[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, December 14, 1995
.1105 
[English]
The Chair: Order. We have a quorum. I understand some of my colleagues are on the way, but I wouldn't want to hold up our guests, the witnesses, any longer. At least we can get the formal presentation started. Perhaps by the time others have arrived we'll be getting into questions.
I ask the media to leave now. I think one day, colleagues, we'll change the policy so television cameramen can stay.
I think that will be coming quite soon, Mrs. Tremblay. At least I hope so. It's a bit unfair that we allow newspaper people and others to stay here for the duration but we don't allow camera people. I think we will be changing those rules.
Anyway, that's just an aside.
Colleagues, I want to welcome on your behalf representatives of the National Film Board, certainly one of the most famous federal institutions in this country. I gather the NFB is celebrating 56 years.
If you continue long enough, you just might be as old as I am some day.
I think we've all grown up on the NFB, if I can put it that way, and certainly have appreciated the work the NFB has done over the years.
With us today are Sandra Macdonald, who is the film commissioner and chairperson; Robert Forget, director general, services and technological development; and Laurie Jones, director general, communications and distribution. I believe Ms Macdonald has an opening presentation.
Welcome again.
Ms Sandra Macdonald (Government Film Commissioner and Chairperson, National Film Board of Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We're delighted to have the opportunity to appear before you to discuss matters that are at the very heart of the National Film Board of Canada's mandate. Your committee is to be commended for studying, at this point in Canada's history, concrete ways and means to allow Canadians to come together to learn more about ourselves and to celebrate the history, the traditions, the shared values, and the successes of Canada.
One of those ways is the National Film Board of Canada. Since its inception in 1939, the NFB's mandate has been to produce and distribute films that are designed to interpret Canada to Canadians and to other nations. For close to 60 years the Government of Canada has recognized the importance and power of film as a medium by which to draw people together, to articulate an idea, to transmit knowledge, to convey emotion, and generally to reflect the popular culture of a people.
[Translation]
For close to 60 years, the Government has recognized the importance of maintaining an instrument to guarantee the reflection of our own distinctive Canadian culture, so that our voices, our concerns, and our dreams can continue to be seen and heard amidst the din coming from outside our borders.
So what do we do now to reflect Canada to Canadians, and what could we do better?
I will address your question first by describing to you activities we are currently engaged in, then by giving you an overview of our re-engineering exercise and, lastly, by proposing to you certain avenues which would improve the dialogue and debate amongst Canadians we are continually seeking to encourage.
To help me in my task, I have with me Robert Forget, Director General, Services and Technological Development and Laurie Jones, Director General, Communications and Distribution Services.
I think that together we will be able to answer any question you may have.
[English]
The NFB has always produced, and continues to produce, audio-visual material that is uniquely and unabashedly Canadian. Our productions do not mask the Canadian point of view nor the fact that the concerns are Canadian first and foremost.
This year, for example, we are producing a film on the French and English communities of Winnipeg-St. Boniface. This film is being produced under the aegis of the French program, with a well-known anglophone director, Martin Duckworth. Another production team, including Colin Low, is working on the remake, 25 years later, of a film which for many best reflected the beauty and strengths of Canada, Helicopter Canada.
From west to east, our production centres are creating audio-visual material which is a mirror of our country. Sometimes the reflection is more local, adding credence to Northrop Frye's view that identity first and foremost draws its source from the local environment; and sometimes we treat subjects which are universal in nature but which use Canadian concerns or themes as the common thread.
.1110
From our Pacific centre, a highly interactive CD-ROM on the Riel Rebellion is currently being tested with Ontario school audiences, while a recently released animation film, From Trawna tuh Belvul, by Martin Rose, puts new life in Earle Birney's wonderful tone poem. A few years back this same centre produced Growing up - Grandir, a series on sexual education for kids from nine to twelve which became a bestseller among Canadian parents.
From the northwest centre, located in Edmonton, the recently released series on Canadian peacekeepers in Bosnia by director Garth Pritchard has won critical acclaim both from the men and women who work as peacekeepers and from the public, who were touched by their courage, dedication, and commitment. The three-part series was aired recently on CBC. The northwest centre is also the home of Studio One, a virtual studio that encourages the production of audio visual works by and for aboriginal film-makers.
From Winnipeg, where our prairie centre is located, come such documentaries as Fat Chance, the story of a Winnipeg musician's struggle against fat and prejudice; and The True Story of Linda M., a return visit by film-maker Norma Bailey to a subject she treated years ago in an award-winning film, Nose and Tina. Fat Chance was awarded the prestigious Peabody prize and was shown on PBS's Frontline as well as on numerous Canadian specialty channels.
[Translation]
In Montréal, where the French and English Programs work side by side, the productions themselves and the artisans who make films with us in our studios reflect different facets of Canada and Canadian society. From the ground-breaking work of women in Studio D to the experimental art of our animation studios, these award-winning productions portray some aspect of Canadian themes and concerns as well as universal issues. And sometimes, when Canada is reflected in the artistry, the theme is one which concerns all mankind.
We often have the privilege of working with freelance film makers, who bring their experience, their youth, and their own particular creative touch. In recent years, over 70% of our productions have been made by freelance directors. This year's Oscar-winning Bob's Birthday is an example of the collaborative process, as this animation short was co-produced with Great Britain's Channel Four. Collaboration is also found within: currently, the French and English Programs are working together to complete a film which shows the impact of the recent referendum on ordinary Canadians, from coast to coast.
From Toronto and Moncton, the French Program produces films to give voice to Francophones living outside Quebec. Recent productions include A Double Tour, a film about the women prisoners in the Kingston prison for women, and Les Années Noires, an historical film on "Le Grand Dérangement", the Acadian deportation in 1755, a film which appeared on Les Beaux Dimanches on CBC attracting 623,000 viewers.
[English]
The Toronto centre continues to produce award-winning films, some of which try to bring us closer to our past. Michael Allder's film Allied Airmen of Buchenwald is a touching portrait of a little-known historical fact, that at the end of World War II allied airmen, including Canadians, were imprisoned in the death camp of Buchenwald. The same centre just completed Baseball Girls, with freelance director Lois Seigal of Ottawa, a riotous look at the sometimes impressive history of our girls of summer.
