CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, March 11, 1998

• 1535

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): I would like to call to order this meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage which is undertaking an examination of the role of the federal government in cultural policy in the coming century.

First of all, I would like to welcome and thank the distinguished guests we have with us today, who have been kind enough to come here to participate in this round table. I would particularly like to welcome the former Minister, Michel Dupuy, who headed this department for many years. Good afternoon, Mr. Dupuy.

I would like to explain that instead of the usual format of committee meetings, where we hear witnesses and receive briefs, we thought at this time we would hold a series of round tables to bring together various sectors of the cultural community. We have had three up until now, which have all been very successful. We started with the arts and yesterday we had cultural institutions, museums and archives. In the afternoon, we heard stakeholders from the publishing and book-selling industries.

The objective of the study is really to examine existing forms of support by the federal government and all the rules regarding content, property, grants, tax incentives and challenges, and to determine the place of these incentives in the face of the ever-growing number of increasingly difficult challenges we will soon have to face.

[English]

We have pinpointed three main challenges for study. Of course, there are many more, but we felt that these were the main ones, given our time and the structure of the committee. We would like to study these three main challenges: the advent of new technologies; the evolution of the global economy and global trade; and the changing demographic nature of our country.

What we started as a committee is, first of all, to listen to experts and officials of the ministry and other ministries to inform ourselves better in regard to those three areas, and this we have done.

These round tables are the second phase. We have invited you and others to tell us more about how you see things from your own perspective in the field.

Once we have finished this phase of it—we are going to have six round tables in all—after film and video today, with broadcasting and sound recording, what we'll do afterwards is travel to the communities to meet people in the field and find out, especially in the smaller communities, how they fare in regard to the challenges that face them.

So you who are here are an eminent cross-section of your own sector. In the papers we've distributed, we have given you a series of five questions that we would like to see addressed. All of them don't necessarily have to be addressed by each one of you. You can pick and choose which ones you feel should be addressed, according to your own wishes. We want to have a free-flowing discussion, obviously

[Translation]

in either official language, according to the speaker's choice. The discussion will be completely open. If you wish to speak, you simply have to raise your hand and we will put your name down on the list.

To start off, I would like to ask you to introduce yourselves. Just give us your name and title, so that we can begin as soon as possible. I must tell you that around 4:00 p.m. we will have to interrupt the round table because the Minister will be with us for a few minutes to discuss her views on the topic of today's round table.

• 1540

I would first give the floor to Ms. Corbeil.

Ms. Marie-Josée Corbeil (Vice-President and General Counsel, Cinars Films): My name is Marie-Josée Corbeil. I am Vice-President and General Counsel for Cinars Films, a Montreal-based company that essentially produces and distributes films aimed at families and children.

[English]

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Good afternoon. My name is Mark Muise. I'm the MP for West Nova in southwestern Nova Scotia. I am also critic for Heritage for the Progressive Conservative Party.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Louis Plamondon. I am the Member of Parliament for the riding of Richelieu.

Mr. Michel Dupuy (Former Minister of Canadian Heritage): Michel Dupuy, former Minister Canadian Heritage.

[English]

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): My name is Deepak Obhrai. I'm the member of Parliament from Calgary East and the deputy critic for Her Majesty's loyal opposition.

Mr. Ted East (Vice-President, Production and Acquisitions, Alliance Pictures): Ted East. I'm vice-president of production and acquisitions for Alliance Pictures, which is the feature film production division of Alliance Communications, Canada's largest film and television production and distribution company.

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): I'm Jim Abbott, member of Parliament for Kootenay—Columbia. I am the Reform Party Heritage critic.

Mr. Keith Ross Leckie (President, Tapestry Films): My name is Keith Ross Leckie. I'm a scriptwriter both for television and feature films. I'm president of Tapestry Films in Toronto.

I was the scriptwriter on The Avro Arrow, among other Canadian productions.

Mr. Jefferson Lewis (Screenwriter): My name is Jefferson Lewis. I'm also a screenwriter, and I didn't write The Avro Arrow.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): I'm Sarmite Bulte and I'm the MP for Ross and Mary Leckie.

The Avro Arrow won a number of Gemini awards—actually the Chrysler award at the Geminis.

I'm very proud to be here. I'm the member from Parkdale—High Park.

Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): I'm Paul Bonwick, member of Parliament for Simcoe—Grey.

Mr. David Latchman (President, The River Production Company Inc.): My name is David Latchman. I'm a film-maker, cinematographer, and screenwriter.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mauril Bélanger, Liberal Member of Parliament for Ottawa—Vanier in Ontario.

[English]

The Chairman: Merci. Thank you very much.

The discussion is open. Whoever wants to start is welcome.

[Translation]

Mr. Dupuy, perhaps you could start us off.

Mr. Michel Dupuy: I think the first problem we should tackle is to decide which sector of the cinematography and video industry we should examine. This is an immense industry. It is also a complex one. There is the production sector. Within that, you have preproduction, postproduction, laboratories. You have distribution, which is an exclusive distribution, exclusive distributors, and lastly there is distribution according to location: halls, theatres and drive-ins.

Therefore, this is an industry that is divided into a number of sectors. I think that on the whole, one can say that it is a powerful industry, which is developing well, which is strong, and which is growing thanks to the support of government or governments, because most provincial governments and the federal government have supported this industry. It's been more than thirty years in the case of the federal government and perhaps even more. Thus, this is an extremely complex environment.

But some of these sectors are experiencing problems. I would invite my colleagues to reflect and concentrate on those. I would say that this is mainly the case for feature film production by Canadian companies and after that, their marketing and access to the halls, theatres and cinemas that can screen them.

On the whole, the rest of the industry is doing quite well, as I said earlier. I got a few figures together that show to what extent it is feature film production and the screening of Canadian feature films that is weak. According to Statistics Canada figures, there are 11 feature film production companies in Canada, whereas there are 706 firms that produce films and videos, including, of course, advertising, commercial products and others.

• 1545

According to the 1994-95 Statistics Canada data, the most recent we were able to verify, the production of these 11 firms was 38 films as compared to 14,000 in total. The revenue of these films was $42 million as opposed to global revenues of $797 million. So here's the first observation: while feature films are the most brilliant, the most attractive and the most popular part of this entire high-profile industry, in reality, for the Canadian industry, it's a very small segment.

With regard to distribution, extensive documentation has been distributed in the past few years. Everyone deplores the fact that there are only two major distribution chains for theatres, which are largely foreign-owned, and we have seen that the screen time dedicated to Canadian productions was extremely low. It varies from 2 to 4 per cent. There has not been a great deal of increase, and this situation is considered intolerable.

I don't want to dwell on this subject right away, but I'll get back to it later. It's one of the issues that we are going to have to examine more closely. For now I would say that there are two approaches: virtually punitive approaches to cinema owners to force them to screen more Canadian films, and incentive approaches. I'd like to get back to that later.

Finally, for my last preliminary remark, I would say that, on the whole, the film and video industry in Canada is becoming increasingly internationalized. That is an extremely important factor.

First of all, there's an increasing volume of foreign investment in Canadian production, which is quite a remarkable phenomenon, while Canadian investments are progressing much more slowly.

Secondly, one of the most dynamic aspects of this industry is exports. In the five years ending in 1995, exports have doubled. They represent over $160 million a year and are growing very fast. That is a sign that this industry is responding appropriately to the challenges of globalization, as are many other industries. Having realized that the Canadian market is a limited one, this industry is trying to project itself abroad. In itself, that raises all sorts of issues of policy, support, and government policy, given that the penetration of international markets by these Canadian firms is not easy and probably needs this government support.

I will stop here for now, but those are the subjects that I would like to broach again during the discussion.

[English]

The Chairman: Mrs. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Dupuy. I'd like to follow up on a number of things. I wonder if you could elaborate on what is punitive in the measures. Were you talking about the Canadian content requirements? What measures is the government taking that are punitive?

With respect to foreign investment, my understanding—and perhaps, Madame Corbeil, we can speak about this—is that it has a lot to do with the investment tax credits the government is giving right now.

I'd also like to ask a question with respect to the investment tax credit under the Canada Television and Cable Production Fund, under which $15 million, I understand, is dedicated to films. I also understand that right now an anomaly exists with respect to those funds and how they are treated for tax credit purposes.

If foreign investment is on the increase, then I guess my question to all of you is this: what can we do to this industry to ensure that there is greater Canadian investment, in its content as well as in its export?

The Chairman: Who wants to pick this up? Madame Corbeil.

[Translation]

Ms. Marie-Josée Corbeil: To answer that question, I would say that I am entirely in agreement with Mr. Dupuy. In recent years, we have clearly seen that productions, particularly television productions, are increasingly exported and foreign investments in Canadian productions have increased continuously.

• 1550

Unfortunately, right now, with the introduction of new federal tax credit rules, together with those that apply to what I would call the cable fund, it could be that foreign investments of this type make Canadian production ineligible for federal tax credits, and consequently, for the fund for Canadian productions. It's not yet quite clear. We're awaiting confirmation from the Department of Finance on this.

