Canadian Heritage Committee on March 2nd, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

I'd like to call this meeting to order.

The first part of our meeting today will be one hour. Seeing the clock at 3:35, it will be 4:35 when the meeting is over.

Welcome to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, meeting number six. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are undertaking a strategic review of arts and culture program expenditures.

I welcome today our witnesses: John Lambert, chair of John Lambert and Associates Inc.; Robin Jackson, executive director, Canadian Independent Film and Video Fund; Max Berdowski, executive director and chief executive officer, Canadian Screen Training Centre; and Marc Robitaille, screenwriter. I hope I was correct in pronouncing everyone's name.

In the first round you each will have an opportunity for a five-minute introduction to us, and then we will be going on five-minute questions and answers as we go around. We'll be sticking as closely as we can to the five minutes because we want to make sure we can get as many questions answered as we can in this hour.

We start off with Mr. Lambert, if you would, sir.

[John Lambert, Chair, John Lambert and Associates Inc.]

Do I need to move the microphone?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

That should be good there.

[John Lambert]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to speak with you today.

My name is John Lambert. I am an artist's agent. I represent Canadian performing arts companies that tour internationally as well as in Canada. I'm from Toronto originally—western Ontario—and I live in Montreal. I represent artists from British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec. I tour these companies to major festivals and venues in Canada and abroad.

The Canadian market is somewhat limited because of the size of our population, and so I tour them primarily internationally. I export them, as it were. This international export of productions by these performing arts companies sustains the jobs of approximately 200 people—201, if you count me.

In Canada, I tour them to such places as the National Arts Centre and the Citadel in Edmonton. Internationally I tour them to the Sydney Opera House, to the Kennedy Centre in Washington, to the Barbican in London—all around the world.

These festivals pay a fee to cover the administrative cost—salaries, etc.—of the companies as well as provide hotels and per diems for the artists when they perform in these venues.

PromArt was a program administered by Foreign Affairs Canada that had a budget for international cultural exchange of about $3.7 million, and $3 million of it went towards the export of our artists abroad. This investment went to cover some of the travel costs and some of the cargo shipment costs—simply that. The total investment of both PromArt and to a lesser extent of the Canada Council has shown itself to be less than 20% of the budget of these tours. This money has pretty well gone directly to pay for plane tickets, to Air Canada and to Canadian cargo companies.

So the money received from government went directly to Canadian businesses in the travel and cargo shipment sector. In return, the Canadian economy has earned foreign currency generated by the fees earned by these companies abroad. Our industry has figures to support the assertion that every dollar invested in the cargo and shipment costs of the productions to get them to the international market has actually generated five times this amount in revenue.

The sudden ending of PromArt has had a dire effect on this Canadian export industry, which has worked productively and effectively for the past 40 years. Perhaps the government feels that Foreign Affairs Canada is not the appropriate department to administer this investment. If that's the case, the government needs to transfer the responsibility and the associated funds to the Canada Council, a body that is already set up to administer these funds.

By cancelling PromArt and erasing $3 million from the overall government budget, the Canadian government has radically destabilized a fully functioning and highly successful export industry that is now being brought to a grinding halt. This Canadian industry has a clear market advantage internationally. One would think the government would want to invest more, not less. The cancelling of PromArt without transferring the administration of these funds has cut this Canadian export industry off at the knees.

Over the past 50 years, through the Canada Council Canadians have invested in the research and development of the performing arts in Canada to create internationally acclaimed productions. The quality of the productions has evolved and sustained itself because of this investment, so that now Canadian productions are recognized for their quality. Canadians' productions are distinguishing themselves through the integration of new technologies and innovation with the forms of performance, mixing disciplines of theatre, circus, and music in a highly and uniquely Canadian fashion.

With the announcement of the termination of PromArt, upcoming tours that have been contracted as far back as 2007 and 2008 have found themselves without sufficient financing to deliver the productions to market. Some tours have been cancelled.

Foreign producers are now becoming wary when negotiating with Canadian companies. We're spoiling our markets and undermining business relationships that took years and millions of dollars to build. Tours projected in 2009-2010 are being cancelled as international festivals and venues cannot assume the cost of our artists' travel and cargo shipment. They will instead purchase productions locally or from countries such as the U.K., France, or Australia, where our competitors' governments sponsor these same travel and cargo shipment costs. This is the standard internationally.

