Canadian Heritage Committee on June 19th, 2007

[Tom Perlmutter]

I'll take the distribution question first.

You know, it's an enormous preoccupation for us. I will say that nearly everything gets on television. But when you sit down in front of your television and you have the 100-plus channels, depending on your various cable packages, the fact that 90% of what we do gets on television...it's hard to say, “Oh, that's the film board right there”.

Now, we've had a great—

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

But I'm talking the CBC now. I'm not talking—

[Tom Perlmutter]

No, no, but even with CBC, when they're looking at—right now we're in discussions again with CBC. So many of the things we do end up on CBC, but I have to tell you they also end up—I looked at a list of things we're doing with Global, and over the last two years they've opened up their ability to do documentaries, and 10 different films we're doing will go on to Global.

We work with CTV as well, and we work with TVOntario, with Knowledge Network. In terms of films, in terms of audiences, I don't have the precise figures; I'll say it's getting out there, but there is a problem. The problem is that in the flow of television, the particularity of the kind of work the film board can bring in terms of that level of attention and interchange and interactivity, which is important, may sometimes get lost. And I'm coming to some solutions as well in a second.

The second thing we're doing, and you'll have seen this, is that our films are now starting and will increasingly be visible in theatres. Recently we did a film, Manufactured Landscapes, which premiered at the Toronto Film Festival last year. It's a co-production, a beautiful feature film. It did, for a feature documentary that's an art house doc, about $600,000 in theatrical screenings across Canada. It was released through a deal with Mongrel Media. It's about to be released in the States theatrically. It was at the Sundance Festival, and quite possibly may be on an Oscar run hereafter.

We've done other films that have done remarkably well. Radiant City, which is a film out of Calgary, was released across the country to great critical press. Again, it had the attention. People were aware of it. It was available for people in their communities across the country.

As for what remains to be done in terms of this and where we have enormous opportunity to connect with Canadians more directly, we're going to probably look at having something much more direct in the coming months. I hope we'll be able to announce something sometime later in the autumn—direct accessibility through all sorts of non-exclusive deals on various platforms on the net, so if you want to have that experience, you can go to your favourite kind of site, whether it's Joost or Babelgum or Brightcove or the NFB site, definitely. We're going to create ways that Canadians can access us on all sorts of platforms, and we'll make sure we're present, because we owe it to them, and I'm very cognizant of that. That's going to happen.

As for the second question, we have a vibrant production centre. The programming is divided into production centres. We have a production office in each of Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, and Halifax. Montreal's is an animation studio. This is an English program, and there's the documentary studio and new media studio. The doc studio spends something like, with our limited funds, $2 million working with English-language filmmakers, mainly in Montreal, doing a range of work, from emerging filmmakers to very experienced filmmakers.

There will always be good projects we can't do because our resources are limited. At the end of the day, we're in the process of having to make tough choices all the time. But I'd say the anglo community in Montreal is well served by the film board.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Andy Scott]

Madame Bourgeois.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Mr. Perlmutter.

[Tom Perlmutter]

Good morning.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

I really like your philosophy. Your eloquent speech on culture was very different from the many other speeches we have heard here. We are currently examining the mandate of the CBC, and talks often revolve around finances. We are always trying to get back to culture. You are using cultural language when you say that the NFB is the country's cultural conscience.

I was a high school teacher for 30 years and there was not a single school in my school board that had never worked with the National Film Board. The Board is a great source for teaching resources, for history just as much as French. It is a gold mine for schools, but it is not always well known. Making a speech just about finances when talking about the National Film Board gives people the wrong idea. We must think about the cultural benefits for the public and for our youth.

That said, you seem quite conscious of expressing cultural diversity as well, which I think is great. Our committee has visited various Canadian towns and the people do not necessarily relate to television. If NFB services were more available, perhaps they would relate a little more.

I have three questions for you. You spoke about planning. What I am asking could represent work to be done in the long term. In six months, you could maybe give us a strategic plan. This could cover a number of things, including the National Film Board's current situation, so that my colleagues who are not familiar with the services offered by the NFB can become familiar with them. That is very important.

What are you currently doing with the budget you are given? You plan on getting the National Film Board out there. I would like you to talk about what you are aiming for, with dates. You said that in two years the NFB would celebrate its 70th anniversary. There can be dates for the different steps and performance indicators. It would be very important to know how the Conservative government can benefit from planning or from what the National Film Board should be.

I know that that is a lot of work for you, but you seem very competent and I think you will be able to do this for us.

You were head of the NFB's English programming. Do the different branches face different challenges? There is also the francophone sector.

Do you think that documentaries receive enough support in Canada? Should there be more support? Do you think that documentary filmmakers can be satisfied with what the government is currently contributing?

[Tom Perlmutter]

Thank you.

First, with respect to planning, for almost a year we have been reviewing everything related to performance indicators. This is very important to us for a number of reasons. Every day, I am very conscious of the fact that it is a privilege to be there to serve the Canadian public. This privilege comes with the enormous responsibility of always delivering the goods. When I worked in the private sector, I saw both sides and I was very aware of the importance of what we were doing. We must always question ourselves and justify what we are doing based on indicators. It is a process. We can come back in the coming months to report on progress. I would be very happy to do so, as well as to update you on our planning.

I do not know if that answers all your questions about planning.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Planning is important, since it shows where we are and what we are doing with the budgets. What is the focus now and why? Planning makes it possible to for us to give explanations, to say what benefits this will have and to justify the money invested.

