LANG Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Official Languages

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, June 4, 2003

¹

1550

The Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.))

Mr. Daniel Gourd (Executive Vice-President, French Television, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation)

¹

1555

Mr. Sylvain Lafrance (Vice-President, French Radio and New Media, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation)

The Chair

Mr. Sylvain Lafrance

º

1600

The Chair

Ms. Claudette Paquin (Managing Director, TFO-TV Ontario)

º

1605

º

1610

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ)

Ms. Claudette Paquin

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Ms. Claudette Paquin

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Ms. Claudette Paquin

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Ms. Claudette Paquin

The Chair

Ms. Claudette Paquin

º

1615

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Ms. Claudette Paquin

The Chair

Mr. Daniel Gourd

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Daniel Gourd

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Daniel Gourd

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Daniel Gourd

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Daniel Gourd

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.)

Mr. Daniel Gourd

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Daniel Gourd

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Daniel Gourd

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Daniel Gourd

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

º

1620

Mr. Daniel Gourd

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Daniel Gourd

The Chair

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP)

º

1625

Mr. Daniel Gourd

Ms. Claudette Paquin

Ms. Wendy Lill

Mr. Daniel Gourd

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.)

º

1630

Mr. Daniel Gourd

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Richard Stursberg (Executive Director, Telefilm Canada)

»

1705

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Richard Stursberg

»

1710

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Richard Stursberg

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Richard Stursberg

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

»

1715

Mr. Richard Stursberg

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Richard Stursberg

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Richard Stursberg

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Richard Stursberg

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Richard Stursberg

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Richard Stursberg

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Richard Stursberg

»

1720

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Richard Stursberg

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

Mr. Richard Stursberg

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Richard Stursberg

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Richard Stursberg

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Richard Stursberg

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Richard Stursberg

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Richard Stursberg

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Richard Stursberg

Mr. Michel Pradier (General Director, Quebec, Telefilm Canada)

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

»

1725

Mr. Richard Stursberg

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Richard Stursberg

The Chair

Mr. Richard Stursberg

The Chair

Mr. Richard Stursberg

The Chair

Mr. Richard Stursberg

»

1730

The Chair

Mr. Richard Stursberg

The Chair

Mr. Richard Stursberg

The Chair

Mr. Michel Pradier

Mr. Richard Stursberg

The Chair

Mr. Richard Stursberg

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

Mr. Richard Stursberg

»

1735

The Chair

Mr. Richard Stursberg

The Chair

Mr. Richard Stursberg

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Official Languages

---

NUMBER 026

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, June 4, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1550)  

[Translation]

    The Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.)): As we begin this meeting, I would like to explain why some members are absent, even if the absent are always wrong. We are at the end of the session, and a number of committees are sitting right now. So reports must be adopted that have to be tabled before the adjournment. That is why we are missing some players. Since we have quorum, we will begin and hope that other colleagues, who were here yesterday, will be able to join us as we go along.

    We are continuing our hearings that began yesterday morning on the changes to how the funds are allocated under the two Canadian Television Fund programs and the impact of those changes on minority official language communities.

    Yesterday, we heard from representatives of the Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada. We also had officials from Heritage Canada and representatives from the Canadian Television Fund. Today we will first be hearing from Radio-Canada, that is, Mr. Gourd and his team, who he will introduce himself, as well as Ms. Paquin from TFO. We will also be inviting Mr. Richard Stursberg of Téléfilm Canada and his team to make a presentation at 4:30, perhaps earlier, if possible.

    Without further ado, I will give the floor to Mr. Gourd, followed by Ms. Paquin.

    Mr. Gourd, the floor is yours.

    Mr. Daniel Gourd (Executive Vice-President, French Television, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am Daniel Gourd, Senior Vice-Principal for French Television. On my right is Mr. Sylvain Lafrance, Vice-President, French Radio and New Media, and on my left, Ms. Danielle Desjardins, Advisor on Regional Issues, French Television.

    I would first like to thank you and your committee very warmly for the support that you have given us by sending a letter to the CRTC asking that regional signals from Radio-Canada stations be available throughout Canada. I would also point out that the commitments made by ExpressVu have not yet been honoured, and we have just begun discussions with StarChoice. I would therefore invite you to keep up the pressure, since this is an extremely important issue.

    I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to someone who should have been here with me today, Ms. Micheline Vaillancourt. She worked unstintingly for many years to promote regional interests, not only at Radio-Canada, but also in all the major institutions. As you no doubt know, she died three weeks ago. I wanted to honour her memory. In order to fill the void that she left, we had to redistribute her many responsibilities. Suzanne Laverdière has taken over responsibility for institutional issues, which include international relations, relations with the overall institutional sector, the regional aspect of relations with major institutions and all strategic planning.

    From now on, the regions, regional operations and regional programs will be the direct responsibility of the vice-president. The regional directors are now members of the senior management team, which will allow for better integration and closer ties between regional activities and network activities.

    Moreover, I believe that it is obvious to everyone, as I said publicly at the convention of the Association des producteurs de film et de télévision du Québec and nearly all industry members have been saying over and over again, the Canadian Televiosion Fund is not working. It has suffered a major budget cut. We are talking about more than $60 million. That includes, of course, the $25-million cut by government, but the CRTC also reduced its contribution by $6 million as a result of the new rules which transferred money to community programming. That money disappeared. That was an extremely brutal sign of a situation that had existed for several years. There were huge problems to which no one found solutions.

    There are many groups left out in the cold. Of course, the most vulnerable are the francophone producers outside Quebec, regional producers outside Montreal, single documentary producers and theatre producers. No plays have been funded by the Canadian Television Fund this year and practically no other performance productions. If it had not been for Telefilm Canada, we would have had absolutely nothing for Les Beaux Dimanches.

    So there is a major problem. Ways have to be found to ensure long-term funding and public funding for television. Attention has to be paid not only to the regions, as opposed to major production centres such as Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, but also to the duality of the public and private sectors, since they do not have the same objectives. The private sector has a more industry-based strategy; the public sector, more of a cultural one. So we need to find major solutions to the basic problem of the Canadian Television Fund.

    That said, until all that is resolved—and it may take some time—we are moving ahead and have undertaken a huge effort to rescue as many projects as possible. With our TFO colleagues, we have saved the FranCoeur project, which was the only dramatic series from the regions produced by regional producers. We have also saved En spectacle au Festival acadien, which consists of 13 half-hour programs produced in various Acadian regions and shown over the summer. We have also saved a variety show for the Ontario region called Le Garage.

    We are now working with Téléfilm and other producers to save at least five documentary projects. As you know, there is a meeting on documentaries and youth in October that is organized with the Canadian Television Fund, and we still have 15 priorities. All those priorities, of course, were identified before we knew that the government was going to reduce its funding by $25 million and the CRTC by $6 million. According to our estimates, most of the regional projects would have been accepted without those cuts. They came along later. Once the priorities have been defined, you cannot go back.

    So this October deadline is very important to us. Other funding is available and we are going to try to accept as many projects as possible to save as many production houses and productions as possible.

