Evidence of meeting #28 for Canadian Heritage in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was courts.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I suppose the motion refers to television or film production in French, but that is not stated.
5:35 p.m.
Bloc
Maka Kotto Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
It refers to production generally. It is true that no reference is made to language.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
5:35 p.m.
Bloc
Maka Kotto Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
The motion states: "Whereas it should be possible to develop film production everywhere." The motion refers to production in Quebec. It is not necessary to state whether it is in English or in French.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
The point I'm trying to make here is that the same criticism could be made with respect to the two other major urban centres in Canada—Toronto and Vancouver. The same phenomenon exists there. Outside of Montreal, Vancouver, or Toronto, that is not the case. Halifax is an exception. I had understood that the motion referred to television productions in French here. Otherwise, we would have to rework the motion.
I have no basic objection to the motion before us, Mr. Chairman. However, we need to know exactly to what it refers.
5:35 p.m.
Bloc
Maka Kotto Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
In this motion, we are taking into consideration the fact that the decision-making centres are in Montreal. The projects developed in Montreal are the priority projects for the financial backers. However, if the idea is to stimulate production in the regions, we could suggest incentives for people who have to deal with the fact that in order to exist as producers, they must work in Montreal.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
But then we are talking about productions in French. Otherwise, with all due respect, we cannot say that only 3% of television productions are made outside Montreal. That is not correct.
5:40 p.m.
Bloc
Maka Kotto Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
I'm referring to production generally. It could happen that an anglophone producer in Sherbrooke might set up a production company and benefit from the incentives offered by Telefilm Canada. My intention is not to create a linguistic divide. I am simply talking about production here.
In other words, we should also take into account the fact that some productions where most of the creative artistic work is francophone are developed in English and then dubbed into French for the French-language market, because there are often more resources for anglophone productions than francophone productions.
5:40 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I definitely, in principle, support this.
I have two questions. One is, I think we need to clarify that this is a situation similar to what exists in other parts of the country. We have a few large urban centres where production is centred, and regional development isn't happening. That could be amended at “Whereas all the decision-making for the television industry in Quebec is centred in Montréal” by adding “and a similar situation exists in other urban and rural regions of Canada”. That would include that.
I have a question on the final paragraph. We know that the heritage ministry has the film report. I wonder whether it would be better to revise to say:
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage recommends that the government, as a matter of urgency, look at a strategy that would provide adequate measures to stimulate regional film and television production, in regions outside the large urban centres, including looking at enhanced tax credits for film production....
My only concern is that we were waiting to hear back from them. They were still looking at the tax credit issue. I'd like to say that we're asking them to look at the issue of tax credits as a way of developing rural filmmaking, as opposed to saying that we're “insisting”.
It would be a friendly amendment.
5:40 p.m.
Bloc
Maka Kotto Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
Mr. Chairman, to provide grist for Mr. Angus' mill, I would say that such a provision exists in Quebec. Where it does not exist is at Telefilm Canada, thus at the Department of Canadian Heritage.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
I don't think there's any question of the importance of a television industry in Quebec and throughout Canada.
My only question would be to the committee, that without some type of additional consultation, I'm wondering whether we're putting forward an idea that would see us distribute the resources we currently have in a way that would effectively diminish the capacity of this industry to continue in any ways that it's already been able to develop. I'm quite concerned that we ensure that we have a strong and competitive industry that is established. I think we're taking baby steps in that direction, but I'm concerned that if we start to push it out of the major centres, we might be spreading it too thin.
I won't speak on behalf of the minister, but I know she's met with a number of organizations and is working in that direction, and she hopes we might be able to have a stronger industry, both in the major centres and throughout Canada as well.
I'd just ask the question, are we moving in a direction that would see the resources we currently have spread too thinly and would diminish the effectiveness we currently have? I don't know the answer, but I'm wondering whether we as a committee want to consider that.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
I'll make my comments very quickly, because I think Mr. Angus covered a lot of my points.
On that note, a lot of this was addressed in the film study we did in the last session. If you look to it, you'll see that tax credits really are some sort of vanguard that was originally developed to help do development outside the major centres. We have a film industry in my province, but it's intrinsically tied primarily to Toronto. So the word “Montreal” in there is of some concern, because, really, Montreal is a very small portion of it.
As far as tax credits go, if there is some way, as Mr. Angus pointed out, to refer back to that study, it does deal with them, in the hearings we had in Toronto and around the table. They talked about some of the concerns Mr. Warkentin had.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Yes, I understand that. I was part of that study also. Sometimes it's hard to take some of the infrastructure that is already there out of some of the centres.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Could I possibly ask Mr. Kotto whether he would be willing to rework this one a bit, in consultation with some members—because I think there is a general sense around the table that we shouldn't be discouraging regional development outside the larger centres—taking into account some of the comments made by Mr. Warkentin and Mr. Angus? Would he be prepared to rework it a bit? I was hoping that perhaps Mr. Kotto would—
5:45 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Give me 30 seconds here, colleagues, and maybe we can get this dealt with. I think it's close.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
While you're working on it, Mr. Angus, we'll move to motion number one, another motion by Mr. Kotto:
Whereas the resounding success of feature films in Quebec will not continue unless new sources of funding are injected into French-language film productions;
Whereas there has been a permanent $2 million cut in the Feature Film Fund and Telefilm Canada’s capacity to invest has been reduced by the impact of inflation;
Whereas the cost of production has increased incessantly, as have the funding applications to Telefilm;
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage recommends that the government, as a matter of urgency, allocate a recurring amount of $50 million to the Feature Film Fund, as called for by the industry; and that the chair report to the House.
Go ahead, Mr. Bélanger.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
I would like to move an amendment, Mr. Chairman.
In English, I would move that it read:
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage recommends that the government, as a matter of urgency, allocate an adequate recurring amount to the Feature Film Fund....
In other words, it would strike out the reference to the exact $50 million.
I would move that as an amendment to the motion, Mr. Chairman.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The government members have absolutely no intention of putting a stick in the spokes of the committee on this or any other motion, but if it is passed by the committee, I think we would want it to be clear that the government members did not vote in favour of any of these motions. In other words, if the motion is passed by the committee, so be it; if it's reported to the House, so be it. But I don't want it to be inferred that the government members were unanimous with the other committee members.