluses the Minister of Finance announced. Telefilm Canada, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Canada Council for the Arts have all seen their funds cut back. Funds have been taken from public corporations that contribute directly to the work of many artists and creators.
These cutbacks will affect the quality of the professional lives of the people who contribute to the improvement of the overall quality of life of Quebec and Canadian societies.
Concurrent to this reallocation exercise, the Minister of Finance announces once again unexpected surpluses adding up to about $8 billion.
Such an attack on a vital segment of the population, on its collective identity, is a disgrace, especially considering the very real financial pressures they are faced with. Meanwhile, the government is counting its billions. The most basic sense of decency would require the government to review its supplementary estimates in the light of its new breathing space. However, it does not want the cultural community to get its hopes up too much. The government has very clearly identified its priorities. The cultural sector is not one of them.
What does the minister have to say about that?
Liza Frulla Liberal Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Mr. Chair, all together, we are going to make this sector a government priority.
The Tomorrow Starts Today program proved it. This was a sizeable investment of more than half a billion dollars, more specifically $700 million, made because we had finished the year with a surplus. This also reflects a government priority.
What carries even more weight for Quebeckers and Canadians is to say that this is a parliamentary priority. This is a priority for all parliamentarians in this place. This carries more weight, and that is the message that together we must send.
That having been said, again, let there be no confusion. Existing programs have undergone a review. This is a review based on what is called a reallocation. There are no cuts to the Arts Council, neither for this year nor for the next, in 2005. The corporations were asked to conduct administrative reviews, but no decisions were made. We are currently in negotiations, like all our colleagues, with those responsible at finance and revenue to implement an approach, a discipline. We all agree on this.
I want to point out, however, that, as part of the current reallocation process, nothing has been decided. The primary objective is not to affect artists and creators, producers and all those who make this Canadian cultural life such a vital and a strong one. That is number one.
And second, we do not talk about cuts but about reallocation. If, all together, we are convinced that we must reinvest in the cultural sector, then we are talking about reallocation, and reallocation can also mean increased funding. Who knows? It all depends on the outcome of future negotiations, the needs of my hon. colleagues and how careful the government wants to be.
The fact is that, if we are doing so well, it is because we have been careful during all these years.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Resuming debate. The hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women.
Liza Frulla LiberalMinister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women
Mr. Chair, I will also make a presentation, somewhat like my colleague did.
First of all, to put the government's actions in context, I would like to introduce you to some of those who are here with me and who are longstanding colleagues and partners. First, the Minister of State for Multiculturalism, who is always ready to answer any questions regarding multiculturalism, the Minister of State responsible for Amateur Sport and my parliamentary secretary who is a tireless arts advocate.
I would like to introduce my colleagues, Deputy Minister Judith LaRocque, Associate Deputy Minister Susan Peterson and Assistant Deputy Minister for Planning and Corporate Affairs Bruce Manion. They have also contributed to putting all this together.
I also want to tell you that if there are any questions or requests, we are all ready to answer them or give briefings if necessary.
The department I have had the honour to head for four months deals with issues that are central to the leading debates of our time. These issues have considerable impact on our society and our future. I am referring to intercultural relations, to the impact of culture on our quality of life and our prosperity, to the preservation of our forms of expression, to the place of artists in our society, to the development of sport, to the status of women and more. Its area of responsibility is wide-ranging, from official and aboriginal languages to artistic creation, museums, broadcasting and multiculturalism.
My department also oversees major institutions with a mandate to promote the growth of our culture, such as the CBC/SRC, the Canada Council for the Arts, Telefilm Canada and the National Film Board.
In this area of globalization, the mission of the Department of Canadian Heritage has never been as relevant or as crucial. In Canada we face an inescapable reality. We share the longest undefended border with a global superpower and a cultural giant. That distinguishes us from the rest of the world.
What is it that defines us? It is our history, our culture, our artistic works, our national institutions, our linguistic duality and our heritage languages, the way we integrate different cultural communities without making them fit into a single mould and our vision of the world.
It is this diversity that we must protect and promote in an increasingly uniform world. And that is exactly why this department exists.
We work toward three main objectives: promoting excellence in the cultural sector, from creativity to production to presentation; facilitating diversity of choices, perspectives and viewpoints; and encouraging the celebration of the diversity that gives us our strength.
Let us start by recognizing that our cultural policies have, over the years, enabled our creative people to achieve an enviable position within Canada and abroad. Our policies are based on the following premise: We want to have access to the best of what the world has to offer, including cultural products from the United States. But we also want to have access to the best of what we in Canada have to offer in terms of culture.
Furthermore, it is important not to underestimate the impact of Canada's arts and cultural sector on our quality of life, our success and our prosperity.