    As you probably know, our collaborative efforts with independent producers is only a small part of what we do. We produce approximately 100 hours of television in collaboration with independent producers, and our regional stations produce 2,700 hours. There are seven stations across the country and 28 news bureaus throughout Canada. So we do an enormous amount of development and we serve communities through this extremely elaborate infrastructure.

    I can give you a few examples. There will be a new network show lasting between two and two and a half hours on Saturday afternoon that will present regional productions and enable the regions to hold major forums and debates when the need is felt. All that will be produced in Ottawa beginning in September.

    Moreover, as you know if you read the newspapers, we have transferred Le Jour du Seigneur to Ottawa. You are aware that the church in Quebec is very much opposed to this move and the unions in Quebec are opposed as well. We do not see why this program, which is a bit overshadowed in Montreal, should not be enhanced. When I was responsible for religious programming, there were 30 regional programs and now there are only 20. The “Montreal centric” approach is extremely detrimental to the regions. Le Jour du Seigneur also serves to showcase cities, towns and parishes, since news about these places is also included. Every time Le Jour du Seigneur goes on location, the focus is on the whole region. We want to get back to presenting 30 to 35 masses held outside Montreal. Montreal and Quebec City will always be featured, but we feel that it is important for this program to visit the Quebec City region, the Abitibi region, Manitoba, Moncton and so on. To our way of thinking, that focus is essential, and it represented an ever-shrinking proportion of the programming. So there will more hours devoted to that.

    We are going to create a new cultural magazine in western Canada. There is none right now. In addition to the productions that are already planned and the new cultural magazine I just mentioned, there will be regional news from Quebec City on the weekend beginning in January. So the public network is continuing to enrich its regional productions.

    We feel that it is very important to maintain this service and enhance the quality and quantity as much as possible in everything we do. I asked Sylvain Lafrance to be here with us because we offer a comprehensive service : television, radio and new media. We cooperate closely to meet all the needs, as far as our resources permit. I would ask Mr. Lafrance to give us a brief description of what we are doing in those areas.

¹  (1555)  

    Mr. Sylvain Lafrance (Vice-President, French Radio and New Media, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation): I want to reassure you right away that, the reason the Vice-President for Radio is here debating the Canadian Television Fund, it is not to ask for the creation of a Canadian radio fund, although I am open to any suggestions along those lines.

    The Chair: The community radio stations are as well.

    Mr. Sylvain Lafrance: We would certainly go along with them in calling for such a fund to be created.

    I think it is important to address Radio-Canada's entire regional production and particularly French services in minority regions.

    I am responsible for radio services and new media. There have been important developments over the past few years, especially involving the Première Chaîne, the non-specialized radio network of Radio-Canada, which has 20 regional stations. Contrary to what is commonly believed, we actually have more stations now than in the past. We have opened new stations over the past few years. We have vastly increased the number of hours of programming produced in the regions. The Première Chaîne has opened news bureaus in all regions.

    Over half of this network's national programming is now produced outside Montreal. That means a lot of programs being produced from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Over the past few years, there has been a lot of decentralization. I believe that the approach has become much less “Montreal-centric”—to use Daniel's term—and much more a reflection of Canada as a whole.

    The Première Chaîne is also closely involved in song and music development. We are very active in that area. It is a way for us, through our news coverage and collaboration with television, to truly reflect our country.

    This is also true for the Chaîne culturelle. By this December we will have added 20 new transmitters over a period of 15 months to the Chaîne culturelle's network across Canada. That is the largest transmitter increase in the past 35 years. We have decided to make the Chaîne culturelle a Canada-wide network. On Saturday, I was in Saint John's, Newfoundland, for the inauguration of the station there. I can tell you that such an event is always a reason for communities to celebrate, because there is a new French service available.

    My view is that the development of the Chaîne culturelle targets not only francophones; it targets all Canadians who want a markedly different French radio experience. Most of the new transmitters will be in place by December, or by March at the latest.

    We are also very active in the area of new media. I mention this because it is a huge aspect and we are having more and more impact. Over the last two years, there has been an impressive increase in the number of visits to our site, even though there is less talk of new media than there was before. When we hear about new media, it is much more often in connection with economic problems than user visits. But the number of people using new media sites in Canada is increasing significantly, and our regional sites have experienced a 50 per cent jump over the past year. That is noteworthy. We have sites in 14 regions of Canada.

    I also want to mention the incredible success of the news site, which is the Canadian news site consulted most frequently by Canadians across the country. The French youth site is an unprecedented success and has received numerous awards both here and abroad. This service is available to everyone. The sports site, especially in the area of amateur sports, is extremely important. The on-line cultural guide that we launched recently features regional culture as a whole. We also have Bande à part, which is a music site for young people.

    The public broadcasters are therefore able to reach younger audiences than those generally reached by radio and television. They can connect with new audiences. Borders have disappeared, and this new reality is extremely interesting.

    I will close by mentioning our latest initiative, which was announced last week. We set up a committee last year to study the quality of French on Radio-Canada and its websites. That initiative is important to me. Defending French across the country is not just about defending investments; we also need to defend the quality of the spoken language.

    A committee headed by Yannick Villedieu went across the country over the past six months. The committee is made up of people from all regions of Canada who have thought about the quality of French that we hear on the air. The committee presented its recommendations a month and a half or two months ago. Last week, Daniel and I announced a series of measures for radio, television and the new media to ensure that language quality always sets a standard for the whole country and for all the services at each of our television and radio stations and even on our websites, where we are talking about written French, and this is a bit different from what we have always done. We are very pleased to be a part of this effort to enrich the quality of French in Canada.

    I will conclude my presentation here. Thank you.

º  (1600)  

    The Chair: Ms. Desjardins, do you want to make any comments? No?

    Ms. Paquin, the floor is yours.

    Ms. Claudette Paquin (Managing Director, TFO-TV Ontario):

    Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, my name is Claudette Paquin, and I am the Managing Director of TFO, which is the French network of TVOntario. Thank you very much for agreeing to hear from me today and especially for being so diligent in dealing with this situation that can be called, without any exaggeration, a serious crisis for our minority official languages communities.

    TFO is a non-commercial educational and cultural network devoted entirely to meeting the needs of the Franco-Ontarian community primarily and, secondarily, the needs of other minority francophone communities. That mission is a function of our revenue sources and the fact that we are unique.

    TFO is distributed on basic cable in Ontario and New Brunswick, and it therefore easily reaches over 75% of francophones in minority situations. TFO is also accessible right now to a quarter of the Quebec market, that is, over 500,000 households, through cable or satellite service. That means that some 1.2 million people in Quebec can watch TFO. That is a lower level of penetration, of course, than the major Quebec networks, but we broadcast our producers' programming in prime-time.

    So it would be interesting to compare, in absolute terms, the number of viewers who could actually watch FranCoeur at 8 p.m., since TFO is available to 500,000 Quebec households, with the number who watch the program on Saturday at 2 p.m. on a major Quebec network that reaches 2 million households.

