CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, March 24, 1998

• 1112

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): This meeting of the Committee on Canadian Heritage is now open.

[English]

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are studying a cultural policy for the federal government.

[Translation]

We are doing a study on Canadian culture. Our witness today is Mr. François Macerola, the Director General of Telefilm Canada, who is accompanied by...

Mr. Robert Dinan (Chairman of the board, Telefilm Canada): Robert Dinan, Chairman of the board.

The Chairman: Welcome. Mr. Macerola, you have the floor.

Mr. François Macerola (Director General, Telefilm Canada): If you permit, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Robert Dinan, the Chairman of the board of Telefilm Canada, will make an opening statement.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Robert Dinan: Mr. Lincoln, members of the Committee. Telefilm Canada appreciates this opportunity to share our experience as an investor in Canadian culture, our understanding of new developments in our industry, and our vision for the future.

Thirty years ago the federal government created the Canadian Film Development Corporation (CFDC) to stimulate the development of this industry in Canada. Today's CFDC, now know as Telefilm Canada, has a wider scope of activity but our mandate as a cultural investor remains unchanged. We are the federal cultural agency dedicated to the development and promotion of the Canadian film, television and new media industries.

[English]

Telefilm Canada plays a unique role in the industry. We are not a banker, a studio, or a provider of grants but an investor in cultural productions. Our main instrument for participating in film, television, and new media, therefore, is recuperable contributions that entitle us to a share in future revenues of the productions. The funds we recoup are then reinvested in other productions, benefiting Canadian taxpayers and the industry. This year we expect to generate revenues in the order of $35 million.

Our budget for 1998-99 will be approximately $175.7 million, with administration kept efficient at 8% of the total budget. In addition to our revenues, the main source of funding is our parliamentary appropriation, which will be $78 million. In principle, this year's $3 million cut should be the last of a series of cuts that caused our appropriation to decrease from $145 million in the early 1990s to $78 million next year, which means a 46% reduction. The other main source is a contribution of $57.5 million to the CTCPF from Canadian Heritage.

• 1115

Our mandate is fundamentally cultural, but we also consider industrial development objectives. We invest in projects both from the regions and from Toronto and Montreal, in English, in French, and in aboriginal languages, and in productions by both large, publicly traded companies and smaller ones.

[Translation]

By adding part of the parliamentary appropriation for Telefilm Canada to the contributions of the cable companies, and thanks to an additional injection of public funds by the federal government, the CTPCF has encouraged a complementary approach to the financing of Canadian programming. The result has been 2,200 hours of programming, which is unprecedented. All of which will be shown on Canadian television networks.

The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage has been quick to recognize the value of this cultural investment. We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your support for the Fund. The industries, the agencies and you were successful in convincing the government to renew the CTPCF for another three years.

Canada invests in our culture on another front: international co-productions. Telefilm Canada administers Canada's co-production treaties and we finance some co-productions. Canada is signatory to over 35 co-production treaties, with, among others, France, the UK, Italy, Australia and even South Africa and Poland.

The increase in this area has been remarkable. At the beginning of the 80s, the annual volume of co-productions was about $25 million. In 1997, the volume of official co-productions with Canada was more than $500 million.

[English]

This is not the case, however, for Canadian feature films. Although Canadians produce more than 50 features a year, they still claim only 2% to 3% of the box office receipts in this country. More resources and structural changes are needed. Telefilm's annual feature film budget, which enables the production of 20 to 25 films, equals the average budget of one single U.S. studio film.

Fortunately, the Canadian government is taking action. The standing committee's deliberations, along with the consultations and policy review recently undertaken by the Department of Canadian Heritage, could help us arrive at solutions to this persistent and troubling state of affairs.

Beyond feature films and television, Telefilm Canada has anticipated the emergence of new forms of content and new distribution technologies. In 1996, we created a pilot program for new media production, and our modest multimedia fund of $1 million stimulated more than 37 projects at various stages of their development.

What we don't yet know is how Canadian content will be distributed in a new media environment. We need to continue to invest in our culture today for the future. With this in mind, we have submitted a proposal to the Department of Canadian Heritage to launch a larger, new media fund and are hoping to be able to advance this file in the next few months.

[Translation]

As the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Honourable Sheila Copps, put it, we are essentially safeguarding our capacity to tell our stories. Investing in our culture goes beyond the financial investments that Telefilm Canada makes in television, film and new media productions. It extends to the work of the Committee in monitoring the environment. And it leads to policies this government implements to balance our cultural support, our trade obligations and new technologies.

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

When we started this study we asked various organizations five questions to which you have been kind enough to answer in detail. I would like to point out to members of the Committee that the detailed answers are appended to the Telefilm Canada memorandum.

First, according to you, have the federal cultural support measures been effective? Are you satisfied with them or not?

Second, what is the impact of technological evolution on your institution?

• 1120

Third, what is the impact of globalization on your industry?

Fourth, what is the impact of demographic changes?

Fifth, what role do you think the federal government should play in this area?

Well, you have answered in detail and I have submitted your answers to the members of the Committee. If there are any questions on these matters, you may wish to elaborate on your answers. We will therefore move on to questions.

Mrs. Tremblay.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Thank you. Thank you. This is a document I will be very interested in reading. Unfortunately, it was just handed to me, but I still have some questions to ask in about six different areas to get more specific answers.

First, I would like to do a follow-up on a film project by cinematographer Pierre Falardeau on the Patriots called 15 février 1839. Mr. Macerola, when you testified before this Committee on February 20, 1997, you said, and I quote:

Pierre Falardeau's project was refused by Telefilm not for political reasons but only because we felt it was a bad script. [...] you can rest assured that such decisions are never, never taken for political reasons.

However, since your testimony, we have obtained, through the Access to Information Act, the readers' reports on this proposed film. Many passages from these reports explicitly mention the political nature of Mr. Falardeau's film. For example, under the heading "Canadian Content", we can read, and I quote: "100 per cent pure wool". Further on we can read, and I quote:

... in the current political climate (post-referendum when the film was released) the vitriolic comments of the characters against the English occupiers are not without resonance with some of the speeches of proponents of the Yes vote.

I quote again:

To conjure up the hard fight of the patriots on the eve of a referendum is somewhat brazen.

Then we read, and I quote:

... then there is the frequent use of the word independence in the script. When we are in a pre-referendum period in Quebec.

The conclusion of one reader's report states, and I quote:

... the resonances with the current situation in Quebec are at the very least embarrassing. Finally, in another reader's report, we find:

... Telefilm Canada subsidizes a filmmaker whose political opinions are so contrary to those of the institution.

We of the Bloc Québécois do not claim that the decision about this movie is strictly political, but we are troubled by the fact that in a democratic country the political opinions of the producer and the political context of the referendum are of concern to the reading and content analysis committees at Telefilm Canada.

Mr. Macerola, you recently sent us a document that I have read on what the criteria for your policies should be. Could you commit yourself further before this Committee and say that Telefilm's selection criteria will no longer be based on certain political criteria?

Mr. François Macerola: First, I would like to place the reading reports you refer to and that you obtained through the Access to Information Act in context. Those reports are working tools and not recommendations. The readers are people who are hired by Telefilm Canada, who are in no way related to Telefilm Canada. They are people from the cultural milieu whom we ask to be as objective as possible and to evaluate the film.

However, it is quite obvious that the evaluation of a film like Pierre Falardeau's will be done in a certain context. Some readers make comments like those you mentioned, which were well chosen since there are other comments that contradict the thesis that you put forward. It is completely normal and healthy and it does not mean that Telefilm Canada's decision was based on political considerations.

However, the project was by definition political and was part of a political climate. It is obvious that when Telefilm Canada makes a decision for or against a project, it has to take into account all the elements that surround it.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Therefore, you are admitting that people are victims of discrimination because of their opinions in a democratic country. That's what you have just confirmed.

Mr. François Macerola: Absolutely not. That is your conclusion.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: That's how I interpret your response.

Mr. François Macerola: I'm sorry, but that was not my conclusion. You are interpreting it that way.

