CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, February 25, 1999

• 1120

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): This is the second round table of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage engaged in the consideration of the role of the Canadian government concerning culture and the arts and the challenges we will have to face in coming years.

We started this work about two years ago. In the context of our evaluation, we have been hearing people in the field. I thank you for coming here in such numbers today. A lot of people showed interest in appearing here, in Montreal.

[English]

I would like to thank you very much for agreeing to be with us today. I think the first round table was really excellent.

[Translation]

We'd like to know what you think about the Canadian government's present role in supporting cultural programs in Canada. Does it meet your concerns? Is it satisfactory to your community?

We decided to examine the Canadian government's possible role concerning three main challenges we have identified. First, there's the challenge posed by demographic change in our country, the population getting older and a change in the make-up of the Canadian population because of sustained immigration. Secondly, there's the whole matter of technological evolution including the Internet and multimedia. Third, there's the globalization of markets,

[English]

the whole problem facing us with the WTO and NAFTA and how we preserve our cultural identity within this context.

[Translation]

Finally, in view of all these challenges and your own situation today, in your opinion, what should the future role of the federal government be in the matter of support for Canadian culture? Should it act as legislator, provider of funds or moral supporter?

[English]

In what sense should the Canadian government evolve in its support of culture in Canada?

[Translation]

During the first round table, there was a rather interesting exchange between Mr. Pierre-Marc Johnson and Mr. Robert Pilon from ADISQ. Mr. Johnson recommended putting much more emphasis on support to exports and to supporting cultural stakeholders when they're faced with different changes abroad and must compete with massive institutions. Mr. Pilon enjoined us not to forget our domestic product because without our domestic product, without the creators and without the individual we risk engaging in the worst kind of export and lose everything.

Basically, people told us

[English]

the two of them are very important. You can't do one without the other. The two of them are interdependent.

[Translation]

Maybe we should look at that side of the coin. You may speak in French or English, whatever you prefer.

[English]

You can speak in English or French. Translation is provided for you at all times.

[Translation]

Before getting into our discussions, I'd like us to introduce ourselves so everybody knows who you are and what organizations you represent. Ms. Tremblay, would you like to have the floor?

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Before starting this second round table, SOCAN would like to say something so the committee won't be led into error. If you don't mind, I'll do it for them.

The total budget for the Copyright Board is about $1 million. Last year, there was a deficit of some $200,000 that Heritage Canada and the Department of Industry shared in equally and that explains Heritage Canada's $100,000 participation that Ms. Lafleur mentioned.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms. Tremblay. So the two departments shared equally in this deficit. Thank you very much.

[English]

Perhaps everybody could introduce themselves and give just a brief introduction about

[Translation]

their base, their community and the people they represent.

• 1125

Ms. Chantal Fortier (Development Advisor, Groupe TVA Inc.): Good morning, I am Chantal Fortier and I represent the Groupe TVA.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): I am John Godfrey and I am the Member for Don Valley West, in the Toronto region, and I am a member of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Mr. Rob Braide (Vice-President and CEO, CJAD 800 AM and Mix 96 Variety, Standard Broadcasting Company): Rob Braide, Vice-President and CEO of CJAD and Mix 96, the Standard Broadcasting Company's radio stations in Montreal.

[English]

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): I'm Inky Mark, a member of Parliament from Manitoba and chief opposition critic for Canadian heritage.

Ms. Zakia Demaghelatrous (General Manager, Geordie Theatre Productions): I'm Zakia Demaghelatrous, general manager of Geordie Theatre Productions, which is a professional touring company for young audiences here in Quebec.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Paradis (President, Canadian Association of Film Distributors and Exporters): Richard Paradis, President of the Canadian Association of Film Distributors and Exporters.

Ms. Louise Baillargeon (President and Director General, Quebec Association of Film and TV Producers): I am Louise Baillargeon, President and Director General of the Quebec Association of Film and TV Producers. I represent independent producers.

The Chairman: Ms. Baillargeon, I believe you said you had to leave before the end of our meeting.

Ms. Louise Baillargeon: Unfortunately, I have a funeral to attend in the early afternoon. With me is Mylène Alder who will be able to answer your questions after I've left.

The Chairman: Fine.

Ms. Mylène Alder (Director of Legal Affairs and Labour Relations, Quebec Association of Film and TV Producers: I also represent the APFTQ. I'm the Director of Legal Affairs and Labour Relations.

Mr. Howard Scott (Literary Translators' Association of Canada): I'm Howard Scott and I represent the Literary Translators' Association of Canada.

Ms. Denise Boucher (President, Quebec Writers' Union): I'm Denise Boucher, President of the Quebec Writers' Union.

[English]

Ms. Judy Brandeis (Executive Director, Literacy Partners of Quebec): I'm Judy Brandeis, executive director of Literacy Partners of Quebec.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Suzanne Tremblay, member of the Bloc Québécois and spokesperson for Canadian Heritage.

Ms. Monique Savoie (Director General, Society of Technological Arts): I'm Monique Savoie, Director General of the Society of Technological Arts.

Mr. Peter Sandmark (National Coordinator, Independent Film and Video Alliance): Peter Sandmark, National Coordinator for the Independent Film and Video Alliance, an association of independent film and video producers across Canada.

Mr. Gaston Blais (Committee Researcher): Gaston Blais, researcher for the committee.

The Chairman: I'm Clifford Lincoln. I'm the Member for Lac-Saint-Louis and chairman of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

The Committee Clerk: I'm Norm Radford and I am the clerk of this committee.

The Chairman: We don't have any special rules for this meeting and the members aren't going to be making any presentations. We're here to listen to you. I hope the exchange will be positive. Don't hesitate to express contradictory views. The floor is yours. Who wants to go first?

Mr. Paradis.

Mr. Richard Paradis: It's a pleasure to open this debate. Good morning everyone, Ms. Tremblay and Mr. Godfrey.

The message the production and distribution community would like to deliver here today—and I imagine Louise will be adding to what I say—is that it's important for the government, especially the present government, to continue to support both the development of Canadian content and exports. We're at a period now where technological evolution is making it easier for the audience or the viewers to access certain products anywhere in the world. We believe Canada has managed to establish an industry that's in a position to produce this kind of product at a world level. We also have the advantage of doing things in both languages.

I'll raise a few points that are important for your committee to remember. You know that the government has established an advisory committee on movie policy and its report is now in government hands. We hope that the government won't be filing this report where it has filed others in the past and this, for a very simple reason.

In the television industry, there is a joint program of the public and private sectors that spends some $200 million a year to create television programs in French and in English. Since the creation of this fund, we've seen that we can be very successful with viewers by developing content that expresses Canadian values. The government has set up a structure to help the record, book and television industries. Movies, which are basically fundamental to a culture, need extra aid especially in the light of the budget restraints imposed during the last few years on Telefilm Canada, which was the Canadian government's main tool to help cinema, and the National Film Board, that you are to visit this afternoon.

• 1130

Some of the recommendations in this report are the result of work carried out by all members of the industry, including the distributors, producers and cinema owners. We have tried to be as realistic as possible, and have come to the conclusion that if we want to have Canadian films, support mechanisms will have to be developed.

I heard Ms. Tremblay speaking about the sharing of responsibility between the two departments. We are also concerned about this, and we were very surprised when the Conservative government separated culture and communications, while they are joined everywhere else, including in Quebec. All of the sudden, the federal government decided to take control of the former assets of the Department of Communications, that had been transferred to the Department of Canadian Heritage, and to transfer them to the Department of Industry, by focussing primarily on the economic aspects. This created problems because it transformed our approach to culture, and made it far too heavily industrial. I believe that the former Conservative government was trying to satisfy the producers, who wanted to increase the investment in their products, particularly foreign investments.