    Through its in-house productions, TFO is already a provider of content that is focused on our realities and our stories. In addition to that mandate, however, I made a strong commitment when I took over as head of TFO, three years ago now, to help develop the minority francophone independent production industry, not out of charity, of paternalism or opportunism, but because I am a full member of my community and I believe in its strength and in the quality and relevance of the things we do.

    Financially, though, that commitment is not easy for TFO. The total annual budget for prime-time programming, that is, between 8 p.m. and 11 p.m., is $1.4 million. The licence alone for FranCoeur 1, the first series, was supposed to be about $400,000 at the outset and rose to $600,000 because Telefilm is not completely involved in the project. That might be quite a small amount for other French networks, but it accounts for half the annual budget for our programming of that kind, and it is only six hours of air time. So we have to do a lot of juggling with the rest.

    Generally speaking, TFO support for minority francophone productions, because of the cost, as led to an alarming drop in the number of new hours required to maintain our annual inventory of programs. The threshold for TFO is around 1,200 new hours a year for the network as a whole. We are at 846 hours right now. I can assure you that we do not intend to give up on this.

    TFO accounts for 60% of the broadcast licences involving producers who are members of the Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada, which is not surprising, of course, since the stories they are telling are relevant to my own channel's mandate. So we all benefit from this situation. Moreover, I recognize that the one-time major contribution from Heritage Canada certainly helped TFO and the producers through this difficult birthing process, if I can put it that way.

    That is where we are in this emerging field. So after decades of asserting our rights and developing institutions and structures, we finally managed to get out of survival mode and started to blossom in other areas, but we are now here begging for peanuts, because we are back to a situation of communication survival. I feel this is a big step backwards!

    This country has public policies that were sought and passed by our elected representatives for very specific purposes. Enhancing the vitality of francophone communities across the country, from sea to sea, was the aim of a number of those public policies. The agencies set up by the federal government to manage public funds should be bound by the spirit of those public policies.

º  (1605)  

    Their criteria should be established in the same spirit. It is unacceptable for audience ratings based on the Quebec market, perhaps even just the Montreal market, to be used to determine the design and future of drama programming produced by and for our communities.

    What are we going back to? If you are outside Quebec, forget it! I have heard that in the past : forget it if you are outside Montreal! And that is absolutely unacceptable. People talk about the law of the market. I know all about the law of the market. I deal with these things every day. We pay market price for everything that airs on TFO. We pay the market price for the use of our cameras, our studios. There are no favours here. In Ontario, we compete with dozens and dozens of English and French channels. But we are still managing to reach nearly a million viewers a week in Ontario right now.

    Public policies exist to balance market power or the law of the market with visions and goals that require a different approach because of the different balance of power. This is not charity but good public policy. It is about creating a level playing field when and where it is required in order to reach society's goals. That is how a society truly lays the groundwork for healthy competition. Now we would be pleased to compete in the market, because our products are really good. And we will have as much opportunity as anyone else to establish our competitive advantage.

    The impact of the funding decisions is devastating for TFO. In terms of content, both for children's programming and adult prime-time programming, it means that we are losing the right to tell and watch our own stories. So the solution must be as radical as the blow that we have been struck.

    Minority francophones account for 15 per cent of francophones across Canada. My first request would be that 15 per cent of the total envelope for francophone programming that is managed right now by the funds be withdrawn; I would also ask that this money be administered in a fully transparent way by a management agency set up and run by and for francophones in minority communities. These are rights that we have had in other areas since 1982. Third, I would propose that this money be managed for the benefit of independent producers in minority francophone communities and networks operating in those communities.

    After all, the principle of a dedicated envelope already exists. There is a francophone envelope within the larger envelope. Moreover, we already have that kind of management model in our communities. For example, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes set up the Société santé en français to manage dedicated federal funding for health services to be provided to minority francophone communities. There is already a precedent for creating such a body and it is a success. Let us use it to go even further.

    I will conclude my remarks by quoting Guy Fournier, who recently produced a report for the CRTC on French-language television drama. I must say that he seems to be completely unaware that there is French television outside Quebec and excellent dramatic programming also outside Quebec. I would invite him to come to visit us. After all, Toronto is not Timbuktu. I hope that Mr. Dalfen, who is with the CRTC, is a bit more aware of the situation with respect to French-language drama.

    Mr. Fournier states, and I quote :

[...] original dramas are largely responsible for maintaining audience loyalty and drive the entire programming schedule.

    I believe he is quite right.

    Then Mr. Fournier talks about the number of weeks and years that dramas have stayed on the air, and I quote :

The number of years [...] has definitely been one of those factors [...] of fundamental importance for viewer loyalty.

    Finally, he examines dramatic series that have been aired for between four and 15 years. He states, and I quote :

[...] a run of about six seasons!

º  (1610)  

    We created the program called FranCoeur, which was broadcast for the first season. With the assistance of Radio-Canada and Heritage Canada, we will be able to keep the program for a second season. Will it be over next year? Not if I have anything to say about the matter.

    I am asking you today to give us the resources, from the amounts to which we are certainly entitled, we require to be the winners we are. I'm also asking that the accountability for this funding be unequivocal and devoid of conflict of interest. As for the time line, we know that for us, the long-term is the next cycle. The next cycle begins in October, or in the fall, and the next one, the most important one, is in February.

    The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Paquin.

    You have the floor, Ms. Gagnon.

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): My first question will be for Ms. Paquin, and after that, I will turn to the Radio-Canada representatives.

    Ms. Paquin, you mentioned a percentage for television production in francophone minority communities or in francophone communities in Canada. Could you be a little more explicit about the idea of moving money around? Does it apply just to francophone minorities or to all francophones in the country?

    Ms. Claudette Paquin: From the total francophone envelope, of the funds...

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon: The francophone envelope?

    Ms. Claudette Paquin: ...within the Canadian Television Fund and Telefilm...

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Both in Quebec and...

    Ms. Claudette Paquin: To my knowledge, at the moment, the francophone envelope—and Mr. Pradier or Stursberg will correct me if I am wrong—is in Montreal.

    So 15 per cent of the funds within this envelope are taken out and managed by and for francophone minority communities.

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Could you tell us how much you have at the moment? Do you have 5 per cent of this francophone envelope?

    Ms. Claudette Paquin: I think it varies between 4 and 10 per cent. I think that last year was the best one—we must have had close to 10 per cent. As a result, there was an expansion of production companies and programming this year. The only thing is that we were told that the figure was 7 per cent this year, but I am not convinced that it is over 5 per cent. We could do some detailed calculations, unless Mr. Bélanger has a better idea.

    The Chair: I will not take up your time, Ms. Gagnon, but I would like to make a comment here. Yesterday, we mentioned some charts on the forecast expenditures that appeared in the document prepared by the Library of Parliament researcher. For 1997-1998, the francophone envelope ranged from 3.3 per cent one year to 8 per cent the following year; to 7.5 per cent the year after that; to 5.2 per cent in 2000-2001; and to 10.5 per cent in 2001-2002. Yesterday, we were told that the forecast for this year was 7.5 per cent, and now we hear today that it may be less than that.