• 1125

When Pierre Falardeau made the movie Octobre which, by the way, was financed solely by the federal government, the provincial government decided not to invest in the project because of the quality of the script, and no one raised the issue of political ideology. Everyone simply mentioned a cultural decision based on a project that did not meet the needs of SODEC or Télé-Québec.

As a result, for me it is not a question of discrimination. It is simply a question of examining a project as a whole without isolating it in the fashion that people are trying to do with Falardeau's project, with is to make it a masterpiece without having seen one shot or read the script. I do not believe that Pierre Falardeau was discriminated against in any way. On the contrary, Telefilm Canada has always supported his work. We have invested in all his projects. Except for the last one, all of Pierre Falardeau's projects have been financed in large part by the government of Canada via Radio-Canada, the National Film Board and Telefilm.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Next April you will be announcing a policy statement on feature films. Is that correct?

Mr. François Macerola: Actually, there are currently two reviews under way, Madam.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: There is that of Mrs. Copps and yours.

Mr. François Macerola: There is that of Mrs. Copps and ours.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Are there any links between the two?

Mr. François Macerola: Yes. On behalf of the federal government, we administer the Feature Film Fund and the Feature Film Distribution Fund. We are currently reviewing a certain number of policies. Obviously, we will ensure that we are in line with the new policy the Minister will table before next September. As soon as next April, we should be able to start unveiling some of the new policy elements for the production and distribution of feature films.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: When you say that you administer the Feature Film Fund and the Feature Film Distribution Fund on behalf of the Minister, are you talking about the CTCPF?

Mr. François Macerola: No, those are funds we administer for the Canadian government and not for the Minister. We sign memoranda of agreement with the Canadian government. We have signed two memoranda of agreement with the government regarding the production of feature films, and invested about $20 million, and regarding distribution, in which we have invested about $19 million. As for the CTCPF to which you refer, there is also a $15 million component for feature films that is administered by Telefilm Canada and that brings our total investment in feature films to about $55 million dollars this year.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: In terms of this cable fund and Telefilm that you participate in, as does the government, things seem to be tangled from what we have heard. People don't clearly know if they should talk to Telefilm or directly to the Fund. Regarding Telefilm's investment in a given project submitted to the CTCPF, does Telefilm decide how much money it will invest, which would mean that people have to send a request to both Telefilm and the CTCPF?

Mr. François Macerola: There are two programs in the context of the fund you are talking about. There is the License Fee Program, which is administered as a component formerly with the cable companies, and another component that is equity investment. Telefilm Canada administers that one. At Telefilm Canada, we invest in about 65 per cent of the projects of the licensing component and they invest in about 80 per cent of the projects in our component. There is now a joint board of directors chaired by Peter Herrndorf, the President and Director-General of TVOntario, and on which the chairman of the board of Telefilm Canada sits, and policies that are relevant to both components are decided by this board. But Telefilm Canada has a special relationship with the government.

When the issue of this new fund was presented to me, I was concerned that Telefilm Canada would become subject to another organization. That is not the case. Telefilm Canada's parliamentary appropriation comes directly from the government and, on the other hand, the money for the new fund comes to us as a contribution from the department.

• 1130

As a result, we are really at arm's length, free to run this board and the daily administration of the money. Our special relationship with Parliament has been maintained.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I will yield the floor to someone else and I will be back.

The Chairman: Of course. Mr. Bélanger, then Mr. Saada.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Macerola, there is no reason to be concerned about the interpretation the Bloc Québécois can make of a democratic decision. The members of the Bloc Québécois respect democratic decisions when it suits them. They have had two referendum results and they are still doing the same thing. So it's not anything to get into a lather about.

I have some questions about the Committee's review of Canadian cultural policy. I would like to talk about an article that was published in La Presse on March 18th. I suppose you have read it. It's by Mr. Serge Losique, the Chairman of the World Film Festival. He asks some interesting questions, especially about the links between the NFB and Telefilm, and he stresses the cultural aspect. He would assign the cultural aspect to the NFB, i.e. documentaries, films on which no economic return is expected , and the investment aspect to Telefilm. Would you be willing to make comments on his suggestions?

Mr. François Macerola: I had a long conversation with Serge Losique after his article was printed. We always say that there are differences between a cultural film and a commercial film. To me, such comparisons are bogus. To have a film industry that will reach international markets and the Canadian public, there are two prices to pay. First, it has to be deeply cultural. That was proven yesterday with Atom Egoyan and The Sweet Hereafter. The Sweet Hereafter is a deeply cultural film.

All films and all television programs that sell well in the export market and are seen here by the public are documents of significant cultural relevance. It is obvious that depending on the financing, we can talk about an industrial or commercial approach. For me, however, what counts is content. If the National Film Board wants to stake out a role in feature films...

When I had the pleasure of presiding over the National Film board for five years, we were doing feature films. Some people will remember that, because they were on its board at the time; that was the time of Déclin de l'empire américain and Léolo.

As a result, I believe that Telefilm could complement the National Film Board. To make good movies in a country like Canada, with very different film styles, in English and in French, all partners have to cooperate. The National Film Board and Radio-Canada should have a role to play, as well as Telefilm and people from the private sector.

Yesterday I was invited to an Oscars dinner, and once again people were talking and trying to differentiate between industrial and commercial. It's obvious that the means of financing can be different, but I want Telefilm Canada to talk about itself as a cultural organization and about our products as cultural products.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: If that's the case, would you accept the comments we heard from several independent producers during a recent round table, i.e. since we have separate structures, the independent producers have to succeed each time they make a request? They can't go to just one source?

In your presentation, sir, you spoke, if I am not mistaken, about structural changes: "More resources and structural changes are needed", you said. First, what structural changes are you proposing? You don't state them. Second, do you see a possibility for independent producers of going to a single source instead of making 56 different requests?

• 1135

Mr. François Macerola: That brings us back to a subject that is very dear to me: the concept of one-stop shopping. At one time I tried to intervene forcefully in the case of Pierre Juneau, Peter Herrndorf and Mrs. Murray.

I believe that in Canada we have to adopt the concept of one-stop shopping, as the Quebec government has with SODEC and the British Columbia government is doing with B.C. Film. It's important to ensure first that producers know where to go, and then become knowledgeable about the procedures.

We talk about the changes we want to make at Telefilm Canada. We have started integrating production and distribution. I was fortunate to be in distribution. I went to Telefilm Canada and the production side was telling me that I had a good project while the distribution side was sometimes telling me that it was not worthwhile. We often had to reconcile differing opinions within the organization. We have now integrated the two areas and are relying on people's multiplicity of skills and competence. Now when a request comes in, it is analyzed from all aspects: legal, content, financial, marketing in Canada and abroad. That's the first change we want to make.

On the other hand, we want programs that will meet the needs of independent producers. We want to be able to meet the needs of a major or a Canadian multinational called Alliance or Atlantis, but we don't want to neglect the small producer who often works in an administrative environment reduced to the bare minimum.

If Telefilm Canada can think up programs that really meet the needs of those people, we will be able to say "mission accomplished" but only if we keep our portfolio balanced. Investing in films like Crash, Sweet Hereafter or Les boys... I don't know if you have seen Les boys. We talk about The Sweet Hereafter, but Les boys, is the big hit in Quebec currently. Box office receipts of $6 million are enormous.

We want to invest in this kind of film, but we also want to give a chance to the new filmmaker just starting on his first movie, to the filmmaker who hopes his project will be culturally significant but doesn't expect it to be financially viable. We want to have programs that meet these needs.

Losique proposes that we have the Film Board and Telefilm Canada. I would rather propose that we work together in a synergistic fashion, much more so than we do now.

The Chairman: Mr. Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): First, I would like to respond to what Mrs. Tremblay alluded to in her first question. I think we have to be careful before we make a case based on supposed intentions.

I must underline, Mr. Chairman, that I do not have the document in hand but that I would be willing to table it before this Committee in a few days. It is in my office in my riding.

I received a letter a few months ago. It was from film producers who invited me, as a member of the Bloc Québécois—because I was apparently a member of the Bloc Québécois—, to back financially a film that highlighted the very political dimension that lead certain people in Quebec to become separatists and that touted that film's merits on a propaganda basis. I answered and I received a letter of apology. My response had been sarcastic.