I believe that any policy implemented by the government regarding Canadian productions should not deter this type of investment by foreigners but rather encourage it. It goes without saying that the government must ensure that the amounts it invests are actually destined to Canadian productions controlled by Canadians and whose copyright is held by Canadians. Having said that, I think that we should promote foreign investment by any means possible and also encourage export in this global context if we really want to have more and more profitable companies.

[English]

Mr. Michel Dupuy: Perhaps I may respond to the question on the use of the word “punitive”. This is shorthand. There is a lot behind it. At the present time, producers of films have, apart from exports, two major markets. One is the TV market and the other is the theatrical market. We could also mention the video market, but let's leave it aside for the time being.

With respect to the TV market, the CRTC and a whole set of regulations that rule on Canadian content have the effect of ensuring TV time for Canadian production; it is a limit placed on imports of foreign products. I would not call that punitive by any means. I think this is part of the policy. Personally I think this is a good policy, and this is probably one of the reasons why Canadian producers have fared much better on the broadcast side than on the theatrical side.

Now, as for the theatrical side, there are two possible ways of putting pressure on the foreign owners. One is to impose quotas. Some countries do that. We never did. This is something that could be considered, and it has been considered from time to time. But if we were to travel that way we should expect a very strong reaction, particularly in light of the international agreements we got into with North America, the United States, and otherwise. It's not an easily travelled road, and certainly the foreign interest concerned would regard this move as a punitive move.

The other way is to have divestiture of the ownership by these foreign interests. This also is always a possible course. But it would be regarded as unjustified expropriation by the present owners. Therefore it's a road that is full of bumps. And this is really what I had in mind in terms of “punitive”.

Perhaps as a footnote to this, but an extremely important footnote, I think if we are going to improve the showing time of Canadian films in theatres, it is not so much to the distribution side that we should look, but to the production side. We should equip Canadian producers to produce better financed and more “catching” films, if the word is right, which would make it easier for them to market their products in the foreign-owned theatres.

The Chairman: Maybe this would be a good time to listen to Mr. East and Mr. Lewis.

Mr. Ted East: This is a discussion that we've been having for many years. I think if you start to go down this road in terms of quotas at the exhibition level or transferring ownership from Americans to Canadians, you have to understand what the exhibition business is about. It's basically about selling popcorn. Exhibitors tend not to care where the movie is coming from as long as they can sell lots of popcorn.

• 1555

If you actually look at and be honest about Canadian films over the last ten years, the ones that have succeeded in cinemas around the world have tended to be the ones that succeeded at home, with a few exceptions. I also think screens around the country have been made available to them.

So if you were to take this on as a strategy, I think you'd have to ask yourself what political price you would pay for this and whether or not it is worth it. Also, what would your expectations be at the end of this? If every cinema in Canada had to play 20% Canadian content, would you put cinemas out of business? Would you increase cinema audiences for Canadian films?

The answer probably is that you would put some cinemas out of business and, yes, you would increase the audiences for Canadian films, although I'm not convinced you'd be doing that substantially. But I think the real challenge is to create a consistent body of work that is of theatrical quality, to find ways to do that.

The Chairman: Mr. Lewis, and then Mr. Leckie.

Mr. Jefferson Lewis: With all due respect, I think that's almost exactly, word for word, the argument that was made when Canada decided to impose quotas in radio. The net result there was the creation of a Canadian music industry where there was none before.

The idea that Canadian movies that are being made now are not worth seeing, that ultimately Canadians really don't want to see them because they'd rather see the American movies, is a complete lie. I have stood at the back of cinemas in which movies that I've written were playing and I've listened to audiences laugh and cry and chuckle and talk to themselves, and have seen them come out of the theatres babbling about what they'd seen. It's the same with hundreds of other Canadian movies.

This is just completely ridiculous. Comparing the commercial success of an American movie with a distribution and promotional budget ten times the production budget of a Canadian movie is just absurd. Any notion that there's a level playing field, that by somehow making better Canadian movies we're going to suddenly wow the Canadian audiences and they're going to line up to see them is, I think, just a joke.

The Chairman: Mr. Leckie, the discussion is getting interesting.

Mr. Keith Ross Leckie: I would like to agree with Jefferson. In 1972, I was in my first year in a movie course at Ryerson and I was involved very heavily in petitioning for a 15% quota of Canadian films at our theatres. In 1972—the same year—the quota on music played over the radio was imposed in Canada, with a great resistance from everyone from the radio station owners to the DJs and so on. The quota was put into place, though, and today you see that we have an incredible industry in music. It's one that even dominates the Grammys now, and that's good to see.

Now, back in 1972, my friends and I, fellow film students, said it would just be another year or two before we would adopt quotas for Canadian films at our cinemas. That never happened, but a few more years went by and we said that by the time we graduated, surely there would be a feature film policy that would allow access to American-dominated theatres. A few years later, Flora MacDonald tried her best to put in legislation that would ensure that Canadian films would have access to our theatres, but it was squashed by American resistance. It became a voluntary thing that just didn't work out at all, and it was finally abandoned.

So “quotas” is kind of a dirty word. I bring it up at any kind of gathering like this, and people say, oh, no, we couldn't do this because it would be like a punitive measure against the Americans. I'm saying that we have to do something, because I think we all have to agree that the Canadian feature film industry, with very few exceptions, is a failure. It needs very aggressive action, because film and television, but film especially, are such strong and dynamic—probably the most strong and dynamic—expressions of a country. There therefore needs to be effective legislation put into effect.

Thank you.

• 1600

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Leckie.

At this point, Mr. East, I will remember that you asked to be recognized.

In the meanwhile, I'll introduce the minister. I think all of you know the minister, so I'll give her the floor.

Thank you very much for joining us, minister.

[Translation]

Ms. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm very pleased that the standing committee has really focused on this issue. I think it's a wonderful opportunity.

I think in the last couple of days you've had a very open and creative discussion around the practical ways and means to strengthen Canada's film industry through this committee, and also through the larger review of our feature film policy, which we're currently undertaking.

Unlike our scriptwriter here, our esteemed scriptwriter Keith, I don't want to make a qualitative judgment about which form of expression is more powerful, but I think somebody did once say one picture is worth a thousand words, so I'll leave it at that.

I've asked for the document that is going around now to be shared with you. It basically looks at the problem in a pictorial way, because one picture is worth a thousand words and it does speak a little bit to the issues that Keith talked about, about targets and about where we're going.

[Translation]

Has everyone received a copy of the document? Some are already familiar with it.

[English]

We can walk into any bookstore today and we can get choice. We can get choice of Canadian writers, famous world-renowned writers like Margaret Atwood, Michael Ondaatje, Michel Tremblay and Carol Shields.

We can turn on the radio and we can hear Canadian voices. We have the choice of hearing Canadian voices. We can hear Céline Dion, Paul Brandt, Susan Aglukark and Bruno Pelletier. We can turn on the television and we can see John Manley on Traders, we can see Due South or L'Ombre de l'Épervier.

But let's be frank. As the numbers on this chart clearly show, compared to the performances, or the access of consumer choice in magazines, in television programming, in books, and even in sound recording, Canadian feature films are not getting enough time on Canadian screens, on our video store shelves, or on television.

[Translation]

One thing is clear. In other cultural sectors, if they have a choice, and I underline choice, Canadians prefer to see, hear and read stories about themselves. They want to go into a cinema and see more films like The Hanging Garden or The Sweet Hereafter. But the Canadian public has not always had this opportunity. The world is in a state of flux and our policies must follow this evolution. New technologies and the growth of the market have changed the rules of the game.

For Canada, that means we have to adopt a more global approach to production, marketing and the screening of films. Those are the basics and the reasons for this round table.

[English]

I'd like to walk us through the figures, because I know some might use what I call the argument.... I'd like to turn the argument of choice on its head, because I've read a few editorials in the newspapers that say, well, if people like Canadian films, they'll watch them. The problem is, they don't want to see them, and that's why they're not there.

But let's look at the numbers in the other cultural areas that Canadians have access to, starting with magazines. On magazines, 50% of the magazines we read in this country are Canadian-made magazines, and that obviously presents some of its own challenges in terms of the approach we'll be taking to the WTO response, to guarantee that those numbers stay there.

I don't know how many of you are old enough to remember a time when in this country we had only three magazines that were Canadian. Some of you may remember Liberty. I'm far too young, but I see a couple of the committee members do. There wasn't such a thing as a Canadian magazine industry, and we brought in place a series of policies—not one policy; it's not a one-size-fits-all situation—that created a situation where right now we have over 700 magazines, and climbing, in this country.

• 1605

On television programming, I just left the Council of Europe meeting in Thessaloniki in December, which was hosted by the Greeks. Greek television is 2% home grown. In one of the oldest democracies in the world, 2% is home grown. Is that because they don't want to see their stories?

But look at the Canadian numbers in television programming, and you will remember when the CBC began its all-Canadian evening session. People said “They're not going to watch; they're going to switch”. In fact, the CBC has seen its market share increase, because it has been offering programming that is uniquely Canadian. So television is 42%.