    Ms. Claudette Paquin: I think we're going to have to do a calm, careful calculation of this.

º  (1615)  

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I needed to know whether the 15 per cent was an envelope for francophones outside Quebec.

    Now I'd like to have some explanations about the IPOLC program for francophone minority television productions.

    Ms. Claudette Paquin: To my knowledge, because I do not have access to it, the IPOLC program was used to train script writers in minority francophone production companies.

    You may know as much about this as I do, Mr. Gourd, but to my knowledge, this program was used to train people, which is extremely important. It was also somewhat a source of frustration this year, because we trained some very good screenwriters, people who were ready to start writing dramas throughout the country. I have brought in some copies of e-mails from people in Acadie who want to produce a drama there. People have gotten a taste for this, and in my view, we can longer close this door on them.

    The Chair: You have the floor, Mr. Gourd.

    Mr. Daniel Gourd: We at Radio-Canada initiated the IPOLC project, along with Telefilm Canada. It is a training program, not only for scriptwriters, but also for directors, under the supervision of producers. The next step we have planned is to produce two short half-hour features, in cooperation with Telefilm Canada and the NFB. We will select the best two projects from among all the people we train, and as soon as possible, we want to finance together two short half-hour features. Telefilm Canada and the NFB are on side with us.

    So it is not just a training program. For me, it is important that training lead to a job in production. This program will gradually train auteurs and directors in the area that requires the most skill, namely dramas. It is really a long-term strategy. As we did in the case of documentaries 15 years ago, with the NFB's participation, we succeeded in producing documentary filmmakers throughout the country. By producing four documentaries a year, we managed to establish an entire documentary industry that is absolutely unchallenged today.

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Isn't there a budget for francophone or anglophone production for this type of training in Quebec?

    Mr. Daniel Gourd: No, the IPOLC program is for the minority community, because it did not have access to this training. However, we implemented the program with the assistance of a very well-known institution in Montreal, the INIS, the Institut national de l'image et du son. It is thanks to this institution that we are able to provide this training.

    In Quebec, people have the École nationale de l'humour and the INIS; they have access to many schools that do not exist outside of Quebec. So, we have to allow everyone to take advantage of these institutions by organizing special sessions.

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Certain things exist in Quebec that do not exist for francophones outside Quebec.

    Mr. Daniel Gourd: We have to train talented individuals so that they can express themselves.

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I couldn't agree more. I would like to come back to Radio-Canada. You seem to understand that the cuts to the Canadian Television Fund have had some very significant impacts. I think that the biggest losers, in addition to the francophone minority communities, are also all the regions outside of Montreal. However, given the fragile situation of television production in minority communities, why was regional weighting not used to its full capacity in the choices Radio-Canada had to make? Had that been done, you may have been able to do more to encourage televised [Editors' Note: Inaudible]...

    Mr. Daniel Gourd: This was taken into account when we set our priorities, before we found out that there was $25 million less in the Canadian Television Fund, and before we learned that there was 6 or 7 million dollars less because of the changes in the CRTC rules. That amounts to a total of $32 million less. For the francophone envelope, that means one-third of this amount, or $11 million. On the basis of our calculations, most of the productions we had were affected by this financial reality. It was really after the fact that all these changes happened and, therefore, since the priorities had already been set and had already gone out, we could not call everything back and start over within a few weeks. So, essentially, it was only after the fact that everyone realized they were working with a fund that had been reduced very substantially.

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon: That will be all, for the time being.

    Mr. Daniel Gourd: I think Ms. Macdonald in fact confirmed yesterday that most of the productions apparently got through.

    The Chair: Ms. Allard.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.): Good afternoon, Mr. Gourd, Ms. Paquin, Mr. Lafrance and Mme Desjardins. Thank you very much for your presentations; they were most interesting.

    I'm speaking in my capacity as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Heritage. You have been on the board of the Canadian Television Fund for several years now, Mr. Gourd. Are we right to say that the fund's budget from the Government of Canada was never confirmed as such? Each year, you had to make representations to the government to get funding. Am I right on that?

    Mr. Daniel Gourd: That is quite right. Each year, we had to... When Ms. Copps announced the injection of $100 million, I think we had funding for two years at that point, but subsequently, we had to renew our funding one year at a time. You are quite right.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Is it correct that at the moment the annual budget of the fund has been set at $75 million and that this amount will be maintained in the future?

    Mr. Daniel Gourd: What I understood Mr. Manley to say was that the commitment was for two years, two years at $75 million, thus a $50 million reduction over two years.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: So, you...

    Mr. Daniel Gourd: There is no commitment beyond the two years.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: That is your understanding of the matter.

    Mr. Daniel Gourd: I believe that is what was announced and what everyone seems to have understood.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: I hear you today; you are from public television. There is a big debate in Quebec coming from private television. There have actually been some rather pointed accusations made against public television, in particular Radio-Canada, which, according to private television, has taken a good percentage of the funding available under the Canadian Television Fund. However, Mr. Gourd, you say that the way the Canada Television Fund distributes funding is not working. In addition, Ms. Paquin is asking that the envelope for television for minority communities be set at 15%.

    So how can we reconcile your demands with the position taken by private television, which maintains that we are already giving too much to public television?

º  (1620)  

    Mr. Daniel Gourd: It is no secret that private television would like to see public television cut off from the Canadian Television Fund. They have never hidden this fact. Their argument is that since we already get public subsidies, we should not get any further public funding. Their position is that public television should not be eligible for this funding. Private television companies are making concessions merely because the government and the major public institutions are of the view that their approach makes no sense.

    I would point out that these attacks were really made by Mr. Péladeau, when he met with his shareholders. At the same time, he announced extremely high profits for his television channel. So these people are very wealthy. We used to talk about the poor private television channel, TVA, but now, the consortium to which TVA belongs, with its eight channels, is five times larger than Radio-Canada. So they are not small players. There is convergence among all the players in television. In other words, they have satellite distribution, newspapers and magazines, television, and soon, probably TVA will have radio as well. These are huge empires. So when we look at the interests at stake, it is easy to take a position such as that, but it does not withstand analysis.

    Second, TFO, ourselves and Télé-Québec all have obligations to the community, to culture and to film, for example, which go much beyond what the private television channels do. TVA does almost nothing in the area of film. We produce at least 15 or 16 of the 20 films a year made in French Canada. We are the people who produce them. When does TVA do any theatre? When does TVA do any music? When does TVA do anything at all of a cultural nature? When does TVA produce children's programming? When does TVA do any variety shows, beyond Star Académie, in which they invested all their money this year? That is why they did not have enough money to contribute any to the Canadian Television Fund. As the English saying goes, you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

    So I absolutely refute this argument as being, first, unfair, and second crude and absolutely not in keeping with Canada's national policy on culture and cultural diversity.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Can you tell me why you say that the Canadian Television Fund, in its present form, is not working?