This brings me to the issue of the percentage of foreign ownership in communication undertakings, which is limited to 49%. It is precisely because Industry Canada is responsible for this issue that there has been a movement to allow greater American and foreign participation in our communications industry. We have to be careful, because all aspects of culture and content should be, to some extent, not protected, but free to reflect our values and the Canadian identity, which is different from the American identity. Foreign interests must not assume majority control in the field of broadcasting. We have seen in other areas, including the field of telecommunications, that Americans become presidents when they have assumed control of Canadian companies. It is hard to imagine that someone from Tennessee could have the same perception of Canada and feel what a Canadian feels.

Moreover, in the magazine field, there is a whole drama going on. There is something that makes us different in Canada, and makes us feel different from Americans. That is why so many Americans want to remain here; we are well-off here, and there is less violence. It is a pleasant place to live. This is reflected in our productions, and is of interest to other countries. We have to have the means to preserve this.

Since there a un number of other participants around this table, I will yield the floor, but I would like to subsequently be able to speak about the CBC.

The Chairman: Ms. Boucher has asked for the floor.

Ms. Denise Boucher: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Ms. Tremblay. Good morning everyone.

I have presented our brief to the clerk and have asked him to give you a copy. Since you will be able to read it, I shall be brief. I would first of all like to say that this Canadian government is a foreign government for me from a number of points of view.

As an artist, I am not referring to linguistic or political problems, but I do find it curious that the government has no department of cultural affairs. It is quite curious that the word "culture" does not appear in the title of any department and that there is not a cultural authority, especially when culture is being threatened and Ms. Sheila Copps is waging a hard battle to establish this distinction or cultural authority in the agreements that we have signed with other countries. It would be advisable for her to call her department the "Department of Culture", and not the "Department of Culture and Communications", since communications are another world. Culture is a world of its own, and we must allow it to remain unique.

• 1135

I'd like you to deliver a recommendation to Ms. Sheila Copps. I'm sorry she hasn't read Machiavelli. She would know that to be a great prince or a great government, she should have an architect at her right and a poet at her left, not for the artists to prove her greatness in her name, but for her to be able to show her own greatness. She should do that anonymously if she wants us to be good artists. It is of the utmost importance that she not force us to walk around with her flag and she should leave us entirely free. That will be the demonstration of her greatness. I have entire confidence in the fight she is presently leading for culture.

As I have tabled a written brief, I will let you read it. Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: I have a question for Mr. Paradis and other people representing the movie sector.

I'd like to make sure that I've properly grasped the broad outlines of Mr. Paradis' thoughts. He seems to be in favour of the recommendations made by the advisory committee on the movie sector that are before the minister for Canadian Heritage at this time. I'd like to know if the other representatives of the sector think the same thing.

My second observation is for my colleagues sitting on this committee. It seems that as these recommendations have already been made, our challenge lies in merging this report and its recommendations into our own report. We should however divide our recommendations according to sector.

Mr. Richard Paradis: Were you to decide to integrate those recommendations into your report, we would come to the conclusion that more and more people in government and in Parliament support the industry's efforts. I'll let Louise tell you about the production sector's opinion about the report.

The Chairman: Ms. Baillargeon.

Ms. Louise Baillargeon: The members of the Quebec association of film and TV producers certainly support the spirit of the report as well as the recommendations encouraging the government of Canada to get involved as it did, in the past, when it set up Telefilm Canada, the CFDC, at the time, solely for producing feature films. We think the government of Canada, just as any westernized State, must get involved and ensure that its artists and creators will be able to express themselves through feature films.

As for the specific recommendations, we're ready to discuss them. I know that some of them did raise eyebrows. We support the spirit and are ready to discuss the implementation without necessarily looking at the specific figures. The total amount the movie industry is asking for seems valid and we could discuss how it should be shared.

I would like to add that I also support Richard's position. In the past the government of Canada has encouraged the flowering of a strong movie and television industry.

• 1140

The Television Fund will come to a close in a year. It has allowed a considerable increase of Canadian programs on our screens and has also allowed a considerable increase in ratings.

We're a very big country, geographically speaking, but a very small one demographically. Our market is restricted, and just like all the other countries in the world, if the U.S.A. is excluded, the Canadian government must first and foremost offer its population stories that are a reflection of itself, whether on television, in feature films, in books or in songs. Our population must be able to recognize itself; it's a social choice we must make. I don't think that as citizens and as a government, we can do without that.

We especially, who are the neighbours of a giant who meets its own needs simply because of the size of its population, cannot accept to renounce who we are, in other words the expression of our culture.

Telefilm Canada, the Television Fund, the Feature Film Fund and the CBC must be maintained. CBC has also helped the flowering of our culture and continues its commitment and its work with the creative people. The Corporation must have the means to continue doing this.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Who wants to carry on? Mr. Sandmark.

[English]

Mr. Peter Sandmark: I'd like to support the comments made by both Mr. Paradis and Madam Baillargeon about the importance of telling the stories of Canadians and so on.

I'd like to add some comments about the report that was issued from the perspective of our association, which represents filmmakers and directors, especially emerging filmmakers and independents working on low budgets. Of course we were hopeful there would be more money, but since there wasn't, and we saw that recently, perhaps the point is to spend more wisely the money we have.

One of points in our brief, which I've left with the clerk, is that we call for an independent film fund specifically to fund low-budget feature films. The concept behind this is research and development for the industry. Any sane and healthy industry will invest 10%, or something like that, in research and development. We need to develop talents that will come up and fill the ranks of the industry.

But I think it's a good investment, and it involves a small amount of funding. We're actually calling for a specific amount of $5 million. We realize this is a difficult situation when there's no new money in film, and in our brief we also call for an increase in Telefilm's funding. They've told us very straightforwardly, we can't give any more money for independent filmmaking if we don't have any more money, because it has to come from somewhere.

Having said that, I'll mention that Telefilm told us just recently—I haven't received the official letter—that they will invest $1 million for four feature films in Quebec on the Quebec side only. This is not yet on the English side, I might add. But because of recommendations we've brought to them, they said that they see the need. They have a lot of applications. Basically, it's to fill in the gap that exists between the Canada Council, which does an excellent job—we have nothing to recommend in terms of fixing the Canada Council—but which can only give funding of up to $60,000 for films, and Telefilm, which is appropriate for projects involving much larger amounts of over $1 million. So we're looking to fill in a gap for the development of low-budget, independent features.

Actually, I think we can look at the success of independent filmmaking in the United States as an alternative to Hollywood. I'm sure you're all familiar with the Sundance Film Festival. Great things can be done and our stories can be told through lower-budget productions.

• 1145

So I think it would complement. It's just that it's a difference in....

I guess what I'm commenting on is the recommendation in the report that money be given in an automatic fashion to certain production companies that have a proven track record.

Another recommendation in our brief is that Telefilm's cultural mandate be reaffirmed. Given that we're talking about culture and not products, I think it's important that films be funded on a selective basis, on the basis of merit and excellence and quality and innovation, and not on the basis of box office success.

I think in the long run there will be an economic return on that, because we will have quality. We will reach the international stage and we will attract attention in the international markets. In the long run this will bring us an economic return, but we have to take the risk now to invest in projects that may not appear commercially viable.

Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Paradis, do you have anything to add to that?

[English]

Mr. Richard Paradis: I'd like to respond to a few things, Mr. Chairman.

One, we have been experimenting over the last 20 years with what we call films d'auteurs, which can be considered as everything from very high-quality, artistic films to very experimental films.

