[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, November 28, 1995
.1109 
[English]
The Chair: Order.
Today we have the pleasure of hearing from the Canada Council. I understand it was last year that the Canada Council was not able, for whatever reason, to appear before the committee, so I guess it's doubly pleasurable that we have our witnesses coming before us today.
I am particularly pleased with their appearance today because we have an opportunity for the Canada Council to fulfil a couple of roles. One of the roles, of course, is to tell us about what's happening at the Canada Council, to explain certain issues arising from its annual report. We naturally look forward to that. But given its unique place in Canadian society, I think it would be rather short-sighted on our part, as a committee, if we did not ask the council how it might want to contribute to or address the matters of national unity.
.1110
We have our exercise, which has just begun, and I'm sure the witnesses would like to comment on the matter of national unity in one way or the other. In fact, I have just been perusing some of the remarks that will be given by Donna Scott, and I notice that in her prepared remarks she has already mentioned something about national unity. I welcome that.
It would be squandering some good opportunity if, while we have the Canada Council here talking about its work and its annual report, we would be so short-sighted as not to take advantage of some of the ideas that might come from the council on national unity.
With us is Roch Carrier, the director of the Canada Council; Donna Scott, the chair; and David Hendrick, the secretary-treasurer.
As is our wont, Donna Scott, we'll hear your opening presentation and then we'll open it up to questions.
Ms Donna Scott (Chair, Canada Council): It is truly a pleasure for us to appear before you and to have the opportunity to discuss matters that we all care about deeply.
I join with Roch Carrier and David Hendrick, our secretary-treasurer, in wishing the standing committee all the best in its vitally important work. I assure you of our utmost cooperation at all times.
Our appearance before you today is a unique one. As well as being asked to justify our use of taxpayers' dollars as is elaborated upon in our annual report, we are here because of the committee's new mandate, which is to study Canadian unity and identity. In fact, you have asked us to help find answers to, one, how our fragmented nation can better communicate; two, how its peoples and regions develop a better awareness of each other; and three, how to celebrate the common values, aspirations, and pride that bind us together as a country.
What, you might ask, have Canadians left to celebrate and take pride in, now that our national sport is dominated by U.S. teams and the Grey Cup, minus a Montreal club, was won by a team from Baltimore? Well, the Summer Olympics are coming and perhaps with them some magic moments when we shall forget our regional and linguistic hang-ups and cheer for a Canadian gold medal.
But the question remains: what have Canadians left to celebrate? The council's answer is simple and serves the double purpose of justifying the taxpayers' dollars the council spends - again, fully elaborated upon in our annual report.
Our answer: Canadians do and can celebrate our stars and heroes in the arts world, and so we should. We cherish and take pride in our creators, writers, artists, performers, actors, singers, dancers, and artisans and in the galleries, museums, theatres, arts centres, symphonies, ballets, and performing groups, small and large, in communities everywhere in Canada. We celebrate our cultural stars, local and national: the Canadian film or TV show that makes it, the English- or French-language bestsellers muscling out books from the U.S., Britain, or France at the top of the list, the radio programs like Gzowski and Marie-France Bazo, their daily programs on CBC-Radio Canada that thrive on our cultural accomplishments, arts channels like Bravo! that showcase our talent.
Yes, Quebeckers celebrate with us and with international audiences the world-class excellence of such organizations as their own Montreal Symphony and the Royal Winnipeg Ballet.
God knows, we need something to celebrate, something solidly Canadian that will outlive us. I dare say that Denys Arcand's films, Carol Shields' books, Evelyn Hart's dancing, E.J. Pratt's poems, the Canadian Opera Company, the Théâtre du nouveau monde, W.O. Mitchell's stories - currently being made into a TV series - Leonard Cohen's songs, Antonine Maillet, Michel Tremblay and Bruno Gerussi will be celebrated by our children.
.1115
I'd also like to make a comment about James Ehnes, a young man from Brandon who is one of the world's outstanding young violin virtuosi. He was supported by the Canada Council and is playing all over, right now, on the Stradivarius violin from the Canada Council's music bank.
For nearly 40 years the Canada Council has acted as a national instrument to build, painstakingly, often thanklessly, and sometimes almost anonymously, this superb cultural structure, which marks and defines Canada and which provides us all with so much pride and enjoyment.
The Canada Council is a subject of much envy in the United States and elsewhere, but we can be dangerously misunderstood and unappreciated here at home. It is so easy, for instance, for consumers, audiences, even governments, to forget that the Canada Council has been there to jump-start and support every single artist and organization I have mentioned so far and to assist not only the national arts organizations we read about, like Shaw and Stratford, but to make sure that the farm teams are thriving, the smaller theatres and music and dance groups in communities like Lethbridge and Rimouski.
These communities take such pride and joy and provide stepping stones for musicians, singers, dancers, designers and composers.
For half a century, Canadians have endorsed our determined mission to promote the development of the arts and cultural industries in all provinces, wherever they take root or get their inspiration. The fact of great disparity of opportunity for creativity in regions and provinces has meant that the task supersedes the capabilities of any provincial government, as does the need for cultural defence against the muscular cultural production flooding north from the United States.
Cultural equalization and defence has been a national priority and has the support of the vast majority of Canadians for remaining so.
Let's agree that one of the distinguishing characteristics of Canada, including Quebec, is our shared distaste for homogenizing, chauvinistic nationalism, whether political or cultural, any nationalism that is exclusive, that shuts out any voices. No, we revel in our rich diversity and we are increasingly defined by it.
Quebec and the rest of Canada are societies enriched by waves of immigrants, and it is inevitable that among today's generation of star talent that the council supports are their richly textured voices and unusual abilities. Roch will have more to say about this in a few minutes.
The positive challenge for this country is to continue to support and celebrate artistic talent wherever it is found in Canada, expressions that reflect the way Canada is, and then to build bridges of cultural understanding between the two major language groups with our first peoples and among the ethnically and regionally diverse population that is Canada.
Through our extensive touring programs, through translation programs, through our regionally and linguistically mixed juries, who decide independently who gets our grants and awards, the Canada Council enhances a fuller understanding and awareness of each other. Above all, in a time when so many national symbols are weakened and when we seem so beset by problems of nationality, we assist in the creation of common, enduring cultural expressions we can all celebrate.
.1120
The free-spending 1970s and 1980s have faded into some long-vanished dreamscape. That's why the first action of our board over a year ago was to develop a strategic plan. In it we pledged and are on track to reduce administrative costs by nearly 50%, thus, for the moment at least, protecting our grants' budgets.
We also set out very clear priorities, one of which is to regroup and strengthen the council's programs of dissemination and distribution of the arts in all regions of Canada and to provide support to presenters and promoters of the arts who work to make the arts more available to Canadians. We are indeed very serious about building new, well-engineered, multi-lane bridges of cultural understanding among Canada's many communities.
Now I'd like to ask my colleague, Roch Carrier, to explain in more detail just how the council will help Canadians communicate better with each other.
Thank you.
Mr. Roch Carrier (Director, Canada Council): Mr. Chairman and members of the standing committee,
[Translation]
I join with Donna Scott in wishing the Standing Committee well in its important work. We are honoured to have this opportunity to discuss the activities described in our annual report.