On books, nobody is twisting your arm to buy a Canadian book, but when you walk into a Canadian bookstore you have that choice. The choice shows that Canadians by and large want to read their own stories, and that's why our numbers are so high at 40%.

Keith spoke earlier about sound recordings. When we started off with the original proposals on Canadian content for radio, those numbers were far below what they are today. Those numbers are climbing, but you must reach a critical mass of artistry to see the kind of explosion we saw last summer with Sarah McLaughlin and the Lilith tour. That was an incredible phenomenon. The people said it couldn't be done and people wouldn't go to see just women sing. Look what she pulled off. Fantastic!

Now we are at films. People say it's because we make bad films. The argument of some who would editorialize is that we really don't have to do anything and should just leave it strictly to the market. Let's look at what's happening in Europe. A couple of years ago I was in Berlin, and it's the home of original cinema. If you take a look at the numbers in the European Union and where they've gone in the last 10 years, they're all moving in the wrong direction. We're just doing it much more quickly from a starting point that is much lower.

[Translation]

We're talking about France, England, Spain, Italy and Sweden whose film makers, such as Ingmar Bergman, are already very well-known. In all those parts of the world, we see that in the past 10 years, the domestic market share has generally fallen 22 to 12%, whereas the American market has gone from 57 to 75% in the same period.

[English]

A couple of months ago I was in Paris meeting with UNESCO on the whole issue of culture, and I walked down the Champs-Élysées and I went by....

[Translation]

You know that right now, the great debate between Canada and France consists in deciding who will dub American films. You walk along the Champs-Elysées and you see that out of seven cinemas, there's one film in English, five American films and one genuinely French film, which reflects the current situation of cinemas in France.

Therefore, the problem with feature films is not exclusive to Canada. However, we do share a long border with the Americans.

[English]

It's the longest undefended border in the world. We're geographically close. Most Canadians live within 150 kilometres of the American border. Secondly, we share in one language a common form of expression, which makes it very easy to sell American products in Canada. All we're asking, and I think the question you have to....

[Translation]

The question you should examine is not whether to abolish or restrict the entry of other forms of culture.

[English]

We're the most open forum in the world for different cultures and indeed different forms of expression to come into this country. But we need to secure, through a judicious mix of public policy and private investments, a place for our own voices in all forms of expression.

I'm the mother of a child who's almost 11. I don't want her to inherit a country where she cannot see herself reflected in all forms of expression. If culture is the soul of a country, then one's identity is derived from all forms of cultural expression. I believe—for those who want to use the business argument, let's use the business argument—if it's a matter of choice, why is it that in a world where we claim to be breaking down borders and need to operate a more level playing field, the distribution seems to be going in one direction?

• 1610

If you take a look at what we did in radio, it's not perfect, and heaven knows you can come up with individual examples where the Canadian content requirements could be refined, modified, and modernized. Look at what we've done in magazines. Look at what we've done in sound recording. Look at what we've done to ensure the distribution system in book publishing is Canadian, so when you walk into that store you're not faced with a database run out of New York or Washington, for example. Those are all part and parcel of creating a cultural policy that works.

The one area where we're in a glaring deficiency is feature film. If we look together at the other models we've used over the last 25 years, I think we can create a climate for choice so our kids can have the same choice in feature film as they currently have in television, books, magazines, and sound recording.

I would further add—and I think this is going to be my last point before we open to a greater discussion—that we should make sure, in developing policies to support our culture, we're driven by one overriding thesis that as the world becomes a global village, we cannot become a monoculture. We must create a climate where languages and cultures can thrive together.

[Translation]

We're currently experiencing the only period in the history of the world where the number of languages is diminishing. Let's take the information highway, for example. Ninety-seven per cent of what appears on the information highway is in a single language. It's monolinguistic and can become monocultural if we don't obtain the tools to ensure that our own voice is heard.

But that doesn't mean that we refuse to hear the voices of others. But let's make sure we have the opportunity to have a vibrant culture in all fields of expression, including feature films. That's the challenge you have to try and face with us.

The discussion that you've begun and that will continue with the ministerial task force will bear fruit and will give my daughter the opportunity to see expressions of who she is, whether it's in a film or in other media currently available to her.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. Thank you for having joined us.

[English]

Will you be able to stay with us or do you have other duties?

Ms. Sheila Copps: I can stay.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I will put you on the list.

[English]

I recognize Mr. East and then Mr. Latchman, Mr. Abbott, Mr. Muise, Mr. Lewis, and Mr. Plamondon.

Mr. Ted East: I just want to comment on Mr. Lewis' comments. I don't entirely disagree with what he's saying. If we were to introduce quota systems in some way in this country at the theatre level, you wouldn't necessarily get an objection from me personally. But what does it mean, how will you go about achieving it, and what are your expectations?

Speaking on behalf of Alliance Communications, we've been distributing Canadian films for over 20 years. Certainly in the last five or six years we haven't had difficulty getting screens for our Canadian films, especially the ones we felt were good enough and popular enough to reach the national audience. If you talk to the distributors of Les Boys, The Hanging Garden or Margaret's Museum, I don't think they have complaints. The problem may come as Canadian films get better. If we produce our own Full Monty we may very well find that problem.

• 1615

I think when we explore this, we really have to look at what were the expectations, what would be the costs politically—and I think there would be political costs—and what role would the exhibitors play other than to say 10% or 20%, or whatever the percentage was, of screen time. Would they be involved in helping to produce movies? Because I think that's interesting as well.

So I think it's something we should look at, but I don't think we should look at thinking that it is a solution to this problem, that you just have quotas and the Canadian feature film industry is suddenly healthy, because it's not going to be. If you did go down that road, you would discover that the results may not be seen for many years.

You can look to other countries, like France. In France, where there are quotas, the exhibitors quite often opt to pay the fine and play American movies because they make more money that way.

So I think it's a very complicated issue.

The Chairman: Mr. Latchman.

Mr. David Latchman: A parliamentary committee is not my normal venue at which to speak, so bear with me.

The Chairman: We're very friendly here.

Mr. David Latchman: You seem really friendly. Thank you very much for inviting me up. I feel it's a real honour and a pleasure to be able to talk with you folks about these very important issues facing this country.

I have a number of points here. I've kind of broken it down, after a number of years working in the business, into problem, impact, and solution.

I'm a film-maker. I've been shooting films and doing photographs for 30 years. I have 200 hours of film that I actually shot myself and 50,000 photographs. I've had my fingernails dirtied in the Don River, literally—speaking of which, I'm still trying to finish the film I started eight years ago about the Don River. Even though I have 3 broadcasters and 35 different sponsors, and even though I've climbed the ladder of 14,000 proposals to Canadian companies and organizations, including the federal government, which has participated, and it's 90% completed, it's not finished, in my mind, at all, and it's not being seen by people. It has over 600 filmed video cuts, shot by me, edited by me, and it really flows like a river.

Aside from that issue, which is still an issue—I had a meeting today with one of the people at Environment Canada and I spoke to a venture capitalist this morning about new technologies and the new media, which I'm very much involved with as well; I've been playing with computers for 25 years, so I know the impact of what multimedia is going to be and different cultures coming to Canada and the 10-million-channel universe—I would say that storytelling is really the pre-eminent force we have to be focusing on. Canadian storytelling can be a Canadian story about an American family coming to this country. It's Canadian storytelling.

The cable production fund, if I may be very specific, allows an American story to be purchased by a Canadian producer with American money, probably 100% of it, and still get the 10% or more from the cable production fund. That's interesting. If all of that infrastructure is in place, how can I compete with a Canadian story even though they're going to make a Canadian story but it's an American firm coming up here?

So there's a bit of a conundrum there. But I live here. The Americans don't. My mother is American. I went to school there. My grandfather is a third-generation American.

I think it's really the storytelling we have to focus on, because what I see happening, as my friends have been telling me—and I've written this down—is that we've evolved into making postmodernist, deconstructionist pseudo-content devoid of human experience by people who wear black and think about death.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Ms. Sheila Copps: Men in Black did very well, actually.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. David Latchman: I think we have to drive the film-making community by making films about heroes, about myth-making. There are many examples of this in the American industry, practically throughout history. They're about heroes, they're about heroines. They're stories of heroism.

Maybe that's why the Canadian public isn't going to see...and maybe that's why they buy into the American film experience.

• 1620

There are four modes of film. I don't want to digress too much here, but in film theory the southern is the passion play; the northern is an intellectual discovery, a search; the eastern is where the essential character is trapped by his obstacles, cannot overcome his obstacles; the western, however—and it was noted in 1956 in The Searchers by John Ford—is about a man who overcomes his obstacles and goes onto greater awareness.

A fundamental change...and we don't necessarily have that because we have this big ship called America parked in our backyard all the time. Why don't we create, for example, a co-production treaty like the Auto Pact, which was done by the Liberal government all those years ago? Maybe we can level the playing field and get screen time back here, so that guys like me who sit in cafes and write stories or dream out the window on the way up here about the great land we have.... Coming up this morning at 8 on the plane was a great ride.

Where have I seen that on TV, by the way? I haven't seen this country. No wonder it's falling apart, in a way.

