Canadian Heritage Committee on Nov. 29th, 2006

[S. Wayne Clarkson]

We find we're at present turning down 75% of our applications, so one out of every four is getting approved. We think that number should go up. We see increased development. The challenges facing new media are comparable to the historical challenges facing film and television. The development of talent is important, as is the development of projects.

I believe, and this corporation believes, that it's the role of a federal government agency like Telefilm to take those risks in partnership with the private sector, but on occasion to also take risks that the private sector will not take. Our priority is Canadian talent, and that's where we should be taking our risks.

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

If I understand correctly, there are shortcomings somewhere.

From your perspective, without increased funding, is the effect of the legislation simply to prevent the board of directors from meeting as frequently as is set out in the act, and to exclude the industry from its board of directors?

[Charles Bélanger]

Those are two different questions. As regards the issue of the board, to be perfectly clear, let us emphasize that the provision I alluded to earlier created a little imbroglio that lasted for seven or eight months, that is until were able to re-establish the quorum. The quorum, therefore the board, has been working since November 2005, and there has been absolutely no operational difficulty on that side.

As far as the financial issue you are emphasizing is concerned, I will leave it to Mr. Clarkson to make further comments.

In other words, our board is functional, it meets regularly, that is six times a year, it oversees Telefilm's operations and it is obviously aware of the challenges that Mr. Clarkson has spoken to you about, as the executive director. It is therefore not a problem with the board.

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

No, I was not talking specifically about a problem with the board; I was talking about the amendment to the legislation, as to what the effects of that were in reality.

On the one hand, Telefilm's mandate has been broadened with an opening towards multimedia, but there is not sufficient funding for it to respect that. On the other hand, under this legislation, any member of any part of the industry, from the artistic circles, is excluded from its board of directors. That is what I wanted to suggest.

[Charles Bélanger]

All right. I understand your question very well in that case.

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Now, I will move on to the recognition of Quebec cinema. We have talked about it often here; it has often been the subject of recurring questions.

On November 27, the House of Commons voted in favour of the recognition of the Québécois nation. The Québécois nation having now been recognized, can Telefilm Canada recognize in future the existence of a Québécois cinema that is above and beyond the francophone market, which includes francophone and Acadian communities?

And does Telefilm intend to review the Canadian Feature Film Fund's objectives, particularly as regards the 5 % of box office objective, which by the way is obsolete as far as Quebec is concerned?

[S. Wayne Clarkson]

I think that when the House of Commons, with near unanimity—certainly with an overwhelming majority—supported the notion of Quebec as a nation, Canada.... I'm sorry?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Québécois.

[S. Wayne Clarkson]

—Québécois as a nation, we would be remiss if we didn't act accordingly.

As an example, over the years, we've run programs and screenings of Quebec cinema all over the world, celebrating the very unique qualities and the considerable artistic and commercial success that Quebec cinema has had. We will continue to do so. Certainly festivals around the world have honoured Quebec cinema many times.

There will also be those occasions where there will be retrospectives of Canadian cinema. Quebec films, French-language films, will be included in those retrospectives. So I have no difficulty with, and this corporation has a history of, embracing those basic principles.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Angus.

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

Like my colleague, I have so many questions to ask that I'm not sure where I'd like to begin, because there are so many interesting elements. So I'll keep it short.

What's the status of the dollars for the Canada new media fund right now?

[S. Wayne Clarkson]

We're discussing the continuation of that fund with the department. As yet, we have no confirmation of the resources. To be perfectly candid, as much as we would like to see additional resources, I don't know if that's going to be the case. For sure, we're looking forward to the fund's renewal.

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

But you haven't had any confirmation of that.

[S. Wayne Clarkson]

We've not had a confirmation to that effect.

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

Is it the same for the Canadian television fund?

[S. Wayne Clarkson]

Yes, but again, to be clear, it's not our area of priority any longer, except to the degree that we'd like to see the contract renewed. We await that.

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

There's a general sense within the artistic community that there's a real paralysis in funding dollars coming out of the heritage ministry under this minister. Do you think that is why the fund isn't being renewed, or are there other aspects? Are there problems with this fund, which is why it's not being renewed?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

He didn't say it's not being renewed.

[S. Wayne Clarkson]

Frankly, I can't say it's been our experience to date with the initiatives we've taken on the Canadian video game competition and the work we've done with the working groups. We've looked internally to maximize efficiencies, and I think every public agency should have that as the number one priority. The chair and its board have placed that upon us very clearly, as well they should: efficiency, transparency, and accountability. I think it's incumbent upon us, and we've taken that action, as I say.

This year there's been no new money--that's correct--and yes, we had a $2 million cut in the Canada feature film fund some time ago, and with the inflation that's eating away at those dollars, these are difficult times. There's no question about it.

However, I have to admit there have always been challenges in previous years with the CTF and other funds. It is perhaps more pressing today than previously because of the resources that are in decline.

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

One of the challenges is the difficulty of securing private partnership funding. You need certain guarantees so you can go back to industry, and then you have to come back to Telefilm. You look in numerous areas.

I'm wondering, first of all, if there is a lack of clarity about when that fund's going to be renewed. What I'm hearing from people on the ground is that it's affecting their ability to go out to the private sector.

I'm also concerned when you talk about your concerns about the extra level of audit oversights at Telefilm that don't seem to be in the other heritage department.... Does that also have an effect? There are windows for people to get funding to get projects off the ground, and there are times when those windows close. Is the delay affecting on-the-ground projects?