From Halifax, the English Program's Atlantic centre, recent releases have included The Acadian Connection, a lively chronicle of the prolific Acadian family, the Leblancs. From P.E.I. comes the lively animation short Sandbox, an environmental fable for school children of all ages, while Nigel Markham, a film-maker from Newfoundland, recently completed Taking Stock, a comparison of the Canadian and Norwegian fisheries.
I could give you many more examples, since we produce or co-produce close to 90 films a year. The point I am making is that our niche is to produce films that bear a uniquely Canadian point of view. Our goal is to enrich Canadian society through the production of films that provoke discussion and debate on important subjects, that reflect shared values, that reflect the diversity and distances on which we have built our culture, and that also reflect our expectations.
.1115
Another goal is to explore the creative potential of the audio-visual media. We want to earn recognition by Canadians and others for excellence, relevance, and innovation. To earn that recognition, we know we must make films for Canadian audiences first and foremost. That is why we not only produce but also distribute our own production.
The people we reach through our films live in all parts of the country and around the world. We reach them through television, their schools, their institutions, their public libraries, their local cinemas, their local retailers; through national cataloguers; and most recently via the information highway on the Internet and through Cinéroute.
[Translation]
We reach our widest audience through television, when our productions succeed in being programmed. The Boys of St. Vincent/Les Garçons de Saint-Vincent garnered over five million viewers in total, while Canada Remembers/Le Temps d'une guerre reached over 800,000 viewers. Les Fiancés de la tour Eiffel touched the hearts of 868,000 viewers while La Traversée de la nuit reached over 649,000 viewers. We now enjoy an extensive presence on the new specialty channels, which reach specific audience segments.
[English]
Recently we signed an agreement with Famous Players and Astral, which ensures the pairing of four animated shorts in the coming year with major new releases on at least 80% of all Famous Players' screens in Canada. If you saw Disney's Big Green recently, chances are you also saw the Canadian animation classic Blackfly. If your tastes are more inclined towards Father of the Bride II, you will be able to see either Blackfly or Cactus Swings. Thus far over 120,000 Canadians have had the opportunity to enjoy Blackfly in full 35-millimetre projection.
We've always had, and continue to enjoy, a strong presence in Canadian schools. We believe schools are a cornerstone of Canadian society. That is why we ensure our productions serve to enrich what is taught in Canadian classrooms today. Over 40% of our sales and rental activity is transacted with the educational sector. Recent research has shown that teachers know our products, appreciate the low prices and quality of our products, and are particularly pleased by the Canadian content our products offer. We currently deal with virtually every school board in Canada.
[Translation]
We believe that we must provide Canadians with continued access to their audio-visual legacy. That is why providing access continues to be of concern to us. In every province and territory of Canada, we have now established partnerships with public libraries or other public institutions so as to make our entire collection, in French and in English, continually available to the public.
In some of these instances, the partnership was forged out of necessity, when we were, because of budgetary constraints, forced to close down our distribution points. However, in many of these cases the experience has proved to be fortuitous: in Calgary, for instance, our level of transactions before we closed the NFB office in 1988 was close to 8,000 turns, while, since the collection has been housed at the award-winning Calgary public library, it enjoys a transaction level of 30,000 turns a year.
[English]
Of course not all Canadians live in a community served by a library with a partnership agreement with the NFB. To ensure all Canadians have access to our collection, we operate a 1-800 line, which operates twelve hours a day, seven days a week. Canadians can rent, buy, or simply get information on NFB films or Canadian films in distribution. As an indication of its popularity, the 1-800 line now receives close to 10,000 calls per month.
In addition to seeking out shelf space in retail outlets through such agreements as the one we have with McClelland and Stewart, or through national cataloguers such as Reader's Digest or Scholastic Canada, we carry out an extensive direct mail program for Canadians working in the social service area, in cultural organizations, and in schools.
We know it is important for us, as purveyors of Canadian content, to get into the fast lane on the information highway. That is why we now have an Internet presence. Our site allows Canadians to search our entire collection to find out if we have a film that suits their purpose. They can also research the filmography of an individual film-maker or discover the rich history of the NFB itself. Our WEB site includes our stockshot catalogue, so Canadian and international creators can have direct access to our vast treasure trove of images.
.1120
[Translation]
But we have not stopped there! We believe that Canadians should have access to the entire collection on demand. To keep this, our audio-visual heritage, under wraps in canisters in refrigerated vaults may do an excellent job of conserving it, but it does little to provide access.
That is why my colleague sitting here with me at this table, Robert Forget, developed the CinéRobothèque in downtown Montréal. From the comfort of 21 individual viewing stations, cinephiles, students, researchers and the general public can access the over 3,000 titles that have been transferred onto laser disc, on demand, at the touch of an on-screen button. Once they have consulted the extensive database, they place their order, and at their command the computerized robot retrieves their selection and puts it on one of the 50 laser disc players. The CinéRobothèque is the world's only fully functional video server with a capacity of over 10,000 hours.
The real challenge, however, is to go beyond the CinéRobothèque's walls and drive right onto the Info-Highway. Ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased to say that we have in part achieved this goal. At the Université du Québec at Montréal, at McGill University and soon at the Université du Québec at Chicoutimi, students and professors alike can access our extensive database via the Internet, and order on demand an NFB title which has been transferred to laser disc. The video signal is delivered via broadband links thanks to the generous support of Vidéotron Limitée. This means that the students and staff of these universities can enjoy high-quality transmission of the titles they have selected, either on their computer screen, or on large screens in amphitheatres, for instance. Unlike conventional broadcasts, they can pause, fast forward or rewind any part of the film they have selected to allow for discussion and review.
[English]
We are currently working with another technical aspect so as to advance the distribution of Canadian films. We are looking into digitizing and compressing our collection so dark optic fibres across the country can be brought to life with Canadian content as never seen before.