[Translation]

A voice: She spoke French. You can answer in French.

Mr. Richard Paradis: Yes, but I can also answer her in English, if you don't mind too much.

[English]

One of the recommendations in the report is to have additional money. The average budget for Canadian films has come down from between $3 million and $4 million a project to around $2 million, while American films have gone up to an average of $50 million to $70 million per project. Canadian films have to compete with a lot less financial capacity to do films.

Let's never forget that when we're talking about feature films, we're expecting somebody to go to a particular place and spend $8 to sit down. We're not talking about the same thing as sitting at home and watching television, which is free, or conceptually free. People pay when they go to see a movie, so whether it's a $2 million Canadian film or a $60 million film from the United States, they want the same value for their $8.

That's why in our report we recommend that we receive additional funding, to raise our capacity to develop films with more reasonable budgets. A film that's being developed right now by Denys Arcand, with a budget of about $11 million or $12 million, will probably give us another crack at foreign markets.

Specifically to the recommendations in the report, we have suggested that if the government did put in new funding and we had a new structure for funding films, 20% would be allocated for new filmmakers, for films d'auteurs, and 80% would be allocated toward more potentially commercially viable films.

We have to get out of this rut where we do films that win awards at Cannes but that nobody goes to see. We're not saying we don't want to make those films—they do add value to our filmmaking—but we have to recognize that if we want to be a viable industry, we have to make films people are going to pay $8 to see.

Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you.

Ms. Savoie.

Ms. Monique Savoie: I would point out that the Society of Technological Arts also wrote a brief for the committee and I'll be giving it to the clerk together with a profile of our organization. We represent the new technologies in the areas of research, development and creation.

As we began by talking about movies, and since, our role is complementary to what is being discussed here, we can perhaps go back to 1895, the year the first public demonstration of a movie picture show was given.

Today, we can talk about an industry, but we should also remember that it took 15 years for this industry to see the light of day and to find an exact match between form and content. Artists had to work on what was going to be shown on the screen and there was also a need for technology to evolve.

Today, as at the time of Méliès, at the very beginning of movie shows, even though the tools are already there, we're investing a lot in the telecommunications industry. Recent years have seen a lot of money put into creating new tools. So we're still working on form. But we still have to work on content and, through that, on creating audiences.

• 1150

So as was the case for cinema, we have to make a match between form and content and that will eventually create an industry.

We consider that if Orson Wells were here today and 12 years old, he'd probably be playing with a Nintendo 64.

With the advent of digital, we must open up fields of experimentation that will allow artists to participate in research and development by adding their contribution and their know-how. Once again, we know that even though a lot of money and equipment was invested in universities, we don't have any room freed up that we can offer these young graduates, except maybe work in the industry itself. Once again, it should be known that there's room for the authors' productions that these young graduates are looking for. We're trying to see how we could help create these innovative proposals.

To guide us, we can rely on our history. We'd like to come back to the beginnings of the NFB. It can be considered the NFB played an extremely important role in Canada by acting as a school. Out of the NFB came film makers with very enviable reputations. The NFB also launched people like Daniel Langlois whose success with Softimage is the envy of all. Daniel Langlois, at the NFB, developed what was known as Tony de Peltrie.

As for the CBC, it has also served as a launching pad. At its beginnings, they proceeded exactly the same way as is happening for the new media, in other words, "one on one". They showed theatre productions on television; they gave a desk to someone reading the news and that was shown on the screen. After that, a televisual way of doing things was developed progressively.

Right now, we're dealing with video, a new media that still belongs to a new generation. Video made the most of the research and development opportunities offered by PRIM, Vidéographe and GIV, to name only those. Artists were given the possibility of having research and experimentation laboratories at the birth of each one of those media.

What is emerging these days is digital. This media, in turn, is a sort of a research area that also needs to find real space and real support. That's why the Society of Technological Arts has set up what's called the digital culture laboratory where work is being done on this new media called digital.

In our membership, we have 150 artists from all communities and we believe we're the new point of convergence that can accommodate both architects, designers, authors, poets, technicians or engineers who all work together on the latest research problem which is to see how to establish this bridge between form and content.

This laboratory is found at the meeting point between the university and the industrial communities. We're trying to build bridges between those two communities.

The Chairman: Ms. Savoie, do you have a written brief to submit?

Ms. Monique Savoie: Yes, we will give it to you. However, this situation is not set out in the brief. In saying this I am simply trying to explain that if you take an interest in the industry you must also, in my opinion, take an interest in the creators.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. Will you be sending us the brief?

Ms. Monique Savoie: Yes.

The Chairman: I'll ask the clerk to circulate it to the members of the committee. That's nice.

Ms. Baillargeon.

Ms. Louise Baillargeon: I'd simply like add something to what Mr. Paradis said before. When we talk about commercial films, that doesn't necessarily mean, in our minds, that these are not authors' films.

In my opinion, the next Denys Arcand movie or François Girard's The Red Violin are both commercial and author films. These are simply movies that were conceived and produced by artists who garnered some international recognition and for which there is an additional guarantee of foreign sales.

So, in our opinion, it is important that these programs don't automatically turn out to be a consecration of certain teams, triumvirates made up of a screenwriter, a director and a producer who have already proven themselves. We also need money for developing new talent and young creators so that they can automatically gain access to such programs.

• 1155

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Could I put a question to Ms. Baillargeon? Don't you think, Ms. Baillargeon, that we could backtrack and give back to the National Film Board the role of training school for the artists that we need to produce movies?

Ms. Louise Baillargeon: We think that the Board, in the past, played an extremely major role in training our film makers, particularly in Quebec, but also elsewhere in Canada. I don't think that in setting out a new policy for feature films, the NFB should be excluded. The Board has a role to play. How can it do this on its present budget? Would the Board need additional money to fulfil this role? We believe the Board should have a major role but that this role can't be imposed upon it without it being granted more money.

[English]

The Chairman: Ms. Brandeis.

Mrs. Judy Brandeis: Good morning, everybody, and Mr. Lincoln.

At the risk of taking the discussion into an entirely different area, I'm going to justify my presence here. I was waiting for the right moment; I don't think it's ever going to come, so I'm going to jump in now.

I am so far out of the industry that it may not seem appropriate; however, I can also tell you that I think it's extremely appropriate that I speak here, since I represent literacy, l'alphabétisation, in Quebec. In fact it touches each and every one of your areas, and the message is really quite clear.

As the gentleman said, there are stories to be told and stories to be heard. If the receivers of your stories are people whose literacy skills are too low to actually participate in the total understanding, and even in the exercise of receiving them, then our cultural industry is suffering in that way.

Our purpose in being here is really to raise awareness. Like everybody else, our purpose is to stress the importance of money, but it's not the sole reason for me being here. It's important at this point to make people in the industry, as well as at the policy level, aware of the impact of low literacy skills, socially and economically, on a country.

We have been making some very positive headway at Literacy Partners of Quebec, and I'm pleased to see a couple of people around the table with whom we have partnerships. Perhaps my main message is to encourage people to find out more about how they can become partners and benefit. Both CBC Communications in Montreal and the Quebec Drama Federation have been exemplary partners for us in recognizing the links between literacy and culture.

There's a shocking number of people out there whose literacy skills are so low that they really can't read your stories with enough understanding to participate in our country's culture, or even in their own cultures.

CBC Communications in Montreal has been a partner of ours; we're into our sixth year now. They have been wonderfully supportive in recognizing the importance of the media in including people.

Our message is really inclusion, in any way, and certainly the recent international research on adult literacy shows that the media, especially the electronic media, are the prime conduits of information for people with low literacy skills. So our appeal is to the people in radio and television—I'm looking at Mr. Braide—to recognize that there are those people out there and to address their needs as well.