When I first arrived at the Council 18 months ago, the federal government was in the midst of program review and deep changes were pending. As an artist, I was always demanding, just as my colleagues were, that the Canada Council change, that it be more responsive to our needs.
Now I found myself in the uncomfortable position of Director of that same institution, charged with implementing major administrative changes and budget reductions. These in-depth changes are certainly a result of the new fiscal situation, but also and more particularly, they are a consequence of the vision of the Council expressed in our strategic plan.
[English]
The council's board and management determined that we must have a strategic plan to enable us to not only deal with the budgetary situation, but more important, to position the council for the future and to articulate a clear vision of the council's role, which we would implement with efficiency, effectiveness and transparency.
In developing its strategic plan, the council looked closely at all of its programs and operations with a view to strengthening its role as an essential national vehicle for the support of growth and development in the arts in Canada. We decided to concentrate our support on arts organizations and individual artists and to focus on three elements of the artistic continuum: creation, production and dissemination. Our future grant allocations will be adjusted to reflect these priorities.
With the plan, the council has made every effort to maintain the level of its grant budget. The government's February 1995 budget reduced the council's appropriation by 2.5% and indicated there would be further reduction in the two following years.
The council is implementing this reduction by reducing its administrative budget by $7 million, nearly 50%, over three years, with an immediate drop in staff of about 30%. Barring further sudden changes to the council's parliamentary appropriation, no major cuts to its granting budget would be required to meet our objectives.
.1125
We began the planning process a year ago by consulting artists across the country and visiting seventeen cities. Some artists were not very happy with the prospect of budget cuts and told the chair and me that our sole job was to go back to Ottawa and secure more funding for the arts.
We had some difficult meetings. However, we also received many important ideas and insights. Above all we were told again and again by artists from large and small communities in all parts of the country, including Quebec, that the Canada Council is vitally important to them and they want it to continue to work.
Why is this? Is it just the funding? In theory, granting programs could be delivered by any level of government, and all provinces and territories and many cities now have programs to support the arts. We believe the council represents more than just a source of funding dollars, important as this function is, and many smaller funding bodies look to the Canada Council for leadership in some of the broader issues.
Many artists are active in their communities and derive their inspiration from the surrounding environment. However, they also want their work to become known beyond the boundaries of their province or territory and to develop networks nationally and internationally. Only the council is in a position to help them broaden their horizons.
Furthermore, by investing over the years in the best arts organizations, theatre and dance companies, film cooperatives, publishers, public galleries and artists' centres, the council has supported the essential process of showcasing artists' work to the broader public. We have enhanced Canada's reputation abroad by encouraging international activities in literature and visual arts and some touring.
[Translation]
But, more important, by respecting and investing in the cultural ecology of Canada, from the grassroots up, the Council is contributing to Canada's understanding of what our nation is really about, and helping to build strong cultural bridges and links. How do we do this? First of all, when artists apply to the Council, they are competing in a national context with other artists from across Canada in a rigourous process of peer review which equalizes opportunity and seeks to recognize and reward excellence and merit, no matter where it occurs.
The Council's system of national juries brings together artists and professionals from different regions and territories. These artists have as a mission to recognize excellence amongst their peers.
[English]
The council's programs take Canada as it is, a huge regionalized country with a small population, two major languages and people of many different cultural backgrounds, therefore a small market for cultural works. It should be understood that when a book is published, for example, in Toronto, one part of the country cannot have access to that book, and vice-versa if the book is published, for example, in Quebec.
The council supports theatres, music groups, public galleries and publishers in every province, which are often the centrepieces of the communities they serve. At the same time, we assist internationally recognized Canadian arts organizations, which, although they do a masterful job selling tickets and fund-raising, still require a degree of public to try to help them grow.
.1130
Finally, the council helps these individuals and groups bring their work to a wide public through programs such as touring, dissemination, and translation of books. This is where we build the bridges of enjoyment and enlightenment for all kinds of audiences, from one end of the country to the other, to share the expression of one part of Canada with the other. The council is the only organization that has consistently and successfully supported this seminal activity.
Let me give you an idea of just how extensive this work is. Look at our record in assisting the two language groups to appreciate each other's authors. In 23 years the council's book translation program has assisted the translation of 1,455 books. This includes fiction, poetry, drama, children's books, and non-fiction. Of this grand total, 708 were translations from French into English, and 723 were translations from English to French. The remaining 24 titles were translated from other languages into English or French.
What is significant about these numbers is that French Canadian readers are reading at least as many translations from English Canada as English Canadians are reading from French Canada. The council's program made this possible.
The council's touring office fulfils a similar role on a much broader scale. It was lodged in 1973 with the objective of ensuring that as many Canadians as possible enjoy the work of Canadian artists and companies. In the 1970s it sent Madame Maureen Forrester on tour to Atlantic Canada, for example. The annual tours of the three major ballet companies, the National Ballet, Les Grands Ballets Canadiens, and the Royal Winnipeg Ballet, have brought ballet to communities throughout Canada. During the tour of consultation, we were told how those tours were appreciated in cities outside of Toronto, Montreal and Winnipeg.
Another example is that the Rankin Family from Nova Scotia received touring support early in their career for a tour to western Canada. I could mention Rita MacNeil too.
Without the modest contribution to the costs associated with bringing these artists and others into communities across this vast country, many communities would never have access to these artists. In 1993-94 the 130 tours assisted by the touring office brought music, theatre, and dance to almost 700,000 people in Canada.
[Translation]
It was because the Council recognizes the importance of providing opportunities for Canadians in all regions to experience the work of Canadian artists, that it determined in its Strategic Plan to make distribution of the arts a priority, and to increase the resources for these activities in performing arts, visual and media arts, and distribution of Canadian literature. We have talked about the past.
What about the future? There has been much discussion in recent months on the challenges that Canadians face in competing effectively on the global Information Highway. Most of the reports talk about the desperate need for Canadian content, for a content that reflects us, a content that describes us, that presents us. In fact, the Council has been addressing the issue of artistic content for a numer of years. In 1983, the Council showed great foresight in creating a new media program which assists artists working with new technologies.
.1135
The Council is now the only national funder for artist-driven works in new technologies.
[English]
In 1983 the council showed great foresight in creating a new media program, which assists artists working with new technology. The council is now the only national founder for artist-driven works in new technologies.
[Translation]
When we talk about new media artworks, we are referring to an art practice that integrates computers, telecommunications and/or audio-visual technologies. All disciplines have been affected or will be...profoundly. As the new technologies become more omnipresent, we see more and more blurring of the traditional distinctions between disciplines.
[English]
Recent Canada Council projects include an artist on-line network, a publishing project on the Internet, various multimedia creations, software systems development, an on-line literary café originating in Victoria, B.C., a virtual film festival, installation, and other electronic art works. These projects and others engage artists in exploring, appreciating, and critiquing relationships with the new technology. More promisingly, they shrink the vast distances that separate individual creators and new audiences in Canada and abroad and allow them to share their creations.