Can we not have a co-production treaty? That is what my colleagues are saying. What about a co-production treaty with every other country except the United States? Maybe that would level the playing field. That's one suggestion.

The other suggestion—

Ms. Sheila Copps: We have some of them now. We do have about 31 co-production treaties.

Mr. Jefferson Lewis: Yes, but not with the United States.

Mr. David Latchman: Exactly. That's the point. Is that a good point? Is it good not to have a co-production treaty?

The Chairman: Are you suggesting a co-production treaty with the United States?

Mr. David Latchman: We have an Auto Pact that demands content of American cars done by Canadians—something like that. So we can have a film theatre pact whereby we have our own screens back. Let's take our country back a little bit. In my lifetime—I'm 48—that's been overrun.

The other thing is that one of the big problems I have as a producer—one of the questions here—is that there is a plethora of funding agencies and there should be one, other than the private companies like Alliance, and so on. There should be one. Why should I run around to 12 different companies and agencies, dealing with this one and that one and the other one? It is the most maddening thing. I don't want to spend the rest of my life in Canada doing that. That is why Canadians in Hollywood don't want to come back here. They don't want to deal with, number one, all of that infrastructure; number two, they don't want to deal with the content police. We have content-type police at some of the agencies—at one agency in particular.

We should not be running this as an arts council. We should be running this as a commercial entertainment business, market driven. Once the cable production fund says yes and once the broadcaster, the exhibitor, says yes, why is Telefilm, with all this money for all of these years, still telling you, no, you can't put that word in the script, or we have to have this production manager on it? It's wrong. It's bad policy.

The Chairman: You've raised a lot of questions, which I'm sure are going to be subjects for discussion. Why don't we get some reactions first and then we can come back to you?

Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you.

The Chairman: The controversial man himself.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I've just been sitting here thinking about what Céline Dion and Bryan Adams have in common with skateboards and baggy pants, and what they have in common is that you'll find them in Paris, in Hong Kong, and in Sydney, Australia. In other words, we are not living in 1972 when we set up the Canadian content rules. We live in a CNN age, where you can be anywhere in the world, where you can watch Saddam Hussein get bombed, or whatever is going on over there.

We also live in a world where we have NAFTA. We have the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the World Trade Organization. I guess while I have some very sincere sympathy for Mr. Lewis' position—as I revealed to the committee yesterday, my son-in-law is a musician and a composer and I have two very wonderful grandchildren who are supported by that. I have a very vested interest in this, but I'm also a pragmatist.

• 1625

One Washington trade consultant, William Merlin, said it would be very interesting if we were to do something like this business of restricting the screens, and I quote:

If the Canadian government attempts to implement any new measures that limit the ability of U.S. film distributors in Canada, that will create a political problem in Washington, he said. The U.S. film industry has a lot of friends in Congress.

Considering the very volatile reaction to the Liberals' moves on Sports Illustrated and the fact that it is still up in the air, I think the fact that we are in 1998 and not in 1972 and that we do have the WTO and NAFTA.... With the greatest respect, we can have the minister saying we're going to be doing all of these things, but perhaps she could give us some idea of exactly how we're going to do it.

For example, if we're going to cancel existing U.S. exemptions, what are we going to be giving up to the U.S.? They aren't going to say, “Oh, yeah, we'd love to cancel some exemptions.” What is the cost of this going to be? Are the ideas that are being presented by the minister in the heritage ministry actually doable, or are they just there to massage the ears of people who want them to be doable?

The Chairman: Mr. Abbott, I don't want this to become a session with the minister today. I think we want to have an exchange.

But by all means, Minister, if you want to respond briefly, please do.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Jim, I think you're absolutely right: we are living in a global village. That's why it's even more important today for us to have the instruments to secure a small space for our own voices.

I think we would be remiss if we went to a single magic bullet solution. There's no single solution to this dilemma of how to keep some space for ourselves, but if you look at the magazine policy, for example, and if you take the time to actually walk your way through it in detail, we didn't in fact do anything with Sports Illustrated. The United States decided that with the arrival of printing in Canada they would be able to get around Canadian laws that said if you want to generate tax breaks, you have to advertise in Canadian magazines. They beamed their product over, had it printed in Canada, and called it a Canadian magazine.

When I was before the Council of Europe—and a couple of members were with me—I brought with me a copy of the Canadian edition of Time Magazine. It had a cover story on the Ottawa process. It did not mention the role played by the Canadian foreign minister, the role played by the Canadian Prime Minister, and the role played by the Canadian Parliament. It talked about President Clinton and Jody Williams. There wasn't a mention...but it was the Canadian edition of Time Magazine.

If we live in a global world, we're not saying keep other forms of expression or other cultures out. What we are saying is if we look at our experience over the last 25 years, the reason you have the critical mass of Canadian artists you do now such that they can make the breakthroughs they are making is precisely that we had regulations requiring a certain percentage of content to be devoted to Canadians.

Antonine Maillet, the writer, who is very well respected, cannot currently live only from her writings, because of the nature of the business. Everyone isn't a Céline Dion or a Bryan Adams, but on the other hand, regulations that we have in place permit a critical mass of material to reach audiences and build that market.

I would love to see a time in the 21st century when our culture is so well developed that we don't need any instruments of government. But I think because we live in a world that is increasingly globalized and increasingly monoculture...when you read the Canadian edition of Time and it talks about President Bill Clinton and not about anything other than American material, I think we do need to have some instruments.

I wouldn't focus just on the issue of quotas, because maybe quotas aren't the answer in this particular circumstance.

You talked about films being successful and people not wanting to see certain kinds of films. I think Robert Lantos gave a very good speech recently before the Canadian Club and the Empire Club, in which he basically said that at the level of investment The Sweet Hereafter, at that point, was a bigger success than Titanic—at the level of investment—because Titanic had a $250-million budget and is now beyond that.... This speech was given about three weeks ago, I guess, and probably the numbers have climbed since then. But the fact is that the amount of money spent on promoting most American films is bigger, probably by a hundredfold, than the budget of most Canadian films.

• 1630

It's a comparison of apples and oranges. We're not saying to get rid of the apples, but if you have a garden that only has one flower, it's not a very interesting garden. I think we need to nurture the flowers that are different in our garden. That's what this is about. It's not one magic-bullet solution, but perhaps a judicious mix.

The Chairman: We have one hour left, and I have a lot of requests. So could we just be concise for the rest of the time so we can give a chance to everybody?

Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: Recognizing that this is a very complicated issue, as Mr. Latchman said, what measures or incentives, if any, could government put into action that would help the film industry?

Second, what should be in a cultural policy that again would help the industry?

The Chairman: Do you want to hear from industry people?

Mr. Mark Muise: Well, this is just one of the questions that came out in what I was hearing. At some point, I'd like someone to comment on that.

Mr. Jefferson Lewis: I think the problem we're facing—I'm going to come to your question very quickly—is that I'm pretty far down on the food chain as a screenwriter, but they say everything begins with the screenplay. Until there's a screenplay, nothing happens, no one can finance it, no one can cast it, no one can direct it, distribute it, or whatever.

So what's happening at that level is probably fairly indicative of the industry as a whole. At the moment, we're exporting talent instead of films. This is happening at all levels. The last issue of the Writers Guild of Canada newsletter listed 58 new members, which is done in every issue, of which 25 had Los Angeles addresses.

These are writers who have Canadian citizenship, have applied for it, or who have moved, in many cases, from places like Toronto in order to be able to work there. They are doing so because many Canadian production companies now do most of their development from Los Angeles, and no longer from Toronto or Montreal.

In a situation like that, where are the Canadian stories going to come from if there are no Canadian writers living in Canada any more? I would say that of the number of screenwriters who have seen three feature films produced, there are probably ten in Canada. Keith can correct me on this. We're a very small and lonely lot.

Everybody else has left. At the first opportunity, after the first film or the second film, people see how much greener the pastures are. Frankly, I have been down there, and it's wonderful. Compared to the industry up here, down there, it's a “yes” business. You arrive there and they want you to be happy. They want you to have a limousine and a hotel. They want you to feel like you're part of a group of people who all love you. They love you, and they're going to make money with you, and they're going to have so much fun. Then bad stuff starts, but there's bad stuff everywhere.

The difference here is it starts with a “no”. Everything is no. No, I'm sorry, you've had your chance. No, I'm sorry, we don't have money for that. No, I'm sorry. No, wait your turn.

We're a “no” business; they're a “yes” business. So after a while—

The Chairman: Does the good stuff come afterwards?

Mr. Jefferson Lewis: Well, yes, it does. You fight like crazy for five years and you turn into a “maybe”. You come gasping to the finish line of a production and you're broke, your house is mortgaged, and your dog has left. No one is talking to you any more. So yes, there is occasionally good stuff at the end of it, but there are an awful lot of movies that don't get made.

Now, I don't think we should close the circuit here. Three months ago, I was in China working on a co-production that was an adaptation of a Canadian novel written by a Canadian-Chinese woman. This is going to be broadcast to 1.2 billion Chinese.

Before that, I worked in South America with a Brazilian director on a movie that will find a Canadian producer. It will get shot partly here and partly there.