What I found remarkable is that in the letter I received the point was made that most of the financing for the film was coming from Telefilm Canada. We must therefore be prudent before making accusations based on supposed intentions. I could table this document in a few days.

My question is more in the realm of organizational structure. I ask it as a layman because I have not really worked in this milieu. We have heard a lot of briefs. Many experts have presented their opinions. Everyone agrees that the new technologies create challenges.

• 1140

Do you believe that it would be appropriate that these new technologies be managed by each organization, each doing its little bit, or would it not be preferable to group everything dealing with new technologies under one organization—yours or another one, it doesn't matter—in order to better manage this new challenge?

Mr. François Macerola: That depends. I believe the new technologies create two challenges. First, we must ensure there is a place for Canadian content in these new technologies and produce quality products so that Canadian products can eventually become part of these technologies. We must also ensure that new technologies are made available to the creators. Those are the two big challenges I see.

For us at Telefilm Canada, this represents new outlets. Whether people start playing on the Internet or have access to 500 channels through digital video compression what is interesting is that it opens distribution and marketing opportunities for our products. However, how do we ensure that these new windows will remain Canadian or at least have a significant or primarily Canadian content? That is the first question. Second, how do we ensure that the country continues to be recognized as one of the major producers of quality products in the world?

Your proposal asking for one organization to supervise the whole thing may have certain merits. However, in terms of the new technologies, there are certainly some existing technical lookouts at the governmental level, and I believe that is important. But in terms of content, I believe we must continue to be as decentralized as possible. I believe that in terms of the new technologies we must continue to ensure that private and public organizations collectively start to manage these new production and distribution methods.

As a result, I would be more inclined to recommend that the government allocate funds in the area of multimedia production. I'm pleading for my own cause, obviously, Telefilm Canada. On the other hand, we must also acknowledge what Radio-Canada is doing in terms of the new technologies. Web TV is coming. Eventually, you will be able to access the Internet on your TV screen. There will be a real convergence and it is important that there be technical monitors, but on the other hand naturally the production of the content must respect the private sector because it, just as much as public investment and production organizations, wants to be involved.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): I have three questions that are more or less related. The first is rather technical and budgetary. Can you give us an idea of the minimum budget necessary for a quality made-for-TV feature film, without bells and whistles but with acceptable production values, and the same kind of budget for a film to be shown in movie theatres?

It is obvious that in Canada we can't make films like the Titanic with similar budgets. Is there a certain budgetary minimum for something like The Full Monty? It's modest, but it has international potential, and especially national potential.

My second question is about distribution in Canada. You made a comment in your documents about the challenge facing cinematography in this country because there is only minimal distribution. Have you adopted a formal position on this or made any informal comments on a distribution policy that would be similar to the Canadian content policy regarding music on radio?

• 1145

My last question is about supply management as you describe it in your document. Here I am referring to the type of films and I am coming back to Mr. Bélanger's question. Is there something missing in the middle, between The Sweet Hereafter and The Hanging Garden on the one hand, and Les boys and Meatballs on the other? Is the middle ground under-represented? If we create more space in Canadian cinematography than there is currently, perhaps increasing it by five per cent, do we need to adjust Telefilm"s policy to promote films such as My American Cousin, The Grey Fox or The Full Monty? Is there a missing piece?

Mr. François Macerola: Your first question was about budgets. The average budget for a feature film at Telefilm Canada is from $3.2 to $3.8 million. That's the total budget for a film intended for movie theatres. For television, the budget varies between $1.2 and $2 million for movies of the week. On the other hand, Telefilm Canada administers a distribution program of about $17 or $18 million per year. There are two components to the program: acquisition and marketing.

I would say that for each dollar we spend about 75 cents goes to acquisition and 25 cents to marketing. When a distributor acquires or buys the rights to a film, the money goes to the producer. As a result, it becomes part of his budget. At Telefilm Canada—my answer leads back to Mrs. Tremblay's earlier question on policy revision—one of the policies we want to review is that on distribution. We would like to see more money spent on marketing as opposed to acquisition.

There is a huge number of films that have commercial potential and cultural importance that are not fully exploited for the simple reason that that our distributors are often under-financed and try to meet the needs of the mass markets, so secondary and tertiary markets fall by the wayside.

That is the first element we are doing a lot of thinking about. I have recommended to Mrs. Copps that she think about the possibility of setting up an office for the promotion of Canadian films, similar to what people in Ontario have managed to do for their wine. I remember that when we were offered a glass of Ontario wine on Air Canada flights, we all turned up our noses, but now we ask for Inniskillin wine. Why? Because they set up a promotion office for a product called wine. We could also think of lobster and other products. Perhaps we could do it for cultural products, A promotion office for Canadian film would be important so that French-speaking people could have access to English films and vice-versa.

I see a film like The Hanging Garden, which was launched in Quebec and which unfortunately will gross only $30,000 to $35,000. I see a film like Les boys, which will be launched in English Canada and that will gross about $100,000 tops. In terms of marketing, if we were able to tap all the primary, secondary and tertiary markets, I think we could have very significant results.

As for the missing link, we fear that we are not producing enough films in this country. We currently use 2 to 3 per cent of the screen time in movie theatres. That is a shame. We have a real problem because we are always trying to find allies. We are always trying to say that the Americans are everywhere: they are in France, in Italy and in Germany. But not as much as they are in Canada.

For example, France's national screens are filled 40 per cent of the time by French films, whereas American films get 50 per cent of the time. But here, foreign films occupy 95 per cent of the time on our screens and American films alone account for perhaps 90 per cent.

• 1150

We could try all kinds of measures. We tried some at one time. Many would perhaps be outdated now, such as quotas, which I believe to be coercive. I think it would be better to convince people to want to see their national imagery on the big screen and to give our cinematography its rightful place on national screens. To do so, we have to put our money on quality films and try to produce documentaries that people will want to see. We must also be able, while emphasizing quality, to market these film impeccably. And finally, if we realistically want to have decent space on our screens, we have to be able to produce more films.

There are numbers going around and, as members of this Committee, you certainly have access to them. Canada produces about two films per million people. Based on UNESCO standards, that's wonderful. However, those 61 films produced in Canada are not often produced for movie theatres and go straight to television or to the video market. In English Canada, we produce about ten films that actually make it to the movie theatres, compared to eight in Quebec. As a result, we must increase the critical mass of quality films available. Then we will be able to do a Full Monty, a Sweet Hereafter, a Crash and a Les boys, as long as—to come back to the answer I was giving to Mr. Bélanger earlier—-the programs meet the real needs of our producers. We must not delude ourselves.

When I come before you, I am very happy to talk about The Sweet Hereafter, but I must admit that Telefilm Canada only had the talent to say yes to that project. We analyzed it, we assessed it and put it in context, and we said: why not? Producer Robert Lantos and director Atom Egoyan initiated it. Telefilm Canada's role was to ensure that projects that are started always be of high quality and have a hope of being culturally and commercially viable. For that, we would need to make the few adjustments I talked about.

If I may make a last comment, I would say that the films made for movie theatres currently have an average budget of about $150,000 for marketing. I would like to reverse that to put in more.

The Acadians should have access to a film like Karmina and people in Saskatoon should have access to films produced outside their province.

Solving another issue is as important as closing the loop. It is currently harder to have an Ontario-Quebec co-production than a France-Canada or Greece-Canada co-production. On both sides, there are measures to protect our national film industries and to ensure that money is spent within our borders. There are certain regulations in Quebec regarding the nationality of companies that impair co-production. I dream of the day when we will be able to have inter-provincial co-productions without having to have to go through a process as complicated as the one in a co-production between China and Japan. It's another element that will eventually allow us to close the loop.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was reviewing the mandate or list of objectives that you've been assigned, and it's something you certainly should be very proud of. My questions are going to centre around how we as a government could better support or encourage those very objectives your organization has.

With regard to strengthening the industry, could you give me your opinions on the impact there would be on the industry from legislating stronger Canadian content laws? Would they have, in your opinion, a significant impact on strengthening the industry?

Maybe I'll just go down to the three questions I have and get you to respond separately.