[S. Wayne Clarkson]

In the case of feature films, no; in the case of new media, we've not experienced that yet; on the ground in the Canadian television funds at the grassroots level, obviously there's concern.

It's not the first time. There's the anticipation of its renewal every year, and I'm sure members around this table and others in the House of Commons are vigorously lobbied many times in terms of its renewal--but yes, people are looking for stability and assurances that the projects they're going to undertake six months from now, or whenever, can be financed.

One of the issues we're concerned about--and it's partially financial, but I don't want to put a stress on it--is that traditionally this was a world of silos that we've dealt with. It was only cinema; then it was cinema and television; now it's cinema, television, and new media. These funds are constructed in a silo.

That is being completely wiped out by the new technologies. When you think of a film or a television program now, you have to think of its use as a website, you have to think of its use on the Internet, and you have to think of it on cell phones. You have to imagine, creatively construct, pitch, and finance for all of those platforms. So it's not a question of one fund being in jeopardy; it's a question that any time there's financial instability across those platforms, there's uncertainty.

Charles referred to flexibility, and that's another area. We want to be able to address the new multi-platform universe, and sometimes the guidelines, the programs, or the statutes that defined this corporation 40 years ago--next year will be our 40th anniversary--are out of date; they're antiquated. They need to be addressed.

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

You lead me to exactly where I want to be right now, which is the fact that we are looking, in terms of government money, at bureaucracy's money, and taxpayers' dollars and how they're being utilized, at the age-old problem of not being able to get our movies in our own theatres. Yet we have new platforms, new media. Is there a role for the public sector funding to perhaps create a digital distribution format?

I know we're already starting to make some money in the back-end sales of DVDs--it has started to help greatly--but I'm thinking in terms of the example of new media. The kids are watching YouTube and that, but they're watching fart jokes at college level because there's no content. If we had a platform the government put in for the distribution of our own content, would you see that as a useful role in ensuring that projects coming off the ground would actually have markets out there that can access these?

[S. Wayne Clarkson]

I think there is a responsibility of this agency to ensure that Canadian talent and Canadian content are present—I stress Canadian talent and Canadian content—and are available across all platforms.

In the case of cinema, we know the struggle of movies over the last 100 years and the regrettable circumstance whereby, as we've so often said at previous meetings, it's difficult to get films on the screen, especially in the English-language market.

Trailer Park Boys had one of the biggest openings in the history of...and it made money on that opening. You can bet that the incentive of the exhibitors to do it again and again is a little more enthusiastic than it might have been otherwise. Bon Cop Bad Cop is the same thing. It's done extremely well in Quebec, as we know. It's done very well in English Canada. There is a bilingual film, with Colm Feore and Patrick Huard, produced by an anglophone Quebecker, directed by a Quebecker in both languages, financed out of the English language fund, and a success coast to coast. That's wonderful.

But in addition to that, we have to ensure—you're absolutely right—that there is more Canadian material on DVD, and that they're downloading it. Right now the consumers want it when they want it and where they get it on the platform that they want. I take trains constantly between Montreal, Toronto, and Ottawa, and more and more, there they are, sitting watching movies on their laptops while on the train.

We have to start address those opportunities, and new media is one of the most exciting growth areas where that can be, I agree entirely. But it is about breaking down these silos.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all of you for coming and visiting us here in the lion's den.

Last year this committee completed a report called “Scripts, Screens and Audiences”. There were some criticisms contained in that report, specifically as to whether the feature film policy has been successful in English Canada. It was also critical about the ineffectiveness of a significant part of the feature film support within Telefilm.

We've had the Auditor General's report, which has questioned the degree of oversight and perhaps direct or indirect interference in your ability to deliver what you've been asked to deliver. There's also been industry criticism—significant industry criticism.

There was an article in Maclean's magazine, which I'm sure you're aware of—which I'm sure you would consider a hatchet job—but I want to quote a section out of it that I think perhaps encapsulates how many people feel, not only about the film industry but about Telefilm.

It's from Maclean's of April 17, and I quote:At least seven English Canadian movies are quietly slipping in and out of theatres this spring: Lucid, Fetching Cody

--and it goes on and on to list them--

Never heard of them? No wonder. These are the kind of films that show up on a few screens, then vanish without a trace. They contain flashes of eccentric brilliance, and some fine performances. But they seem smaller than life. They tend to be populated by desperate women and repressed, self-loathing men. And they plumb new depths of anti-heroism, from the English teacher who's addicted to washroom sex in Whole New Thing to the wimp who threatens a pimp by pressing a stapler to his back in Niagara Motel. It's hard to imagine these movies were designed with an audience in mind.

The article, of course, goes on to highlight producers' concerns about the envelope financing that is used to fund films in Canada.

My question has a number of parts to it. First of all, clearly there was or perhaps still is significant producer dissatisfaction with how Telefilm is delivering its funding mandate. There's significant concern about the envelope approach, and perhaps you could go into that a little bit and explain how it works. I think I understand, but I think for the rest of the committee, perhaps you could explain it.

Also, perhaps you would address specifically—you've done it a little bit in answer to Mr. Angus's question—how we can maintain the accountability and transparency and yet remove some of that “oppressive oversight” that you consider is presently in place and that restricts your ability to function.

Could you try to get into those three areas?