It's inevitable that we're going to be co-producing with other countries, but very rarely with the United States. That's because those are the countries that need the kind of financing we can bring to the table. They are interested in doing business with people about our size.

The point is that Canadians are disproportionately talented in show business. In Los Angeles, Canadians get jobs all the time because people there say Canadians deliver. They say we're smart. We have this weird sense of humour. We look at them like they're a bit strange, but they can talk English to us, we wear the right clothes, and we write good movies. So the Canadian expatriate community there is thriving.

• 1635

This is true everywhere in the world. We are very important players for the rest of the world. For a lot of other countries, they see us as a door to the United States.

They think they'll get a Canadian writer, producer, and actor. Michael J. Fox is in the United States, but he's Canadian. They can call him Canadian for the deal. They will put together a deal with Canadians, and maybe they'll hit the jackpot in the U.S. with The Full Monty or a movie of that kind.

The Chairman: Let's give a chance to Mr. Plamondon.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Before I ask the Minister a question, I would like to remind us all that the 350-million dollar budget cutbacks to which the CBC was subjected must have had terrible consequences for producers, including the 84 million dollars in cutbacks for Téléfilm and 40 million dollars for the National Film Board.

Of course, I do appreciate the fact that the government is being asked to grant new sums of money, but the amounts that were lost during these major cutbacks have caused great hardship for this sector.

In the document that you've tabled with us, Madam Minister, you have not made a distinction between the French and English markets. I'm putting that question to you because the statistics that show up in the analysis may be taken in the context of Canada as a whole and be quite glaring. But in fact, we note that the French market is extremely strong in terms of publishing. Perhaps this is because in Quebec, some 80% of the people don't read English. Naturally, they buy French or French-Canadian books. This high proportion can be explained by the fact that one has no other choice if one does not know another language. That may therefore skew the statistics favourably.

In cinemas, although feature films come out instantly in both languages because of translation, we see no effect. For example, during the weekend when Titanic was released in Quebec, it had the same success and attracted the same crowd as a Quebec film entitled Les boys. The American producer even phoned and made inquiries, as he was completely stunned that a Quebec film could be as successful as Titanic which was being released at the same time. Les boys is a film that truly identifies with Quebec culture and that's why it was such a huge and immediate success. However, it would not have been as successful as if it had been screened in English Canada or elsewhere in the world.

The same is true for the play entitled Broue, the biggest theatrical success in North America. This Quebec hit has attracted over 2 million people, has been playing for 10 years and continues to play to sold-out crowds. It has been translated into English but it didn't work out. People really identified with typical Quebec culture in that play.

The department sometimes demonstrates a lack of understanding in this regard when it receives requests from certain Quebec producers. According to the analysis that is done here, from far away, the conclusion is that it will not work. But it does work when you see it from another standpoint, a francophone standpoint. In that sense, it's surprising.

You are an author in English Canada.

Mr. Jefferson Lewis: As well as in French Canada. I write more in French than in English.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Your texts are often published. When I heard you talking earlier making your introduction, I got the impression I was hearing Falardeau. It's exactly the same argument he gives in his scenario.

Mr. Jefferson Lewis: No comment.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: His grant application for his script is turned down based on political criteria, and not his chance of success. His films have always been very successful. So when I listened to your arguments earlier, it reminded me of his introduction in his presentation document throughout Quebec.

If you take a closer look at this aspect, don't you...

Ms. Sheila Copps: First of all, you're talking about over there, but didn't I hear you talking about francophones in Saskatchewan during the question period?

Mr. Louis Plamondon: No, I didn't talk about Saskatchewan.

Ms. Sheila Copps: No, no, in the House of Commons, earlier.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Excuse me?

Ms. Sheila Copps: In the House of Commons, your party asked questions on the support provided to francophones in all regions of Canada.

• 1640

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Yes, but that's not what I'm talking about at all.

Ms. Sheila Copps: No, I know. But I'm a bit confused because now we're talking about...

Mr. Louis Plamondon: We talked about the budget last week too, but that's not it.

Ms. Sheila Copps: No, I was referring to your comments on the availability of films in French or English. These are not Quebec films or English-language films. I presume that the representatives of Saskatchewan that Mr. Duceppe met last week were also interested.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Anyway, I understand. I thank you for intervening, but there's no connection with what I'm saying today.

Ms. Sheila Copps: No, I know.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: What I'm saying is it seems to me that for a Canadian film to succeed, it would be best to take into account geographic realities, if I can call them thus, or regional realities when you're trying to support this industry. By always giving this kind of image and graphs, we don't feel this regional reality nor the existence of a great pan-Canadian notion, to the extent that the production sector may be less well supported than it could be, especially in the area of film.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Leckie.

Mr. Keith Ross Leckie: The point I was going to make does not really speak to this gentleman's point.

The Chairman: That doesn't matter. Make your point. You can make any point you wish.

Mr. Keith Ross Leckie: Okay.

I agree that this forum should be talking about the future film industry, because that is the one that is in crisis. However, I did want to make a point about television production and television funding.

I believe the television industry is in quite healthy shape, with one exception. We have the cable fund and we have Telefilm. There's great efficiency of television production, and I'm pleased to see that and pleased to benefit from it myself. It all gets down to, again, the point system and Canadian content.

The cable fund and Telefilm talked about Canadian content being 8 out of 10 points, which I believe is good and functional. In fact, the cable fund has come out with a new initiative that makes it necessary to have the script done by a Canadian scriptwriter, and I think that's a wonderful step towards empowering us in that way. However, the CRTC is still only on the basis of 6 out of 10 points, and they call this “Canadian content”. What results from the 6 out of 10 is that the scripts are generated in the States by American producers and often, but not always, American directors. In effect, what we are doing with the 6 out of 10 CRTC ruling is subsidizing American production. Broadcasters are happy because they get their product cheaply, because the money is generated by the American market, but it is not essentially a Canadian production. I think the CRTC should raise that bar up to 8 out of 10, where the other agencies are now at. That seems to be the standard.

I just wanted to say that. Otherwise film and television, for me and my associates, are in pretty good shape.

One thing I wanted to address to Mr. East, and to Mr. Abbott as well, is that a vital Canadian film industry does not have to be a negative thing in terms of trade. You seem to be asking what this will mean if we put in something like a quota system. The fact is if we can generate a Canadian film industry....

I've been following the Australian system for many years. I've spoken to the people at their film funding agencies. They have some very good ideas. In fact, some of their ideas are coming out in a paper from the Association of Provincial Film Funding Agencies which Alex Raffé has put together. It suggests we use some of the Australian steps that have been successful.

• 1645

But I want to talk about Crocodile Dundee, just as an example. In the three years after Crocodile Dundee came out, tourism went up 400% in Australia, and the trade in cosmetics and clothing and soft drinks and various other industries rose dramatically. I wish I had the figures.

What happens is when you raise the profile of the country, people want to trade with them. So there is a real financial benefit from us showing ourselves, raising the profile of this country.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Thanks very much.

Mme Corbeil, M. Bélanger, Mr. Bonwick, Mr. Godfrey, M. Dupuy, and Mr. Latchman are next.

[Translation]

Ms. Corbeil.

Ms. Marie-Josée Corbeil: Please forgive me if I change subjects abruptly, because I would like to present a list of points in response to various statements made here. First of all, perhaps one solution would consist in ensuring that feature films have better access to cinemas and that promotion budgets are appropriate. I also believe that we have to look at broadcasters, more specifically public broadcasters such as Radio-Canada and the CBC. I find it deplorable that these broadcasters have extremely minimal participation in co-production or pre-purchasing of Quebec and Canadian feature films in general.

It may be interesting to examine models such as Canal Plus in France which is a very significant partner in the production of French feature films. Not only should cinemas be considered one link in the chain, but broadcasters must also be considered front-line partners in the production of feature films.

I would like to get back to the point that Mr. Latchman raised concerning co-productions. I've always believed and supported the fact that the co-productions that we are involved in right now with some 30 countries were created to enable us to be better equipped to face the Americans and to create products with larger budgets and combine distribution forces. It is therefore not at all desirable to have a co-production treaty with the Americans.

Moreover, I think that in the context of the global village, we must be extremely firm in all our negotiations to make sure that a cultural exception is maintained. I know that negotiations are taking place right now. We must go out there kicking and screaming and stand up to make sure we don't lose that.

I totally agree with Mr. Lewis that there is an extremely unfortunate talent export going on. That represents an enormous problem for us at Cinars. In the animation sector, Canada is recognized worldwide for this type of programming. Unfortunately, we have trouble convincing animators and script writers to stay with us and work on our productions. We have difficulty competing.

The Canadian school Sheridan College is recognized worldwide for its animation courses. We're attempting to do the same in Quebec and this is an initiative that we should really pursue. We have extraordinary creative talent and potential in Canada. We must ensure that people want to stay here and have the means to stay here and we have to offer them the necessary training.

With regard to the CRTC and Canadian content, I would like to remind you that only the cable fund requires these 8 points out of 10, whereas CAVCO and the CRTC only require 6 out of 10. In my opinion, we shouldn't have such a short-term view. We must maintain these 6 points out of 10 to allow producers to have as much flexibility as possible.