Because of our geography Canada has long been a leader in telecommunications and technological innovation. Our artists are also at the cutting edge of the innovative use of this technology, in both creation of content and dissemination. So we must not rest on our accomplishments in traditional cultural expression. We must continue to pioneer and develop new media arts talent for the information highway and the 500-channel interactive communication system of tomorrow. The possibilities that present themselves are truly exciting.
I might add that new technologies present excellent opportunities for partnerships with private sector organizations. One of the goals of our strategic plan is to build partnerships with groups and individuals in support of the arts. The council is an excellent mechanism for private donors to express their appreciation for the arts. The Canada Council can provide them with a national profile.
Finally, in our strategic plan the council made a commitment to build arts audiences, an awareness of the arts among the public and young people. We plan to be advocates for the arts and champion the artist's place in society and the value of public investment in the arts. I am pleased to see that the standing committee's mandate includes the word ``celebrate''. As Donna said some minutes ago, I believe Canada has a great deal to celebrate when it comes to achievements in the arts.
After nearly 40 years of being in the business of discovery and promotion of excellence and merit whatever it occurs in Canada, we look back on a remarkable record. Consider the first generation of artists who received support, often very early in their careers, from the council in its first 20 years. They include such sterling names of Canadian literature as Margaret Atwood, Marie-Claire Blais, Yves Thériault, Anne Hébert, Alain Grandbois, and Hugh MacLennan; the great ballerinas Karen Kain, Victoria Tennant, and Teresa Stratas; Louis Quilico, who went to sing at the Metropolitan Opera; orchestra conductor Mario Bernardi; classical guitarist Liona Boyd; theatre artist John Hirsch; Jean Louis Roux; Kate Reid; William Hutt; visual artist Alfred Pellan; Tony Onley; and Jack Shadbolt.
.1140
I could add that when my kids were growing up there were no Canadian books for children; 25 years later Canada is one of the great exporters of children's books. We developed markets, we developed illustrators, we developed writers for kids. It's a great accomplishment.
[Translation]
And now we are into the second generation to receive recognition and support. Who do they include? Edmonton writer Greg Hollingshead who recently won the Governor General's Award; Regina's Edward Poitras, the first Native artist to be presented at the world-famous Venice Biennale; composer Alexina Louie from Vancouver; dancer Zab Maboungon; a new generation of writers who are making their mark internationally such as Nino Ricci, Rohinton Mistry, Tomson Highway, Guillermo Verdecchia; film-maker Atom Egoyan; film-maker and writer Herménégilde Chiasson; Montreal visual artist Angela Grauerholz, who was at Dokumenta in Germany.
In recent years Québec's artists have had a seminal influence at home and abroad in many art forms including theatre, dance, and visual and media arts. They include Gilles Maheu, founder of Carbone 14, Edouard Locke's La La La Human Steps, Robert Lepage, René-Daniel Dubois, Marie Chouinard, le Nouvel Ensemble moderne. You will be hearing much more about these artists and many others in years to come.
Finally, and I will conclude with this, as for the third generation, I don't know myself yet who they will be. There will of course continue to be superb practitioners of traditional art forms, and increasingly, there will be young men and women who surf the Internet, create new forms of expression in media we hardly understand right now, and are capable of sharing these experiences with people around the world. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. We really appreciate your presentation. Now we're going to go to the first round of questioning.
Mr. Hanrahan, you have the privilege and the honour of being the lead-off hitter.
Mr. Hanrahan (Edmonton - Strathcona): Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen, for your excellent presentations. Again, we've received an awful lot of material that we have to digest very quickly, so if some of these questions seem somewhat simple, please excuse the level. We haven't really had any time to delve into this.
There are a couple of things I want to deal with. First of all, I'm looking at your exhibit 3, ``Canada Council Support to the Arts by Province'', which is in this document, ``Canada Council Presentation to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage: Background Exhibits''.
Now, when you were giving your presentation, Mr. Carrier, you said the criteria for selection of artists to receive grants from the Canada Council were in terms of excellence and ability and so forth. What consideration, if any, is given to the regions or the provinces?
Mr. Carrier: The question of the regions has been a discussion that has lasted since the council started doing its work. So it's always there, it's always a preoccupation. We have to be fair. The centre should not be too strong.
.1145
To address that problem, Canada Council - it's a tradition at the council - tries to have a jury representing, as much as possible, the country, regions, sexes, disciplines, and the different orientations in the disciplines. We try to have fair juries, because the other one, with the mission of looking through the piles of applications, is looking for the best one. So the first criterion is excellence, but the problem of the regions is addressed by Canada Council by trying to have the fairest possible juries.
Mr. Hanrahan: I guess my next question would be this. If your criteria of excellence is your dominant concern, which I would agree with, then what would regions, sex, and the selection of juries have to do with art and excellence? In other words, say you have a brilliant artist in Nova Scotia. You've already given 10% of your budget to Nova Scotia but only 1% to British Columbia. Would excellence predominate, or would you then have to weigh in the other areas? It's a tough question, I know. I don't know if there really is an answer.
Mr. Carrier: It's a tough question, I recognize that, but I must repeat again that if we have a fair, well-balanced jury, then excellence would be recognized, whatever it is.
Mr. Hanrahan: My next question is in terms of cost. I've looked through your budget quickly but it's just too much to integrate. Could you give me a rough estimate in terms of the spending of Canada Council, how much goes to administration and how much goes to the artist?
Mr. Carrier: I will answer that one, but after that, I will ask Dave to help me.
When Donna and I were appointed, we were very soon concerned about knowing the cost of our administration. So we did some research. We found it was about 20%. Dave will give you the precise figure. We estimated it was quite costly to administer our organization. We had discussions and reflections. We went through the operation of writing the strategic plan. We came to the conclusion that we should bring the cost of our management from 21% to 11%, something like that. That's what we're trying to do.
But Dave could be more precise than I.
Mr. Hanrahan: I think 21% to 11% is what I read in there.
A voice: It's from 22% to 12%.
Mr. Hanrahan: Okay, 22% to 12%. That reduction is being caused essentially by the reduction in the grant from the government, I understand. Am I correct in assuming that administration is taking the total hit of that $7 million reduction, yet grants to artists remain essentially constant?
Mr. Carrier: Yes.
Mr. Hanrahan: Excellent.
I have a third question. It runs all through your presentation, which was excellent. I'm looking more at the concrete evaluation of programs in terms of cost-effectiveness. Again, it's very hard to tell, when somebody watches a play, sees a work of art, or whatever, whether they got $20 of enjoyment out of it or $100 enjoyment out of it, or whatever.
Do you have some kind of financial evaluation of the projects you sponsor? If you send a touring group out to present a program across the country and the revenues from that indicate that very few people ever showed up to see it, do you then say, well, let's look at why that was, and ask how you can improve Canadians' appreciation of what your jury has found to be worthwhile?
.1150
Mr. Carrier: To give you the best answer I will ask Anne Valois to reply. She is responsible for the touring section at the Council.
Ms Anne Valois (Touring and Dissemination, Canada Council): My name is Anne Valois and I'm responsible for the touring aspect of what the council does, plus strategic initiatives.