While NFB productions are reaching more and more Canadians through the new specialty channels, while our sales of video cassettes have increased by 50%, while our productions are still winning awards in Canada and abroad, we are at a turning point today. In a month's time the mandate review committee will be delivering its report and recommendations. These recommendations will have a tremendous impact on the future of NFB and Canadian content at large. But we know that as prudent stewards of a significant contribution by Canadian taxpayers to the advancement of Canadian culture we must not rest on our laurels, Palmes D'Or, or Oscars and wait for change to be forced upon us, we must make changes ourselves to respond to the new imperatives of fiscal restraint. That is why we have embarked on a deep and meaningful re-engineering process.
This summer, as part of a consultative process, we provided our staff and major stakeholders with a discussion paper outlining our vision of the NFB in a new economy on the eve of a new century. Once people had the opportunity to share their views, we provided them with an interim report on that discussion paper to serve as a starting point for the ensuing discussions, which deal with implementing the major aspects of this new vision. Both versions of the discussion paper are included in the materials we have provided to you.
At the core of this new vision is a wish to safeguard our production capacity across Canada and to continue to make innovative, relevant films which reflect Canada to Canadians and provoke discussion and debate. We want to continue to do this even though we know we will most probably face a budget cut on top of the one we received this year, which will reduce our parliamentary allocation from $75 million to close to $56 million. We do not know the extent of the cuts we will be facing in 1996-97 or 1997-98, but we feel the hypothesis we are working with is prudent and realistic and takes into account the severe economic pressures on the government at this time.
[Translation]
This means that we are looking at several areas to meet our budgetary targets. First, we will reduce all administration "from the corporate level to that imbedded in the bowels of program areas" by close to 30%. This is on top of an earlier reduction which already hit the administrative layer. Then, we will ensure that our distribution, in terms of marketing our films in Canada and internationally, is completely cost-neutral, and we will, over time, continue to increase our revenues. Our marketing divisions have shown over the past few years that it can indeed be done, by increasing revenues from sales and royalties by 45%. We are also looking at the access we currently provide and will come up with ways of streamlining this activity.
.1125
As part of the re-engineering process we also want to improve the way we do things that is why, for example, we intend to rebalance the distribution of our resources, and increase the allocation given to the Ontario centre. That is why we are looking at our own physical plant in Montréal, and looking at ways to make it all the more cost-efficient. In fact, no area of the NFB will remain unexamined.
We are optimistic that we will find ways of maintaining our "activity", the production of distinctly Canadian audio-visual product, and cutting our budget by close to $20 million. It won't be easy, simple or superficial. It will change the way we operate!
[English]
Our need to change the way we do things and your express wish to improve the dialogue among Canadians may involve actions we feel will increase our reach among Canadians. You have asked us what we can do better. First, we would like to establish a more collaborative relationship with our sister agency, the CBC/Société Radio-Canada. The audiences the CBC delivers are any Canadian producer's ambition. The CBC's new strategy to become resolutely Canadian will provide us, we feel, with an opportunity to reach audiences as never before. We dream of the day when the Prince of Belair will be replaced by Princes in Exile, and when Central Park West will be replaced by a broadcast of Return to Regent Park.
Secondly, we believe it is at the core of our mandate to redouble our efforts with children and educational programming. As I look around me, I can see a generation of people who enjoyed a steady diet of NFB films when they were in school. I can also recognize people who in a previous life were teachers who used NFB films themselves to enrich their own classrooms.
We must continue to do that, regardless of the virtual dumping of products from elsewhere. We must increase our output so as to carve out a place on the information highway that will be clearly Canadian in content and in approach. We must ensure that young Canadian minds are given the opportunity to see themselves in the audio-visual materials they consume. From health to social sciences, from sex education to the study of science, the reference points should and must be distinctly Canadian. We are, as reflected in our discussion paper, and in the discussions we are currently engaged in as part of our re-engineering process, deeply committed to increasing our undertaking toward Canada's young people.
I conclude my comments today on this point. The NFB continues to be a vital force in the delivery of Canadian content - from the film-makers who are the creative force behind the vision to the audiences who enjoy the final product - in Canada and throughout the world.
I and my colleagues would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Ms Macdonald, thank you for your presentation. Some of your remarks bring back memories. I'm sure it's almost 50 years ago when I first experienced, or witnessed, or watched, an NFB film in a classroom, the teacher bringing out the projector and the collapsible screen and shutting the lights in the classroom...and watching an NFB film. So you bring back memories.
An hon. member: That means you're 70 years old.
The Chair: No, but if you add it up, if I watched when I was seven years old...that's 50 years ago, unfortunately. Anyway, I admit to some bias towards the NFB.
I have one question. You noted earlier that you're 56 years old. Back in 1939, when the NFB was founded, it was given the mandate, Ms Macdonald, ``to interpret Canada to Canadians and to other nations''.
.1130
On top of page 4 of your presentation you say ``the point that I am making is that our niche is to produce films that bear a uniquely Canadian point of view''. I'm wondering if you have reinterpreted your mandate.
Before I get the answer from you, I want to point out the NFB newsletter for this month, 1995. On the cover you promote the production The Lost Garden, which will be premiered on Bravo! in just a few days, on December 17. That production is about the birth of cinema in another country. It just happens to be France. It doesn't matter to me, but it's about the birth of cinema in France. It has nothing to do with Canada, as far as I know. I wonder why you got into that production, given your mandate, going back to 1939, which is to promote Canada. Can you explain that for me?
Ms Macdonald: I certainly can.
First, we haven't applied a gloss to the mandate at all. The mandate is to interpret Canada to Canadians and to other countries. We believe in that wholeheartedly. But there are five aspects to the NFB's mandate in the legislation we operate under.
The first and primary one is to interpret Canada to Canadians. But we also have a legal mandate to do research and experimentation in the field of audio-visual and several other things, and to participate, on behalf of the Government of Canada, in many international activities. One of the international activities we participated in this year - and I think with an important work - is the 100th anniversary of cinema, which we, as did every other country in the world, participated in and attempted to make a valuable contribution to.
The reason why we particularly felt this was the kind of film the National Film Board could make is, first, that the film examines the importance of cinema from the outset in the creation of people's myths and notions of themselves, and therefore the role of cinema in the lives of people. But perhaps even more importantly, this is something the National Film Board has been a pioneer in and has felt was one of the things it contributed to world cinema - a celebration of the creativity of women film-makers.