    Mr. Daniel Gourd: I think that what we saw happen this year needs no further comment.

    The sudden withdrawal of money was an extremely powerful indication of a situation that is not manageable. There are both public and private stakeholders with different objectives involved; there are also considerations such as those of producers in the regions compared to central producers; there are the francophone producers. There is the francophone community as compared to the dominant culture. We are trying to manage all of that using the same rules.

    The demand has been increasing constantly, and this means that the number of people who have to be hired to manage the demand is increasing at an incredible rate. As a result, it now costs $15 million to administer the fund. Seven per cent of the money in the fund goes to administration. Why is that? The demand is increasing, there are more and more players involved and less and less money.

    We are going to have to find ways to reduce the initial demand, first of all, so that less money goes to administration and more goes to production. Second, neither the distributors nor the producers ever know when the decisions will be made. We do not know whether our programs will be broadcast or whether the producers will have their product. So everyone is walking on eggs until May, and the season begins in September.

    TFO's situation this year is dramatic, as is that of Télé-Québec and our own. But how many producers will die because they have no guarantee? There is a certain amount that was invested in project development that has been lost, to all intents and purposes, because we cannot contain the demand. So there are hundreds of projects coming forward. We are investing in development, but that is an absolute waste, because we know that ultimately, these projects will not be funded.

    The situation in which we find ourselves is completely unreasonable. It is urgent that we find some simple solutions that will enable us to plan better, to guarantee the continued survival of distributors and producers, and particularly to stop spending more and more on administration, for a fund that does not work.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Ms. Lill.

[English]

    Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Thank you very much for coming here today.

    I'm very distressed by this cut to the Canadian Television Fund.

    I'm interested in your comments, Mr. Gourd, about private broadcasters. I sit on the heritage committee. We have heard over and over again about the financial restraints private broadcasters are facing. Then there's the spectacle of them going to Los Angeles in the last couple of weeks to buy expensive American programming. The Banff Television Festival is celebrating American programming this year.

    At the same time, we are seeing deep cuts to Canadian programming. The 12 hours of programming last year is down to four hours this year. It's astounding. When we're supposed to be protecting and nurturing Canadian content, we're seeing cuts to this lifeline that is the Canadian Television Fund.

    I've talked with people from ACTRA. I've met with them. They've been on the Hill. They tell the Minister of Finance to put the money back. It triggers millions of additional dollars. It supports thousands of jobs and it supports Canadian programming.

    Here we are. This is one more opportunity for us to make that point loud and clear. If we're trying to support Canadian culture, and if we're trying to support minority official language productions, which is critical, then listen up. This is where we're hearing it has to happen.

    In terms of a question, do you have any sense of whether there's a rule of thumb as to how much money you can access? For the $25 million that has been withdrawn, is there a rule of thumb on how many jobs that would translate into, in terms of your own production capabilities? How much other money could be accessed from that, and how much programming would you be able to see?

    Anyone can answer.

º  (1625)  

    Mr. Daniel Gourd: More or less, the fund usually finances between 20% to 49% of a production. It varies from one to the other. You can safely say that at least two times more money will be invested from tax credits, licences from broadcasters, and other considerations.

    It's really an intellectual, creative job. They are high-end types of jobs that generate a lot money, and a lot of consommation as well. It's a very productive and highly rich market, the television and cultural industries.

    I know people don't like to see it in this way, but it's an industry--a very productive industry.

    Ms. Claudette Paquin: I would just like to add that simply bringing back $25 million won't cure the ills, because I think what happened is, when it was withdrawn, it exposed les vices de forme,the flaws of the system, and that has to be addressed as much as the amount itself.

    Ms. Wendy Lill: I have one more little question. I have a chart here showing the number of projects supported by the CTF by language group from 1997 to 2002.

    It's an incredible jump. In 1997-98, it's 179 anglophone productions, excluding Quebec; and then, in 2001-02, it's 317. That's an amazing number of programs dependent on this fund, so it's astounding that we're going in the opposite direction.

    Why are there so many more productions dependent on it?

[Translation]

    Mr. Daniel Gourd: The reason is simple : there has been a significant increase in the number of channels in the last 10 years. The CRTC has awarded licences to specialty channels, to digital channels, and all these people are at the gate wanting to produce, because they have Canadian content requirements and want to be competitive with the other channels. So all these new players are there and are clamouring for funding for programs. As a result, the number of players has increased and the amount of funding available has decreased. There is no doubt that there is a problem.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Bellemare.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    My question is also about the funding available. If there is increasing dependence on private funds rather than public funds, in 10, 15 or 20 years, could channels such as Radio-Canada and TVOntario disappear, in your view, unless there is a change in attitude?

º  (1630)  

    Mr. Daniel Gourd: Without the support of a clear national policy on culture and communications, and without very firm support from the government for these institutions that are so fundamental to our cultural policy and development policy, there is no doubt that Radio-Canada and all the other institutions such as TFO, Télé-Québec and many others could disappear, because the mandates we've been given, the things we have to do...

    The Chair: There is a fire alarm; we must leave the building.

º  (1630)  

---

º  (1700)  

    The Chair: We are now ready to reconvene. We would like to apologize for the interruption. Apparently, the fire alarm was set off by a welder, causing a small incident.

    Before moving on to Telefilm Canada, I have a few points that I would like to raise. Some of them are related to questions that I would have liked to ask Radio-Canada, but since representatives from this organization are listening to us—here they are now—I will simply make a few comments and ask the people from Radio-Canada to send us any further information, if required, within the next few days.

    First, Mr. Gourd, I would like to congratulate you for deciding to promote your regional directors to senior management positions. I believe that a certain percentage of your 40 priorities related to regional production. I would like to know exactly how many that represents.

    I would also like to know—and you have already given me the answer to this—what percentage of the Canadian Television Fund went towards administration; it appears to be 7 per cent of the fund, or about $15 million. I was not aware of that figure, and I believe that it should be noted.

    I also asked whether any of the 18 TVA priorities, if memory serves, involved regional productions or productions from outside Quebec. I was told that there were none.

    Those are all of the questions that I wanted to ask. We will now step up the pace. Please forgive us, but because of the interruption, we are now pressed for time.

    I would now like to invite Mr. Richard Stursberg to make a somewhat abbreviated presentation, if possible. However, Mr. Stursberg, I would be remiss if I did not once again congratulate Telefilm for its contribution to Canada's success at Cannes this year. My wife and I were travelling on the Riviera and we had an opportunity to see the film, Les invasions barbares, as it was being acclaimed. I was able to see, with my own eyes, how wonderfully Telefilm managed to assert a Canadian presence there.

    We will now try to ensure that television productions from outside Quebec will also be well represented. You now have the floor.

    Mr. Richard Stursberg (Executive Director, Telefilm Canada): Thank you very much. We are delighted to be here today. I'm Richard Stursberg, the Executive Director of Telefilm Canada and with me here today is Michel Pradier, Regional Director of the Quebec office and sector head for television.