In recent years the council has decided to put some emphasis on a revisiting of all touring activity precisely to look at attendance figures and to weigh the merits of the tours. In terms of revisiting requests in subsequent years, we also have the opportunity to look back over those statistics. It also allows us to develop new initiatives in terms of audience development opportunities we might create in program design. So in answer to your question, yes, we are evaluating the impact of the investment.
The Chair: And we're out of time on this round, Mr. Hanrahan, but you'll have another crack at it.
Before we turn to Mr. Ianno, I have a question. As you know, we and people all around the country, I guess, are preoccupied with national unity these days. Is the Canada Council preoccupied with national unity?
Do you, in the course of your work, make efforts to single out projects and works that in your opinion would contribute to national unity or do you just make the assumption that all the work you do and all the support you give contributes to national unity in one way or the other? In other words, it gives Canadians an opportunity to express themselves, to reflect one to the other.
How would you answer that question?
Ms Scott: No, we don't think about national unity in our day to day work of giving grants to artists and arts organizations. We do however, feel...it's the key part that Anne just spoke about and it's in our strategic plan. We believe Canadians can celebrate the cultural life of the country. It is one of those things, like parks and loons, that we all love and celebrate. Because of that we determined we would only increase our funding to and be more particular about those kinds of cultural activities that we could take to a broader Canadian audience.
So one of our new goals, which we're moving toward in every way with reorganization of programs, reorganization of staff and so on, is to see to it that all the good things we spoke about in our remarks are more broadly shared by by all Canadians.
I think that is the answer to your question. We believe the answer is that the celebration of the cultural excellence, the enjoyment, the pleasure, the pride that our cultural life gives us is shared nationally and we are determined that people from all parts of Canada will be able to enjoy the cultural treasures of our company in a bigger way. The cultural treasures are not only for people who live in major centres.
Mr. Carrier: Mr. Chairman, may I add something to that? During the consultation tour, all over the country artists from all kinds of provinces told us it's important to have a national institution like the Canada Council to keep the standards national and to help them to compete with each other and with the best.
We were also told how it would be important for the population to see the work of the artists. Our recommendation and the strategy plan to put more resources into dissemination come exactly from what we learned during the tour.
.1155
On a more personal level, I should mention one of the fringe benefits of the Canada Council. We were talking about juries. The juries will come from all over the country - Quebec, New Brunswick - and they will spend a few days together. They will discuss applications, they will discuss art. You build friendships, and not only do you build friendships, you build a knowledge of the country.
We have, for example, small reading programs under which the writers travel across Canada. They are paid - I think it's $200 - to give a reading. It's a great experience for every one of the writers who does it, and it's also a great experience for the audience when they listen to a Quebec voice, a Nova Scotia voice, and so on. So this is one of the fringe benefits.
Just a few days ago, shortly after the referendum, we had the ceremony for the Governor General's Literary Awards. We saw writers coming from all over the country, suddenly talking together and discovering each other.
That's a very important fringe benefit. I'm not talking about...[Inaudible - Editor]...program. We should mention our touring activities.
So in a way, I think we are doing quite a good job in showing Canada to Canadians, and our only wish is to improve what we are doing.
The Chair: There's no doubt we have to improve. Our referendum result was too close.
Mr. Ianno.
Mr. Ianno (Trinity - Spadina): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for presenting. First of all, I would like to commend you on some of the innovative things you are doing in terms of getting to the modern age, in terms of the Internet, etc. It's something that's very positive.
What I'm curious about is more towards your entrepreneurial spirit. Let me start off with the numbers. I notice you're saying the administrative costs.... I guess last year the reduction was roughly $2.5 million from the government. Is that right?
Ms Valois: Yes.
Mr. Ianno: I notice you indicted that over a three-year period the administration costs would go from $22 million to $12 million. Does last year's budget give an indication of what next year's reduction is to be in terms of government appropriations?
Ms Scott: The answer is both yes and no, but perhaps....
Mr. Ianno: The reduction of $10 million over the three years will cover that, I gather.
Ms Scott: That is unknown at this point, but I would like to make another point, if I may. Whether or not the allocation from the government had been reduced, it was felt that 22% of our costs was much too high.
Mr. Ianno: When was that realized?
Ms Scott: That was done in strategic plan work that the senior staff and the board did together.
Mr. Ianno: When was that?
Ms Scott: That was done starting in July 1994, culminating in the announcement of this in March 1995.
Mr. Ianno: So it's the chicken and the egg, which one came first?
Ms Scott: I would say we -
Mr. Ianno: That's fine, I got the general gist.
I noticed in your announcement, or speech, at the Governor General's Literary Awards that you also talked about the tax system and how government should allow you to get moneys, again going back to the tax credit system or whatever system would best suit your needs. My understanding is that through the endowment account and all the rest you already have a venue of that nature. Is that not correct?
Ms Scott: We have an investment committee that manages the investment funds that started up the Canada Council, yes.
Mr. Ianno: That's the original one.
Ms Scott: Yes.
Mr. Ianno: How about some of the endowments - the Killam account and some of the others - that are mentioned in here?
Ms Scott: Yes, those were the Izaak Walton Killam and Sir James Dunn estates, which the government of the day used to fund and establish the Canada Council.
Mr. Ianno: Those were the same one...that were for the 1957?
Ms Scott: That's right.
Mr. Ianno: Okay. How about Petro-Canada, and some of the other funds you are getting?
Ms Scott: That's a very interesting question. I'd be more than happy to elaborate if we had more time. We get prizes from a lot of individual companies - Petro-Canada, Bell Canada, etc. We get the Chalmers family award and so on.
.1200
So what Roch was referring to in his remarks is that the Canada Council is an excellent place to administer prizes to artists, because of our expertise in jurying and the fact that we're arm's length, and all of that good stuff.
Mr. Ianno: It sees the prizes are to those who need, so that we can continue the voting?
Ms Scott: These prizes are indeed juried, and given according to excellence.
Mr. Ianno: I guess with the Canada Council...since you took pride in stating that you helped many of the artists at the initial stages.
Similar to the government getting out of, I hope, giving moneys to business, those that are successful, I'm also looking to see how the Canada Council is going to be spending its energies and its moneys on promoting especially those who are starting out so that, in effect, they become self-sustaining through your help and their own initiative and good work, as compared with solely giving prizes to those who may not need it.
Ms Scott: Well, I think probably it would be more appropriate if Roch spoke to this, but we have, of course, programs at the council that are designed to help the young emerging artist. We had a whole section that was called Explorations, and another called Arts Awards.
Mr. Ianno: What is the total amount of the two?
Ms Scott: David, could you...?
Mr. David Hendrick (Secretary-Treasurer, Canada Council): It's $16 million.
Mr. Ianno: Is it every year that you give out $16 million on that basis?
Mr. Hendrick: Sorry; it's $13 million every year.
Mr. Ianno: I know my time is limited, so I'm going to ask you a couple of other questions.
I notice some of the things you're doing, and some of it's good - in terms of the Bank of Montreal with the literary awards, and so on. How are you partnering with the private sector so that your administration is working towards getting sponsors for the various projects, more so than you're already doing? How are you working on that? Are you doing anything with it at all?