• 1200

With regard to the Quebec Drama Federation, we really are very proud of the program we have, which brings in theatre groups like the Geordie Players, who provide free tickets to adult literacy students, who otherwise would never really even know that there are theatre productions to go to. Through the Literacy Partners of Quebec they get these theatre tickets and go to the theatre, ideally with their tutors or teachers, and they can then begin to start participating in areas of culture, which they otherwise would not do.

A visit to the museum is a wonderful experience because it's wonderful to appreciate what you see, but there's something missing if you can't read whatever else goes along with that visit to the museum.

So I support everything everybody around the table is doing, and I certainly encourage the government, all government departments, and especially today the committee on Canadian heritage, to support future endeavours in culture, but also to recognize that there are people with literacy skills or a lack of literacy skills that prevent them from participating in that culture.

We appreciate the work the federal government has been doing over the last ten years, especially in Human Resources Development. Our job now is to start raising awareness in other government departments. This is why we thought this was a very appropriate place for us to be, to start talking to people in Heritage and to spread the word in other government departments so that we can see the links that are truly fundamental to an appreciation of culture in Canada.

Mr. Howard Scott: I'd like to speak briefly about two points that are a concern to the Literary Translators' Association.

One is what we call the question of third languages. Literary translation for the last 25 years or so, since it's been supported by the Canada Council, has been seen basically as the exchange between French and English, sort of as an aspect of the bilingualism and biculturalism policy, which is great as far as it goes. But in recent years we've had more and more members who are working in other languages, and for the most part that doesn't receive any support from the Canada Council, unless it's already a Canadian book.

We've been pushing for a few years to try to get some funding for people working in other languages, especially now that Canada is really a land of immigration. There are a lot of people working and writing in other languages here, and there is a resource of translators here who could be translating books from other countries as well.

A few years ago the Ontario Arts Council had a pilot program, which was very interesting for the translation of work from other languages, for an Ontario translator and an Ontario publisher. Unfortunately, that fell to budget cuts at the Ontario Arts Council.

Just last night I met a new member of our association. He said his dream is to translate Mordecai Richler into Russian. It would be wonderful if there could be some financial support for that kind of initiative.

The other point is that literary translators are very well placed to act as literary agents, in a way, for Canadian literature abroad. We already actually play this role a lot within Canada between French and English. It's often the translator who will propose a translation project to a publisher in the other language. We do the same with other countries. Who is better placed, for example, to sell a Canadian book at the Guadalajara Book Fair than somebody who is from Latin America, who lives in Canada and knows Canadian literature well?

• 1205

Literary translators are in constant contact with people in the rest of the world. We go to conferences, such as the world congress of the International Federation of Translators, which this year will be in Mons, Belgium, and various conferences around the world. So when you're thinking of selling Canadian literature abroad, certainly literary translators have a role to play.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Any further comments? Mr. Godfrey.

[English]

Mr. John Godfrey: Mr. Scott, just a quick question.

I assume from what you say that it is a one way translation; that is to say, we're not translating back into Tamil or whatever else. We are trying to make the work of people who live in Canada, such as Josef Skvorecky or somebody like that, who writes in his own language, more available to French and English audiences.

Have you discovered whether there's a greater taste when that happens in English-speaking Canada or in French-speaking Canada? Or we can't tell because we've never really undertaken the experiment very fully?

Mr. Howard Scott: I don't think there's a lot of information on that, but that's an important aspect, people in Canada who write in other languages and making that available in French and English.

We'd also like to expand translation. We have a human resource of translators in cultural professions in Canada who could be, for instance, translating books from other countries and publishing them in Canada for sale around the world, into French and English and even eventually into other languages. It doesn't necessarily have to be a Canadian author.

Mr. John Godfrey: So the challenge would be like those people who specialize in dubbing, the challenge in Quebec to allow Quebec people to dub English films into French. There's always this issue with France.

The question is, can we create an industry where books being written in Latin America would be translated by the pool of Spanish-speaking, English-knowing Canadians who could then make it available to the world market? Is there a reason beyond commercial that we should do that? Is there a cultural reason that we in Canada should devote government resources to doing that kind of third-party activity? We'd benefit by having these translations available, but so would the entire French-speaking or English-speaking world. Why would we do that as a priority?

Mr. Howard Scott: Well, we're talking more and more about all sorts of commercial exchanges with the rest of the Americas and expanding trade. This is an aspect of that.

Mr. John Godfrey: Do I gather from that that your first target for this, if we were to do something about it, would be the Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking worlds represented by the rest of the Americas?

The Chairman: John, could we leave this discussion now? I think we're just going on a tangent.

[Translation]

I'd like to come back to a point briefly raised by Ms. Boucher and Mr. Sandmark about what Mr. Paradis and Ms. Baillargeon said. This debate is a bit like what we heard during the first round table about the whole dichotomy and the conflict, on the one hand between the creators trying to develop things at the grassroots and who don't have any money and, on the other hand, the very important imperative raised by Mr. Paradis and Ms. Baillargeon, which is that if we want to manage to penetrate a market that's becoming more and more competitive and to face competition on today's global scale, we must have the tools necessary to do things in a big way. It's always the same problem: how do you put the two together?

Maybe we should look at this aspect more closely and try to find some sort of solution.

• 1210

During this morning's debate, Mr. Pilon gave an interpretation of Mr. Johnson's comment as being something very black and white, while Mr. Johnson tried to say he didn't want to be black and white and he hoped that the two would happen at the same time and that there would be a merger of both. But how can the government effect this merger? That's the challenge. How can the government, with limited means, help the smaller ones while it helps the bigger ones at the same time?

Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Maybe we should make a preliminary comment if we want to get into the two aspects we debated this morning. Mr. Pilon stated that you need good local production before going into the international market while Mr. Johnson seems to be saying: Trust us. In any case, that's what Mr. Pilon seemed to understand. Let's trust ourselves; we'll export, everything will be fine and we'll sell our work.

The cinema people will correct me if I'm wrong, but they seem to think that the Quebec and Canadian movie industries are two totally different things or worlds. The Quebec film industry is harder to export than the English Canadian film industry which has a far broader market. So you'd have problems coming up with a wall-to-wall policy for the two industries because the risk would be to restrict one and prevent the other from developing.

The Chairman: And does a movie like The Red Violin wind up in one category or the other?

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: That's a Quebec movie.

The Chairman: Yes, I know that, but it was broadly exported.

Mr. Richard Paradis: I think that globally the industry agrees to say that it's an exceptional movie although not necessarily unique. It does contribute something new to our film industry amongst other things because, if memory serves, five languages are used in it. It has absolutely magnificent pictures. I'd encourage those who haven't seen it yet to go. It's worth the 8 $ price of admission. This movie will probably make its way all through the international market.

I'd like to come back to what Mr. Pilon was saying. There are two reasons for which the Quebec film industry works the way it does in our market. First, you have language. The majority of Quebec residents speak only French. So they're interested in content in their language. On the other hand, the contents of Quebec movies are extremely local. You just have to watch a movie like Les Boys that was a huge success last year and that is an on-going success this year. That movie was very close to Quebeckers and speaks to their day-to-day life. I think you all got Les Boys I over the holiday season because we sent it to Parliament. It's a very colourful movie with a very "Quebec" language with which Quebeckers feel at home. However, this movie probably has no chance of being sold on the international market. On the other hand, movies produced in English Canada often wind up on the international scene. They're not necessarily identified with a single city and they have perhaps greater potential on the international market.

