Canadian Heritage Committee on Nov. 29th, 2006

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Okay. I have just a quick comment, and then I'll give it to my colleague.

To what do you attribute the success of these two films, Bon Cop, Bad Cop and Trailer Park Boys? Was there something in the program designs that made this year especially successful in that particular program?

[S. Wayne Clarkson]

It's the magic of cinema. I think, to quote a famous screenwriter who said, when being critical of Hollywood, “nobody knows anything”.

Having said that, and to give some compliment and credit to Telefilm and its staff, it is an experienced staff. It's knowledgeable in distribution; it's knowledgeable in production; it's knowledgeable in its creative responsibilities. So we played a role in investing in Bon Cop, Bad Cop. It was not done out of an envelope.

, I don't know if you've seen the film, but Patrick Huard and Colm Feore are absolutely perfect. That's an $8 million or $9 million film. It looks like $30 million. Canadians from coast to coast were obviously entertained by it. I think we can say with some confidence that there will be a Bon Cop, Bad Cop II.

In the case of Trailer Park Boys, it is the impact of television. Here is a kind of niche TV series available through specialty channels. I think Showcase is the broadcaster. It is not available all across the country. It is not necessarily enjoyed by all Canadians, but it has a definite enthusiastic following. I think it was very astute of the Nova Scotia-based production company and the talent from there to say that this was going to translate well into cinema.

Quite simply, it was a bit of a no-brainer for us. When you get projects like that, it is just a question of being responsible, accountable, transparent, and efficient in your execution. But it was one the likes of which I hope we see more, and I'm sure we will.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Clarkson, I'd like to go back to the question I had asked originally. Unfortunately you didn't have an opportunity to answer all those questions.

I'd like to go back to the whole issue of producing Canadian films for a Canadian audience, that are going to be watched by Canadians. Again, I would like to take a quote out of that Maclean's article: “But our film culture has become conditioned to obscurity. This is the story of a cinema in search of an audience.”

I don't believe the primary purpose of Telefilm Canada and the money Canadians pay into the industry is to necessarily make our films a success in the U.S. or around the world. If that happens, so much the better. We're supposed to be making films for Canadians that are going to be watched by Canadians. I'll be damned if I'm going to put money into the Canadian film industry if we're going to produce films that aren't watched by Canadians.

That leads me to my question. Somewhere along the line somebody makes decisions as to which films are chosen to be funded by Telefilm Canada. Is that you?

[S. Wayne Clarkson]

Yes, it is, but not in every instance. I am responsible for all decisions in the English-language fund for requests of more than $1.5 million from Telefilm. So in working with the regional offices--as I mentioned, we have four offices across the country--the filter system begins and then rises up. I meet with my counterparts across the country, I meet with the producers in question, and we make a decision.

To go back to the fundamentals of your question, let's be candid: we make bad movies. It happens. It happens all over the world. They make thousands of films in America. I go to the movies a lot. I go to Hollywood movies, I go to art movies, I see maybe a movie a week. That's 50 to 60 movies. I don't see the other 2,000-plus.

In this country, a limited number of films we make and the distributors who require the rights to those end up on the screen. Frankly, some of them should not. It's the best effort from the filmmakers, best effort on everybody's part, but sometimes a bad film gets made. Or to be a little more diplomatic, there are films that don't meet the expectations of the filmmaker, the producer, or any of the sources of financing, whether it's a broadcaster, pay television network, private investor, or in this case, a provincial or federal agency.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Let's be frank. You're going to be judged by the success we have in developing films and funding films that actually generate a significant Canadian audience.

I'd like to bore down a bit more. Surely in the process of selecting films, there is a set of criteria to determine whether they have a prospect of actually being successful, at least within Canada. What are those criteria?

[S. Wayne Clarkson]

First of all, there are various requirements in terms of coming into Telefilm. We talked about the Canadian content ones. We have script developers who read the scripts, and those scripts may be in development for a year or two. We're constantly working on that.

I think one of the most important ones is the voice of the marketplace: the distributor. If a project is brought forward to Telefilm Canada without a distributor attached to it, we do not relate to that. We want to see the voice of the marketplace. By that, I mean not merely from a dollars and cents point of view, but that it has a taste for what the public is interested in. They're at the grassroots, not sitting in my bureaucratic office somewhat removed. We need that evidence before we'll commit.