Ms Scott: Well, I certainly can tell you that as part of our restructuring we indeed are identifying all the prizes. We are looking to clarify, in one area of the council, their mandates, their rationale, and their financing, and indeed aggressively to try to find more.
Mr. Ianno: So with the prizes, what is the amount you give out? Not the initial...that we talk about $13 million in terms of the excellence.
Mr. Hendrick: I'm not sure what the total is for the prizes. I'd have to check and give that to you.
Mr. Ianno: Are they $1 million, $10 million...?
Mr. Hendrick: It's several million dollars.
Mr. Ianno: Hopefully you'll find companies that will substitute and therefore allow you to use your money in other methods.
Ms Scott: That is one of our missions right now, yes, indeed. You're onto something very important.
Mr. Ianno: How are you working with the CBC so that the government's money is being utilized especially so that the good works of a lot of the artists you help and work with are shown across the country, and in effect, it's not just touring dollars but also exposure so that they can benefit in many different ways?
Ms Scott: I know of one program, certainly, in Nova Scotia, which is a collaborative with CBC Radio. It is very important for music groups.
Mr. Ianno: When you say ``someone in Nova Scotia'', is that part of the Canada Council or is that just a private -
Ms Scott: That person is assisted by the Canada Council.
Mr. Ianno: But what are you doing as Canada Council to encourage that and use your administrative strength to solve proactively some of these problems?
Mr. Carrier: I think the effects of the work of the Canada Council are very well shown on the CBC, because many of the artists producing at the CBC were at some time -
Mr. Ianno: I understand that part.
Mr. Carrier: Now, you probably know the CBC is undergoing quite severe cuts.
Mr. Ianno: Which means great opportunity for the Canada Council.
Mr. Carrier: What they are doing we were doing last year, and we have almost finished. I think there is a great understanding in the Canada Council, the National Arts Centre and those national organizations, that we have to work together. I think you will see the leadership of those organizations getting together and putting resources -
Mr. Ianno: But do you have a strategic plan already in place?
Mr. Carrier: You're faster than we are. It's quite a long process. We've explained to you what we did. We cut costs -
Mr. Ianno: I understand that.
Mr. Carrier: - and we had to lay off people. We are now reviewing our programs. When everybody is ready, I think it will be very fast. But to address your question, no, we don't have precise plans today.
The Chair: You're out of time, Mr. Ianno. Be very brief.
Mr. Ianno: In terms of artistic content and in regard to magazines that many of the artists participate in, what is your criterion in terms of considering that you take into account creation, production and dissemination on your funding allocation, as you stated in your mandate? How does that come about?
.1205
Mr. Carrier: We made a study of our politics and our policy and criteria on and how we are funding magazines. It's not completed yet, but we had to review this.
It's very rich. On the other side there might be some duplications, so we are working on that dossier.
Mr. Ianno: When might you have a decision on that?
Mr. Carrier: It should be very close, some months from now. I think at the end of January we should be quite close.
The Chair: We'll have to stop it here. Thank you.
Mr. Peric, you have five minutes.
Mr. Peric (Cambridge): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms Scott, on page six, in the second half of your first paragraph, you say:
- ...then to build bridges of cultural understanding between the two major language groups, with
our first peoples, and among the culturally and regionally diverse population that IS Canada.
Ms Scott: The reference there is primarily to -
Mr. Peric: Non-English, non-French, non-....
Ms Scott: - the new Canadians.
Mr. Peric: Why don't you use that, ``new Canadians''?
Ms Scott: I don't know why I didn't, actually. I think there comes to be terms that we use -
Mr. Peric: Which is wrong.
Ms Scott: We also have two secretariats at the Canada Council. One is for first peoples, and the other is what we consider to be for the ethnic population.
Mr. Peric: I'm Canadian by my choice. I'm neither French nor English nor native. I am a Canadian. So don't consider me as an ethnic.
Ms Scott: I see. Thank you.
Mr. Peric: I have a couple of questions here.
Mr. Carrier: Can I speak a word on that? I think you should go to the strategic plan. At page 16 of the strategic plan, you will find what the council wants to do about what we call ``culturally diverse communities''.
Mr. Peric: Then use it as culturally diverse communities. If you want to be that organization that will pull Canadians together and foster Canadianism, then don't create that third or artificial Canadian group. By my choice I'm a Canadian.
Mr. Carrier: Yes. I must tell you that from those communities we receive two very different and parallel messages. Sometimes it's, yes, we need something special in order to have access; we need a special door to have access, and to start, and to join the stream. At the same time it will be said, no, we don't want to be ghettoized.
We really tried to avoid those two extremes in the plan.
Mr. Peric: I hope you're going to be successful.
Could you explain to me the composition of the jury and how much they cost? How many applications do you receive per year? Do you spend your budget, and by when?
Ms Scott: I believe, Roch, you and David should answer those questions.
Mr. Carrier: Perhaps David can get the average cost, because every jury is -
Mr. Peric: How is your jury composed?
Mr. Carrier: It depends a lot on the different disciplines, on the different programs. There is a lot of variety. The principle is, we try to be fair.
Sometimes we have three people, and sometimes we have five people. Sometimes they would come from very faraway areas. Sometimes the area would be different. That's why it's difficult to evaluate the cost.
Mr. Peric: How often do they meet?
Mr. Carrier: It depends again on the program. For example, we used to have around 100 different programs. For each of them, you have to bring at least once, sometimes two times, sometimes three times. What we did with the management was to streamline those programs. We brought the 100 to 48. So those programs will be a little more open. We will save on the juries and the administration by doing so.
.1210
Mr. Peric: But I remember from my own experience, when I looked at your application form I saw a note that the jury meets twice a year. Is that so?
Mr. Carrier: Sometimes. It depends on the disciplines and the program.
Mr. Hendrick: There were two questions. The first question was about the cost of the juries. The jury costs to Canada Council are a little over $2 million.
The second question was whether we expense that in the course of the year. Yes, our financial year is the same as the government's. It runs from April 1 to March 31. Those expenses of $2 million will be paid over the course of that fiscal year.
The Chair: Perhaps we can pursue this line of questioning in a few minutes.
Mr. Hanrahan and then Mrs. Gaffney.
Mr. Hanrahan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's frustrating with the amount of time we have, but that's reality.
I just want to get back to this jury issue. Essentially we have the arts community here, the Canadian public there, and the jury in between kind of filtering what, in its best expertise, is appropriate for grants from the Canada Council.
Let me ask you this. I don't want you to take a long time answering it because of the time. I have a second question that I think is equally important.
What, in your opinion, would happen if we didn't have a Canada Council or the jury? What if we just simply let our artists go out, say ``This is what I do'', and let the public decide what it likes and whether it will attend a concert, observe the art, or whatever? Is the Canada Council essential? Is this jury system essential?
Mr. Carrier: If we didn't have a committee to organize things in the city, for example, there would be a kind of disorder. You would want to have your path and I would want to have my path.
I think we are taking the Canada Council for granted. Places like the United States are strangling their National Endowment for the Arts, and a lot of people feel very sorry. In Mexico, for example, they are very proud of their culture and very nationalistic about their culture. They ask us about the jury and how it works. They want to do the same thing. It's a great system.