So this particular film actually set out to point out to the world that the first film-maker in the world - and in fact one of the most prolific and influential, but largely forgotten; wiped out of history - was in fact a woman. Yes, she was a Frenchwoman. She moved to the United States and made hundreds of films there. Her memory was forgotten. We felt we made a contribution to world cinema on behalf of the art of cinema and on behalf of women film-makers, both of which we have in Canada, by making this particular film and this particular contribution.
But I would like to point out that while every year we make a certain number of films that we believe are of topics of interest and importance to Canadians yet are not localized to Canada, they represent maybe 5% of the films we make. We feel that's well within the bounds of what's logical and reasonable, because we're not a parochial people, we're people of the world, and we feel we should play a part in the world, too.
The Chair: I don't think you have to be apologetic, but it's nice to have the answer.
Ms Macdonald: Yes.
The Chair: Madame Tremblay.
[Translation]
Ms Tremblay (Rimouski - Témiscouata): Good morning, Ms Macdonald. I am pleased that I could organize my schedule in order to be here today.
First, I want to congratulate you because I believe you have interpreted your mandate intelligently and are enabling Canadians to be open to the world instead of limited to themselves, which I think is better.
.1135
I would also like to tell you how much the Bloc québécois admires all the work the National Film Board has done. You have our full support for everything that may arise in the Juneau report. We will be monitoring it closely. We want the National Film Board to continue contributing to Canadian culture, and thereby to Quebec culture, because everyone knows that there are some great Quebeckers who have distinguished themselves at the National Film Board.
Over its 56 years, the National Film Board has contributed in a certain way to the construction of Quebec culture, which is part of Canada's culture. As I believe you know, Quebec film is recognized internationally.
Quebeckers will always be grateful to the National Film Board for enabling them to discover who they are, to express themselves and to make a significant contribution. I am thinking, for example, of Perreault, Labrecque, Carle, Arcand, Brault, the Blackburns and others who have contributed to this feather in the cap of Canadian culture that is the National Film Board.
I wanted to come here personally today to tell you that and to congratulate you for it and in particular to tell you that you can count on our support. Have you met Mr. Juneau?
Ms Macdonald: Yes, on a number of occasions.
Ms Tremblay: In your opinion, Ms Macdonald, why is the National Film Board essential to Canadian culture? How could you sum that up for us? What would be the key arguments on this point?
Some people think that you should be merged with Telefilm Canada. We don't think so, but could you tell us what you think?
Ms Macdonald: We are quite obviously continuing to have trouble producing films on Canadian subjects. The expansion of the private industry has not changed the economic problems involved in producing films in Canada, particularly films of high quality, films requiring many people.
The Board has always had the privilege of providing the Canadian public with films of high quality because it does not have to live for the market. We can create in advance because we have the privilege of working with money that has been allocated to us by Parliament and the privilege of looking at important and difficult questions that at times interest only fairly small audiences.
If we did not have an institution such as the Board, it would be hard to provide the public with films on difficult and very popular subjects. It would be very difficult to serve the full range of audiences that the Board has had the privilege of serving over all its years.
.1140
As to your second question, neither Mr. Juneau nor any other person in a position of authority has spoken to me of a possible merger with Telefilm Canada. On the contrary, Mr. Juneau has assured me that the committee was not at all thinking of changing the Board's status.
Ms Tremblay: Mr. Franco Nuovo wrote in the Journal de Montréal, and I quote:
- ...and the seventh art in this country would quite simply not exist if a French wing of the
National Film Board had not been created in the sixties.
Ms Macdonald: We have made an absolute commitment to continue French-language production, first in Quebec because most of the population there speaks French, but also in Moncton and Toronto in order to serve Francophones outside Quebec.
Each year, we spend 37% of our production funds on French-language productions. And that is continuing.
Ms Tremblay: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Loney.
Mr. Loney (Edmonton North): First of all, I'd like to commend you on your presentation and congratulate you on the quality of the films you have outlined in that presentation.
Today the National Film Board is airing a film, A Song for Quebec, on 40 years of Quebec history as seen through the eyes of Pauline Julien and Gérald Godin. Considering that today all Canadians are concerned with the unity of our country, and considering the political bias of the two principals involved here, are you comfortable, as a federal agency, with a possible political message? I suppose what I'm really asking is can you separate the artist from the message and the intent from the content?
Ms Macdonald: For me - and I say this really from the bottom of my heart - the thing that distressed me the most in the course of the recent referendum was the absolute abyss in knowledge and understanding that appears to exist in this country between the range of opinion of people who live in Quebec and what people in the rest of the country think. I found, being in Montreal most of the time during this last period but watching the media in French and in English, reading the newspapers in French and in English, that not only was the range of expression of opinion of the rest of Canada not particularly well presented in Quebec but Canadians in the rest of the country didn't get a full appreciation of the range of opinion, and the importance of that range of opinion, which exists in Quebec. They didn't get it in the rest of the country.
To me, the thing we must do in our mandate to interpret Canada to Canadians is ensure that we show the range of truly held opinion. We don't have to believe it, but it's very important for everybody outside to understand where it comes from, what it means, and how deep it is.
.1145
So when you ask whether we can separate the artist from the content, in fact for me the thing that's important is that we show the entire range of the content and we don't show just one part. If we show just one part, then we all mislead the Canadian public into thinking they understand a situation they don't understand. I would say far from wanting to see fewer films that explain where these opinions come from, what they're based on, how they spread in society, we should show more on every end of the scale, not just in the middle, because the middle and the average are always misleading. I think we've seen the effect of that.
Mr. Loney: Thank you.
The Chair: May I pick up on that? The way you talk, though, you sound as if this were a documentary or a news program. This is not a documentary or a news program, is it?
Ms Macdonald: This particular film is a kind of essay, which is in fact what many of our documentaries are.
The Chair: Is it intended, though, to convey a point of view?
Ms Macdonald: It's intended to show what certain people think.
The Chair: Is it intended to convey a particular point of view? That's what I'm asking. Is it balanced? Was it intended to be balanced...assuming there's a broad range of political opinion in the province of Quebec? I just want to know that.
You'll have your chance in a moment, Madame Tremblay.