• 1650

I don't think all this will lead to token productions or less Canadian productions. However, it will enable us to produce things that are more easily exportable.

I would say that throughout Cinars' history, and this is probably true for the majority of production companies, even in English Canada, the vast majority of productions would score 8 or 9 out of 10. Some might be 7. But I don't see any that would be 6. I wouldn't like to see the rules become more rigid. On the contrary, I think we should have greater flexibility.

However, I find it deplorable that token foreign productions, which were granted a new tax credit, can also obtain a CRTC number. I think this is a loophole that has to be closed, and steps are being taken to achieve that. I think the CRTC will listen to us.

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I had one point I wanted to raise. I'm now up to four. I will quickly set them out for you.

First of all, I would like to address a comment to Mr. Plamondon. It isn't nasty. Yesterday, we had the same discussion about books. It concerns your invitation to examine what the Minister was presenting. The question was put to Mr. Hervé Foulon, chairman of Éditions Hurtubise HMH. In French Canada, which includes more than Quebec, as well as in Quebec, we're talking about approximately the same percentage, namely 30% to 40%. The rest comes from France. So it's not exactly what you think.

It would be a good idea to clarify that. We get the impression that according to the discussion that has been held up until now, it's pretty much the same in other cultural industries, and that the differentiation you're trying to establish doesn't really apply.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: And on television?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Even on television, depending on whether or not it's publicly owned television. The figures may be somewhat different for television, but not as much as one may think or wish to believe.

[English]

Just to mention, we're talking about film policy here, as part of an overall exercise to try to come up with, if you will, direction or sense of direction for Canadian cultural policy. But as far as feature films are concerned, we should be aware that there's possibly a twin track here.

In February the minister issued this discussion paper, which is the review of Canadian feature film policy, and I would hope that everyone who is participating today and those whom you represent will feed into this discussion, because I think it's a rather important one.

But on the second track, which is why we're here today, I would like, Mr. Chairman, to hear more ideas. I'm not interested in necessarily shooting them down or promoting them, but I'd like to hear more.

We've heard a couple from this gentleman about the one funding agency, for instance, and you know that highlights a problem, and maybe there are things we can do or at least suggest. So if as we go around in the last half hour there is an opportunity to put forward ideas, I think that would be very useful.

I have a question for Mr. East.

Mr. East, twice you've made allusion to or used the phrase “there would be a political price to pay.” I'm curious about that phrase. I suppose you're not threatening—I wouldn't put that to you—in that there would be a political price to pay for whomever or whichever government would put forward a different film policy or try to promote Canadian feature films. I'm just intrigued as to why you would be concerned about the political price to pay, if you're not the one paying it. I'm serious about that.

You also said there would be no results for many years, and I'd be curious to see what is your time horizon.

In terms of Canadian cultural policy, the time horizon is not next month or next year; it is indeed many years out. So even if the results hoped for don't materialize for quite a while, do you have difficulty with that?

I'd like you to comment on that, because that political price to pay sort of intrigues me.

[Translation]

One last comment meant as a friendly criticism for Ms. Corbeil. I did the same yesterday with someone else. This will become a habit with me until people stop using this expression that Mr. Plamondon has also used, "English Canada". It gets on my nerves. I'm a French Canadian. I represent a riding that is 40% francophone. There are hundreds of thousands of francophones in Ontario. There are hundreds of thousands of francophones throughout the country, from coast to coast.

• 1655

There are also thousands in New Brunswick, the only province that is officially bilingual up until now, and which is lumped in with English Canada. I find that somewhat tiresome.

So I would invite you not to use that expression too much, if you will allow me.

Thank you.

Ms. Marie-Josée Corbeil: I will make an effort.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: You speak English almost all the time.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Excuse me?

Mr. Louis Plamondon: You are a francophone and you've just spoken in English for almost the whole time.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: You don't even know what you're talking about, Mr. Plamondon.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: No?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I raised four points, two in French and two in English.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: You spoke English 90% of the time.

Ms. Sheila Copps: There's no language police here.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It doesn't suit them that a francophone speaks French; they think there are only francophones in Quebec. We all know that. It's unfortunate, but that's the Canadian reality.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: But you live in English and then—

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. East.

Mr. Ted East: I'm not in politics, so I really can't comment about the political price in specifics. All I know is that there probably would be one if in isolation the government took the position that there's going to be a significant quota for Canadian cinema.

I've been in this industry a long time. I know the distribution legislation that was never passed—or two attempts at not passing it—so let's not be naive. Why should I care personally? I think it's something we should explore, but we can't be naive in thinking this is a cure-all and it's going to come without a price.

As for the length of time it's going to take to see results, I don't know what the length of time would be, but it's not going to be one year and it's not going to be six months. I personally don't have a problem with that.

Picking up on what Ms. Copps said about the monoculture, if you look at this chart, what this reveals to me is that the rest of the world is beginning to suffer what Canadians have been suffering from, from the beginning of cinema. The world is now becoming part of the U.S. domestic market. I think it has become very prominent in the last five years with the release of films such as Independence Day and Titanic and the world becoming much smaller in terms of media. The studios are now looking at the world box office, as opposed to just isolating the domestic box office, which always included Canada and the rest of the world and which would release films whenever the local branch manager in that country thought it was appropriate. Increasingly the decisions are being made out of Los Angeles for the releases of all these films. As a consequence it's becoming tougher and tougher for national cinemas to survive.

I truly believe at the beginning of the 21st century this is going to be one of the great debates that will happen. I'm glad we're doing what we're doing now, because we've been suffering the longest and we probably have the most to offer the rest of the world in experience. I was actually in Australia when Independence Day was released, and it was interesting to read the debate about that. One columnist made this point. He asked whether this was the beginning of Australia becoming part of the U.S. domestic market for feature films.

The Chairman: A good point to join in, Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I had two or three questions I would ask the witnesses to respond to. I just want to make a couple of statements.

Two comments caught me off guard. Mr. Bélanger made mention of one, the political price. You always get a little nervous when any witness says that, because no matter what decision any government makes, there's certainly a political price for it, and we hope the price is that you're buying good value for Canadians, which is exactly what we're trying to do here today.

About my colleague the Reform critic Mr. Abbott and his quoting American journalists with threats of what might happen if Canadians do one thing or another to strengthen the industry, that very attitude should not scare us but should make us more determined to make sure we're safeguarding Canadian content and Canadian culture...by their very attitude that we're going to have no burdens whatsoever, no obstacles to your country, despite whether it's a level playing field or not. I think that statement alone should make Mr. Abbott, and certainly all my colleagues, rise to the challenge and make sure we do have safeguards in place for the industry.

Specifically—and anybody can jump in on these—are there ways we could be encouraging Canadian content other than simple enforcement?

I'll go through just a couple of these.

What investments that are targeted towards enhancing production can a government make? Lastly—this kind of counters my first statement—does a government have a right to say this is what a business must show? By that, do we have a right to go into the theatres and say, if you're a Cinema 5, you have to have one or two playing Canadian films? Do we have a right to say that? Do we have a right to say it has to have a regional component, and would your industry not interpret that as maybe censorship as well?

• 1700

When do we stop saying you have to do this, you have to do that, and where does that stop, whether it be art, whether it be carvings, or whatever the case might be? Those are a couple of questions I would like perhaps some—

The Chairman: Excuse me. At this stage I'd like to say thank you to the minister. She has an appointment at 5 o'clock, so I'd like to thank the minister for coming here.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Good luck in your deliberations.

The Chairman: We really appreciate it. Thank you.

Have you finished, Mr. Bonwick?

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Yes. I had just put some questions. But every time somebody talks you get a whole bunch of new ideas, which is why these round tables are so good.

The Chairman: I hope the panel will have taken note of your questions and will be addressing them as we go along.

Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): I have a question, too. There are various segments of the business we could talk about. We've talked about distribution and promotion, but I want to talk about the content.

I want to ask a question, whether my perception is right or wrong, and it might be a question that could be answered by many of the people here. My impression is that we're quite good at the high end, if I may classify content that way, heading toward the art films—The Sweet Hereafter, The Hanging Garden, Un zoo la nuit, if you like. We're okay at the bottom end, if I may dare qualify Les Boys as the bottom end, but certainly Meatballs, I think, would triumphantly call itself that.

It's the middle range where we've had some successes that have been mentioned in the past. I suppose currently we would have Air Bud or My American Cousin, or The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz, or Mon Oncle Antoine, or, in the foreign field, The Full Monty, Four Weddings and a Funeral, Fargo, Muriel's Wedding, and that kind of non-art film, which is entertaining and has some real content and style to it. I get the impression that right now in our system that range is somehow missing.

I have two questions. Is my impression correct and are there structural reasons for that? Is it because Telefilm doesn't like it, because the bankers don't like it? I don't know why. Those are the two questions I have about the middle range of content.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Dupuy.

Mr. Michel Dupuy: That's not an answer to what Mr. Godfrey was saying.