We have a tendency to take this organization for granted. It has supported a lot of talent. If one considers that talent in all fields is a real asset of a country, we have to do something. The Canada Council is an organization as necessary as the university system or the school system. We have to support it and help talent to grow.
Mr. Hanrahan: I think that's an area we could probably spend the afternoon on, but I'm going to pass on quickly.
I want to get back to the original purpose of our committee. The objective is to identify concrete means through which Canadians from all regions and all linguistic and cultural backgrounds can better communicate with one another, develop a fuller understanding and awareness of each other, celebrate common values, aspirations and pride which bind us together. It is groups such as yours that we are asking to come forward with suggestions on how we can do this.
Can you give us even three concrete suggestions to fulfil the objectives of our presence here?
Mr. Carrier: The first suggestion is to give us more resources for touring, for dissemination.
Mr. Hanrahan: But realistically we know that's not going to happen.
Mr. Carrier: I know it's not realistic, but there is a need and it will be supported by Canadians. There is a need to show Canadians that Canadians are interesting. There is a need to interpret Canada for Canadians. If we think of movies that we see, 97% of them are American. Around 57% of the books we are reading are foreign books. That's okay, I like foreign literature, but I think any other country would worry about those figures, which seem to us to be quite interesting. So we need to do more dissemination.
.1215
Mr. Hanrahan: Because we've spent much of our time this morning going through the Canada Council, its operations, its budget, and so forth, is there a body you have, even yourselves, whereby you could submit to us in some written form a document that would give your suggestions on the issue at hand?
Mr. Carrier: Yes.
Mr. Hanrahan: I think that would be of some assistance to us.
Mr. Carrier: We'd be happy and honoured to do that work.
Mr. Hanrahan: I would very much like to see what you have to say, because you do seem to play a very important role, although I'm not sure it's an essential role. However, as the system exists now, in terms of our mandate, bringing Canadians together, that essentially seems to be what you guys are all about. So I would really appreciate seeing on paper how your end of it can help us do that.
Thank you.
The Chair: Mrs. Gaffney.
Mrs. Gaffney (Nepean): The one disadvantage of coming in as number five on questions is that several of the questions have been asked.
In your comments, Ms Scott, you mentioned that the Canada Council is misunderstood at times, and I couldn't agree with that more. Maybe one of the reasons why is because no one understands what the Canada Council does.
A few months ago, I was one of 60 persons who were invited to the National Arts Centre for a round-table discussion, and I know someone from the Canada Council was there. Coopers & Lybrand has just come out with the report.
I know you have gone across the country and you've consulted with art groups, but the very people you're funding criticized what you were doing and thought you were acting unilaterally at that time.
Having been to the National Arts Centre round-table discussion and knowing that the museums in Ottawa are an example, as well as the Archives, and the National Arts Centre...no one seems to be connecting with each other. You're all acting independently of each other. I would like to hear from you why the arts community was opposed to how you conducted that review, and do you see the Canada Council as connecting more with the other national museums, archives, and whatever, here in the national capital region?
Ms Scott: First of all, yes, I do see more of that. There is very little formal structure for that to happen. I believe the director is on the board of the National Arts Centre, but I do not believe there is any other formalized structure to make what you're suggesting happen. I can tell you that we agree with you completely, and Roch and I both have made it our business to meet, talk to, and start to work with our colleagues in the other important national cultural organizations. Indeed, Roch and I have made a point, and did on our tour last year across Canada, of meeting with all of the provincial, and where they existed, municipal arts organizations, arts councils, and so on, because we absolutely believe we must work together.
However, I do think the first question you asked is one that is one of the major thrusts since the strategic plan. In that, we have said that the Canada Council is assuming the responsibility for an advocacy role, and in this we believe the council has been very good at talking to the arts community and so on but has failed to communicate with the public in terms of what we do, why we do it, and what it means.
.1220
In addition, we believe we should assume responsibility for being spokespeople for the arts community in this country. The result of all of that is a very concentrated and orchestrated advocacy program, where we expect to correct these shortcomings from the past.
So the answer is, yes, we are working, although it is of our own determination; nothing is structured so that Roch sits on the board of the CBC or I sit on the National Gallery's board. There is nothing like that. We are on our own initiatives doing it. We know most of the people. We have made an effort to know them. We believe in what you are saying.
Yes, we think there is a huge job for the Canada Council to do to see to it that people in our country are aware of the value of the Canada Council and what it all means to their everyday lives and to the lives of, of course, their children.
Mr. Carrier: You mentioned the National Archives. We have quite an interesting program with them, the reading after the Governor General's Awards. It is a very successful and interesting evening of reading in Ottawa.
I sit on the board of the National Arts Centre. We are talking of possible projects, but the Canada Council is already supporting some of the activities at the National Arts Centre. However, I agree we have to work in a more structured way.
Mrs. Gaffney: Do I have any more time?
The Chair: Only because you're nice.
Mrs. Gaffney: Thank you.
I want to follow up on something that you were talking about with regard to Canadian unity. We are trying to do something that is non-political, shall we say, from our committee's point of view, and yet when I think back to the recent referendum campaign in Quebec...and I can't remember the artist's name who presented the French side of the big production Mr. Parizeau had in regard to the question. This woman, in particular, had been a major recipient of Canada Council funding, and yet there she was on the ``yes'' side.
What did we do wrong whereby she did not see the importance of the federation, for example? There she was on the other side of the fence, even though she had been a wonderful recipient of Canada Council funds. I'm sure you know who I mean. I can't remember her name.
Mr. Carrier: I cannot speak for this person.
Mrs. Gaffney: How do we stop that kind of thing?
Mr. Carrier: All I can do is talk about myself and what the Canada Council did for me; it helped me to first learn about Canada. It helped me to visit Canada, it helped me to meet Canadians, and thanks to that experience I think I have a unique vision of my country, which I am trying to share as much as I can. Still, I cannot answer for that person.
Mr. Hanrahan: In your collective opinion, should that be stopped? Should we be giving grants to people who wish to break up the country?
Mr. Carrier: As I told you, the work of Canada Council is to support talent in Canada, whatever the region. We have to support excellence, and it's probably the best contribution we can do as Canadians.
Mr. Hanrahan: I am not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that if somebody is in favour of breaking the country up, that is not a criteria you would use in evaluating a grant?
Mr. Carrier: If we were to do what you are suggesting, then excellence would not be our main value. If we gave grants on the basis of political support, perhaps then if I am a Créditiste I cannot get a grant. If I gave support on the basis of moral values, again it is very difficult. The same applies if we were to give grants based on legal values. What Canada Council has been doing for years is to support excellence, whatever it is.
The Chair: Thank you. I think Mr. Ianno has another question, and then I'll have a question, and then maybe we'll let you go for lunch.
.1225
Mr. Ianno: Thank you. I guess what I was looking at... still back to the endowment fund. Is there $127 million in the endowment fund, or am I mistaken? This is on page 49.
Ms Scott: There are several funds, and we can get into the way they are managed and so on, but -
Mr. Ianno: How about the total? Can you tell me the total funds?
Mr. Hendrick: Let me start by saying the endowment started with $50 million, and as of the end of September of this year, it's worth $160 million.