Ms Macdonald: I don't know that I would say it's balanced or it was unbalanced. It's simply one set of views on a topic on which we've produced quite a few films, with a variety of views. Across a range of films we produce...there are 9,000 titles in our catalogue, and almost every point of view can be found. We feel if we are going to interpret Canada to Canadians, it's across the body of work...and not to find the balance of every topic in every 60 or 70-minute program.
The Chair: So you're saying it's more important to have the balance across the aggregate -
Ms Macdonald: Yes.
The Chair: - not in any particular production.
Ms Macdonald: That's my view, and certainly it's the view the board has always taken. You look to have a catalogue that contains a broad variety and range and don't attempt to deal with topics that are always inevitably complex and difficult in such a short timeframe that you make them trivial and unimportant.
Mr. Loney: I was going to ask a question further to what I said before. In the balance, do you consider a sense of timing to accent that balance?
Ms Macdonald: There are two or three answers to that question. First of all, when we make things, usually they are timely. In fact, we are making things that happen to be preoccupying the society at that moment. So timing comes into the decision on what you make. You hope it's timely when you make it.
Mr. Loney: But I'm talking about the timing of the presentation.
Ms Macdonald: The timing of the presentation is often not in our control. When things are broadcast, what happens frequently is that the broadcaster has asked for and we have given it a licence to air the program at some time during a certain period. It may be a period of two years. It may be a period of five years. They air it whenever they feel like scheduling it. They don't consult us about when to air it.
Mr. Loney: Do you feel you should be consulted?
Ms Macdonald: If we're going to sell to broadcasters, we don't have the legal right to ask that, because under the Broadcasting Act, as I'm sure you know, the broadcaster has total responsibility for what it airs.
Last year we had over 5,000 plays of National Film Board films on broadcasters in Canada. To coordinate 5,000 airings with broadcasters, I think, would just be beyond our scope, even if it were within our legal purview.
.1150
Mr. Loney: I was considering that when you have such excellence in your films, you would lose potential impact...or lack of impact, given the timing of the presentation.
Ms Macdonald: I can assure you we would dearly love to have control of a broadcast outlet where we could schedule our films for ourselves when we wanted them to be seen. Nothing would make us happier.
Mr. Loney: That's a very good answer. I'll remember that. Thank you.
The Chair: Madame Tremblay, fire away.
[Translation]
Ms Tremblay: I would really like to have the floor again. I would like to take exception with the attitude you have adopted in this committee. I completely reworked my schedule for the month of January in order to continue working with you, but if you don't change your attitude, your litigious and witch-hunting attitude... When Telefilm Canada came here, we criticized it for financing Les Ordres.
Has any one of the four Liberals in front of me ever seen the film Les Ordres? Have you at least seen it? You talk about the film A Song for Quebec, but have you seen it? Have you seen or read a work by Marie Laberge? Have you ever read a poem by Gilles Vigneault?
You seem to have very good research services and to cite only Quebec works, but you haven't understood anything and you're not about to understand what's going on in Canada if you don't stop your witch-hunting efforts against Quebec. We exist. We are a people. We are a nation. We have a culture. We express ourselves. We will never muzzle ourselves. If you don't understand that you have to take your place as a Canadian people and to have your own culture and your own identity, then you don't know who you are. It's time you knew who you are and that you stopped attacking us.
As for us, we know who we are. We know what we want. You seem to be afraid of losing your identity if we leave. We are about to leave. Get ready. Ask yourselves who you Canadians are. Develop your own culture. Stop being bulldozed by the Americans. Protect your culture and you won't be afraid of standing beside a people that expresses itself.
When we're afraid, we're afraid of not knowing who we are. When we know who we are, we're not afraid of others. You have to put an end to this. The people from federal agencies who make considerable contributions to Canadian culture should not have to suffer your witch hunting each time they come here.
[English]
Mr. Loney: Madame Tremblay, may I say I'm not on a witch-hunt. If you had been paying attention to the conversation between Ms Macdonald and myself.... I solicited -
[Translation]
Ms Tremblay: I heard. I can do two things at the same time.
[English]
Mr. Loney: Just a moment. You've had your turn.
I solicited a favourable answer, the kind of answer I wanted to hear. This is no witch-hunt.
[Translation]
Ms Tremblay: How many films are there? And you pick out that one! Come on!
[English]
The Chair: Madame Tremblay, committee members have a right to ask questions. I did not hear Mr. Loney make one -
[Translation]
Ms Tremblay: Naturally, he holds the same views as you.
[English]
The Chair: - word of condemnation. He wasn't condemning anyone.
[Translation]
Ms Tremblay: He holds the same views as you. So you can't judge him objectively. You're seated there chairing a committee that is engaged in witch hunting.
[English]
The Chair: Mrs. Gaffney wanted to make an intervention on this point.
Mrs. Gaffney (Nepean): I am most annoyed, Mr. Chair. I find this line of....
First of all, we are entitled to ask questions on this committee. Every time we open our mouths, we get berated from the person across the way. I am sick and tired of it, Mr. Chair; I really am.
Mrs. Tremblay: I am sick and tired that you don't exist -
Mrs. Gaffney: I am normally a very mild-mannered person.
Mrs. Tremblay: - and you don't recognize that I exist too.
Mrs. Gaffney: I'm sorry. You had your turn. Would you please let me have my turn?
[Translation]
Ms Tremblay: Yes, I'm going to give you your turn provided you don't insult me.
[English]
The Chair: Madame Gaffney.
Mrs. Gaffney: I would like to follow the line of questioning Madame Tremblay had followed about Telefilm Canada and the National Film Board. I don't believe you responded to her question. The question I heard her put was that there are rumours Telefilm Canada and the NFB should be merged. You came back with a response that Mr. Juneau said...whatever he said. I haven't seenMr. Juneau's report, so I don't know where you got that from. I understand his report is not even out yet.
The question I asked Telefilm Canada when they appeared before us was whether they thought Telefilm could be privatized and still serve the Canadian public to the extent it does today. I might ask you that same question. We are funding an NFB and a Telefilm Canada. I can't see the difference between the two of you. I don't know why we need two.
.1155
I would like your response to that.