Like the TV industry, the film industry has reached a certain level of maturity. The industry people, some people in government and Ms. Copps recognize there is a distinction between the two markets. Actually, the Broadcasting Act now says that the francophone market, in some cases, should be regulated differently, policy-wise, from the anglophone market. I would concur with Mr. Pilon's point of view.

You asked us how we could establish a connection between the creative side of the system and the rest of it. Needless to say, without creative work, everyone involved in production and distribution activities will have nothing to do. So there is a chain reaction.

• 1215

We have established institutions such as the Canada Council and the National Film Board, to which you referred. The NFB used to play a role in developing new talent, but in the 1980s, it decided not to pursue this issue to the fullest extent. The Board seemed to be afraid that it might be seen as a school, and nothing else. That is why it decided to focus on other areas such as the new media and animation. Now, everyone wonders what the NFB is doing.

In the meantime, various research bodies are being established, such as the INIS in Montreal, which is involved in creative film work, the Canada Film Centre in Toronto and a similar body for the West, located in Winnipeg. All of a sudden, the industry concentrated its efforts and established these centres to develop creative talent in the area of film.

Since the NFB no longer necessarily plays this role, what is to be done with it as regards the development of creative talent? What should we do with the Canada Council in this regard? We must be careful and ensure that we establish criteria that give creative talent free reign, but which also establish a point where the potential for profitability becomes an issue.

If we are thinking of establishing a new film policy with a new fund, we will have to establish criteria whereby an individual who comes back a second year seeking money to make a film could say that he or she had won a prize in Cannes and Berlin or that box office receipts for the film had been $5 million and that he or she would like to make another film that would bring in another $5 million. That is how we would eventually have a profitable industry. We have to establish some procedures to achieve this goal and some criteria that will ensure that these people are not always dependent on the government.

The Chairman: Ms. Alder, Mr. Braide asked for the floor before you, but I will allow you to make a brief comment.

Ms. Mylène Alder: I would like to add to what Richard said. I think Mr. Pilon was right to say that we have to have been successful at home in order to be stronger for the export market. One of the ways of achieving success is to achieve a critical production mass. That is one of the points raised in the report of the advisory committee on the financing of features films.

The Chairman: Mr. Braide.

[English]

Mr. Rob Braide: Mr. Lincoln, I guess I'm a little bit like a fish out of water here today. This grouping is very much cinemagraphically oriented, and the only other private broadcaster here is dealing with television. They're all visual, while I'm just an audio guy here.

The Chairman: All the more reason why your work is important.

Mr. Rob Braide: I'll address to a certain extent your question regarding about how we put the two aspects together.

Without casting aspersions, I think I'm one of the only people here who isn't either asking for money or asking the government to spend more money. Quite the opposite: I think the radio industry in particular is more encouraged with incenting businesses to increase supply. Supply is a huge issue in the radio industry and the television industry, and clearly in the film and movie industry. There is an alternative to heaping government funds upon organizations.

I was one of the original directors of Musique Action here in Quebec. I've also sat on the board of FACTOR. These are organizations that fund les bourses à la relève and the creation of new musical product, and I've seen these things work with varying success. We tend to find the larger organizations, the larger companies, receiving the funding, while the guy who's busking down in front of the Métro never really gets a chance to make that demo record the funds were put together to really produce. I think the bourses à la relève are really what's important in terms of creation, not only in radio but also in television and film.

It strikes me that incenting individuals and companies in terms of tax reductions or tax advantages to increase supply is an issue the government should be examining. I know the Canadian Association of Broadcasters has made strong representations to Heritage Canada in the past regarding this issue.

• 1220

We are asking to have elements such as the increased Canadian content addressed by virtue of introducing a sliding scale of credit for Canadian airplay on radio stations. For example, Bryan Adams is kind of Canadian and kind of isn't, according to the CRTC's definitions, so he would receive a 0.5 credit or half a play. A regular Canadian record that fell into the definition of the MAPL would receive one credit. A brand-new Canadian record, an artist with a brand-new CD at the station, would receive 1.5 credits. This would lead up to the 35%. The broadcasting industry feels this is a way the government could incentivize broadcasters to increase the supply side.

Again, while I'm not aware of specifics regarding incenting production firms, fees opportunities exist to give significant tax credits. The possibility would even exist to encourage individuals to invest in companies, with reductions along the lines of the famous QSSPs here in Quebec some years ago. The supply would be strongly encouraged, and we would have more citizens involved in that supply and more cognizant of the development of Canadian culture.

I think there's a longstanding question in Canada as to whether or not we legislate culture or allow culture to come as a function of its own expression, allow it to flourish as a function in the marketplace. Clearly, I fall on the latter side personally, and I suspect my industry in general does as well. But I think the government should be taking a look at incenting producers to increase the supply side, because certainly for broadcasters supply is a critical issue.

Things are pretty good right now. There's some excellent Canadian product being produced, particularly on the musical level. I know the TV industry has other issues that aren't the same, but at least in terms of the stuff that arrives on my music director's desk, it's pretty good. We need more, though, particularly with the increased responsibilities for Canadian content.

So that would be the one thing I think I'd have to leave with you. In terms of putting these two imperatives together, take a look not just at funding, but also incenting private industry to be able to come with some solutions for the supply side.

The Chairman: Thank you. You're talking about tax incentives and economic instruments.

Mr. Rob Braide: Precisely.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Boucher.

Ms. Denise Boucher: As a writer, I find Mr. Braide's comments very interesting. Literature and writing are the very foundations of a number of cultural industries, including film. I note, however, that only Radio-Canada or CBC give literature any priority. Other stations give very little time to writing and put most of their emphasis on communication, songs and music.

[English]

Mr. Rob Braide: You haven't listened to CJAD.

Ms. Denise Boucher: I'm speaking about art

[Translation]

and film. This raises basically the same issues. The Canada Council used to set aside some funding for writers. When the idea of establishing cultural industries came along, the amounts usually set aside for creative artists themselves were given to the industry, and the amounts were topped up, of course. This deprived creative artists of their means of subsistence. If we had been genuinely progressive and had wanted to encourage the artistic community and give it a chance to survive locally, nationally and internationally, we would have retained this funding for all creative artists and added more funding to enable the industry to benefit from their creative work.

The Chairman: This is starting to get interesting.

• 1225

Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I hope it will continue. You say, Mr. Braide, that you are about the only person at the table who is not asking for any money, and I imagine the TVA group is in the same boat. However, when you ask for a different tax structure or tax reductions, aren't you asking for money in a backhanded way?

Mr. Rob Braide: I agree, but I'm talking about a different way of doing things, an alternative approach. Reduced tax rates would indeed reduce the government's revenue, and this would ultimately come to the same. However, I think we could encourage creative activity a little more in this manner.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I understood your point very well. I just wanted to establish that....

Mr. Rob Braide: I agree with you.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: ...you're also asking for money, but in a different way. That approach is similar to the government's, which tells us that it is putting money back into health, when all it is doing is to change the amount of the budget reduction—from $42 billion to $30 billion.

[English]

Mr. Rob Braide: But we are also net contributors to SOCAN, and soon to neighbouring rights. We are the individuals who play the Canadian content, and we give significant funds to Musique Action and FACTOR.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Well, I think we managed to get to the facts on this.

During our trip to the Maritimes, we heard the broadcasters were complaining that Céline Dion was not always recognized as a Canadian singer and that she was not always included in the calculation of Canadian content. I think we have to be careful not to fall into the American cultural trap either. When Céline Dion sings in Titanic, she's not singing anything Canadian. She is a Canadian singing a song that is an American cultural product.

Mr. Rob Braide: But when Shania Twain sings at the Grammys, is she a Canadian or an American singer? She has an American style.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: It's the content, not the style, that matters.