    We have been asked to speak to you about Telefilm Canada's implementation of section 41 of the Official Languages Act, which includes the financial support we provide to francophone producers outside Quebec, anglophone producers in Quebec and the IPOLC initiative, that is, the Interdepartmental Partnership with Official Language Communities.

    As you may know, Telefilm Canada is a cultural agency with a mandate to invest in the creation of and distribution of television, film and new media products. Every year, we submit a status report to the Department of Canadian Heritage. We are in the midst of preparing our status report for the year ending 2002-2003, as well as an action plan for 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. We will be developing the action plan within the context of our new corporate plan.

    Briefly, I can tell you that one of our objectives for the future is to build capacity, both financial and human capital, in the industries of television, film and new media. This means strong companies and the availability of skilled people who write, direct and produce great television and films.

    Initiatives for the minority language communities fit within our goal of building capacity. This objective will allow us to meet our primary objective which is to build larger audiences for Canadian film, television programs and other media. We will be elaborating further on our goals for the future in our action plan to be submitted to the Department of Canadian Heritage shortly.

    In the last 11 years, Telefilm has allocated, from all its funds—feature film, the EIP, that is, the television fund we administer at Telefilm from the Canadian Television Fund, and new media—an average of almost 7per cent of its development and production resources to minority language productions. Figures for 2002-2003 reveal that almost 11 per cent of our resources—film, television and new media—were allocated to minority language productions.

    When we look at francophone production outside Quebec, between 1998-1999 and 2002-2003, the number of projects increased from 13 to 41; total budgets increased from $7 million to $26.5 million. Telefilm's participation increased from $2.6 million to $4.6 million. In 2002-2003, the 41 projects supported and worth $26.5 million in total budget represented a 54 per cent increase from 2001-2002.

    In the last four years, the number of productions we have supported has tripled. Telefilm's support to this community has tripled in the last five years.

[English]

    Similarly, anglophone production in Quebec experienced impressive growth between 1998-99 and 2002-03. The number of projects increased from 59 to 71. Total budgets went from $79.7 million to $111 million, and Telefilm's participation increased from 14% to 19%.

    We also invested in versioning and subtitling of productions to make them more accessible in the official languages. In 2002-03 we invested a total of $1.6 million: $510,000 to version feature films, and $1.1 million for television productions.

»  (1705)  

[Translation]

    One of the reasons for the tremendous growth of minority language production is, I think, the impact of the IPOLC initiative which Telefilm began in 2001. This targeted program of special development envelopes, training and professional development and immersion seminars with decision-makers, we believe, has provided a ladder for francophone independent producers outside Quebec. We have seen the impact that development and training has made in improving their chances at production.

    The IPOLC was initiated in order to improve their access to our programs. In particular, this initiative responded to the lack of professional training opportunities for this community in the regions, their difficulty in establishing relationships with broadcasters and the lack of opportunity to access development resources.

    To give you an idea of the impact of this initiative on the community—between 1999 and 2002, there was an increase in the number of projects for development submitted to Telefilm, from 3 to 20 projects. A more telling indicator of impact is the number of projects that were expected for production—16 out of a total of 49 projects, almost 33 per cent, were accepted. In addition to these 16 projects, there were a further 15 projects between 1999 and 2002 submitted outside Quebec for production financing which have emerged as a direct result of the immersion initiative of the IPOLC.

    We hope to continue with the IPOLC program beyond 2004 and would be happy to provide you with more information once we have concluded the discussion underway. Daniel Gourd referred to some avenues we are exploring with Radio-Canada.

    When we look at Telefilm's financing of language minority productions this year, 2003-2004, we are faced with two problems: first, the Canadian Television Fund, which I understand you heard from yesterday, had $70 million less to spend and second, this year, Telefilm implemented a national comparative process for requests of more than $1 million so that projects must demonstrate significant audience potential.

    These problems may have consequences for francophone productions outside Quebec. We do not yet know how all of this will end. What we can say is that we will be in a better position to assess the situation once we have made our final decision on documentaries.

    I would also like to say, as Michael Wernick told you yesterday, that we are exploring, along with the Department of Canadian Heritage, the possibility of increasing the funding available for productions outside Quebec.

    Thank you. I would be happy to answer your questions.

    The Chair: Thank you for shortening your presentation Mr. Strusberg.

    Ms. Gagnon. Everyone will have five minutes.

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Thank you. I am happy to be here this afternoon, because there are figures that are similar to those we considered cuts to the Canadian Television Fund. You are actually talking about $70 million because you must also take into account part of the share paid by the satellite broadcasters into the community envelope and part of the interest as well. Therefore, more than $60 million will be cut from the Canadian Television Fund.

    I would like you to explain how the Minister can tell us that she found $20 million for television production? I don't understand. I thought we were all dealing with the same figures, but when I asked the Minister why she does not understand the figures that I am quoting, she tells me that she got $20 million from Telefilm Canada.

    Perhaps you could explain that to me, since you appear to be the one who saved the day?

    Mr. Richard Stursberg: Of course, I can't speak for the minister. In his budget, Mr. Manley cut $25 million from the Canadian Television Fund. As Daniel Gourd said, we also lost another $6.5 million because of changes to the rules governing cable distributors. We had a reserve fund totalling $40 million last year, but it has all been spent.

    That is why I say that we have a $70 million shortfall. We will be getting $70 million less. I know that Ms. Copps tried to find the money to make up the difference, but at this time, nothing has been done by the Department of Canadian Heritage to solve the problem.

»  (1710)  

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon: But even if the minister were to find the money within her own department, she would have to make cuts elsewhere, in another existing envelope. Therefore, nothing would really be done to solve the problem as it relates to supporting culture as a whole. So the money would have to come from the general fund, thought the Department of Finance.

    Mr. Stursberg: Yes.

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Where do you think the minister can find this $20 million, if, indeed, we can hope that she does?

    Mr. Richard Stursberg: I believe it might be better to put that question to the department's representatives or to the minister herself, rather than ask us.

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon: But I was told that the solution could be found within the Telefilm Canada budget.

    Mr. Richard Stursberg: We have no money to make up for the cuts at this time. What we have said and what we have done... You must understand that there are two programs that fall within the Canadian Television Fund: the LFP, which is managed by the fund, and the EIP, which is managed by Telefilm Canada.

    When the LFP announced its decisions, there was some negative reaction within the community. They made their announcements before we made ours. Once our decisions had been made, we decided to tell the fund's board of directors what our intentions were, in order to see whether or not we might be able to better coordinate decisions that had already been made by the LFP. We suggested that some small administrative changes be made in order to improve the process and better manage all of the decisions. That is what we did. That may be why people have said that Telefilm had a hand in the process and in the eventual outcome of the decisions that were made.

    According to Daniel Gourd, the fund is not in very good shape, and I wholeheartedly agree with him. The problem that we have at this time is that there is not one fund but two. There are two boards of directors, not one. There are two programs to support television production, instead of one. When you have two boards of directors, two administrations, two totally different programs, then no one is really responsible for the fund. That is the main problem. It is a structural, a governance problem. For that reason, it is almost impossible to properly coordinate decisions for television funding.