The figures speak for themselves. Each year, the cultural sector directly contributes 27 billion dollars to our gross domestic product. The Government of Canada spends an average of 3 billion dollars on culture. That is what is called a good investment. We would like to invest more of course, but we see that it is profitable.
We believe that the sector provides employment to 760,000 individuals in Canada. That is more jobs than there are in the agriculture, forestry, fisheries, mining, oil and gas extraction, and public services sectors combined.
In this context, to increase cultural offerings, the department that I head invests in our greatest source of creativity; this is, our artists and our creative people.
In May 2001 the Government of Canada announced an unprecedented initiative called Tomorrow Starts Today. This is the Government of Canada's most significant investment in culture since the founding of the Canada Council for the Arts. It has greatly helped our artists to create, to express themselves, to innovate, and to reach their audience. This is aside from the direct benefits to our community.
Let us take a specific example. Through the support of one of the programs of Tomorrow Starts Today, Nettwerk signed a contract with Sarah McLachlan to distribute three of her albums. The resulting commercial success helped transport Nettwerk into an international company that launched the career of such Canadian artists as Avril Lavigne.
In addition, performance halls, cultural institutions, festivals, art schools, publishing houses and theatres across Canada have received our support through Tomorrow Starts Today.
I am thinking of and this is to answer my dear colleague's question: the Tintamarre Acadian Parade in Caraquet; the Fondation I Musici in Montreal; the community of Owen Sound, which was named a cultural capital in Canada in 2004; the Soulpepper Theatre Company in Toronto; the Royal Ballet School in Winnipeg; Thistletown Press, a Saskatchewan based publishing firm; the Arts Touring Alliance of Alberta; the Nunavut Arts Festival; the Belfry Theatre in Vancouver; and the Dawson City Music Festival in Yukon.
Let us also take another interesting example. The circus and magic partnership program known as CAMP is a project that we have supported under Tomorrow Starts Today. It makes use of professional performers in the fields of circus and magic to raise the self-esteem of young people at risk in downtown Winnipeg and to expand their artistic experience. The success of the project will ensure its introduction in northern Manitoba.
The effectiveness and the needs for the Tomorrow Starts Today program was recognized by my provincial and territorial counterparts at our most recent meeting 15 days ago in Halifax.
Tomorrow Starts Today is certainly one of the most important cultural initiatives of my department, but there are others.
To offer diverse Canadian cultural choices, it is also necessary to invest in the cultural institutions that support our artists, and in a structure for presenting their works and enabling them to reach their audience.
For example, let us consider our support for the audiovisual sector. Since 1996, through the Canadian television fund, we have been able to produce 18,000 hours of programs in English, French, and Aboriginal languages. The total value of these productions is $6 billion.
The fund brings together efforts of the Government of Canada and the private sector to create high quality cultural content. In attracting audiences, the fund shows that popularity and quality are not mutually exclusive. It enables us to provide to our artists a forum in which they can express themselves in our own market, and to offer to our population programs that reflect their own lives.
It is impossible to overlook the successes of Canada's film industry in recent years. This shows us that Canadians want to go to see films produced here in our country. A film such as Séraphin: un homme et son péché achieved the feat of making three generations of francophones run to the movie houses, breaking all the records for box office receipts by a Canadian film. The world has greatly changed since then. New distribution technologies have emerged, and it is ever easier to copy or obtain works without paying for them. This is the case, for example, in the music field. And it is our artists who ultimately pay the price.
We must give our artists the means to receive remuneration for their work. It is exactly for this purpose that the Department of Canadian Heritage is working with the Department of Industry to modernize the Copyright Act. We must achieve a fair balance between the needs of creative people and those of users. This is an issue facing all societies in this time of globalization and new technology.
However, culture is not limited to forms of artistic expression alone. It includes all the forms of expression and activities that bring us together within our communities.
Sports are essential to the lives of our communities. For this reason, through the Minister of State responsible for Sport and Sports Canada, the Department of Canadian Heritage will give our athletes the means to excel in sports and give the general public the means to practise sporting activities. Sports also play an important role in the lives of individuals. Not only do sports give Canadians a chance to express their pride during large sports gatherings, but they are also a healthy way of life for the population in general.
Culture is also an important voice of our communities across Canada. Our culture is shaped by the men and women who have lived on this land for centuries or who have come here with the hopes of putting down roots. There are aboriginal people, anglophones, francophones, and people from all over the world. They are young people, they are women, they are men. Diversity enriches us, but with one condition, and that is that all communities and all citizens can express their differences and make their viewpoints heard. The Minister of State responsible for Multiculturalism helps us fulfill this condition. In my opinion, and that of the majority of Canadians, this is what gives us strength.