Mr. Rob Braide: Is there a distinction as regards language?

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: No.

Mr. Rob Braide: With respect to content?

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: We have to look at whether a Canadian composed the music and wrote the words. If so, then there is Canadian content, whether the song is sung by Sheila Copps, you, me or Céline Dion.

Mr. Rob Braide: Is Sheila Copps a singer?

Some honourable members: Oh, oh!

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: No, but let me finish my point.

Mr. Rob Braide: I have no problem with that, Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I'm not necessarily speaking to you personally, Mr. Braide. I don't want to get into a dialogue with you. Could you please turn his microphone off?

Mr. Rob Braide: That is very polite. Please go ahead.

[English]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: It's not because I don't want you to speak, sir. It's just a technical thing.

[Translation]

I would like to raise two matters. In the last three days of our travels, we have heard that the Canada Council has become very elitist, that people almost have to be good already in order to get funding from the Council, and that most of the funds it provides go to the same centres, and that it is really neglecting the regions. And by region, people don't mean Nova Scotia or Prince Edward Island, but areas within these provinces. There seems to be a desire to establish funds all over the place. In publishing, I note that the higher the production and sales, the more financial assistance a company is likely to get. Are we in fact providing assistance to creative artists who are already well established? Are we going to continue with a policy that helps the rich, the best off, as we seem to be doing in professional sport, where we help millionaires rather than those involved in amateur sport?

I'm a bit concerned about this. I would like to know what you think about it all. Describe your own situation in this regard.

The Chairman: Mr. Sandmark.

Mr. Peter Sandmark: I represent people who work in less costly ways. That means that more people can produce more. The public wins, because it gets more cultural products.

• 1230

The reason we can say that the Canada Council is elitist, is that there are more applications. In our sector, we aim for a success rate of one in five or one in four, but often it is one out of eight. The number of applications is constantly increasing, because young people want to make films or videos using new media. So there's not enough money.

While I have the floor, I would like....

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Before... [Editor's note: Inaudible]

Mr. Peter Sandmark: No, but Mr. Braide's comments made me think. We should be stating officially that cultural policy should be based on creative artists and funding for them. I think we heard the same thing in various sectors. Why? Simply because we must have creative activity—that's the basis of everything.

Monique spoke about the concept of digitization. I think we can see the future in terms of the digitization of the media. At the moment, the concept of Canadian and Quebec content is very strong and important for the media for which space is limited, such as radio, television, and so on. With the digitization of the media, the issue of capacity will disappear and the concept of Canadian content will cease to exist as a means of protecting us or reserving space for Canadian and Quebec products.

How will we protect Canadian creative production in a digital environment? The market will be international in scope and impossible to control. Borders are meaningless in the world of fibre optics. Consequently, I think the only thing left to do will be to support creative activity. It comes down to the men and women who do this creative work. If we do not support them, we will have no Canadian content. I don't know how soon this will happen, but there are already digital radio stations on the Internet. You noticed, Mr. Braide. I don't know whether CJAD is available on the Internet, but some stations already are. It is just a question of time. Literature, music, film and video will be broadcast in this new way that we had not even imagined until just recently, and which Monique spoke to us about. That is what we should be emphasizing.

The Chairman: I will give the floor to Ms. Boucher and then to Ms. Demaghelatrous, who needs to have an opportunity to speak. Ms. Boucher.

Ms. Denise Boucher: I would like to respond to Ms. Tremblay's comments about the way the Canada Council distributes money. Grants are given by sector. There are funds for beginners, those just starting their career, those who are in the middle and those who are at the end of their career.

This struggle for funding pits creative artists against each other. Young authors or writers should not hold a grudge against older writers because they get grants. The Canada Council must increase its funding. If the Canada Council reduces its budget by one third, we must avoid quarrels among creative artists over who is going to get what share of the money that is left. Whether we are talking about rivalry between regions or different age groups, there is a suggestion that there is some discrimination going on, and this must be avoided at all costs. I think we need a much fairer, nobler attitude. We have creative artists here. We need only think of Gauvreau, who is an international giant, or Gaston Miron, a great poet who died two years ago, and who died poor, without paying his Hydro-Québec bill. We should not be holding his fame against him, because in this country, with its limited population, fame never guarantees a decent income.

• 1235

The Chairman: Ms. Demaghelatrous.

Ms. Zakia Demaghelatrous: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

[English]

I'm another fish out of water here. I'm representing the small theatre companies, very grassroots levels.

Everything that has been discussed here today comes down to lack of money and funds. Funding the creating process is wonderful, but it cannot be done in a vacuum; the whole project has to be financed and funded. The problem with funding policy as it stands at the moment is that one has to apply to several different projects from several different ministries to try to get the money for one project. That's one point.

The other recommendation of the theatre companies that are members of the Professional Association of Canadian Theatres, who I think you are meeting in Toronto sometime soon, is on the Canada Council, the increase to its budget of $25 million should be made permanent. This defeats what Madame Tremblay said. It's not a question of elitism as much as lack of funds, to be stretched so far that it's either a choice of giving very little money to a lot of people or enough money to be able to produce your work, in which case, some people fall out of the barrel, and unfortunately those are the younger theatre companies.

Geordie has always supported the younger companies. We are sort of the training ground for actors who go on into film and TV to make money—and good for them.

So that is one point that we think is very important and one that has been brought up here. How should the Canadian government be involved? It should definitely be involved as a funder. We cannot underline that strongly enough, that the government is there. Its role is to be a funder to help out all the different sectors of culture.

That's all I'd like to say. Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It always comes down to money. Throughout the last three days, discussions started out with culture and then ended up talking about money. I believe yesterday a researcher told us that three-quarters of all the funding for culture is spent in the three largest cities in this country. There's always a question of access to money, whether it's fair and equitable and who should get it, never mind the amount and whether we should get more or less.

It's interesting. Again, we get different points of view, depending on whether you're an artist or on the production end of cultural products. One artist said to us that the government should have no business in culture except to redirect the money into education, because he felt as an artist that on the whole issue of creativity, this is where it starts, in the public school system, so that children should be creative and you will have artists develop. He really believed the whole cultural business should be about wealth creation. I think we need to listen to him when he says it, but how do we get there? We know it creates wealth; it's just that we differ on the process.

Thank you.

The Chairman: If money is the common denominator today, just how much money...? It seems to be

[Translation]

the problem may be in finding enough money and distributing it properly. That was Mr. Braide's point.

[English]

Mr. Braide says it should come through economic incentives. Do you see the place for some kind of a mix, subsidy on one side to small artists who don't have the wherewithal to take tax incentives anyway, because most of them don't pay any taxes—they earn $12,000—and tax incentives to others who are in a different field?

[Translation]

Could we consider a sort of hybrid system?

[English]

Mr. Rob Braide: I would never for a second suggest eliminating all the funding. I'm not a slash-and-burn kind of guy.

The Chairman: I didn't say you did. I'm just trying to get a sense of where people feel....

Mr. Rob Braide: I think a combination of the two is vital. It strikes me that the incentivization should not be so much on the part of the individual, although that's one area that could be looked at, but rather companies working in the entertainment sector.

• 1240

If you're making $100 million a year off Céline Dion, take some tax incentive in order to work on that bourse à la relève, work on the lower end of the scale financially. Incentivize companies more than individuals, whether it's a record company or whether a new class of organization would be created by this kind of thing, where companies would actually get into the business of investing in those who wish to express their culture, putting them into a recording studio, or giving them pen and ink, or putting them in front of a microphone.