An example of how the international exposure of our artists can interact with other countries and cultures, perhaps in a way that diplomats, business people, and even politicians cannot, is found in the example of Glenn Gould's tour to the Soviet Union in 1957--one great event in Glenn Gould's life that had a long-lasting effect on the performer and audiences and would influence future generations of Russian musicians. Gould was the first western musician to perform in Russia since the Second World War. He left Canada as a well-known Canadian musician and returned as a worldwide sensation. Gould's tour was made possible with government grants.

These are the opportunities--economic, cultural, and diplomatic--Canada is losing by completely withdrawing the $3 million budget administered by PromArt and not transferring these funds to another administrator, such as the Canada Council.

Thank you very much for your time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you, sir.

Ms. Jackson, please.

[Robin Jackson, Executive Director, Canadian Independent Film and Video Fund]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

Twenty years ago a Conservative government launched a fund to help create Canadian content for use by Canadians in schools, universities, community centres, and libraries to support education and lifelong learning. The fund, which became known as the Canadian Independent Film and Video Fund, CIFVF, was in response to the concern over the shortage of audio-visual resources with a Canadian perspective and an independent voice.

In 2000 the CIFVF was fortunate to secure a multi-year contributions agreement with the Department of Canadian Heritage. In this agreement, the CIFVF was mandated to administer a key portion of the feature film policy, which involved giving priority to first-time applicants who were in an early stage of intended long-term careers as producers and whose project, if successful, would provide experience in filmmaking for emerging directors, writers, etc.

The department required that the CIFVF spend at least 10% of its funding on new and emerging producers. Each year we consistently spent 31% to 34% on this category and the rest of the money on middle to experienced producers.

When the agreement expired in 2006 we were evaluated by the Department of Canadian Heritage. The summative evaluation concluded that “more opportunities to work in Canada have been provided to Canadian creators as a result of the policy”. The report also said, “The CIFVF is very active in engaging talented Canadian creators. It is clear from the results that there are successes in the program from the perspective of developing talent.”

Based on the results of the evaluation, the department renegotiated another contribution agreement, but removed the 10% spending requirement on new and emerging talent. The CIFVF continued to spend a minimum of 30% each year on new and emerging talent.

The agreement went from 2007 to 2009. On May 28, 2008, the CIFVF received a letter from Canadian Heritage extending the agreement to 2010. In July we received a notice that they were withdrawing the extension and the agreement would go to 2009. On August 8 we were told that the funding would cease entirely and the CIFVF must close down on March 31, 2009.

The reason given to us for closing was that we were no longer a priority but that feature film was a priority. However, we were part of the feature-film policy, helping to implement that part of the policy that assists in launching and growing careers of producers, writers, etc. In many cases, some of the emerging filmmakers have gone on to work in drama and/or feature films. This is exactly what we were supposed to do.

If the policy had changed, should there not have been a review of the CIFVF before closing it down? If reviews were done, why were they not shared with us? Why did they not wait to review the CIFVF in 2010, when they initially told us that was what they would do?

So what's the impact of the disappearance of the CIFVF? Is there any? Yes. There will be fewer projects in schools, colleges, and community centres where Canadian young people can see Canadian perspectives and values.

As the CIFVF is the only funding agency that does not require a broadcast licence--and this is an extremely important fact for new and emerging producers--it will be more difficult for documentary producers to find money to make those projects.

While the department has said that the Canada Council can replace the CIFVF, this is not true. Only 2.6% of all of the funding that has come into these projects that we have been involved in has come from the Canada Council. The Canada Council's focus is the artist, not the producer and not the production company, which is what we focus on.

Similarly, only 2.5% of funding provided to our projects has come from the National Film Board. Their mandate is different from ours, and they do not replace us. The Film Board is a producer or a studio and not a funding agency such as the CIFVF. We can respond to a wider spectrum of project demands than the film board can.

With the disappearance of the CIFVF, there will be diminished opportunities for new, young, and emerging producers to cut their teeth on real-life producing and to set up new production companies. There will be fewer opportunities for projects to help communities and have a social impact.

Take the example of Garbage! The Revolution Starts at Home. This is a feature-length documentary financed by the CIFVF about how the family household has become one of the most ferocious environmental predators of our time. Five thousand people have joined the garbage online community devoted to waste reduction. More than 120 schools, universities, and colleges have bought the film. After viewing Garbage! at Sir Sandford Fleming College, students and teachers alike have become more aware of their consumption habits and have built an impressive display of coffee cups collected over the course of one week to quantify the waste.

Furthermore, while a final figure is not yet known, there's a possibility that around 100 producers may not get their last payment for their projects. This is because the Department of Canadian Heritage will not pay us for any projects that are not completed and delivered by March 31, 2009.