In the Canadian Heritage portfolio, for which I am responsible, some programs specifically seek to strengthen the cultural identity and language of aboriginal Canadians, support official language minority communities, promote multiculturalism, ensure the participation of women in all sectors of activity through Status of Women Canada, and invest in Canada's young people. We must give each and every one the tools to express individual differences, aspirations, and an eagerness to contribute to the betterment of society.
But we must also give every person the tools to celebrate the diversity that is characteristic of Canadians. Just observe how Canadians flock to festivals on the theme of world culture. The entire world can be found within our borders. And my department seeks to increase opportunities for celebrating this diversity. It may be on the occasion of Canada Day, or through initiatives promoting Canadian symbols. While diversity gives us strength, it also highlights the values that we have in common. Values that we all share and that are rooted in democracy. Values connected to an ideal of freedom. An ideal that has built a tolerant society, in which the concept of equality has the strongest influence.
The expression and celebration of diversity is a national objective that has become an international issue. The debate currently drawing attention is undoubtedly that on cultural diversity.
I firmly believe that each country must be able to adopt its own cultural policies and to have the tools for protecting its own forms of expression. This is why I am committed to working for the adoption of the International Convention on the Protection of the Diversity of Cultural Content and Artistic Expression within the framework of UNESCO.
During the meeting of Canada's ministers responsible for culture, which took place 15 days ago, I conveyed to my colleagues the significance and scope of this convention. A resolution submitted by Saskatchewan and seconded by Alberta assured me of their support. I would also like to mention the valuable cooperation on this issue, from the outset, of the Government of Quebec. Not to protect one's culture is to put one's soul up for auction.
Culture is not a luxury and our assets in this area are fragile. Our market for culture is one of the most open in the world. It enriches us, but at the same time this openness represents a challenge to our own creativity and to the distribution of our cultural products. This is why it is important to continue supporting our artists, and maintaining and indeed, strengthening our cultural policy.
Moreover, the promotion of diversity requires unwaivering efforts. It is central to our Canadian identity. We must continue to defend it and enhance it. It is an engine for cultural, economic and social development. It is an asset that will enable Canada to become a leader in the 21st century.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Chair, it is an honour to rise here tonight and discuss culture and heritage in the House.
It was 24 years ago that I quit school with the plan to be an artist. I believed at that time that if I worked hard, worked every single day, and if I put everything in my life on the back burner, I could make a living in Canada as an artist. After 24 years I found out a simple thing: that the difference between a large pizza and a professional artist in Canada is that the large pizza will feed a family of four. I had five in my family to feed and that is why I am now a politician, for the time being anyway, and as long as the good people of Timmins--James Bay prefer my singing in the House rather than my singing on the floor. I say that because I learned one lesson and I sometimes think that I might have made a mistake in my career.
About 14 years ago I made a conscious decision not to go to the United States because I believed then that Canada was a place worth celebrating and that our stories should be told across Canada. Many of the stories I told were in western and northern Canada. I notice that other groups that made that same decision with me at the time are no longer doing their arts full time. Friends of mine who went to the states are still working.
When we are talking about funding artists in Canada, we have to realize that we are spread out over such vast distances that it is virtually impossible in a market economy for an artist to make it across Canada more than once a year and make it consistently.
I am very concerned when I read the spending estimates. Canada Council is looking at a cut from $153 million today to $125 million over the period of 2006-07. That is $28 million. I was never very good at math, having left to become a musician, but I am told by my friends at the Canada Council that it is looking at numerous cuts.
I know Canada Council has taken serious hits and now we are talking about taking money out of programming. That is where it is going to come from. I would like to ask the minister to explain to me, how can we talk about protecting Canadian culture when the money is coming out of the pockets of the artists?
Liza Frulla Liberal Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Mr. Chair, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. We are very fortunate that our critics are a thespian, a musician and a former CRTC commissioner. There is no doubt that cultural issues are very dear to us.
My first aim is to reassure. Thanks to the Tomorrow Starts Today program, the Council for the Arts received $25 million. That is why we should renew the program, which will expire in 2005. It is also why the community is so concerned. We want to reassure them but we also understand their concern. That is the first thing
I also want to say that our current estimates are part of the reallocation. The Council for the Arts will not have to spend anything on this reallocation. Indeed, the Council manages with approximately 11% or 12% and, year after year, our internal auditors consistently say it is doing extraordinary work. It takes the money and injects it right back into the community.
We must protect the Council for the Arts. I agree.
Let us move on to the status of the artist. My colleague makes a very good point. Indeed, we must realize that our artists, despite their high education, make an average of $23,500, which comes down to 26% less than the average Canadian. There is no denying this.
Those who say we need to increase and support measures aimed at supporting our artists, are absolutely right. We need to keep on doing it together.