This is really off the top of my head, Mr. Lincoln; this is not anything I've thought about at great length. But there does seem to be an opportunity there.

Again, I'm not suggesting for a second that funding disappear, because I have seen, particularly with organizations like Musique Action, that there is a true and valid reason for government contribution to culture. I'm not a slash-and-burn right-wing conservative here.

[Translation]

The Chairman: The United States has a highly developed system of not-for-profit foundations to provide assistance for various sectors. A few years ago, the government was giving out land conservation incentives to establish specialized foundations. This is an avenue that could be explored for culture.

Mr. Richard Paradis: There has already been some analysis done to see whether it would be a good idea to establish in Canada foundations of the type that exist in the United States. This is a tradition in Boston, New York and Chicago. Wealthy families establish these foundations in the United States. The tradition does not exist in Canada. And we do not have the necessary resources to do that. We don't have very many wealthy families. There are a few, but they may not necessarily have decided to invest in culture.

We could draw up an equation. We are talking about money, but we need to look at what this means for our country, which is different from other countries. We should remember that more and more people come to live in Canada for very valid reasons. They want to be part of this country, which is different from other countries. So we have to be able to offer them something in the way of content.

I don't want to compare the budgets for culture and defence, but such a comparison could be made. We should remember that approximately 80 p. 100 of the Canadian government's support for culture goes to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It gets the biggest piece of pie—over $800 million a year. Many questions are being raised about the CBC. Is it performing its role, and so on and so forth? The amount of money that goes to the rest of the industry is not very significant, given everything we would like to do. We are trying to do sound recordings, books, films and television.

You asked at what point assistance should stop. Twenty years ago, we established Telefilm Canada in trying to develop an independent production industry. Now people think that Alliance Atlantis and CINAR are big, they are on the New York Stock Exchange. But we should remember that that was our objective when we set up the funds to establish such companies. We wanted Canada to have companies that could compete internationally and develop Canadian content. That is what these companies do and they also do productions for international markets.

Someday we should be asking ourselves some questions. We may think we have achieved a critical mass of large companies. Should there be a reduction or a decrease in the assistance provided to large companies? That is something we should ask ourselves.

In addition, we have to realize that these companies are now able to produce very high quality Canadian content films that Canadians want to watch. Do we want to promote just the small companies involved in experimental activity? Yes, we must develop creative activity, but we must also develop and maintain our strong companies.

The Chairman: Ms. Savoie. Yes, go ahead Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I see no problem developing large companies, but at some point, they are going to have to give something back. We have to find a way of ensuring that they share their wealth a little, rather than selling their companies off and leaving with their millions. They made their millions thanks to the money we gave them initially. There has to be some justice in all of this.

• 1245

We shouldn't be using criteria of the type that have been used, if my information is correct. Companies could produce only one film. Some producers work for a number of companies in order to get additional grants for other films, because no company could produce two films. We should avoid increasing in the number of small companies that will not go anywhere, that will produce only one film. We need to look at all of that to determine where we should put in the money. Would it not be better to establish a $2 billion fund? They've got the money, because they established a fund of this size for the Millennium Scholarships. So they could find $2 billion and invest it somewhere, as was done in the case of the Caisse de dépôt in Quebec. At some point, films could be made from the interest earned by these investments. The fund would grow with time.

The problem is that there is never any money. But what tires the industry out is having to beg for money every year. We in the Opposition complain every year because there is never enough. The coffers are always empty. What could we do to ensure they are always full?

The Chairman: Would you like to give an answer, Ms. Savoie?

Ms. Monique Savoie: Ask that they be filled up.

I would like to start by replying to Mr. Paradis as regards the small projects and the concept of "deliverables" that exist in the industry. People should know that François Girard has spent a great deal of time—fortunately during a period when he had money from the Canada Council—performing, making videos and doing experimental work. He became a great film maker, someone of whom we are very proud. There are a number of them. There are other matters that should be considered as well, such as laboratory space and research. I will come back to that. I have said it ten times and I will repeat one hundred times more. I think people need a space that functions as a laboratory.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Research and development.

Ms. Monique Savoie: Research and development. Artists are the industry's R and D. So we must have space. We must do something interesting with the NFB again. Let us call it a laboratory and simply proceed. Let's work on that, let us bring in our new digitization and let us make the most of film. In any case, what lies ahead is an intermeshing of various disciplines. As I was saying before, poets, film makers and video makers will go back to work, because there are new tools available.

We are talking about research and development. Recently, we at SAT received a delegation of 15 industries that had been established by Mr. Hubert Lussier of Heritage Canada. The industries themselves said that at the moment, the emphasis was very much on development over research and that the main focus was on marketing. We shouldn't expect all the success stories to come from the top; they will certainly come from the small companies as well.

The Chairman: Ms. Alder.

Ms. Mylène Alder: I would like to add to what Ms. Savoie said. We are certainly not denying the importance of research and development, if we can use that expression, in our industry. To paraphrase what Mr. Paradis said, the important thing for the television and film industry in Canada is that the funding programs remain in place until the industry is properly structured and able to be self-sufficient. It would be even more difficult to make any progress in the area of R and D. The growth of an industry is what allows us to devote more to R and D.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: It's the old chicken and egg story. Research and development can help structure the industry.

Ms. Mylène Alder: Absolutely, but I don't think a properly structured industry will go very far in R and D. That is my view.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: It will help structure the industry.

Ms. Denise Boucher: I would like to respond to Mr. Lincoln's comment about American foundations. Some fortunes were built in the U.S. by some rather cowboy-like exploitation of the land and people, but the individuals made up for it later. Perhaps our very wealthy people do not feel guilty enough.

• 1250

At the political level, it would be interesting, when the government goes out and travels around the world.... When Prime Minister Chrétien travels, he could take along a film like The Red Violin. I don't know if he is an avid reader, but there may be people around him who are. He could carry a book under his arm and advertise it internationally. He travels a great deal, and that would be really great. Some heads of State do just that.

For example, after the Second World war, the Americans had already decided on their leadership role in the world. How did they conquer other than with weapons? Under the Marshall Plan, the Americans told the Europeans that they would provide them with the tools, the resources and the money they needed to rebuild their countries, provided they allowed American music, films and literature into their countries. The Europeans thought the Americans were naive. I think it was a very powerful political decision on the part of the Americans designed to achieve certain ends. When highly placed Canadians travel, they should take something of Canadian culture with them.

The Chairman: I was not referring to the Ford, Rockefeller, Johnson and other foundations. That was not my point at all.

I want to come back to what Mr. Braide was saying. He suggested that developmental scholarships be established for young people, creative artists, and so on. Programs of this type were recently established to promote land conservation, for example. People who intended to invest in a particular area were given tax incentives. This might be one way of making more people aware of our cultural products. That is one approach. It is somewhat similar to what Ms. Tremblay was saying. How do companies that make money put it back into the system to help out others? That is more or less the idea. We provide incentives to establish not-for-profit foundations, and these foundations support the system. That is what was done in the case of land conservation, both here, quite recently, and in many other countries.

Before we close, would any members of the public like to speak? Go ahead. Take the microphone and tell us who you are.

Ms. Roberta Capelovitch (Individual presentation): My name is Roberta Capelovitch and I am a student in cultural studies. I would like to ask a question about film. I read the report of the advisory committee on feature films and I would like to ask a question of the people of the film industry. My second question will be to the witnesses representing literature and the theatre, because the problems are somewhat similar.

Is there a conflict between foreign productions filmed in Canada because of our low costs, that provide money and work for young people in the industry and that encourage the industry to locate here, and the development and production of Canadian or Quebec projects? The report mentions the issue of credits and taxes leads to some conflict. Should local producers get some tax credits or tax reductions in the case of a foreign production?