[Tom Perlmutter]

I started last week. We will get back to this, but the process has already started. There are things we are looking at; our broad outlines are clear. I am new to the job, and everything we are doing is possible because my predecessor did great work. Jacques Bensimon, when he was commissioner, really reinvented the place. Now, it is up to us to move forward and that is what we are doing. We will see how we can get there and we will explain the details within about six months.

The francophone branch is very important to me, in a way, perhaps even more so than the anglophone one. Having this voice is important to the NFB. When I was head of English programming, I did my best and we did a lot of work together. We ensured that there were talks between the sectors about creativity, ideas and reflection. We made sure that we were strengthening our forces. We worked on specific projects and major challenges. For example, I organized master classes for our employees and producers to improve their skills. I invited the greatest documentary filmmakers to the NFB by encouraging them to do some in-depth work. Along with the French program we did something new.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Andy Scott]

And what is the third question?

[Tom Perlmutter]

I worked for years in the documentary world. I can tell you that documentary filmmakers, by nature, are never satisfied. That is the way they are. There are always problems in the world and society is always facing challenges. But there are specific challenges in terms of funding for feature-length documentaries. We currently have a pilot project with Telefilm Canada and the CBC. There is no way to truly ensure long-term funding. Another problem is how to create a funding model for documentaries created on new platforms? This involves other ways of doing things. That does not currently exist. So there are problems related to that as well.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Andy Scott]

Merci beaucoup.

Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Thank you very much.

Congratulations, Mr. Perlmutter, on your appointment. Obviously you're well qualified going into the position, so we'd like to congratulate you on that as well.

We've heard testimony previously, and I hope I've got the statistic correct, but the understanding was that of the films produced by the National Film Board, many are only viewed by 2% of the population. You did talk about performance indicators and a requirement that you live by performance indicators as you go into this position. I'm wondering if you believe that 2% is a good number, or if that's a number you think should be used as an indicator of performance, and if that number should rise or fall.

What's your perspective on that?

[Tom Perlmutter]

I'm not sure what that 2% refers to, first of all. If we're talking about simply ratings and it's coming from broadcast figures, I'd say it's questionable. I'd have to do the analysis. Frankly, no, 2% ain't good. It ain't good enough for me. It's not something I would be happy about. But I would challenge the figure and I would say we are getting audiences that are much larger than that, but they're audiences that are not being recorded anywhere. We go across the country and we have screenings. I'll give you one example that's not recorded anywhere.

We did a film a couple of years ago called Being Caribou. It's a remarkable film. Two young filmmakers—one filmmaker, a husband and wife team—decided to see what it meant for the Porcupine caribou herd when there was talk of oil drilling in their calving grounds, so they walked on foot from September through April following this herd, going on this route.

This film was picked up by the Alaska Wilderness Society and others. They organized what were called “living room screenings”, in which they sent out 2,000 copies, DVDs, and individuals then organized parties where they invited 10 to 20 people into their living rooms. We were told that out of that alone, probably on one night 300,000 people watched it. It's not recorded anywhere. It's not in that figure. I'd say that happens again and again in terms of our films, that we touch and connect with audiences in ways that our systems for recording just aren't there.

Having said that, I still don't think we're where we should be, but we have plans, and very ambitious plans. Hopefully with the support of this committee and hopefully with the kinds of investments that we can get in our future, we will be in every home directly, online, every day.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Well, that's absolutely wonderful. That's what I was hoping to hear, so we appreciate your efforts thus far. Obviously it's only been a week, but we do wish you the best of luck in your adventure.

I think Mr. Brown has a couple of follow-up questions.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Warkentin.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Andy Scott]

Mr. Brown.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Congratulations on your appointment, sir. I just have one question really.

In the 38th Parliament this committee undertook a study of the feature film industry, and Mr. Angus and I were involved in that. Have you had a chance to read that report?

[Tom Perlmutter]

No, I haven't.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

I'd highly recommend that you do. A lot of the issues that have been discussed today in fact were covered in that. The committee went across the country. I think there are some good recommendations in there.

[Tom Perlmutter]

I will be looking at it. It's in the pile on my desk. Thank you.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

All right. Congratulations.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Andy Scott]

Thank you very much.

I think everyone else is finished, with the exception of Mr. Angus. So I'll give the last round to Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you.

I was fascinated when hearing my colleague Madame Bourgeois talk about its use in school, because I can attest that when I was growing up we saw National Film Board films more times than I can remember, and even at church outings they showed us National Film Board shows. So we grew up consistently on it.

Again, I want to reiterate my opinion that the National Film Board continues to transform in the new millennium, because our young audience is much different from the audience when I was in school.

I recently saw Last Round, the George Chuvalo documentary. I think that's one of the best documentaries I've seen in memory.

I saw another National Film Board film that may have slipped under a lot of people's radars: Harvest Queens. I was very touched by that film because it actually takes place in my region. My wife and I used to always say that the harvest queen fall fair pageant would make a great documentary, but we never expected that anybody ever would do it. I live in northern Ontario, and nobody ever covers our stories, which is why we grew up loving hockey, because it was the only time we ever saw our place mentioned; we had Frank Mahovlich or Steve Sullivan or someone else. But nobody seemed to bother to come north to celebrate what we had. That film was a very poignant film. If we didn't have the film board, a film like that would never have been made, as far as I can see.

I just want to put that on the record—