• 1155

A suggestion was brought forward that we tariff U.S. content or U.S. productions coming into Canada with the intent of directing the revenues right back into the industry specifically. On the surface, it sounds like a good thing, but if the U.S. did it to us, would it have substantial negative impact on the industry in Canada? They would retaliate, obviously.

Finally, would you please offer any other specific new suggestions on how we as a government might better support or encourage the development of the industry? Do you have something that, as a lay person, I could understand and bring back to the government as a whole or have a debate in committee? Do you have specific suggestions or ideas?

Mr. François Macerola: I personally believe that the most important thing, or the end result, of any piece of legislation should be the freedom of choice for Canadians. I personally believe that Canadians should have access to foreign productions; nevertheless, they should be able to access their own productions.

Listen to Jack Valenti, for example, who always tries to convince this country that we are a little bit too close to the other reality. My answer is always that in theatres, foreign content is something like 95%, 90% American. In our school system, Canadian content is as low as 35%. On television, not prime time, but the overall television network available to the Canadian public, Canadian content is as low as 42%.

So I do personally believe that our system is a good system. It's a system that does protect. At the same time, it tries to give a choice to the Canadian public.

Coming back to the relationship that we should be establishing with the Americans, for example, I personally believe that every single foreign producer or distributor who does have access to the cultural or technical infrastructure in this country should be invited to contribute, on a kind of voluntary basis, to a production fund.

Three years ago, I delivered a speech to the American film producers association. I put that concept on the table. I told them that they do use our technical infrastructure, theatres, school system, and video clubs. I said that if I were them, in order to avoid any kind of legislation, I would start putting some thinking into the possibility of contributing on a voluntary basis.

Jack Valenti was there. He said that the U.S. would never accept that. Nevertheless, they do accept it in France, Italy, and Spain, for example.

I personally believe that our system is not a coercive system; it has some incentives built into it. I think we should fight in order to be able to keep this system.

Mind you, there's some room for improvement. As I said before, foreign producers and distributors or users of our technical infrastructure should be invited too, but at the same time, we should always try to fight in order to have access to the cultural exemption.

Consider the multilateral agreement on investment. I personally believe that the stand taken by different Canadian ministers—Mr. Marchi, Ms. Copps, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Manley—is very important for the cultural future of this country, which is being able to have access to the cultural exemption.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Just one small supplementary. You touched on a new idea that I had not heard before: this voluntary contribution, if I may. Could you give me a little more detail on that? How do we sell that concept to our friends south of the border? How would we implement something like that?

Mr. François Macerola: Through negotiations. For example, the French decided—I don't know how many years ago, but I think it was 10 to 15 years ago—to establish the box office tax. At a certain point, they raised the price. They did the negotiations with the distributors and producers who were showing their films on the French screen.

• 1200

I personally believe we could achieve a lot with the Americans.

We would have to rebuild our credibility with them. They've been threatened very often when we say we're going to have legislation on distribution such that our territory will be a national territory and every single film distributed in Canada will be distributed by a Canadian distributor, and so on and so forth.

I'm quite sure we could meet with them and very slowly go through the process of negotiation. We could arrive at something very interesting.

Let's not forget that, for the Americans, this market is worth something like $1 billion. I'm quite sure that at a certain point they would understand what this government is trying to say: don't cut our reality from foreign realities; give the choice to Canadian citizens, but at the same time have the access to the international reality and culture.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Macerola. Before yielding the floor to Mrs. Tremblay, I would like to ask you a question. Your answer to Mr. Bélanger's question surprised me. You spoke about the possibility of one-stop shopping and much greater cooperation between the National Film Board and Telefilm Canada. Are you considering the possibility that in the future these two organizations could become one or is that a bad question?

Mr. François Macerola: It's not a bad question. The National film Board is a producer whereas Telefilm Canada is an investor. The only reason for the National Film Board's existence is to be a public producer and a public distributor. Our reason for being is to invest in cultural products.

Would a greater synergy eventually be possible? Yes. Should the two organizations eventually be merged? Yes. But at that time, you have to radically change the mandate of the National Film Board and make it an investor in documentaries perhaps or in highly cultural films, as Serge Losique proposes.

Having been chairman of the National Film Board for five years, I believe that organization is essential to the cultural life of this country. In my opinion, we must instead reaffirm its role as a public producer and public distributor of densely cultural films produced in the public interest.

I would like to see us work more together, but I also favour respecting the mandate of the three existing organizations in the communications area, Radio-Canada and CBC, the National film board and Telefilm Canada.

The Chairman: I think that most members of the Committee agree with you on that. It is certainly my opinion. How do you see this one-stop shopping?

Mr. François Macerola: First, the Canadian Heritage Minister should develop policies about one-stop shopping. I don't think the department should manage the programs. They should be managed by Crown agencies.

Second, there be nothing to prevent, at either the production or distribution level, people from going to this one stop and a functional relationship developing between say Telefilm Canada and the National Film Board. Nothing prevents the National Film Board from giving over part of a fund's administration to Telefilm Canada as the one-stop center, and vice-versa. To me, what is important beyond the synergy between cultural organizations, is the ability to meet the needs of all producers.

Producers who want to make a film have to knock on a lot of doors and meet many requirements; that is the first thing that has to be corrected. The one-stop center set up by the Quebec government works admirably well, except that that government does not have a state producer like the National film Board.

• 1205

We should think about that. I believe that one-stop shopping is essential if we are to reduce costs. We always think of meeting producers' and distributors' needs but the fact remains that the government wants distribution investment costs to decrease. As a result, we are looking for a decrease in costs, the use of Crown agencies with all they can bring to the environment and a greater synergy with other partners at the table.

The Chairman: If after thinking about this at length you have some practical suggestions to make, I invite you to communicate with the clerk or our research assistants.

Mr. François Macerola: We have already tabled a brief with the government. I will be pleased to send you a copy.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mrs. Tremblay.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I would first like to be more specific about what the member for Ottawa-Vanier said. Sovereignists in Quebec have respected democracy by not putting their proposal forward given the decision of the people. The people have said no and we have respected that. We have continued to be a province within Canada. If, as he says and repeats ad nauseam, we had been antidemocratic, we would have declared Quebec's sovereignty unilaterally in 1980 despite the vote. Quebeckers would no doubt be better off because those who have not kept their promises are those facing us.

That being said, I would like to continue in the same vein as the chairman. Your budget still melted like snow, going from about $160 million to less than $80 million. The Canadian Television and Cable Fund seems to interest the government more and more. We are aware of the results. You have talked about an office that could promote films. I'm not quite sure how to phrase my question, but is there not a danger in depending too much on the market, making your organization no longer relevant and thus forcing us to kill you off?

Mr. François Macerola: I don't think so. The feature films we produce currently represent 2 per cent of The film industry's box office receipts in this country. Even if we reached 10 per cent, that would be a laudable effort, but I don't think we would be threatened. But you are right. There was a time when Telefilm Canada thought of itself as a commercial organization, then later it thought of itself as an industry organization. We talked about culture on occasion, when films didn't work. For me, Telefilm Canada is a cultural organization—and this is what is important—that uses industry and commercial means to make its investments.

To come back to the basics of this issue, it is quite obvious that there is a certain danger. I would not want Telefilm Canada to become strictly a fund administrator. We could then eventually be replaced by a more efficient organization. In the three years I have been working there, the President and I have tried to ensure that Telefilm Canada plays a role as adviser to the government in the area of movies and television. We do not rub shoulders with the board of the Canada Television and Cable Production Fund simply as an ordinary partner. People know very well that together with the public servants of the department we develop major cultural policies for the country.

However, the Fund does have its virtues. First, it allows the public and private sectors to work together in a very concrete way. It also allows a significant increase in the government's investment while also reducing administrative costs. This $200 million Fund is administered by the licensing component of the cable people to the tune of 3.7 per cent while Telefilm Canada manages it at 3.8 per cent or even a little less. Out of a budget of $107 million, the administrative costs amount to $2.8 million. In any self-respecting public organization, 10 per cent is acceptable. As a result, there is 8 per cent more of $100 million i.e. $8 million, that goes to production.