My second question relates more to what Mr. Paradis was saying. He talked about films that won prizes in Cannes and that are disregarded by the public. He may be referring to Last Night and Un 32 août sur Terre. Is the problem the amount of money provided to promote and market films? Or does the problem lie with the intelligence shown in our marketing?

• 1255

Miramax, a very small company, did a very good job at marketing some little films that were well received in the industry. I think the distribution and marketing problem applies to writers as well. Some are promoted, but others are not. There are little guys and big guys in the theatre world as well. Thank you.

The Chairman: The first part of your question is very topical. As you know, there is a big discussion going on in British Columbia today on the whole issue of film subsidies. Should we be encouraging foreign producers, particularly Americans, to come here to establish a film production industry, and if so, what impact will this have on our film-makers? Mr. Paradis.

Mr. Richard Paradis: The tax credits offered by the provincial and federal governments are very helpful to the industry. We should remember that when the Americans come to produce a film here they use our technicians and lots of our resources. In fact, that is why they come. We have technicians here who not only cost them less, but whose work is of very high quality. That is why they come here instead of going to Europe or elsewhere.

I think there were two factors that caused the committee to reach its conclusion regarding the tax credit for foreign productions. First of all, when assistance for foreign productions was established, the Canadian dollar was worth about 10 ¢ more than it is today. Second, there were almost no similar measures in place in the provinces. For almost two years now, we have seen that all the provinces have started offering tax credits for film productions. There is a sort of rivalry among the provinces: they increase their tax credits to try to attract film production. Some film productions leave Alberta to go to Prince Edward Island, for example. But that that's all right. That is how the market works.

The assistance provided by the provinces varies from 4% to 11% or 12%, and did not exist in the past. So we decided there were enough incentives in the system with the provincial programs and the value of the Canadian dollar, and that we should go no further. When an American comes to make a film here and it costs him 30 ¢ on the dollar—there may be something a bit wrong here. If we have to find new sources of funding to help out the Canadian film industry.... Earlier someone was saying that there was no more money. Well, if that's the case, we were told that we should find ways of coming up with more money. The reaction was that if there are enough programs in place to help them, they will say: let's take the money from the tax credit and consider redistributing it to Canadian productions. This is a problem in British Columbia, because many American films are made there, but the problem still exists throughout the country. What works in the East or in the West is not always.... However, the industry as a whole, from the West and the East, made these recommendations.

As to the comment on Last Night and Un 32 août, it often happens that the amounts spent on marketing Canadian films is three or four times greater than what they bring in at the box office. One of the major problems is the vast size of Canada. The advertising has to reach people who are very far apart. When you open your newspaper on Saturday and try to decide which film to go see, you probably have a hard time making up your mind, because there are many films available. The Americans are rich and are very dominant in their advertising. An ad on television for a film is very effective. But an ad on TVA promoting a Canadian film may cost $30,000. It takes at least $1 million for a country-wide ad campaign, with minimum use of the electronic media. We can't expect to have a marketing budget of this type when a Canadian film has box office receipts of $30,000, $40,000 or $50,000. At the moment we are trying to develop such films as Last Night, Un 32 août and 2 secondes. They are on in the cinemas, but it takes money to market them, and the competition is fierce.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Sandmark, I understand you have some remarks to make.

Mr. Peter Sandmark: For the record, we support the recommendation of the report that there should be more money in marketing for all levels of the industry, because it's necessary.

• 1300

I'm going to add one comment, because I haven't heard the multilateral agreement on investment mentioned. If that were signed, I think our organization would support a cultural carve-out. If it were signed, these co-production treaties that require foreign crews to hire Canadian technicians and so on would be illegal, if I understand correctly the interpretation of it. Therefore foreign productions could come in here and would not have to hire any Canadians, and could take advantage of tax credits because they would have to be treated like nationals. So that's just an adjunct to the question from the young lady about whether there are other threats, if you will, to our cultural industry.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Alder.

Ms. Mylène Alder: Your colleagues on the Standing Committee on Finance asked us the same question. I think you were there last winter, Ms. Tremblay. Ms. Baillargeon spoke about this recommendation earlier, and I would add that it is almost a necessary evil. As a result of the international agreements on trade liberalization, the Americans threatened to challenge the validity of some of our national programs, so that it may be getting a little more difficult to encourage the government to do this, because it would result in a challenge to programs that are essential to us.

I would like to take this opportunity to raise a matter that may have been mentioned somewhat less. You asked what the main consequences of globalization would be on the film industry, but also on the other industries represented at this table. Trade liberalization becomes problematic to the extent that culture is treated in the same way as any good or service on the international scene. I'm thinking of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, but also of the World Trade Organization negotiations, which will be resuming this fall.

The APFTQ is a member of a coalition that was established spontaneously in Quebec. You may have heard about it this morning. Among the other members are the UNEQ and the distributors' association. It is a coalition in favour of cultural diversity. The idea is to protect cultural sovereignty and a world in which all cultures have the right to exist and make their presence felt.

We have already taken steps with the government—and it is important that the Heritage Committee be aware of this, and if possible, support us to ensure that an exception for culture remains a priority.

We support what Ms. Copps has been doing in this regard from the beginning, and we will continue to encourage her. In addition, in the same regard, we heard about an idea put forward by the SAGIT regarding a Canadian initiative to negotiate an international treaty that will promote or enshrine the exception for culture. At first glance, that seems to us to be an excellent idea. I don't know whether my colleagues would like to add something to this.

As regards globalization and its impact on the film industry, I would like to add that both film and television urgently need clarification from the Department of Canadian Heritage or from the Department of Industry regarding the ownership of rights to cinematographic works under the Copyright Act. The current legislation is not clear and is causing us many problems, and these problems have increased in number because of globalization. We are having trouble sorting this out, and we must be able to determine exactly to whom the rights belong in order to use the works throughout the world in an absolutely legal and proper fashion. Moreover, we need a provision regarding copying for private use for audiovisual material that is similar to the one that was introduced for sound recordings. This already exists in other countries.

• 1305

In most cases, our producers are deprived of income in countries where such a system is already in place. Since Canada has no such system, there is no reciprocity, and this means that the shortfall can be quite significant.

I covered quite a bit of ground, but I did want to raise these two points before the end of our discussion.

The Chairman: As you know, the committee is to visit the National Film Board and then to resume its hearings here at 3:30 p.m.. Are there any other comments?

Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I would like to pick up on the comment just made and mention that the subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs Committee that is holding hearings on the negotiations that will be starting in Seattle in November, is supposed to be in Montreal at the end of March. If you would like to follow its proceedings, you can get in touch with the clerk of the subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I don't know who the person is, but you could get in touch with the Bloc Québécois and we will give you the information. I do not have the clerk's telephone number, but we can get it easily. The subcommittee should be here at the end of March and you should appear before it.

Ms. Mylène Alder: I thank you on behalf of the APFTQ and on behalf of the coalition. The APFTQ did not submit a brief, but we brought a profile of the industry for the year 1999 for all the members of the committee. I will give it to the clerk before I leave.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: I would like to say to those who are interested in this question that the international trade section of the Department of Foreign Affairs invited people to write to the subcommittee to request to appear before it with their suggestions, comments and complaints regarding the upcoming negotiations.

[English]

So if you feel strongly about this issue, I encourage you to write and make your views known. Contact your federal MP. Get the address and send your brief in.

[Translation]

Thank you very much for your participation.

[English]

Thank you very much for coming. We really appreciate it. It's been extremely useful to all of us.

[Translation]

Thank you very much, madam.

The meeting is adjourned.