CCA BULLETIN / BULLETIN DE LA CCA

CULTURE SNEAKS INTO THE LEADERS' DEBATES

CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT POSES THREAT TO BROADCASTING INDUSTRY, TO FREE EXPRESSION

Ottawa, June 16 th , 2004 - The long-awaited leaders' debates are now over, and the political endgame begins.  Although arts and culture were not given a specific question or time allotment in either the French or English debate, they did manage to sneak into the discussions on a couple of occasions.

During the French debate on Monday, journalist Patrice Roy asked a question regarding the federal government's role in supporting industry in the context of globalization.  At the end of his question, following a list of various industries (textiles, aeronautics, etc), he added: "If you will allow me, here I would ask you specifically about the cultural industry in Canada; are you prepared to provide it with the support it currently receives? "  CCA provides the following verbatim account of the exchange that ensued (CCA translation):

Jack Layton, NDP : "Support - aid - for cultural industries is indeed very, very important in order to have a strong, interesting culture."

Paul Martin, Liberal : "Regarding cultural industries, my reply is an unequivocal, absolute yes.  Our existence, our sovereignty, it really amounts to the cultural sovereignty of a country, of our industries.  We see it in Quebec; we see it in Acadie , and in the rest of the country.  We must support those industries which reflect ourselves, and our values."

Stephen Harper, Conservative : "First of all, there are no cuts to culture in our platform.  What I have promised is to give the Auditor General the power to review all funding, all such government programs.  Do these programs serve the interests of the general public, or just the interests of those friends of the Liberal party?"

Mr. Layton : "Mr Harper, why, you have said you would make huge cuts to RDI, to Radio-Canada, to the CBC.  Mr Martin has already done so; we know his policies on that subject.  You would do the same thing.  Would there be a major broadcasting industry in Canada after your work?"

Mr. Harper : "Let me outline my policies on this issue.  I would keep those services of CBC which are unique, including those for francophones outside Quebec."

Mr. Layton : "Such as 'La Soiree du Hockey'?"

Mr. Harper : "For those programs which are duplicates of commercial ones, we would end public support."

On Tuesday evening, during a debate with Paul Martin on the use of the notwithstanding clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Stephen Harper referred to one specific instance where he would sanction its use: "Let me give you an example of where the notwithstanding clause might be appropriate.  We have repeated decisions and acts of our government on trying to declare child pornography artistic merit or public good, court decisions that limit our ability to stop the dissemination of child pornography.  If I can't do it through ordinary legislation, I will do that if I have to protect the rights of children" .

CCA is displeased with Mr. Harper's comment and is concerned about his party's platform and his inconsistent public stance on the Charter rights guaranteed to all Canadians.  The Conservative Party clearly does not trust Canada's courts to rule on the difference between artistic freedom and protecting minors from actual harm and is sending the message that artists, who make creative works in good faith, can expect no legal protection from it.  Mr. Harper also displays his ignorance of the difference between works of the imagination and the real exploitation of children, even after his party supported the abolition of the "public good" defence in Bill C-12 in the last session of Parliament.

On the issue of freedom of expression, Megan Davis Williams, CCA's National Director, had the following letter to the Editor printed in The Toronto Star on Tuesday, the 15 th of June:

Artists also need Charter protection

Stephen Harper and his Conservative party are running on a platform where the only mention of art is in the context of removing the artistic merit defence from the Criminal Code of Canada in cases where works of the imagination are alleged to be "child pornography".

The legal defence of artistic merit, which has been upheld by Supreme Court decisions over many years, would continue to protect Canadians who make expressive works that do not fit the mainstream definitions of art.

How do Harper and his party reconcile amending laws to protect the freedoms of some Canadians (read, those who are affiliated with religious organizations that might speak against the right of lesbians and gays to marry), with curtailing that same freedom for Canada's creators?

The Charter is meant to protect all of us and cannot be withheld from a specific group like artists.

As a footnote, while Section 2 of Canada's Charter of Right and Freedoms guarantees all Canadians freedom of expression, the controversial "notwithstanding clause" in section 33 of the Charter can be used to suspend the Charter with respect to any particular law.  Though never invoked by federal government, the "notwithstanding clause" permits Parliament to pass legislation despite the fact that it violates Charter rights or freedoms.  This Charter override lasts a maximum of five years, after which new legislation would have to be passed to continue the Charter violation.

For more information:

Kevin Desjardins

Communications and Public Relations Manager

(613) 238 3561 ext.11

Fax (613) 238 4849

info@ccarts.ca

www.ccarts.ca

30/04

Please post and/or distribute. When reprinting CCA Bulletins, please give appropriate credit.