Ms Macdonald: First of all, I think the question I was asked was whether anyone had raised the issue with me in the Juneau committee about merging the two organizations. I said Mr. Juneau did not with me and in fact had said to me the contrary. He did say that to me in the course of his review. Obviously his report isn't published, so you wouldn't have read it anywhere, but I answered the question as it was put to me.
As for the question of whether two agencies are needed, or in fact whether any agencies are needed, and if there are two what the difference is, I think of the essence is that the mandates of the two agencies are very different. Telefilm Canada has a mandate to develop an industry - to develop an industry that presumably will, to a greater or lesser degree, achieve a capacity to be self-supporting by earning income.
We all know the Canadian market divided by the cost of making high-quality productions makes it extremely difficult to produce drama, certainly, but also many other kinds of film, on a cost-effective straight market basis. The more Canadian the project - that is, the more it depends on the Canadian market alone - the more difficult that is. The more you aim for an export market the easier that is.
The balance Telefilm finds itself facing - and I must say at the board this is an easier question for us; in a sense we don't have the same ambiguity in our mandate - they face the challenge of having to attempt to develop an industry that has at least some commercial base but at the same time to encourage production that is Canadian in more than simply the passports of the people who worked on it.
In our particular case, our mandate is not and has never been the development of an industry, is not and has never been the commercial exploitation of the work we do. From the beginning the purpose has been to attempt to fill a need that the marketplace, left to itself, would not fill.
Parliament decided that need existed, and every year has, in appropriating a budget for the agency, continued to decide that need existed. It can decide tomorrow that need doesn't exist. In fact, simply by reducing our budget, or eliminating our budget, it can eliminate the agency, because all we do is make films in the public interest with the taxpayers' money.
The Chair: Mr. Peric.
Mr. Peric (Cambridge): Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat disturbed. I hope the procedure here at the committee in the future, next session, will follow good order. Once we give time to members, I would appreciate it if other members did not interfere. I hope we are going to stop speaking of ``French'' or ``English'' or vice versa all the time. I'm neither one. I'm a Canadian. I'm expecting, especially from you, Mr. Chairman, that in the future we won't talk like this all the time. The separatists are Canadians as well. They have a mandate. But we have our time, and we have a right to ask questions without any interference.
.1200
Madame Tremblay, I do agree with you that we should look into the material before we come here. Then I hope we could respect each other's views. We might not agree all the time, but we should respect each other.
The Chair: It's a difficult time for all Canadians. We're at a point, Ms Macdonald, where it seems it's almost impossible to ask questions without someone questioning one's motives. It seems almost impossible to ask a neutral question any more. I find that really sad.
We're a committee of Parliament. You're a federal agency. I said at the beginning, and I'm sure all members of the committee agree, that in your 56 years of the NFB you have a wonderful history. But there are questions to be asked, without any intent of a witch-hunt or condemning anyone. We are at a difficult time, and sometimes parliamentarians are motivated to ask questions that, yes, touch on national unity. As chairman, or as one member of the committee, I can't fault any of my colleagues for that.
In your book about your films - and this has to do with A Song for Quebec - it's written:
- A living history - that of Quebec's last 40 years - is seen not through the careful
reconstruction of the academic historian but from the viewpoint of a couple in love with each
other as well as the cause of Quebec's independence. Pauline Julien through her songs, and
Gérald Godin through his poetry, provide an intimate look at the events which have marked
Quebec's evolution. This is a film about love and passion, and about a couple whose life is
bound to the emergence of their world. It is also a unique synthesis of the Quebec nationalist
movement.
Ms MacDonald: First of all I'd like to say, Mr. Chairman, that I entirely respect the right of members of this committee to ask this agency any question they feel like asking it. Obviously we are the servants of the Canadian people and parliamentarians are entitled to know everything they want to know about what we do.
I said earlier I felt the lack of understanding that exists among Canadians was profound and the fact of that lack of understanding is one of the great problems we have in this country. I don't think you can create understanding by not showing what people think who think differently from other people. As I said before, I think what you need to do is to provide the range of opinion so the intelligent listener or viewer can survey for themselves what the situation is, draw their own conclusions, and act appropriately.
The Chair: Mrs. Gaffney.
.1205
Mrs. Gaffney: About your comment in your speech, Ms Macdonald, where you made note of the fact that you were losing many millions of dollars and a very high%age of your staff in order to meet the government's commitment to budget-cutting, yet at the same time you believe you can still meet your goal of being as efficient as the National Film Board has a history of being, I will first just make a statement.
It always saddens me that the government has to lower the boom in order for an agency to become efficient. Why do agencies not automatically strive to be efficient on a day-to-day basis? Why do they wait for government to come down with that big axe to do this? That always saddens me.
I suppose I'll be accused of being...whatever, but I'm going to barrel ahead on this anyway. You said 37% of your budget goes to French film.
Ms Macdonald: Yes.
Mrs. Gaffney: We all represent different regions of Canada. I represent the province of Ontario, which has always been considered one of the have provinces. It's almost one of the have-not provinces; and I rue that day.
I applaud the fact that you have raised the cultural knowledge of Canadians about the culture of Quebec. I applaud you for that. But has there come a time now when some other regions of this country that have not had their culture promoted, that maybe are feeling their culture has been diminished because we have put so much emphasis on raising knowledge about the culture of the province of Quebec...? Because you've had 19 original films in English and twenty original films in French, and looking at the budget of the two.... You said 37%, but it appeared to me be higher; but maybe my math is incorrect. Do you see that in the future you will try to raise the cultural identity of other provinces in the rest of Canada in the next year to two years and you will be able to level off a bit more on the province of Quebec?
Ms Macdonald: In fact, we are very present in the rest of Canada. I think if you were to canvass film-makers in the rest of the country they'd say the regional presence of the National Film Board is better, relative to our resources, than the other agencies in the same field. We've made a very conscious effort to regionalize our activity in English - and in French, but obviously the spread of the population indicates where you want to be in which language. So I would say our range of production across the country is quite fair within the language groups.
The 37% and 63% we've settled on as a fair balance between French and English, which is roughly the same as all the federal agencies in this field has settled on -
Mrs. Gaffney: Which is higher -
Ms Macdonald: - which reflects -
Mrs. Gaffney: Which is higher than what the national average is; and that's the point I'm making.