It should also be noted that the department will not assist us with any closing-down costs. We will have to pay to get out of our leases for office space, the photocopier machine, postage metre, and severance pay to our huge staff of two people. Those closing-down costs amount to more than $100,000.

We had invited some of our producer partners to appear with us, but given the short time limit, some of them just sent statements.

How am I doing for time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

You're pretty well done.

[Robin Jackson]

Okay. I'll just read you some of the statements.

DOC, the Documentary Organization of Canada, or L'association des Documentaristes du Canada, is a bilingual national arts service organization representing 800 members across the country. They said the following:

With the disappearance of the fund, our members' financing model, already precarious at the best of times in the documentary sector, will be seriously affected as CIFVF is the ONLY fund where a broadcast license wasn't necessary in order to apply. Documentary filmmakers make a broad range of films, many of which find their audiences outside of television audiences but rather in community centres, classrooms, church halls and libraries.

DOC is concerned that the Heritage Department's refusal to honor the outstanding funding agreements with documentary producers will place an enormous economic strain on those affected. We ask that, at the bare minimum, the funds committed be honored.

We applaud the effectiveness of the CIFVF funding, not only for the indispensable role it has played in financing both the work of novice and veteran filmmakers alike, but also as a prime example of a successful educational fund. The gap its disappearance leaves will NEED to be filled and until a new funding mechanism is instituted, many productions will be suspended....

More time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

No, not too much.

[Robin Jackson]

Okay.

You will find in my speaking notes a statement by the Association des producteurs de films et de télévision du Québec, along with a comment from the Observatoire du documentaire, an organization comprised of 13 pan-Canadian associations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Berdowski, go ahead, sir.

[Max Berdowski, Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Screen Training Centre]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, and good afternoon.

Thank you for inviting us here.

My name is Max Berdowski. I'm executive director of the Canadian Screen Training Centre, le Réseau d'ateliers cinématographiques canadiens. I'm pleased that Marc Robitaille could join me today. He's a top screenwriter. He's led our French screenwriting training workshops for our students.

The Canadian Screen Training Centre, le Réseau d'ateliers cinématographiques canadiens, is based here in Ottawa and is this country's first national training program for film and television. Our founder, Mr. Tom Shoebridge, is with us here.

CSTC/RACC training has launched and supported the development of countless careers. Our graduates are among Canada's top screen professionals and include the Academy Award-winning Denise Robert, the producer of Les invasions barbares. We provide emerging filmmakers with a truly unique opportunity to interact and learn from the best in the business. Our instructors are the creators behind Bon Cop, Bad Cop, the Oscar-nominated Water, Shake Hands with the Devil, The Border, and I could go on and on.

In what Dr. Richard Florida has dubbed the creative age, he writes that prosperity requires investments to be made, in people and our infrastructure. He writes that our goal must be to harness and use our full creative talents in order to grow the businesses of the future, that we must build the talent and education system attuned to the demands of the global creative economy. Well, film and television jobs are exactly the types of creativity-oriented occupations he's referring to. Why? Because creative business is big business.

The Conference Board of Canada examined the impact of culture on our community. They valued it at $84 billion. It's an economic powerhouse, and this is no time to scale back on its support--quite the contrary. How else can we nurture and grow these highly valued jobs if not through professional, industry-focused training programs such as those offered by dedicated, not-for-profit training institutes like ours? A vibrant creative industry behoves support no less than any other industry, and it's training that provides this needed support.

Film- and television-makers must be trained, not just in time but by anticipating trends. Rapid change demands rapid responses, and a training institute like ours has a demonstrated capability to do just that. We're knowledgeable of the industry's needs and nimble and responsive in delivering our programming. CSTC/RACC instructors work every day in the industry and keep us attuned to its evolving needs.

As an industry, film and television is highly labour-based. In fact, half of all production expenditures go to its workers, our students. Failing to invest in their training is akin to failure to invest in any industry's future.

Our organization is one of four that comprises the national training program in the film and video sector, which will be terminated at the end of this month. NTPFVS funding of $200,000 annually constitutes 40% of our budget. In today's economic climate, replacing this has proven to be quite challenging. Our traditional funders, the country's broadcasters, are undergoing financial stresses of their own and inform us they are unable to fill the gap. Unless this critical core funding is replaced, we will close our doors in perhaps a year's time.