There's evidence from the broadcasters. When TMN or Corus or CBC or whoever says they think this is a good project and they're prepared to put $250 million to $400 million into it, we pay attention.

I'm not abdicating the responsibility we have. As you pointed out, at the end of my tenure at Telefilm Canada, I will be judged by the accomplishments of the films, certainly the box office, as well as I think the artistic accomplishments, internationally, but first and foremost, domestically.

I think there is in the process an integrity about the selection. As long as we see more Bon Cop, Bad Cops and Trailer Park Boys--and maybe someday we'll see a Corner Gas project--those are the kinds of projects that make it a little easier.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you.

I agree with my colleague. There's no point in putting money into a film that nobody wants to watch. That's a fact. Why make films if they aren't going to be seen?

The question I have is why someone would see a Canadian film. It doesn't matter. We can do all the script development we want, and we can announce that we've made a great Canadian film, but people go to see Canadian films because they know who's in them. Witness the success of Trailer Park Boys. Trailer Park Boys is very cheap television to make. Everybody knows Randy and everybody knows Mr. Lahey. People see it because they know them.

I would say it's a very similar situation to Second City. Second City was very cheap television to make. It created a generation of big movies. We would go to see John Candy because we knew him. Eugene Levy, Joe Flaherty, Catherine O'Hara, Harold Ramis became big U.S. and international stars as well.

I'd like to talk about the connection between television and film. If we don't have in English Canada--and we don't have it--the star system of creating systems for getting new talent, even if it's the cheapest television being made, we're not going to have film.

Quebec, on the other hand, has created a television industry that has launched the careers of many people. People will see the films because they know what they're going to see. It should be a no-brainer.

I'd like to ask what you think is the importance of maintaining a strong domestic television industry in terms of actually being able to maintain a domestic or even an international film industry.

[S. Wayne Clarkson]

There is an integral relationship between the broadcast industry generally and the Canadian film industry. In a very high percentage of projects, both co-productions--in which Canada is a part, obviously--and our domestic feature film fund productions, we see participation by broadcasters, and certainly by the pay networks. I think we would like to see increased financial participation from the broadcasters right across the board. They are a significant part of that multi-platform universe, and yet the percentage of dollars they're spending is considerably less than we believe would be appropriate in support of this film industry.

So in looking at the dollars and cents, I certainly would hope that the broadcaster would play an increasing part in terms of, one, the financial standpoint, and two, the broadcast of those films. I have to say that when the hockey strike was on, I would feel some disappointment when I would turn to a station and see a major Hollywood production on television. When Men with Brooms, for example, going back four or five years, ran on the CBC, it got 1.6 million viewers. There's an opportunity there, and I think the momentum is crucial.

Michel and my friends and colleagues in Quebec have reminded me that five or six years ago, the percentage of French-language cinema in the province of Quebec was around 7% or 9%. As we know, a year ago it exceeded 25%. The result of such films as Les boys, Séraphin, and La grande séduction, followed by Maurice Richard, Aurore, and Horloge biologique, was almost psychological, and television paralleled that. You get this back and forth going.

For instance, how many of the stars in Quebec cinema move back and forth between television and film? In English Canada we're beginning to see clearly the signs of that movement, that progress. You can see it in talking to the exhibitors now: What's the next project? We did well with Trailer Park Boys and Bon Cop, although not so well with Maurice Richard; still, good film. What's the next one up?

So we are beginning to see the benefits of that.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

In terms of the role that broadcasters have to play, they are before the CRTC with a very large wish list. Most of it seems to be in terms of a television tax for viewers and more advertising, but we're not seeing much in terms of obligations to make the television networks play a part in terms of production and in terms of development of Canadian talent.

You talk about the need for them to be there in the issue of broadcast-to-film. You talk about the financial part. I've raised the issue of even just the television productions alone, so that we can create the people that the public wants to see.

What financial element would you see as being the piece of the puzzle that the broadcasters could bring forward? Should they be paying into the production funds?

[S. Wayne Clarkson]

To be clear, certainly this is not so much to do with the Canadian television fund.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Right.