The Chairman: No, but I think that—

[English]

Whoever has an answer for Mr. Godfrey, when their turn comes, please pick it up.

[Translation]

Go ahead, Mr. Dupuy.

Mr. Michel Dupuy: I would like to thank Mr. Lewis for having shared with us his personal experience in Los Angeles. Indeed, he's illustrated very effectively some of the problems that affect production. There's that emigration of Canadian talent and there's also the fact that good films are not being produced, films that could be produced by Canadians. There's also the fact that Canadians are treated as employees over there.

I could add to these anecdotes the one that was told to me by Harold Greenberg, of Astral, who is well known in Hollywood. A few years ago, he was interested in one particular film. He had phoned his Hollywood friends saying he was so interested in taking part in this film that he would be prepared to contribute to its funding in order to really co-produce something with them. He was told: "Harold, we love you but we don't need your goddamned money". That, in a nutshell, sums up the relationship with the big-Hollywood companies.

• 1705

A few years ago, when I wore another hat, I went to Los Angeles to meet with captains of industry and see if anything had changed. The main player on the American side was Jack Valenti, whom I am sure you know. I basically went with the following assumption: you feel Canadian contributions are good and you even go out and seek them; we pay you and then you kiss us goodbye.

So where is the value of a film? It basically lies in the exploitation rights. You do not sell a film like you would peas or cars. I would ask them why they were not willing to allow a maturing Canadian industry to share the rights. You share manpower, you share technology, you pump and share talent, but you never share the rights.

I asked them whether it was because they wanted to make American films. The answer I got will perhaps give some indications to my friend Mr. Bélanger. I was told no one knows anymore what an American film is. It is nearly non-existent, as you just said, because the talent might be Canadian, British or Australian. The technicians come from around the world. We often shoot a film on Canadian soil because your dollar is worth less than ours. We get capital from Japan or other countries where there is money. We go and get it where it is. So what is American about that?

I told them: If indeed you do not feel strongly about American content, why do you not come here to shoot films and we can share the rights to them? They said they did not see any problems with that because they are changing as well. They are very aware of the fact that they cannot continue with the notion of using talent like they used to use slaves, without sharing the fruits of their labour. That left me wondering.

First of all, I wonder whether it is not time to completely review our relations with American producers, rather than always be telling ourselves that that is how things are done, suffering and doing what you did. Your testimony really touched a chord because I am a great fan of Canadian films. But that does not solve anything.

What did we do in the past? We tried to negotiate co- production treaties that would guarantee us some financial input for rights and would allow us to exploit them together. At the same time, it gave us access to the other country's market.

I can tell you right now that there will never be a co- production agreement between Canada and the United States because the American government does not regulate access to the American market, whereas other governments can impose this own nationality on a production and regulate it. We also regulate ours, at least as far as broadcasting is concerned.

We will never have a co-production treaty with the United States, but rather a co-ventures system, where we could stipulate exactly how Canadian it will be, with the points that we already know and especially the entire certification system. We can have co-ventures with foreign companies where there is no co-production treaty. No one has ever checked whether it would be possible to have co-ventures with the big American firms. Never. I would like to point out that co-ventures have special provisions for francophones. It is too bad he left, because he would have liked to hear what I'm saying. As for the members of the Commonwealth, the score has dropped to 5. That is something that is usually forgotten.

• 1710

The certification system is somewhat flexible and the score varies between 5 and 10. The advantages provided by the governments vary depending on the score.

The Chairman: Mr. Dupuy, we have very little time left. You've raised a new notion of co-ventures with major firms. Perhaps I should give the floor to Mr. Latchman who can add to what you said.

Mr. Latchman.

[English]

Mr. David Latchman: Yes, if that opens up the funding part. I don't think there's enough money in Canada to do the kinds of things we want to do. The access to capital in the United States is huge. Here, there is $100 billion in pension funds and labour-sponsored funds, and there are private investors who probably would like to come back into the tax shelter business, which got wiped out because of all kinds of extravagances and indulgences 15 or 20 years ago. Most of those films are in vaults and have never been seen.

I think that's the incentive. You're asking about solutions to the problem. These are real problems. As my grandfather used to say, we need to turn the problem upside down, and there's the solution—access to capital.

There is $100 billion in pension funds, or $66 billion in the Ontario teachers pension fund. Set up some kind of tax system that you can approach these folks with. You have $10 billion. There's $100 billion sitting there. You can make a lot of good content with $10 billion. That's what they do in New York and Hollywood.

Now, either we're going to respond in kind, the way America has because of its wealth, or the British have done with their tax system, which was very successful.... It created the British film industry, and the model of Channel 4 in Britain. That's what we should do with the CBC. Turn it upside down and there's the solution. Sorry, the unions have to go. Take the billion dollars, and make it a year. You'd have $10 billion in ten years. Just collapse the CBC—leave the news, if you want, and Newsworld and so on—and give it to the producers who make the programs.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Now there's the political price.

Mr. Jim Abbott: He's got it right on.

Mr. David Latchman: Let me just say that the alternative is the status quo. Take the National Film Board. Look at their budget. I know their budget is about $70 million or $80 million—and it's probably going down every year—but only $2 million goes to independent production over five sectors. That's $400,000 a year in Ontario. How many clamouring mouths are there, as it were, going for that $400,000?

That's another funding agency, by the way, you have to click the lever on. I have a friend who just got a broadcast deal from the History Channel, a rare 90-minute special on the declaration of human rights in Canada, which we're celebrating this year. He has to go to six or eight organizations. If one doesn't come through, the whole thing drops out. It fails.

I say we should create the mechanisms so that there's a level playing field, that we have essentially a diverse cultural expression so that we're all happy with diverse culture, French and English. There's not one feature film about the English-French conflict, as it were. I don't think there's any conflict. I think the French want to protect their interesting lifestyle. Well, we do too. But there's not one feature film that's made about this thing. Why? Why isn't there one feature film about this? It's outstanding.

The Chairman: It's waiting for you.

Mr. David Latchman: I'm just saying, I think there are some solutions here. I think you should impose some quotas or some kind of treaty so that you have 10% or 15% screen time. I think you should impose a box office tax. I think you should impose also, if you want to hear something controversial—

The Chairman: Mr. Latchman, you seem to have a lot of ideas about possible solutions. Why don't you—and I say this seriously—take the trouble to write them down on your computer and send them to the committee? They'll be distributed to all the members. We'll ensure that the researchers pick them up and that we'll look at them.

Mr. David Latchman: Great. Thank you.

• 1715

The Chairman: Could we go on to Mr. Abbott?

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you. I appreciated some of the comments, and I'm not being facetious about his comments about the CBC, although there's a gem of a good idea there. I do agree with the chair. You have come forward with some excellent ideas.

Just as a small clarification for Mr. Bonwick, the person I was quoting was a Washington trade consultant. Of course, the point I was trying to make was that we don't live in 1972; this is 1998. We do have the World Trade Organization and we do have NAFTA.

I took the comments about Australia with great interest, but the difficulty is that Australia has a regime that goes back to 1972 and earlier. In that period of time, Canada did not take the actions that Australia and other comparable countries took. My point is that we have to be realistic, we have to be pragmatic, and we have to take a look at solutions, but they must be looked at in the light of things like the WTO and NAFTA.

I was starting to feel too much drawn into the vortex of Alliance here, because we did seem to have so much in common. I'd like to throw out some comments that Mr. Lantos made:

If there's going to be a significant influx of money to create a stronger economic infrastructure for Canadian film, a significant portion of it should come from within the system, from those who profit and make money selling movies in Canada.

That's a good idea, except that he was talking about some kind of film tax.

Mr. Lantos' remarks followed an announcement made by the minister earlier this month about the feature film policy. He is quoted as saying:

Some believe all those who benefit from the film industry in Canada, including distributors, exhibitors and video stores, should make contribution and support of Canadian films....

Isn't this just a touch perverse?

If we think about it for just one second, the taxes on my house relate to the sewer supply, to the education system for the people in my neighbourhood. Hopefully, the personal taxes I pay relate to services I receive.

I would suggest, with the greatest respect, that the perversity of this suggestion is that if a person chooses to see something other than a Canadian film, he or she will be charged money so that the money will go to be able to produce a Canadian film. Does this really make any sense?

The Chairman: Well, let's check it out.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: The cable fund works exactly like that. The success of the Canada Television and Cable Production Fund actually brings together the cable industry plus government plus Telefilm. That works, and the success there is incredible. I would therefore submit that Mr. Lantos has a brilliant idea there, based on the example of the cable fund.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I disagree with you completely. I don't think there is a strong enough parallel to make that statement.

The Chairman: I'll turn to Mr. Lewis, then Mr. Leckie,

[Translation]

Ms. Corbeil and Mr. Bélanger. Then I think our time will be up.

[English]

Mr. Jefferson Lewis: I want to make a few very brief, specific suggestions.

The Chairman: Mr. Leckie, you have asked to intervene. Do you have to leave now, or do you want to have a spot now?

Mr. Keith Ross Leckie: I'm afraid I have a plane to catch.