Ms Macdonald: But all the agencies in the federal field have gone the route, for good reasons - and I'll take a second, if I have it, to try to explain them - for not going straight per capita. Obviously if we went straight per capita the results would be different.
Mrs. Gaffney: Very different, yes.
Ms Macdonald: But first of all, the Constitution makes us a bilingual country. So the need for service.... You have the same number of hours in the day if you're French speaking or English speaking. The number of hours you may watch television in a day is the same if you're French speaking or you're English speaking. So the number of hours to supply programming for is in fact 50%-50%, you might say; or 100% and 100%, to be more accurate.
To reflect the fact that the need to provide programming is for 24 hours a day, despite the fact that the population may be 25% and 75%, one of the things we've done is we've said, well, we won't go to 50%-50%, because that wouldn't be fair in the population mix. However, it's equally not fair to go to 25%-75%.
.1210
Another reason is that productions made in English have a far, far higher capacity to earn revenue, because they have the whole English-speaking world to sell to, whereas productions that are made in French have a much smaller capacity for international sales because the French-speaking population of the world is smaller. Therefore we assume the earning potential of films made in French is much smaller than the earning potential of films made in English. That is in fact borne out by our own sales. Therefore we earn on English films and we put that back into production and it changes the balance at the end of the day; not at the beginning, but at the end of the day.
Mrs. Gaffney: It would almost indicate to me, though, in tight budget times, that in order to raise your revenues within the National Film Board's revenue you should go a bit the other way; you would have more English films in order to increase that revenue, thereby decreasing your requirement for government allocation.
Ms Macdonald: The mandate we have is not a commercial mandate. Therefore we will never expect to earn a high%age of our annual budget from the marketplace. If Parliament wanted an agency that did earn most of its money from the marketplace it wouldn't be us. It would be Telefilm, perhaps.
Over many years we've wrestled in the government with this issue of what the balance is. Over time all of us individually have come to the conclusion that the fair thing was roughly somewhere between 33% and 40%.
The Chair: Mr. Pillitteri.
Mr. Pillitteri (Niagara Falls): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry for being late; but this is very much of interest to me. I got in here late, but just on the remarks I heard.... I sometimes wonder how we come up with%ages, and how you take a look at it today.
I'm a Canadian, by the way. I just wonder which side I'm being tossed on. If I happen to be living in Ontario, I'm tossed in with the anglophones. If I happen to be living in Montreal, in Quebec, I'm tossed in with the francophones.
Is the National Film Board really looking at the picture-window of Canada today? Is it looking at it, for instance, in Montreal? Is it looking at it in Toronto? Is it looking at it in Vancouver?
Madame Tremblay, I'd like to get an explanation, if it's possible, from the witnesses. I do understand you have different views, and so do some other people. I have one view; and that is of a Canadian.
I'd like to ask, as a Canadian, do you see the picture of today in Vancouver, Toronto? Can you see which way you're spending?
Ms Macdonald: You came a little late, sir, so I'm going to pass you something we've given the other members, which is the catalogue of the films we make. I think if you look through that catalogue what you'll find is.... Look at the names associated with those films. You're going to find the United Nations in there.
We have people from every background making films with the National Film Board of Canada. We have many films made by aboriginal film-makers. We have films made by Asian film-makers, black film-makers, and film-makers from every part of Europe and eastern Europe. But because we're a federal institution, those films come out in English or French, for the most part; occasionally in an aboriginal language.
They do consciously look for the breadth of Canadian society, and in many cases look at the immigrant experience. That's one of our big themes in our films. In the current year, take something like Double Happiness, for example, which is about a first-generation Chinese girl. It was made in Vancouver and is a very popular film. We have Enigmatico, which is about the Italian population in Toronto.
Name a few more, Laurie.
.1215
Ms Laurie Jones (Director General, Communications and Distribution Services, National Film Board of Canada): We had Freedom Had a Price, about the Ukrainian prisoners of war here in Canada. We had another about Vince Mancuso in Montreal, an artist who created the most magnificent stained glass in churches, and about the group of Italian artists around him. We also have Domino, a film about mixed cultures. We have other films about mixed marriages.
So we have quite an extensive collection, and you will find them in your catalogue.
The Chair: Ms Macdonald, if my memory serves me right, seven or eight years ago, or something like that, the NFB had visions and actually applied for or asked for its own cable facility. Is that notion dead?
Ms Macdonald: I think so. The board did apply and did not receive a licence.
The board wasn't alone in that, by the way. It was a partner with others in an application that was called Téléjeunesse.
However, since the new speciality services have been launched we have found there is a great demand for our films, so we do have many more outlets. What we don't have is control of those outlets and of course when things are aired on them and which things are aired. The broadcasters themselves make those selections.
We have given a little thought to the question of an outlet of our own. But I think we've concluded that with the volume of product we put out every year, the number of hours we put out - because you can't recycle your back catalogue; not everything matures well - we would find ourselves tailoring our production schedule to meet the voracious demand of the licence. We concluded it was probably in our better interest, and in the better interest of the kind of films we like, to have partnerships with others who have licences and to put our focus for the future on attempting to work out a better relationship with the CBC.
The Chair: On that score, what could we parliamentarians do, or what could the Government of Canada do, to help you gain greater exposure for your productions? I think most Canadians believe most of the work you people do is very good and you deserve greater and better exposure. How can that be achieved without spending an arm and a leg?
Ms Macdonald: The evolution of distribution systems is working very much in favour of the kinds of films we make. As I mentioned, the speciality broadcast services have offered us wonderful windows which didn't exist before, and we're filling them. We are having 5,000-plus airings of our films a year.
The Chair: What about video stores?
Ms Macdonald: We've doubled our video sales -
The Chair: Doubled from what?
Ms Jones: We used to sell about 60,000 units per year. We're now selling about 130,000 units per year.
The Chair: I must be forgiven for my ignorance, but when you give me those figures I really don't know what to reference them against, or how to measure them.