    I must also admit that I had the pleasure of chairing the fund's board of directors. I know exactly how it works. That must be the central issue. If we want to avoid this type of problem in the future, then we have to tackle the governance and structure of the fund, so as to have a single board of directors, a single administration, so that one group will be responsible for all of the decisions involving television funding in our country.

    The Chair: I would really like to examine that further, but we will now move on to Ms. Allard.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: I would like to say hello and welcome Mr. Pradier. Thank you for your presentation and for being so open with us.

    The Canadian Television Fund is an independent organization that is supposed to make its own administrative decisions. In view of the failure that we have witnessed, who will decide on how to reform the fund? What will it take? A good kick in the backside, or what?

»  (1715)  

    Mr. Richard Stursberg: It is up to the department and the minister to solve the problem. Neither the fund itself nor Telefilm can restructure the fund, because it was established by the department.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: By an act of Parliament?

    Mr. Richard Stursberg: No, not by legislation, but by administrative decisions.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Mr. Stursberg, may I ask you a question? I have a feeling that you are familiar with this environment. You know that, along with the measure announced for the Canadian Television Fund, our minister of Finance has increased the tax breaks given to producers for filming in Canada.

    I would like to know how you feel about that. Can tax incentives really help to promote production in Canada?

    Mr. Richard Stursberg: The department has increased the tax credits that are available for foreign film production in Canada. Therefore, the increased tax credits announced in the budget will provide the greatest advantages to the Americans and American film production companies. A number of people think it is somewhat strange to increase the tax credits given to foreigners while, at the same time, cutting the funding to Canadians.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: On paper, it looks like the Telefilm budget has increased. In reality, have your budgets increased as compared to the last fiscal year? Do you have more money to spend on Canadian productions?

    Mr. Richard Stursberg: No, we have the same budget as we had last year.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: There has been no increase?

    Mr. Richard Stursberg: No.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: In none of the sectors?

    Mr. Richard Stursberg: No, but three years ago, Ms. Copps doubled the contribution for feature films because we not only fund television, but also feature films, new media, music companies, festivals and the like.

    This year, we have more or less the same budget that we had last year, except for the first $25 million cut and another $6 million. Normally, the two programs would receive equal shares of the amounts that are granted by the Department of Finance. In that case, there has been a substantial $15 million cut from the amounts that Telefilm has available to fund television production.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: However, you say that the Department of Canadian Heritage is trying to find money to fund those productions.

    Mr. Richard Stursberg: It is being discussed, but we know full well that because of the cuts, namely, the $70 million shortfall compared to last year, there have been problems funding French-language productions outside Quebec. We have done our best, under the circumstances, but at the same time, we are exploring possibilities with the department in order to determine whether or not it might be possible to inject a little more money into productions outside Quebec.

»  (1720)  

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: You said earlier that you had a national comparative process based on audience potential. I would like to know why you decided to target box- office receipts. Why is that one of your criterion?

    Mr. Richard Stursberg: The objective for feature films was set by the Canadian government when Ms. Copps doubled the amount of money available for that category. The department set, as an objective, 5 per cent of the national box-office receipts for a 5-year period. There are three years remaining. She said that the government was prepared to double the funding, but we hope that Telefilm, for Canadian films, will meet a national box-office return of 5 per cent. The goal was not set by Telefilm Canada, but by the department, or rather, the minister.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: What about television programming?

    Mr. Richard Stursberg: Everything is fine when it comes to French language television. All of the 20 most popular French language programs are Canadian. In English language production, things are not doing as well. There is a limited audience for Canadian programming. We believe, and this is one of the goals for our corporate fund, that we have to increase the ratings, particularly on the English side. This is a matter that we have already discussed with the Canadian Television Fund board of directors. We feel that the best thing to do would be to change the Fund's objective, just as we, at Telefilm, intend to change our objective, in order to base the funding of television on the ratings. This is what we have done for feature film.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    You have the floor, Mr. Bellemare.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Stursberg, you mentioned tax credits for foreign production. Our first instinct is to react and ask why. I imagine that these foreign producers pay taxes in Canada. You can't have a credit if you don't pay tax.

    Does this apply to Canadian-made productions or to distribution?

    Mr. Richard Stursberg: It's for production.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Is this production...?

    Mr. Richard Stursberg: Any American company, whether it be MGM, Miramax or UA, if it decides to film in Canada, can access the foreign production tax credit.

    The tax credit is based on the amount spent by the company here, in Canada. It is not for Canadian productions; it's for foreign production film here in Canada.

    There is another tax credit for Canadian productions. It is higher than the amount available for foreign film companies. In the budget, the foreign tax credit was increased, but the Canadian production credit remain the same. And at the same time, $25 million was cut from the amount available in the fund. So there are three parts to this problem: there is the foreign film company tax credit; there is the tax credit for Canadian companies; and there the cash in the Canadian Television Fund, even at Telefilm Canada.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I did not understand that. Are the tax credits the same for foreign production and for Canadians?

    Mr. Richard Stursberg: No. The tax credits are higher for Canadian productions than they are for foreign productions.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: When tax credits are available, do foreign producers also receive subsidies?

    Mr. Richard Stursberg: No.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Must they hire people from the Canadian industry?

    Mr. Richard Stursberg: Absolutely.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Even actors?

    Mr. Richard Stursberg: Yes, even actors, technicians, producers, and so on.

    Mr. Michel Pradier (General Director, Quebec, Telefilm Canada): If I may, the tax credit applies to labour costs.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: That can help to develop the industry in Canada.

»  (1725)  

    Mr. Richard Stursberg: We can't say that it is not an important factor. It is a big help to the Canadian industry. As is the fact that foreign companies are filming here in Canada.

    However, we simply wanted to explain that many people found it somewhat strange that there would be an increase in tax credits for foreign companies while, at the same time less money is being made available for Canadian companies.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I won't go into that for the simple reason that we would have to go back to examining the funding, receipts, expenditures, assets and spinoffs. We would never see the end of it. So we will return to discussing your organization.

    When it comes to funding Canadian films, does this involve amounts that are granted, with no hope of recovery, or are they loans or investments?

    Mr. Richard Stursberg: For feature films, these are investments. We buy part of the film. We can even subsidize the marketing of the film, meaning the distribution here in Canada. We are involved in subsidizing the development of a feature-film project. We even invest in the production itself and we support the distributors by helping out with the marketing costs.

    The Chair: I have a few questions, Mr. Stursberg. I will try to be brief. I noted the statistics you presented in your opening remarks. I am not challenging them. The Fédération culturelle canadienne-française, in a study of all cultural institutions, had been quite eloquent in praising you. However, the current year's statistics are what we are all worried about. We would like more information on these, particularly with respect to the documentary category.

    If I understand correctly, Telefilm has instituted a new measure for the English-language market, namely, a target of 1.5 million viewers for drama.

    Should we have much faith in this new criterion?