• 1210

I believe this idea emanated from Treasury Board to ensure that public funds would be distributed in a more cost-effective manner. The fund is a magnificent example of that.

If the government goes ahead in terms of feature films, I hope we will have access to the same ease and open-mindedness at the administrative level and in terms of the relationship with the private sector and that this will translate into reduced administrative costs.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Don't the new technologies, such as the Internet, the new way of accessing television on a pay-per-view basis and on-line services represent another threat for you?

Mr. François Macerola: As I mentionned earlier, it is quite obvious that they are a threat but not necessarily to Telefilm Canada. They represent a threat for all Canadians. For us at Telefilm Canada, the more new technologies, the better. If people could see their movies in their cup of coffee, that would be fine with us because we could then open and tap that market.

As I was saying, we have to ensure, however, that Canadian products have their rightful share of these new technologies. But they do not threaten Telefilm Canada; on the contrary, I suspect that the government, in its wisdom, will use Telefilm Canada to administer investment funds in these new technologies.

On a few occasions, Mrs. Copps has mentioned the possibility of establishing a multimedia fund. I know that this issue is being studied somewhere in Ottawa and that Telefilm Canada has been considered as a special partner for the administration of this fund. As a result, the new technologies will give us additional openings. They will give us access to more financial resources eventually.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: One witness has told us that instead of trying to impose quotas on Canadian production or Canadian content we would be better off imposing quotas on foreign content or foreign productions. He was proposing a reverse approach. What do you think?

Mr. François Macerola: I'm not sure I understand very well.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: He was proposing quotas on foreign contributions. Instead of saying we should have so many Canadian productions he was suggesting that we should allow no more than so many foreign productions.

Mr. François Macerola: I prefer the other approach. I don't like that attitude. I wouldn't like foreign productions limited to y per cent. That system, which was valid when the government decided to set up the CRTC, wouldn't work now with the new technologies. First, it could not be controlled. As a citizen, I would rather see the government invest more and give citizens a choice rather than block the entry of foreign productions. I would prefer to open the territory instead of blocking access.

Blocking access is easy. We note that in all countries that have blocked entry significantly, including Spain and Portugal, Things are regressing. I believe France has the ideal system. There, supply is greatly favoured and demand is controlled, as we do here in Canada.

The Chairman: I now yield the floor to Mr. Saada, Mr. Godfrey and Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I am very sorry that our guests from Telefilm have witnessed things that have little to do with Telefilm. But since committee meetings are public, there are official and public records of our deliberations.

I must make a correction regarding something Mrs. Tremblay said. I could have transcribed the phrase she used as follows: I stole an egg, but I am not a thief because I could have stolen a bull. In other words, we have respected democracy because we could have done much worse. That logic escapes me. It really does.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I lodge an appeal under the regulations, Mr. Chairman. That's enough. All I said was that he was saying we were not democratic because we were proposing to hold a third referendum. We will hold a third one and a fourth one. Get that into your heads. It's a question of time and we are patient. But we respect democracy because we respected the results of the referendum. If you raise that again, I will leave. You will be unable to sit without the opposition. There are bounds here that cannot be overstepped.

• 1215

Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, since there is an appeal under the regulations I will drop the discussion. But I would still like to respond that I will absolutely not give in to any blackmail to guarantee your presence under any condition.

I repeat that my colleague is perfectly right in saying that twice in Quebec, Quebeckers have said...

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: And we will decide a third, fourth and fifth time until we are sovereign.

Mr. Jacques Saada: If you want to put Quebeckers in danger every time, that's your prerogative. I can't subscribe to that.

The Chairman: Let us get back to Telefilm. You have stated you opinion, Mr. Saada.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay:

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

The Chairman: Mr. Saada, you have stated your position and I yield the floor to Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: I have two questions to ask, not on the subject we have just dropped but rather on the distribution system. For example, only 2 per cent of the films shown on Canadian screens are Canadian. I would like to know about Quebec films on Quebec screens. Are the percentages comparable?

It's more or less a technical question. We could look for reasons why the number would be higher. Ah, you say it's the same.

Mr. François Macerola: It may be...

Mr. Robert Dinan: It's actually better in English Canada.

A member: Could you repeat that?

Mr. Robert Dinan: There are differences in the percentages: in Quebec, American films account for 85 per cent of the market and in English Canada, about 93 per cent.

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger will ask you if New Brunswick and English Canada can be lumped together.

Mr. John Godfrey: So I'm getting ahead of myself.

Mr. François Macerola: We talked about 2 per cent, but that number has never been proven. In all honesty, I suspect that the level in Canada, it is less than 2 per cent whereas in Quebec it is probably a little lower, but close. It must be between 1.3 and 1.9 per cent maybe.

Mr. John Godfrey: That's not great.

[English]

What I'd like to do, then, is come to another model. I was hoping that perhaps there was something I could learn from the Quebec experience, but it sounds as bad as the English experience outside of Quebec.

I want to come back to something that you and I used to talk about in a previous life, and that was Australia. What was interesting in a certain moment was that this small, English-speaking population, presumably not as close to the United States but equally menaced by American and British films, nevertheless seemed to create a distinctive national cinematography. It continues to do so to this day to some degree, with films like Muriel's Wedding and so on.

I should explain that in a previous life Mr. Macerola and I were involved on the National Film Board together. I remember trying to figure out what the lessons were at that point, and we talked about the necessity for a film school. That was something they had in Australia that we didn't have. We do now, but I want to come back to the experience.

First of all, I guess the big question is whether or not Australia is still producing as many distinctive films as it used to in the seventies and eighties. Secondly, if the answer to that is more or less yes, are there things Canada can learn from their system, their way of doing business, whether it's for French-speaking films or English-speaking films?

[Translation]

Mr. François Macerola: I'm not an expert but according to some studies, production seems to be declining in Australia. As an example, I would mention Channel 4 that everyone is talking about. The other day the minister put together a round table; everyone was talking about Channel 4.

Mr. John Godfrey: Channel 4 in England?

Mr. François Macerola: Yes. If Channel 4 were set up in Canada, producers would be the first to complain about it because it has power equivalent to that of an executive producer.

I have been told that the film... the title escapes me. It's the latest big hit in England.

[English]

Mr. John Godfrey: Four Weddings and a Funeral?

[Translation]

Mr. François Macerola: Yes, that's it. It was returned to the producer by Channel 4's commissioning producer 16 times because he didn't like it. It is true that we can learn from everywhere in the world, but I think we are imaginative enough to invent our own distribution system.

The system isn't complicated. It takes a collective effort from various partners. Television will have to play a more important role. Private television will have to play a more important role. The Société Radio-Canada and CBC will have to do more than simply buy their films after the fact, they will have to buy them and invest in their production. Cultural organizations like Telefilm Canada and the National Film Board will have to work together.

• 1220

We will have to work more and more with the provinces. The era when Canadian cinematography was on the verge of getting important results was when Radio-Canada, the National Film Board SODEC as it was then and the Ontario government all worked together. We had a sort of common pot and we invested in projects. That gave us Le déclin de l'empire américain and Sitting in Limbo. It gave us all in all a large number of feature films.

The talent is there. There is not enough money, but there is some. I think we should be imaginative enough to set up our own system, to which foreigners would eventually refer rather than referring to concepts that are valid in New Zealand or Australia or for Channel 4 in England.

Take the case of Italy, to return to the previous question. In fact, Canal Plus bought Telepiu and simply told the French to create an annual $70 million production fund to produce Italian shows.

We therefore have to be open to the world and develop our own model. The talent is there. It takes schools. It takes seminars on scriptwriting. It takes people who love movies. It takes industry and commercial structures. But it all exists. All we have to do is put it together.

Mr. John Godfrey: May I summarize? If I understand you correctly, all the elements required to create a national film industry exist.

Mr. François Macerola: Yes. Absolutely.

Mr. John Godfrey: But there is no system...

Mr. François Macerola: That's it.

Mr. John Godfrey: ... that is truly integrated and that allows us to get things moving, for example, interprovincial agreements, etc.

Mr. François Macerola: That's it.

Mr. John Godfrey: Everyone has to play their role more forcefully perhaps. Everything is there but it is not integrated.