[S. Wayne Clarkson]

Pay networks often--in fact, more often than not, with the rare exception that I can think of--buy the licence fees for it. We would like to see those licence fees go up, as an example. Issues like that are very simple. For instance, what is their obligation as mandated by the CRTC in terms of their licence? Are they meeting that, and is there an opportunity to increase that support in terms of dollars and cents, and a timeline as well?

But not to put it all on the broadcaster, it's also about finding an additional source of partnerships as well. It's looking at things like the tax credit, which we have for both domestic and international. Can that be fine-tuned? Does that fine-tuning offer, given the challenges in Quebec, an opportunity that will put some additional dollars into the system? Good--but what are the other tools in the financial tool box that we can use to attract private dollars and to reach Canadians?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Bélanger.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wanted to quickly revisit the matter of which part of the Financial Administration Act it would be under.

Can the change you are asking for with regard to the application of part X be achieved by order in council, or does it call for a legislative amendment?

[Charles Bélanger]

As the law is currently worded, I believe that we would have to operate by way of legislative process.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Clarkson, I have a slight reprimand, if I may. It's been a long time since I've done this, but here goes.

You used an expression in one of your answers--you used it twice, actually--that negates the existence of about two million Canadians. I would beseech you to be judicious in your choice of words. When you use the expression “Quebec, English Canada”, which you did, you negate my existence. You imply in that comment that it's francophones in Quebec, anglophones elsewhere.

I was born in Ontario. I have lived my entire life in Ontario. And I am a francophone. You negate my existence and the existence of about a million others like me, and in the same way, you negate a whole pile of anglophones who live in Quebec. You also negate the existence of New Brunswick, the only bilingual province.

I understand what you're saying, and I understand the reality is

that Quebec is the home of the francophonie. I have no problem with that. The House of Commons recognized it in 1995 when a motion on the distinct society was adopted, which called upon every government institution, including Telefilm Canada, to reflect this reality in its policies, which is something you have done.

But please choose your words more carefully, if you don't mind my gentle criticism.

[S. Wayne Clarkson]

I will. In fact, I'm embarrassed to say you reprimanded me in your office when we met some months ago and drew to my attention “the informal use of”. So I will be much more judicious in my use of that language.

Thank you.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you.

I'd like to know if Telefilm has ever seriously considered incentive programs for the Canadian movie houses, if you will, for the cinemas, whether they be owned by Canadians or foreign-owned.

When I go to a multiplex and see 12, 14, or 16 halls and not one single...except the last time I went. I saw Bon Cop, Bad Cop. Fine. But I usually don't see any films made in Canada. Is there any way there would be incentives to encourage these cinemas to show Canadian films, other than the ones that book a hall in Toronto and show them for a week to no audience to meet their conditions of licence, and that type of thing? That's one, and I don't need an answer now.

The other thing is that I would be curious to know if the relationship among Telefilm, the Canada Council, and the National Film Board is evolving. Each has a portion, a part of the puzzle, if you will, a part of the overall.... Yes, it is a puzzle, because it tends to fit together, or at least it should. If that is so, how is it evolving?

[S. Wayne Clarkson]

I can't speak directly to a relationship with the Canada Council; if so, it would be very informal. There are some programs within the Canada Council. I think they have a first-time, low-budget, filmmaker program. We have something comparable, but we demand a little more business acumen and set the bar a little higher. So I think the relationship with the Canada Council is nominal.

In the case of the Film Board, the film commissioner sits on the board of Telefilm Canada. I have the pleasure of serving as an ex officio member of the board of the National Film Board. Mr. Bensimon and I therefore have a lot of opportunities to talk about our programs and where we agree and disagree.

We've talked to them about many of the programs we're initiating and plans they have—to go back to one of your earlier points--on how to get into the cinemas. One of the opportunities is digital cinemas. I know in Great Britain, for example, they got a £250 million grant from the lottery fund. They identified approximately 300 cinemas throughout the UK and said, we'll put up the capital costs and install the projectors at no cost to you, but we are going to require a contractual commitment that you will program UK cinema and alternative, independent cinemas. The point was, don't program the Hollywood blockbusters, because they don't need it; they have enough of that. They're doing it in Australia and throughout the European Union. That would be an excellent opportunity.

To be clear, I don't support quotas generally. I think the opportunity for that was about 50 years ago.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I wasn't looking at quotas.

[S. Wayne Clarkson]

It didn't work, so we won't go there. But I think this incentive is a good one.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Kotto.