The Chairman: Oh, I see. Well, thanks very much for your participation. I appreciate it very much. If there are any thoughts you want to send to us, by all means please write to the committee. We'd be very pleased to entertain them.

Mr. Keith Ross Leckie: I'll do that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and my apologies to the committee.

The Chairman: No, I appreciate it. Thank you.

Mr. Jefferson Lewis: In terms of the feature film industry, the organization you all have to deal with, in terms of formulating any policy the minister will have to deal with, is Telefilm Canada. Telefilm Canada is the gatekeeper for all the federal funds—the vast majority of the funds—that come into the film industry.

I'm surprised that Telefilm Canada is not a part of this whole process—but I'm not surprised. I think it should be, and I'm not speaking bitterly from having been turned down by Telefilm. On the contrary, Telefilm is much too generous with projects that I'm involved with as far as I'm concerned.

• 1720

However, with respect to their policies, the money has to be released for the early stages of development, to get projects ready to go. This is the cheapest money to spend and you get the most bang for your buck. Getting screenplays written, getting projects in development, getting producers to do marketing plans, that kind of seed money, for all levels or producers—some of the best producers I work with are working out of their homes with two partners. They are very small businesses and they're literally going from project to project. They're taking the production fees from the last one, maybe $10,000 or $15,000 at the end of it, to invest in the next one.

Those are the people we need to be helping because those are the people who are going to make the The Full Monty and The Secret Garden. They make all of those wonderful movies that are at the top of the range.

As for the middle range, the middle range is in Hollywood. The middle range is Ivan Reitman, Bill Murray, and all the other Canadians who are down there making all those—James Cameron, the director of Titanic. They just change their addresses. They're there. They are part of the Canadian film industry in a strange kind of way.

Mr. John Godfrey: Could they be making those films in Canada?

Mr. Jefferson Lewis: They could be making those films in Canada. Think of the industry we'd have in this country if we repatriated, if we made it so enticing to make movies here that all those people came back, all those actors came back: Christopher Plummer, Donald Sutherland, Geneviève Bujold. You could go through a list in Los Angeles. There are probably 150,000 Canadians living there.

I play a game when I work with the Brazilians and the Chinese when we're talking about casting, and I tell them, “That person is a Canadian.” Now every time they mention somebody to me they ask if he or she is Canadian, because so many of them are. This is the industry. Our industry exists. It's just down there, not up here.

I think Telefilm Canada is the key to this. The policies have to encourage development and funding at the earliest stages. They have to encourage co-production funding.

Forget the United States. With all due respect, maybe we can one day work as equals with the majors, but the natural partners for us are the French, the Brazilians, the Irish, and the English. All those countries are roughly our size and are interested in roughly the same kinds of things we are. And they'd love to work with us.

Everything we can do to enhance co-production is terrific for us, because it leads to truly international productions and it gives us the additional money we need. Telefilm now is forced to scale down. The budget's been cut back but they want to keep their numbers up, so they are forcing down the budgets of films, down to $1.5 million or $2 million. We know from statistics that Canadians don't ever go to see those movies. They're too small. It's a wonderful niche and there are some great movies being made there, but don't call that an industry.

I have one final thing to say. We give out an award every year, the Golden Globe Award, which is given to the most successful Canadian film every year. As a rule, these films have made maybe $1.5 million or $2 million in the year preceding, which means they've lost $2 million or $3 million. We're giving out our most prestigious award for financial acumen and the ability to promote and market a movie to a film that's only lost $3 million or $2 million.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Jefferson Lewis: Gentlemen, this is not an industry. This is an allowance we're getting from the government.

The Chairman: It's really refreshing to listen to somebody who is as passionate about their views as you are. It's really very encouraging for us in a way that you feel so deeply about these things.

By the way, Telefilm is on our list. We wanted to hear some suggestions from people like you so that when we invite Telefilm we have something to ask them. They're on our list, along with various federal institutions, for March 24 and 26.

Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Chairman, I have just a quick supplementary. Could we ask Mr. Lewis to forward his views? We're not going to have time and I'm interested in hearing what he has to say.

The Chairman: That is the same for all the people here. Feel very free to drop us a line.

By the way, if you are able to stay a few more minutes, we can extend this for a little while. We thought we had to give the room away.

Madam Corbeil.

Ms. Marie-Josée Corbeil: I just wanted to say that I totally agree with Mrs. Bulte's views. I would just like to reiterate that when we look at a solution for the theatrical film business, we need to make sure our broadcaster, and more specifically CBC and Radio-Canada, will form part of the solution and will become very crucial partners in the making of, the production of, and the financing of these films.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

• 1725

Mr. Bélanger, Mr. Latchman.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Abbott was mentioning a while back in his last intervention this notion, which he thought might not be a gem of an idea, of having those who benefit from the industry contribute back to it.

The whole country is built on such concepts of equalization payments, of cross-subsidization, which are in the Constitution. That's how we've approached many of our social services as well. Everybody contributes through their taxes to the health system and not everybody benefits from it—thankfully; otherwise we couldn't keep up. But because somebody is healthy does not mean they're not asked to contribute.

The purpose of all of these debates is to what extent does the Government of Canada, or the people of Canada through their government, wish to give itself

[Translation]

mechanisms to create a cultural industry in some areas such as the one we are discussing today, the film industry. It is perfectly legitimate to be allowed to get sources of revenue from those who profit from this industry or who benefit from it, including spectators, and that these revenues be used to develop the industry even further. It is a win-win situation.

So I have no real problem with this notion. We were asked to think about it for a moment, but perhaps we should think about it a little longer. It is easy to see that perhaps the government could play a role, as it did for books, music and periodicals. Perhaps there has not been enough intervention for feature films. I have no problem with this concept since the revenues come from various sources and are used to develop the industry. If there are problems at that level, at some point this committee should discuss it, because I have the feeling it will be the cornerstone of a Canadian cultural policy.

The Chairman: That is a very good argument that should be discussed later.

[English]

I guess we'll close with you, Mr. Latchman. You have the final word.

Mr. David Latchman: Maybe I shouldn't be the final word.

I just wanted to say something about multimedia. It's playing an increasingly larger role and there doesn't seem to be...except Telefilm, which has one fund, and it's a loan program and there's not much money in it. I don't want to enhance further what's been said about Telefilm and CBC, except that there have to be some changes there.

I think there's a lot of entrepreneurship and vision in this country in terms of producers and writers and successful companies. I think you have to also deal with the small companies. The big companies have worked the system very well; they're successful and it's great. But you also have to level the playing field for the smaller companies, to build them up in their entrepreneurial endeavours.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. David Latchman: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you once again for coming today. I will try to summarize the key points of today's discussion.

Mr. Dupuy and several other witnesses stressed that the problem concerns feature films in the main. We will have to look into that. A number of suggestions were made and the problem must be examined further. All of the witnesses clearly agree that that is the crux of the problem, even though the methods used may not necessarily be the same.

I noted what Ms. Corbeil said about not blocking foreign investments, but ensuring that we have conditions that stipulate that investments must be used for Canadian productions, controlled by Canadians.

One point did stand out. There is certainly a consensus

[English]

that Canadian movies are as good as any, and that perhaps it's in the method of making them available.

• 1730

Mr. Lewis, you said the difference is in the distribution and marketing, that we spend one-tenth or less of the money spent on U.S. films.

There has been a discussion about quotas, some people feeling that quotas should be imposed, with Mr. East, for instance, saying, beware of quotas, they haven't worked in France; let's look at all the various alternatives, because quotas may not be the magic solution.

There were ideas coming from Mr. Latchman, for instance, that there's a great number of funding agencies, and should there be only one? Should we have a co-production treaty with the U.S.?

Then Mr. Dupuis said that's pie in the sky; the U.S. will never agree to it. Then Madame Corbeil made a point, too, that the co-production treaties we have with 31 other countries are really to balance the U.S, and maybe that wouldn't be a good idea.

So certainly there are different points of view that we'll have to examine.

One consensus that I seem to detect from various people who spoke was that definitely the CBC and Radio-Canada and Telefilm should be far more in partnership with independent producers than they are today. That's very useful for us, because we're going to be seeing the CBC, meeting with Mr. Beatty. We're going to be meeting with Telefilm later on. These are the kinds of questions we're going to ask them and why it doesn't happen today.

I also retained Mr. Dupuis' suggestion about possible co-ventures with majors. If, by any chance, any of you have any further thought about this.... Mr. East, if you feel this is a possibility and if you can give us ideas, we would really welcome any ideas.

Certainly I was also struck by your point, Mr. East, that today we're not looking at national markets any more, that the Americans are really working for the world market and they've decided that we are part of the world market, just as Australia and France are. That's a reality we'll have to come forward with.

Certainly the challenges are huge. We'll have to look again at the whole question of priorities. Mr. Bélanger said maybe we should transfer some more funding there because that is where the need may be; look at tax incentives, and look at the various scenarios you've brought forward.

I think this has been extremely useful for us.

[Translation]

I thank you for all your suggestions and invite you to stay in contact with us. Thank you very much for coming.

[English]

Thank you very much for your participation here today. We're most appreciative.

The meeting is adjourned.