Mr. François Macerola: That is what I believe.

We referred to Australia and New Zealand. Last week, I was here in Ottawa; we presented studies showing that the Italians do things one way and the French do them another way. I am sick and tired of all these committees where we start by asking ourselves what is a Canadian film. The Italians don't ask themselves that question and neither do the French. Last week we spent two hours asking ourselves: what is a Canadian film?

I believe all the elements of the system exist, and that the political will is there, which is rare. In fact there is a political will to act in the area of feature films. Organizations have been created. There is a will in the provinces to work constructively with the federal government. The talented people are there. We know them. We can name them.

So we need an architect who can develop our own system, who would work quietly and in five years there would be a parliamentary committee in England talking about the Canadian system. We can do it and we are imaginative enough to invent such a system.

Mr. John Godfrey: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: If you permit, I would first like to make a comment and then ask a question.

Mr. Dinan, unfortunately you will suffer criticism from me. I will do it as gently as possible. I would caution you to show more care in your use of certain words or expressions, especially regarding their origin and their scope. You spoke of English Canada. I would invite you to think about that.

I would point out to you that I am the member for an Ontario riding called Ottawa-Vanier. I am French Canadian and 40 per cent of the people I represent are French Canadian. There are tens of thousands of francophones in this region. There are hundreds of thousands in Ontario, and more hundreds of thousands in other provinces outside Quebec. There is even a province that is officially bilingual, New Brunswick.

My question to you, therefore, is where do these people fit in your concept of English Canada? Mr. Dinan, I invite you to avoid expressions that were thought up essentially to divide. It's a criticism that I make in as friendly a manner as possible.

This brings me to a question I want to ask Mr. Macerola. The last time you appeared before us, referring to French Canadian producers, I had even used the expression "There is no salvation outside of Montréal". We then asked if you had any statistics that would show that French Canadian producers, francophones, outside Montréal, had any real access to what Telefilm represents. If I am not mistaken—I would have to check my files—the statistics were not heartening.

• 1225

Later, representatives of the Canadian Television and Cable Production Fund came before us. Things were already a little better. Can you tell us if there has been any progress in that area?

One of the acceptance criteria for a film is "nature of the participation", the idea of regional production. It is the sixth criterion, and I quote:

to encourage regional production and maintain an appropriate balance so as to foster broadcast programs in both official languages in all regions of Canada.

Could you give us some kind of progress report on where you are in terms of this?

Mr. François Macerola: The only thing I can tell you is that things are improving. Later I will send statistics to the clerk that show a significant improvement.

The only problem—and it's really a public administration problem—is that Telefilm Canada does not initiate projects. Mrs. Laétitia Cyr of New Brunswick, an Acadian, I believe, is a member of our board. Needless to say, many remarks are made to me during board meetings.

I have participated in round tables in Moncton. I will be going to Manitoba shortly to meet people. The real problem is that the legislation does not allow me to decide how those $10 million will be spent on francophones outside Quebec.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Or simply outside Montréal.

Mr. François Macerola: Yes, yes. I have another problem also: the anglophones in Quebec. That is another problem.

So I cannot make such a decision. For people to be able to come to me, it must comme under one of the following categories: variety, drama, documentary, the under-represented categories. Second, a broadcaster must be ready to make a commitment to pay and to broadcast. And if it is a feature film, I need a distributor.

As a result, all I can do educate and inform people. I can participate in conferences. I can go to Moncton, to Manitoba, all over the place, to tell people to listen to Radio-Canada.

Now Radio-Canada creates certain problems for them. To them, Radio-Canada means Quebec television. Well, I'm not here to discuss the orientation of francophone television in Quebec. However, there is another partner that got itself known, and that's TVOntario, French section. Last week I was somewhere in the Maritimes where we discussed the possibility of using TVOntario as originator with Telefilm Canada.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: We are talking specifically about TFO.

Mr. François Macerola: Yes, TFO, the French network.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mrs. Tremblay knows it very well.

Mr. François Macerola: Yes, probably.

Starting from there, in terms of that network, we at Telefilm Canada are ready to lower our requirements; instead of requiring 15 per cent, we are prepared to accept 10 per cent. We are prepared to give regional bonuses. However, I am not the one who can take the initiative.

It's the same thing for the issue of anglophones in Quebec. It's really an important problem for the director of an agency. What do I do when Denys Arcand, who is after all one of the most famous film-makers in Quebec, sends me a script in English? What do I do when Marc-André Forcier writes in the papers or says that his next movie will be done in English in Toronto? What do I do when Roger Frappier, one of Quebec's star producers, sends me three projects, two of which are in English?

Earlier, Mr. Godfrey spoke of the situation in Quebec. Personally, the problem I see in Quebec is first that we always used to hold Quebec films up as an example. Unfortunately, they no longer are. In fact, their share of the screen time has decreased. Before, Quebec films used to generate box office receipts of $400,000 and English films about $150,000. Now, in Quebec, $400,000 is no longer generated almost automatically.

On the other hand, one of my problems, which is really an ethical dilemma... I really have ethical problems, cultural problems facing the overwhelming number of well-known francophone Quebec producers who present English projects to Telefilm Canada.

• 1230

Currently, I try to keep the same ratio as that of the population. Although it is not an absolute criterion, I try to keep Telefilm Canada's spending for Alberta in the same ratio. For Quebec, currently we invest about 40 per cent of our budget for a population that represents about 28 per cent. That is not to be rejected out of hand. Realistically, my problem can be outlined in these terms: how do I decide on the proportion that should go to English projects in Quebec? I don't have an answer.

If I listened to people who submit projects to me, in Quebec the amounts for feature films should be in the $9 million range for French projects compared to $1 million for English projects, but they would now have to be split equally as of this year. I can't do that because as a manager of public funds responsible for an institution called Telefilm Canada, I cannot, in the name of some alleged cultural or commercial cost effectiveness, justify that in five years there will be a catalogue of Canadian Quebec films having four or five English ones and four or five French ones. I just can't allow myself that.

I am in regular contact with Pierre Lampron, the Chairman of SODEC, because he also has a bit of a problem. We know why Denys Arcand wants to produce in English; he wants to get into Ontario directly, do English Canada and then move on to...

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Hum! Hum! English Canada!

Mr. François Macerola: Sorry. In any case, he wants to do something and then go to the other side. I talk to Denys openly about it because it is a problem for everyone. When I saw that Marc-André Forcier, the last bastion of the resistance... I won't mention the title of his film because I can't do so here. Nevertheless, he will be filming in Toronto. That worries me.

I have made recommendations to Mrs. Copps. I have made others to the various parliamentary committees that I have appeared before, even Senate committees. This worries me greatly. Are we ready to set aside the francophone culture to meet marketing needs on the anglophone side? I am worried.

I am sharing with you a certain...

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I hope the answers you have had up to now are that no, we are not prepared to do that.

Mr. François Macerola: Agreed. I'm simply sharing my thoughts with you. Mr. Bélanger, if you will allow me, the answers are no, but I am the one who has to answer the producers who come to my office. I am the representative of a federal cultural organization. I am the one who has to explain that I would very much like to keep a significant critical mass of French films in Quebec, not only those produced by the new directors, beginners, but also those produced by established directors. It's very important.

The Chairman: Mr. Macerola, let's take the example of Denys Arcand who has produced famous films in French. Does he believe that now is not a favourable time for producing films in French that will make it, even if they were translated afterwards?

Mr. François Macerola: The problem I believe, is that first Denys Arcand and all the other directors are in the globalization stream. Their films are often co-produced with other countries. It is obvious that the filmography of Denys Arcand is French except for his second-last film, Human Remains.

I don't have a problem with a French cinematographer making a film in English occasionally, or vice versa. If Atom Egoyan decides to make a film in French in Ontario, New Brunswick or in Quebec, I don't have a problem with that. But a trend seems to be developing that I would like to avoid.

The Chairman: Yes, yes, I understand.

Mr. François Macerola: How will I achieve this? I don't know. I will try to apply pressure in the right areas so that in two years I don't have to submit a budget here that has a budget for Quebec of $30 million respectively for French films and English films. All the same, there are principles in the cultural field that I would like to protect. I will work with the government of Quebec, with Mr. Pierre Lampron, the Chairman of SODEC, to try to resolve this issue.