Ms Macdonald: The video store business is very much related to the theatrical business. What sells in video stores is what was a big hit in theatres. Normally the top ten things in video stores are what were the top ten things in the theatres in the previous six months. Therefore video stores are set up basically to serve as an after-market for theatres, and they are naturally dominated by the American theatrical releases.
In our case, where the video sales tend to come from is from educational use and from special promotions following a new release that has probably also been aired on television. We think this is a promising area to pursue in future.
We're also working very hard, though, on the electronic distribution of our films on demand. I mentioned in my text our CinéRobothèque and CinéRoute, which are an on-demand system in the test phase. The tests are going extremely well, and I'm sure Mr. Forget, who is the godfather of CinéRoute, would be delighted to tell you a little more about that.
.1220
The Chair: We don't usually hear from godfathers.
An hon. member: And we wouldn't admit to it.
Mr. Pillitteri: Mr. Chairman, even though you don't give me the floor, I just wonder whether the use of that terminology ``godfather'' implies something.... To me, a godfather is only one who has sponsored a child. But I have an understanding of both sides of the issue. I think you should be very careful how you use that word.
The Chair: I think what we need around here is God, not godfather.
Anyway, go ahead.
Mr. Robert Forget (Director General, Services and Technological Development, National Film Board of Canada): Basically, right now we're doing a pilot project. We're established a video server. It's like a film library that's operated by a robot. You can ask for any title. Right now, out of the 9,000 titles we have in our collection, 3,000 have been transferred and put in that server. If you go to the corner of St. Denis and Maisonneuve in Montreal, you can have access to what I would call a single-seat cinema. You have access to the 3,000 films in the server.
That was a first step in making our films available on demand. The second step was to make it available in a remote fashion. Right now this is what we call CinéRoute, which is service at a certain distance. Out of the pilot project we have connected three universities, Université du Québec à Montréal, McGill University...and just a few days ago we connected Université du Québec in Chicoutimi. For us Chicoutimi is the real demonstration of an NFB film on demand in a very remote location. The two first universities were really to establish how to do it technically and we kept the distances as short as possible.
Because the National Film Board has the rights on so many titles, we feel it has the responsibility to open the way to Canadian content in this new domain of l'autoroute d'information. It is basically a pilot project. It is possible because of an agreement with Videotron Communications, which is a company that has a responsibility to lay fibre optics between cities in the province of Quebec. The agreement is very advantageous, to the point that it makes this experiment possible; probably before the real time of video on demand. We hope from the pilot phase we will be able to grow and provide the service to other provinces by coming up with agreements with other common carriers.
The Chair: Madame Tremblay.
[Translation]
Ms Tremblay: I have one comment to make. I would like to thank Ms Macdonald for giving clear, precise answers concerning the role and mandate of the National Film Board. It would be preferable for committee members to arrive with information on the agencies rather than with newspaper clippings so that they could really understand what people do, what their mandates are and how they carry them out.
I would simply like to state that, if I understood correctly, the 37% of your funds which you allocate to films in French is spent not only in Quebec, but also outside Quebec. It is spent for all the Francophone communities from coast to coast. Is that correct?
Ms Macdonald: Yes, it is used for the Acadian community, the Franco-Ontarians and the Franco-Albertans...
Ms Tremblay: All Francophones who have something to say in Canada.
Ms Macdonald: That is correct.
Ms Tremblay: I would personally like to thank you very much for the work you are doing and for the quality of that work. I remember the first film that I saw. I was trying to see if it was in the catalogue, but I didn't see it. It was on the four Canadian families. It was a film that the National Film Board produced a very long time ago and that was shown to us in the schools so that we could see, among other things, a Prairie family that lived on a farm, and so on.
.1225
You are doing work that we in the Bloc appreciate very much. It is work of high quality. It consists of documentaries that are truly incomparable and very rich. When one looks at your catalogue, there is something for everyone, including films on the ethnic communities and their contributions. I saw that there were titles that could be of interest to you on the contributions of the ethnic communities to Canada's cultural and economic development. I believe that everyone can find something of interest here and it would be a good idea for our committee to start doing some real work.
[English]
Ms Macdonald: In any case, Mr. Chairman, we would certainly value the committee's support in whatever form you care to provide it. Obviously these are challenging times for us all, and we all need all the friends we can get.
The Chair: I too want to thank you for your presentation today. As I said at the beginning, I think all of us have been raised on the NFB, if I can put it that way, and have developed a great appreciation for your productions and for the kind of work you've done. We talk about trying to gain a better understanding of each other, and I think some of the knowledge we have of each other has been developed on account of the good work you people have done over the years. For that I want to thank you.
These are difficult times for our country. I think you can sense from the discussion this morning that as parliamentarians we are very concerned about the future of the country; very, very concerned. We are wondering where the country is going. So naturally we ask ourselves what is the right thing to do. I think that's the reason why we asked you some questions. It's not with the intent of a witch-hunt, or castigation, or casting aspersions on anyone. It's just a matter of trying to seek explanation and seek answers.
I think we all wonder about this great country, and we're all puzzled and all flummoxed about why we're in the state we are. I'm not trying to sound pessimistic, but I guess we have some difficulties.
I've often thought if this country dies, it will be recorded that it was a feel-good death - that Canada died with dignity and died democratically. I don't know whether that makes me feel very good, but it's the kind of country we are. We don't do a lot of shouting - and I'm not advocating that - and we don't raise our fists. We go through this painful democratic exercise. I think we're all democrats and we believe in democracy. I guess my fervent hope is that democracy, the kind we practise, will give a future to Canada - really will give a future. If we can't do it democratically, maybe we don't deserve to survive.
It's tough; but I want to thank you.
Ms Macdonald: I would like to leave you with our absolute assurance that we think very hard about these questions too, every day, and we try very hard to exercise our mandate responsibly. That is a daily preoccupation.
The Chair: Colleagues, just before we wrap it up, I want to remind you about soliciting ideas from our fellow Canadians about how to celebrate this country better and to learn more about each other. If you're in contact with your constituents, ask them to submit their ideas, these practical ideas we would like to have, by some time late in January. I think that would be appreciated.
I would be remiss if I didn't wish all of you the best of the season and a happy new year. That includes everybody here.
Thank you. This meeting is over.