Mr. Ianno: I noticed that the return this year was roughly 4% for the endowment fund and the Killam was 7.7%, and the previous year it was 15% for the endowment and 12.5% for the Killam. I gather that the expense of the investment portfolio management was, in 1994, $536,000, and in 1995, $516,000. Have you fired the portfolio managers, or what are you doing with them?
Mr. Hendrick: We haven't fired the portfolio managers. There are four different portfolio managers involved in investing -
Mr. Ianno: That's less than, I guess, the Canada savings bonds, right?
Mr. Hendrick: Yes, and their job is to invest as best they can on behalf of the council. Their performance is reviewed by a committee. In fact, we will be meeting this week to review the performance of the last quarter. We review performance quarterly.
We do ask them to do a couple of things. One is to invest equities, bonds, cash, those kinds of things; but they are also asked to provide moneys from their returns for the operations of the organization.
Mr. Ianno: I'm sorry, I didn't understand that last part.
Mr. Hendrick: They are asked to provide council with $7.5 million for operation; so in fact they are investing to generate growth, but they are also investing to generate some income as well for the operations of council.
Mr. Ianno: All right, but that doesn't change the 4% last year.
Mr. Hendrick: It doesn't change the performance. All I'm trying to explain to you is that they have two responsibilities. One is to invest for growth in equities and the other one is to invest for income to generate support for operations.
Mr. Ianno: So they did much better on the investment for income?
Mr. Hendrick: They are mixed. Their asset mix depends on what the income requirements are of the organization, and they have to take that into account when we ask them. What you are looking at in terms of the returns is also a reflection of what happened in the market in general over those last two fiscal years.
Mr. Ianno: I thought the market went up.
Mr. Hendrick: Last year?
Mr. Ianno: Yes.
Mr. Hendrick: We have to review that with them, and we have.
Mr. Ianno: I guess considering that Canada is in a deficit position, the reason you're being cut is that you seem to have a lot of money available to have room for error, and I'm just wondering what kind of message it's giving to many of the other organizations that are getting cut that don't have any endowment fund. I just want to bring that up for your meeting next week.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: I have a question and I guess it arises out of our concern for greater national unity in this country. As you know, one of the perceptions out there is that one of the barriers to better understanding and one of the barriers to national unity is the way we teach history.
In Quebec they teach Canadian history one way and in the other nine provinces history is told and expressed and written in a different way. This causes, at least in some people's minds, a greater difficulty in achieving the kind of national unity we want, because we really grow up in two solitudes. It is my understanding that you can, as part of your mandate, give financial support to professional historians. Would you consider giving greater support to professional historians who may want to tackle this particular issue so that we can have better understanding of our past and of our history?
I'm sure you're familiar with what I'm talking about, Mr. Carrier.
Mr. Carrier: I think I understand quite well what you're saying, since I've been taught that history, but I was careful enough to read more than what I was taught. I have another view now, and I would not recommend that council go in the direction you are suggesting.
.1230
The Chair: Why?
Mr. Carrier: Again, our principle is excellence. Somebody who has a project in history may apply to one of our book support programs, and then the project would be judged on its merit by peers. We have a small portion of our budget that goes to what we call non-fiction.
The Chair: In other words, if an excellent work submitted by a professional historian came your way, you would judge it according to merit and according to -
Mr. Carrier: Absolutely.
The Chair: That's fine. But I guess my question is, you don't live in a vacuum. You know the make-up of this country, you know some of the tensions, you know something of our history and you know something about our national unity problems. Are you suggesting that Canada Council, because of some kind of purity, would not want to address this problem, that you would not want to reach out to a professional historian who may be of excellent calibre, so that this kind of work can be done to create better understanding in the country? Are you people so pure, are you just so pure and so neutral and so objective and so non-political that you just couldn't touch this issue?
Mr. Carrier: I'm not talking about purity, or about being neutral, and I think we have proved as a team that we don't fear making the right decisions; we don't fear making any decisions. But I know that what has made Canada Council a great organization is its history of respecting this arm's length situation, and it has been a great organization because it sticks to its principle of supporting the best talent available and the best project, after a fair evaluation by a jury.
The Chair: Oh, I'm not suggesting that you change your standards; I'm not suggesting that. But there are all kinds of histories. There is the ``Quebec/rest-of-Canada'' history, which seems to be so inflammatory or so incendiary in this country.
For example, if someone came to you with, say, a proposed book on feminism or how women were treated in this country in the 19th century, perhaps you wouldn't think of that as some political quagmire just waiting for you to jump into; you might want to - particularly if it's good work - apprise Canadians of how women were treated in the 19th Century.
Mr. Carrier: If the project is good, or even if it's no good, it would be submitted to the jury, and the jury would make a recommendation based on the merit of the work. So if the word is out there, encouraging writers to write a storybook, they can apply to the council, and the project will be judged on its excellence or relative merit.
The Chair: Okay.
I appreciate your submission very much, and I want to thank you for coming. I hope you don't have to wait more than a year for your next appearance.
Colleagues, I don't want you to rush away, because we have a little bit of housekeeping that I hope can be done in just a few seconds.
I will let our witnesses go. I really appreciated your participation. Thank you.
Mr. Carrier: You're welcome.
Ms Scott: Thank you.
The Chair: Colleagues, we'll take a short break.
.1234
.1239
The Chair: [Technical Difficulty - Editor]...I didn't think it would be necessary to translate every piece of communication that comes to us, but I assure any member that if there is a letter in French and you want it in English it will be translated, or vice versa. If someone wants a particular brief or letter that was in English only translated, that will be done, but it won't be done as a matter of course unless it's requested.
Is that fair? Is there any particular -
Mr. Loney (Edmonton North): Mr. Chairman, is there some way we can get the presentations of the witnesses prior to the meeting so we can study them?
The Chair: You're not talking about just the national unity project. You're talking about all the presentations.
Mr. Loney: I am talking about all the presentations. For instance, I was ten minutes late this morning. I was detained. I couldn't help it. I was running ten minutes behind. If I don't have a chance to look at it I can't prepare proper questions. And for subjects in which which I do not have experience or background I have to study the entire text so I can formulate questions. I always seem to be at a loss. If there were some way they could get those presentations to us prior to our meeting we would have a chance to study them.
.1240
The Chair: I understand the staff always asks for submissions in both official languages and asks that we have them a number of days in advance, but it's not a perfect world and it just doesn't work out that way.
Mr. Hanrahan: I have two points. First, let's get back to the letters for a moment, but John, I know what you're saying and I want to get back to that too.
In regard to the letters, I concur with the chairman that it's not necessary to translate everything. I like the idea of a summary, but I also like the idea that it be as concise as possible. As a committee if we see an idea and it just jumps out at us and we say, ``Way to go, that's a good idea, '' then we get it translated.
The Chair: I think that's in the spirit of what I'm suggesting.
Mr. Hanrahan: Okay.
Now, in terms of what John is saying, I find it most frustrating that we are given this stuff when we walk in. I know it's not a perfect world, but I think we must have some control over our witnesses in order to really appreciate what they are saying. It's almost unfair to them that we do not have this beforehand because we're kind of zipping through this, trying to listen, sometimes in French, sometimes in English, and making up some questions as we go along. Surely we have the authority to ask that any presentation be submitted four to five days in advance.