• 1235

The Chairman: Thank you. Yes, one last question.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: In fact, my question is directed to you. When we went to Greece, to the Council of Europe's meeting of the ministers of culture, the Department of Canadian Heritage had supplied us with charts that we handed out to the various countries. Would it be possible to distribute these charts to members of the Committee? They are nice colour charts that are useful because they show the level of film production and other things.

The Chairman: I would say yes. In fact I see that the departmental officials are present and I thank them for agreeing to send them to us. Please send them to the clerk. Thank you, Mrs. Tremblay.

Mr. Macerola and Mr. Dinan, I would like to thank you and say that as usual it has been very informative to have you with us. You are not afraid of issuing challenges and you speak quite honestly about the problems you face, which helps us a lot in our work. We don't have all the answers, but we will have to think about this some more and I hope that we will be able to find some answers to these problems. Thank you for coming today.

[English]

Thanks a lot for appearing before us. We appreciate it.

[Translation]

I would like members of the committee to stay for another 10 minutes so that we can clear up the last bits of work that we must absolutely be dealt with.

• 1236

• 1237

The Chairman: First I would like to say that Mr. Abbott, Mrs. Lill and Mr. Muise are not here but we send them the minutes of everything we have discussed so that they will be informed. We will do that as soon as possible.

I have asked the clerk to give you a card that provides the details about what we...

[English]

Mr. Paul Bonwick: You mentioned the Conservative Party and the NDP. Is there a reason why the Reform Party is not present?

The Chairman: I don't know. I mentioned Mr. Abbott as well.

You've been given a document by the clerk giving an idea of what's coming next. On the first page we suggest there should be a post mortem of the round tables we've had so they don't get left in limbo. I'm going to ask the researchers if they can prepare a document summarizing the key points of the round tables so that ahead of our visits to various institutions outside of Ottawa we will really have a summary of what we discussed in the round tables. That will be done and sent to you as soon as it's ready.

[Translation]

We will start with the study of bill C-29 regarding parks and the reorganization of Parks Canada. We will start Thursday, from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. and we will continue on Tuesday, March 30th between 9 a.m. and 1 p.m.

• 1240

We will therefore be studying bill C-29 Thursday and Tuesday as well as on Wednesday of next week between 3:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. We will then meet on Thursday with the CBC, from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. before adjourning for two weeks,

[English]

the House recess between April 6 and 16, and on Tuesday, April 21, we go back to Bill C-29. Then we receive the CRTC on April 23. Those dates we had to accommodate according to their availability. On April 28 we go back to Bill C-29, most likely, and clause-by-clause on April 28 and 30. We hope to have finished the clause-by-clause, hopefully in those two sessions, by the end of April.

We then go into May, and you can see that we have suggested a round table of all the museum institutions together on May 5. So it will be left for us to see the NCC and the NFB.

The minister has agreed to appear before us in May sometime, subject to confirmation, and we are also going to set up an aboriginal panel for sometime in May. We would suggest two trips in the spring and two trips in the fall, preceded by what we suggested would be a dry run in Ottawa to review all that has been done before we leave. There will be one first trip to the maritimes that would take in P.E.I. and Halifax.

[Translation]

The second meeting will be in Quebec and in the eastern Arctic, the third in western Canada and the western Arctic, and the last in the center of Ontario, in Toronto, Niagara-on-the-Lake and Stratford.

You will note that we have suggested to the Committee that, even when we have to sit in a city because of time, travel or budget constraints, we visit the local artistic centers rather than having people come to a hotel.

We propose that the group be made up of nine members, four from the Opposition, four from the government and the Chairman. I would like to know if the Committee members would agree to using their travel points because otherwise we will have to get much more money.

Mrs. Tremblay.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: In fact, Mr. Chairman, if we use a commercial airline, I think that all the members can pool their points to charter a plane. It's possible. I would be agreeable to using my points and I would like us to see if we couldn't charter a plane using the points of the nine members.

• 1245

The Chairman: Yes, if the prices are the same or better.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: In certain cases, it allows us to bring the clerk along for free using only the members' points. Personally, I am in favour of this kind of thing because I think it is important to meet people.

The Chairman: I also believe it is very important.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: It would also be important to keep the expenses down.

[English]

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I think Madam Tremblay has an excellent recommendation. I looked at a couple of the flights, Mr. Chair, and I draw your attention to the western Canada-Arctic one as an example. Certainly, I do not have a problem using my travel points. I typically have lots left over at the end of the year, or will have, but that trip alone, I bet, would cost each member $2,500 to $3,000 for the round trip per person. Based on Ms. Tremblay's recommendation, if I use Canadian Pacific as an example.... If each person charged $1,500 to a travel point, you would likely have a chartered plane for the whole trip.

The Chairman: Yes, absolutely.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: We have a contact person I would be happy to put you in touch with from both organizations. I know we looked at chartering planes for the last caucus meeting we had in our riding, and it was actually going to be less expensive to put everybody in one small jet rather than a lot of us—

The Chairman: Several of us from Montreal, for the last caucus meeting, chartered a plane. Mr. Saada was there with me and we pooled our points. It was far less than the regular fare.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: It's easier. We can more easily travel when it is convenient for us and be less tight for time.

The Chairman: Yes, of course.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: It makes it a lot easier to organize the trip.

The Chairman: Excellent suggestion. We will see to it. We suggest that there be four members from the Opposition for the four parties represented and that there be four from the government. In any case, I believe we should include Mr. Abbott and Mrs. Tremblay because they are the vice-chairs of the Committee, as well as Mr. Bélanger. There would then be three spots left for government members, who could rotate, unless you prefer to add your points so that there could be more people. Naturally, we will have to study the possibilities, but that is what has been suggested to us to form a reasonable working group.

In fact, those are strictly suggestions. If we did it with nine people, I would ask people which trips they would prefer so that we could organize things and have a rotation. If you prefer to travel all together, we will have to see if it is possible to put all our points together and see also if our respective whips will allow us to have a larger committee.

Mrs. Tremblay.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: It is certainly easier to make that kind of decision if we travel while the House is not in session.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: You know better than I do that, if we travel when the House is sitting, your government will insist that you be removed from the lists.

The Chairman: Yes, obviously. That's why we thought that perhaps...

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: As far as I'm concerned, in any case, it is hard to travel while the House is sitting.

The Chairman: For now, this is only a project. We will proceed following your recommendations and try to move forward.

[English]

Mr. Bonwick and Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I have a couple of points, Mr. Chair. One is that I do not think the size is going to have a significant influence on price if it is nine members and $1,500 a point per member. For example, if John or I are in a position where we are able to attend, it is not going to cost any more for the plane. The plane is going to be the cost. The only increased cost is going to be three or four nights in a hotel, which is minimal.

• 1250

With respect to Madame Tremblay's comments on when the House isn't sitting versus when the House is sitting, it's going to be impossible to schedule all these meetings when the House is not in session. We all have responsibilities back in our ridings when the House is not in session. I would suggest, simply out of parliamentary courtesy, that pairing is a very reasonable request.

[Translation]

Mr. John Godfrey:

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]... duty. What I want to say is that from a critical point of view, etc.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay:

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]... after question period.

Mr. John Godfrey: Yes, that's it.

The Chairman: That is what we are going to try to do, Mrs. Tremblay.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: On the contrary. We should try to make all the trips when the House is not in session.

The Chairman: As you can see, we have looked at all those periods. We could do a few in May and some in June and October. In any case, we will look at that and get back to you with a proposal.

[English]

Are you willing to travel in September before the House resumes? That's a point, you know. When we surveyed our members we didn't find it was.... Well, let's try it.

The Clerk of the Committee: It could take two weeks, the whole shot. That would help the drafters in their drafting as well.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: There might be an easier way to check.

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I know that what I am about to suggest may complicate things enormously. Nevertheless, I will do it.

I wonder if it would be possible to have these trips to the regions coincide with important cultural events. It would be interesting if we could do that. I know that may be very, very difficult.

The Chairman: You may speak sir.