    Mr. Richard Stursberg: We did not create this type of criteria for the francophone market.

    What we did with regard to feature films—and we will probably adopt the same policy in French—is we decided to establish tests for funding in English. For the English language sector, if someone wants an investment of over $1 million, this person must be able to convince us that the film will make more than $1 million at the box office.

    We decided not to adopt this policy in French because things are going very well in the French market. Last year, Canadian French films pulled in 12.5 per cent at the box office. This year, I expect that Canadian French films will probably pull in 15 per cent of box office receipts. In that sense, things are going very well in the French market. Since our policies are based on the market, we have therefore decided to respect the maturity of the francophone market and to adopt an asymmetric policy.

    The Chair: I am talking about television.

    Mr. Richard Stursberg: With regard to television, I noted that someone mentioned that we had set an objective of 1.5 million viewers. There is no such objective at Telefilm Canada.

    The Chair: Either for English television or French television?

    Mr. Richard Stursberg: If an English television program attracted 1.5 million viewers, that would be an extraordinary success. But, as it now stands, that would be unimaginable for a Canadian program.

»  (1730)  

    The Chair: When a program is endorsed by a broadcaster and approved under the LFP, how does Telefilm establish its funding levels for the EIP program?

    Mr. Richard Stursberg: We have our own rules. I think that Sandra Macdonald gave you a copy of the decision chart yesterday. Under normal circumstances, for a major dramatic television series, you need both sides to complete the funding. For our part, under our project assessment chart, we focus a lot on the quality, creativity and originality of a program, as well as its ratings potential. We examine the case presented by the people involved in the project and also take into account the licences awarded by the broadcaster for the projet. In that regard, our process is more selective than the one under the LFP, which is an objective system.

    The Chair: Fine. At this point in time, can you tell us how much money will be invested in francophone programs outside Quebec, as compared to last year?

    Mr. Richard Stursberg: It is difficult to say at this point. We think the amount will be between 7 per cent and 9 per cent.

    The Chair: What was last year's percentage?

    Mr. Michel Pradier: About 10 per cent.

    Mr. Richard Stursberg: We are in the process of finalizing our decisions with regard to documentaries. We will finalize our decisions this week, and conclude our consultations with the department.

    The Chair: I have a final question. The Standing Committee on Official Languages is breaking new ground and I understand why I sometimes miss the Heritage Committee.

    Of course, broadcasters must assess every proposal they receive. The Canadian Television Fund must also assess projects and I imagine that Telefilm also does its own evaluations, since it has a chart. To make a decision and to set the financing amount for a television program, three independent evaluations must be carried out.

    Do you think that is normal?

    Mr. Richard Stursberg: As I said, I think that is very abnormal. I do not think it is a good idea to have two administrations with two programs. It is normal for the broadcasters to conduct their own analysis. But then, every broadcaster applies for funding out of the fund. We have to compare the proposals we received with the projects proposed by various broadcasters. At this stage, it is obviously necessary to conduct another analysis. However, I do not really agree with the fact that two different analyses have to be carried out. That is not normal.

    The Chair: I would have liked to ask more questions, but we are running out of time.

    Ms. Gagnon, you have the floor, but please be brief.

    Ms. Christiane Gagnon: A few moments ago, Mr. Gourd and Mr. Stursberg spoke highly of the quality of French Canadian productions.

    When you talk about production, ratings and francophone markets, do you not think that these are factors that do not reflect the reality of the situation of francophones living outside Quebec? There is the Quebec francophone market and the market for francophones outside Quebec. Everyone knows that both situations are very different. It bothers me a bit. It is not because I am a Quebec francophone, but I feel that we are denying these realities and not focusing on certain solutions which could apply to Quebec francophones and those francophones living outside Quebec.

    For instance, we are asking for 15 per cent of the big city fund. I can view the situation from a Canadian perspective and go along with the committee, but there may be the potential for other types of discussions elsewhere. That bothers me.

    We also talk about francophone minorities outside Quebec. Everyone who came before the committee and every stakeholder, including those from the Department of Heritage, seem to shunt aside the realities of that market.

    Mr. Richard Stursberg: There are two aspects to the problem concerning production outside Quebec. First, the financing out of the fund, and second, the responsibility of the national francophone broadcasters, since you need a licence. In order to be eligible for the fund, you need the approval of the broadcasters.

    There are two major francophone networks in Canada, namely Radio-Canada and TVA. TVA, just like Radio-Canada, has the mandate to reflect the francophone reality in this country, not only the one in Quebec, but also the one throughout the rest of the country, that is, the reality of francophones living outside Quebec. I do not think that the solution lies only in accessing the fund, but it also lies with the broadcasters. The CRTC has granted the national broadcasters national licences, and part of the mandate of the broadcasters is to reflect the francophone reality in Canada.

    Therefore, I think that the best solution to the problem is probably to encourage the major national broadcasters to live up to their responsibilities to reflect the reality throughout the country. If that happens, if the broadcasters are willing to grant licences to producers outside Quebec, it would not be necessary to establish a special envelope for producers outside Quebec. Those other producers would then be eligible in exactly the same way as other francophone producers.

»  (1735)  

    The Chair: I have to ask you a final question on that point, and then we will conclude.

    If you create an envelope, you will attract people interested in getting at that money. In fact, that is what happened with the Canadian Television Fund. When it was first created, people were not very sympathetic to the idea. But afterwards, people got used to it and it became so popular that last year, the entire $40 million reserve was spent.

    If the government created a fund using 15 per cent of the francophone envelope for francophone productions outside Quebec, in your opinion, would the broadcasters, national or other, try to access the fund to develop their own productions?

    Mr. Richard Stursberg: I think that if you create that kind of special envelope, that is, an envelope which would be almost exclusively available to regional broadcasters, you run the danger of creating a type of ghetto. What we would like to do is give producers outside Quebec the opportunity to access the entire francophone market of Canada. In order to do so, they have to have access to the Quebec market, since it is the biggest francophone market in Canada. In that regard, I think that the best solution is to go through the broadcasters, because they have their own responsibilities as national networks. At this time, there is only one envelope, it's a specialized envelope for native programming in native languages. So it's a very specialized issue. I think that we have to structure the fund and all our activities so as to encourage francophone producers outside Quebec to access the Quebec market; this approach has the greatest chance of success and the greatest potential of reflecting the reality throughout Canada.

    The Chair: If that approach is to work, these producers would have to be in a position to produce. As it now stands, it seems that if the status quo is not changed, they may all disappear. Chances are we will propose a solution to the government in our report.

    Mr. Richard Stursberg: That's why we are also concerned by this problem. That's why we want to maintain the IPOLC program to help producers outside Quebec.

    The Chair: Thank you very much to all for your patience, especially since this meeting has had more interruptions than any other in a long time. I would also like to thank the representatives of Telefilm, Radio-Canada and TFO for being here. We have a lot of material, and I hope we will have the time to go through it in the interest of producing a report which will prove useful to all stakeholders.

    The meeting is adjourned.