The Chair: We do. We have the authority, but sometimes it's just simply not complied with. What do you do?
Mr. Hanrahan: Well, then, we don't hear them.
The Chair: That's difficult, too.
Tony.
Mr. Ianno: Like Hugh, I suggest that there are situations when it is very difficult for them to prepare, especially for the private citizens who have other businesses to run, etc. It's crisis management and last-minute. You can understand that.
But when you're dealing with Canada Council, if they give us this and they don't have it prepared - I'm sorry, the witness is gone, see you later, next week or two weeks from now, and we will request their presence later - but there's no excuse for getting this -
The Chair: The day of.
Mr. Ianno: The only reason I didn't say anything is that I thought possibly we might have received it in our office. I wasn't going to be the only one to say that I didn't prepare.
The Chair: Let's hope we can do a better job and -
Mrs. Gaffney: I think Danielle should relay those feelings to the Canada Council, that we were most disappointed.
The Chair: Okay.
I really appreciate that, Mr. Loney.
I have just one more item, and it has to do with money so sit up straight and listen attentively.
As you know, we don't have any budget for this national unity project. Before you jump off or jump through the nearest skylight, I'm not suggesting anything additional at this time. However, this project is really driven by good ideas. The better the ideas, the more successful this project will be. But getting good ideas depends on getting the message out there. As you know, we don't have $10 million or $1 million to buy newspaper ads and so on to tell all Canadians what we're doing. So far, we've relied to a great extent just on the media.
We have sent letters out to several hundred organizations in the last week. It's actually more. It's over 2,000. So we've gone through some databases to determine in advance the kinds of organizations we think might be interested in submitting ideas.
However, I would like to go one step further. There is something called the Canadian news-wire service, which includes newspapers, magazines and every kind of media outlet in this country. If we were to distribute our message through that system, it would cost about $2,000. We have a small budget right now. We started off with $10,000 and I think we have about $8,000.
The Clerk of the Committee: We only have $4,200. We just go for a supplementary.
An hon. member: Where did you spend the $6,000?
The Clerk: We arrived with $4,400.
The Chair: Pardon me?
The Clerk: There was just over $4,000 when you became chair.
The Chair: Oh, this is before Harvard took over.
The Clerk: Just for coffee and -
The Chair: Since I came, we haven't spent a nickel that I know of.
Anyway, I really think we should spend a couple of thousand dollars getting the message out to Canadians. If we don't do that, it may be very difficult to get the kinds of ideas we need. I'm just hoping and praying that will be enough.
.1245
Mr. Ianno: Before we do that could we come up with a strategy in terms of whether or not we are travelling at all?
The Chair: I personally haven't given any thought to that.
Mr. Ianno: I think it would be worthwhile. Again, it's not like I have well-thought-out ideas on this, but I think it would be worthwhile to travel across the country. If we did so -
The Chair: I agree with you on that -
Mr. Ianno: - then that can be part of the package. It's not that you say ``no'' to the $2,000. If we're going to the east - that is, if we're going to Newfoundland - we can let people there know and can start to do the mini-press conferences or press releases or whatever it happens to be. In effect, then, we're going along and are using that money wisely so that we're not doing it doubly.
The Chair: The only thing I would say to that, Tony, is that I think we need some strong evidence. We would have to go the Board of Internal Economy and convince them that this kind of money.... If you're talking about travelling, you're talking about tens of thousands of dollars. We would have to prove to them that we're really onto something. Until we get some very concrete ideas from across the country... Before we can go to the Board of Internal Economy to ask them to come up with that kind of money, we would need some strong evidence that Canadians really want to participate.
Mr. Ianno: Let me flip the coin. If you think of the consequences of what we've gone through and what we may go through, tens of thousands of dollars - if it's twenty or thirty - is still worthwhile if you somehow find solutions through this committee in any way, even if it adds only two or three potential solutions that will somehow reduce the threat overall.
Ms Guarnieri (Mississauga East): I am totally in support of what you say, but before a shift in support, we have to more or less have an idea of where it will land.
Mr. Ianno: I understand that, and it's part of what we have to do in terms of determining this.
Ms Guarnieri: We just wouldn't want to embark on a cross-country tour without having some sort of idea gelling in terms of what we want to achieve in doing it.
Mr. Ianno: I thought what we were basically trying to achieve was spelled out in our mandate, if you want to call it that. Am I wrong on that?
Ms Guarnieri: I guess what I'm saying is that we shouldn't have a journey into the unknown. If we're all of one mind as a committee, we should all understand where we'd like to end up at the end of the day.
The Chair: I would say this, Tony. If we spend a couple of thousand dollars in getting our message through a vast network of media, perhaps by the month of February we'll have a better understanding of where we're at. We're getting close to Christmas.
Mr. Ianno: I have no problem with that. All I'm getting at is that I'd prefer some of what Albina says and what you're saying. Perhaps we could do a session just on strategy in terms of what we want to accomplish, where we want to go, and how we want to do it. We can then make a determination on the $2,000. Instead of saying ``yes'' today, we can do it on Tuesday or Thursday of next week, after we've come up with whatever it is we believe we should be doing.
The Chair: Mrs. Gaffney.
Mrs. Gaffney: I think we as MPs can perform that role within our own ridings. If you stop to look at the numbers of MPs across this country, the only MPs who are not going to spread this unity issue in their ridings are the Bloc Québécois MPs. The rest of us are going to do it. We're going to be out there spreading this message. I've already done it in Nepean, John. I've taken your press release, the criteria, and the guidelines, and I have written my little newspaper article in Nepean. I've said, ``Please submit.'' I wish I had said for people to submit them to you, but unfortunately I said to submit them to me. I will, however, get those in to you people.
But once we, as MPs who support national unity - and I think the majority of us in the House of Commons do - get all that information through.... Maybe it should be just Quebec that we're going into. I don't know. I think we're ombudsmen. That's our role.
Ms Guarnieri: I have no objections, John, to the committee spending $2,000 if it feels it advances us in our objective.
The Chair: I just think we should get the message out as quickly as possible.
Ms Guarnieri: But the committee has already announced that we are studying the issue, and we should disseminate that in the best way possible. I don't have a problem with that.
The Chair: Hugh, you had something else to say?
.1250
Mr. Hanrahan: Yes. I would be very hard-pressed to agree to any kind of travel whatsoever. I concur with your first expenditure on the $2,000. We want to get the message out to as many people as possible.
Tony, the last time we looked at the CBC, you'll recall that we occasionally had the television screen with witnesses beamed over. Rather than have the eight or nine of us travel around the country at great expense, I think we should be looking at alternate, more fiscally responsible methods of bringing the witnesses to us.
The Chair: Okay. Can we, as an interim measure, at least agree on the $2,000? Then we'll take Mr. Ianno's suggestion very seriously. Maybe we can meet as a committee - I'm not exactly sure when - to refine our strategy. Is that fair?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Okay, that will be done. Thank you very much.
The meeting is adjourned.