The clerk: Mr. Bélanger, I have already spoken informally with the Arts Council and such groups precisely with that in mind. We are already planning for it.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I would have a comment that is perhaps negative to make about using two weeks in September. In doing that, we would run the risk of missing many cultural events throughout the country. That is why I would hesitate to concentrate too many things in a two-week period. That is my first comment.

My second comment is about the trips in Ontario. I know it becomes difficult and complicated, but I would like to express a wish and we will see if it can happen. I would like it if northern Ontario were not excluded. There are areas like Sudbury, North Bay, Timmins and Kapuskasing that are fairly important cultural centers. If it were possible to go there it would be interesting.

My third comment is related to the CRTC. I note that it will be here on April 23rd. I remember the discussions we had. I had proposed we invite them and we had even talked about having them twice. I know that there are many members of the Committee who have a lot of questions for them on a lot of topics. Are we going to have them for more than two hours? In two hours we will never have time for a full discussion.

The Chairman: We will look at that.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I wonder if we must include the NCC in the category of federal cultural organizations. We could replace it withe the CRTC if it comes to that.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay:

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes but I wonder if it is really appropriate to lump it with federal cultural organizations. Thank you.

The Chairman: Agreed. Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: My question is about the proposed post-mortem and the report that will be prepared on the round tables.

It seems to me we need a brief period to think about things before we launch ourselves on an innocent country. We have to start by outlining hypotheses and especially deciding on the points we want to focus on because we can't do everything. There are too many cultural fields. We have to choose a few key topics and develop a few hypotheses that we can test on the regional populations, etc.

• 1255

The schedule does not allot any thinking time before the launch, if I may say so. For example, the film policy is a hot issue, because there is discussion and a desire on the part of the Minister regarding this issue, whereas publishing seems to be of less concern. It seems to me we need to discuss this before travelling around the country and having too many interviews with other cultural institutions.

The Chairman: Mrs. Tremblay.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Unlike Mr. Bélanger, I agree with the idea of travelling two weeks in September since that would give us the time to do the work that Mr. Godfrey talked about. That work would give us leads that we could ask people to react to. Flitting here and there across Canada and leaving with blank sheets of paper... We might as well ask them to write to us. We need a profile, a project or leads in different areas so that we can ask them: you who live here, in the Yukon and the North-West Territories, what does this area mean for you? You who live in Manitoba, francophones, anglophones, English Canada, French Canada, Canada outside Quebec, Quebec, etc.

You have sent five questions. That gave leads to the organizations. We need to get to the point where the main threads are summarized in 10 points, for example, and ask them what they think. That would make it easier for people to react. We are not going off as tourists to participate in cultural activities. We are going to see people who will talk to us about how they see culture. So a two-week trip in September, before the beginning of the session, would please me enormously, especially since it would give us time to produce the documents and get some rest.

The Chairman: Let's leave the question of the trip aside for a moment.

To answer Mr. Godfrey's question, We may have a misunderstanding. I thought we were working in three stages. In the first stage, we were calling experts from the departments, etc., to give us background. In the second, we were doing round tables with the various sectors, what you called the ecosystems, to get a much broader view from people who were working in those areas. From there, the research assistants will prepare a summary that they will submit to us, and we will send all that documentation to the people we will be meeting in the regions when we have identified them and invited them.

[English]

The idea would be to hear from the field how they react to these things, especially from the smaller institutions Mr. Bélanger spoke about. I mean, we've already—

Mr. John Godfrey: But there's an intervening stage to this, in my sense, which is the judgment part of the committee. This should be done now. That is to say, we've surveyed a whole bunch of these ecosystems and they're not all equal. Some are more important and critical. We have to say this now, because it seems to me that's when we have to start going into detail. We don't simply share the results of the round table without some kind of editorial opinion about what we think is important at this stage of the game, as opposed to something else.

We need to begin to develop some priorities and hypotheses. Otherwise, if we keep going forward with everything on an equal footing, we're never going to be in a position to start zeroing in. I'd at least like to test the idea of zeroing in on some things that we consider to be more important, more compelling, more timely for a cultural policy than other things. I'd like to do it earlier, not to hear from the field. I'd like to start asking the field: have we got the right ones?

The Chairman: All this is related to the three main sectors that we have defined ourselves, such as evolving technology, changing demographics, and the globalization of trade. We will have a summary of the organizations we've heard from and we suggest we have a dry run before we leave.

• 1300

Once you go into the field, don't you want to hear from people at large—the smaller people who are struggling with the arts and stuff and how they feel these changes will affect them? Isn't that what we are about, rather than defining for them which sectors are important for us?

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: I myself have a little difficulty figuring out the first sector based on what I have heard. What I have heard is extremely important, but it's still fragmentary. I may be wrong and I submit the question to you, Mr. Chairman.

It seems to me that our objective is to define a policy. From what we have heard around the table there are some basic elements that seem to come back very regularly. Take, for example, the question of content. Take what was said today on that issue: is it better to block what is coming in or to favour what we produce?

It seems to me there is a series of elements that would be favourable to creating the basis for the principles that would underlie a policy, but I'm not prepared to go further than that at this time. We have heard representatives, yes, but representatives of large groups and not necessarily representatives from the regions who are up against much more local realities.

In my opinion, if we want to determine what sectors need our support, our work must not be based on current reality. It must focus on the long term. Therefore, I am not yet ready to do so with what we have. I believe it would be important to meet with the people first before drawing major conclusions on the priorities to be set.

[English]

Mr. John Godfrey: Perhaps the reconciliation of these two points of view will occur when we see the actual summary. Maybe we should ask the researchers to look for certain common themes. For instance, there's the theme of the need for certain sectors to travel more, whether it's exhibitions, people who write books, or musicians. There's a certain performing arts theme of getting people across the country more. That's a common theme, but it doesn't apply to films—not totally. It doesn't apply to a bunch of other things. It doesn't apply to television.

I also think we're going to hear, in the field, a confirmation of an interest in whatever subject the folks we invite have. It seems to me that's axiomatic.

Unless we actually have some hypotheses we wish to test, such as “Do you really think there's a missing piece here in terms of the money for travelling? Is that true? Tell me about your museum. Do you have stuff you'd like to send to Nova Scotia?”—that's the kind of thing I'm getting at, where you actually do it in a more formal fashion.

The Chairman: I think we're arriving at the same point, except for doing an editorial as to what the preliminary findings are. We'll get the document from the researchers, have a dry run here, and find some main threads. But let's not write it in advance of hearing more, meeting aboriginal people, going to different communities and finding out what is different in the way of culture in Whitehorse from Edmonton or Toronto, and deciding maybe in the field we'll learn something more but we haven't lost what we have. Let's get the researcher's document first and go from there. Okay?

Mr. John Godfrey: Okay.

The Chairman: If you don't want to make a decision now, Ms. Tremblay suggested we travel in a block for two weeks in September. Others prefer to have split times for reasons suggested by Mr. Bélanger. We'll test that with the other opposition people. Please come back with final suggestions so we can start organizing.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: There's also the problem of participation we've witnessed in some of the round tables we've had. We had committed as a group to be there—and I'm not pointing any fingers at any individual person—but in some of those sessions attendance was rather sparse.

The Chairman: That's right.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: If we commit ahead of time to two weeks in September, for instance, I can already see a number of reasons why a number of our members couldn't be there. I would think if it's bite-sized and spread over a longer period of time, we might have more success in having a group of four and four, as you suggested, go out. And put it all in the same two weeks.

• 1305

The Chairman: That's my feeling as well.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you.

The Chairman: I don't want to start dictating this stuff, so let's reflect. Let's get back to this as soon as possible—at the next meeting—so we can finalize it.

There is one final point before I close. I received a letter from Susan Whelan, chair of the industry committee, regarding the year 2000 in computerization, which is a huge problem for the government. She suggests that each committee meet with the officials from their ministry to find out how they're going to deal with this question, which is apparently a huge problem. I leave it to you as to whether we should create a slot for hearing officials at one point or another. We can hear them for half an hour on this subject.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: How about during the estimates?

The Chairman: Okay. Thanks very much.

The meeting is adjourned.