With the modest annual investment received from government we have been delivering highly accessible, top-calibre training to 500 students yearly right across the country. Furthermore, CSTC/RACC is a leader in diversity training for the industry, with fully 25% of our students coming from diverse cultural backgrounds. After 29 years, CSTC/RACC training has earned its well-established reputation as a premier training ground for the next generation of this country's creative film- and television-making talent, talent this industry will surely need if it is to survive today's challenges and flourish.

Training is not a luxury; it is vital. Without it, the future of this particularly creative industry will be severely compromised.

Marc.

[Marc Robitaille, Screenwriter, Canadian Screen Training Centre]

Good day.

I want to thank the members of the committee for having us here. My name is Marc Robitaille. I have been working as a screenwriter in Quebec for the past 12 years. I'm here today to speak to you briefly about the impact that training has had on my work and on my career.

I work primarily for the film industry. I have also written several books that have been published as well as some screenplays for television. Last year, one of my screenplays made its way to the big screen—it's now available on DVD— while another film based on one of my screenplays is scheduled to be released before the end of 2009. In addition to writing screenplays, I work as an advisor on other projects and occasionally, I teach screenwriting, for example, at the Canadian Screen Training Centre.

In a field to which many are called, but where few are chosen, I have been fortunate indeed to have some of my screenplays produced. In this business, timing is everything, but there is another reason why I have had some success in the field of screenwriting. I think it's because I have had an opportunity to meet people in the business who have helped me to understand and learn the ropes. Where did I meet these people? In most cases, I met them while I was taking classes and attending workshops. Between the ages of 30 and 40, I had several opportunities to train with experienced screenwriters who worked in the business and were prepared to share their knowledge of what they had learned along the way. I received this training while attending programs offered by the CSTC, the Canadian Screen Training Centre, as well as from experienced authors from France, the United States and Canada.

The knowledge acquired while attending these workshops still stands me in good stead years later in my career. These individuals taught me the basic principles of screenwriting, and they taught me to strive for excellence. In addition, while learning alongside them for many weeks, I was able to appreciate that screenwriting was indeed a real career and that it was possible to actually become a screenwriter. Of course, I continued to perfect my craft and to work as a writer in the months and years that followed. When my courage would waver or when I lacked motivation and wondered if I would ever succeed, I could always go back and attend classes and in the process, revive my passion for my craft and regain my conviction that I would be successful.

When I first became interested in becoming a screenwriter, I was told that it would take me 10 years to succeed in this business. I convinced myself that I wouldn't need that long to reach my goals. But ultimately, it did take me exactly 10 years. However, I'm convinced that had I not had access to the programs offered by the CSTC which I spoke of earlier, I would not have persevered for 10 years; I would probably have given up on my craft much sooner. Programs such as these are the true reason why people like me continue to be passionate about their work.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

I will ask our questioners and our witnesses if we can keep our questions and answers short and concise. We're going to stay within five minutes. We're only going to have two rounds anyway, but we have to stay as close to five minutes as we can.

Mr. Rodriguez, you're first, please.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good day to all of you. Thank you for joining us today and congratulations on the fine work that you are doing in your respective fields. I would have preferred to meet with you under different circumstances and speak to you about films and foreign productions. However, we're here to talk about cuts that I see as brutal and unjustified in many respects. Our objective today is to look for answers, since we do not have any. When we put specific questions about these cuts, whether to the Minister or to departmental representatives, we fail to get any answers. We're told that it's generally for administrative reasons, that things are poorly managed. However, no one can prove it to us, because the documents involved are confidential. Moreover, that is the reason why I tabled a motion requesting that all documents having to do with any decisions made in this area be turned over to us. I hope to get an answer from the government.

Were you consulted, or did you hear anything about these upcoming changes or cuts?

[John Lambert]

In terms of the cancelling of PromArt, I think it was in the autumn of 2007 that there was a suspension of PromArt for about six months. We were in the middle of marketing our artists internationally, and right at the time when the marketing is done, in September, it was suspended. We didn't know whether or not this funding was going to be there. A year later, it was cancelled entirely.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Were you consulted about the program? Were you consulted, because you were using it—

[John Lambert]

No.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

No? By the government?

[John Lambert]

No, there was no consultation.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Very quickly, was anybody consulted on this?

[Max Berdowski]

In the case of the national training school program there was no—

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Not at all, right? But you're the experts on this. You're the one using it, and being it, so.... No consultation at all?

[Max Berdowski]

No.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Lambert, with respect to PromArt, other countries offer these kinds of services and support their artists. Do you not feel that when you must compete with them these days, it's a little like competing with both hands tied behind your back?