Canadian Heritage Committee on March 9th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

And excuse my translation. Sometimes I'm not too good at it, but I try.

Thanks.

[Stanley Péan]

Mr. Chairman, no offence taken.

Ladies and gentlemen members of the committee, I would like to begin by thanking you for this opportunity to speak today on behalf of the Union des écrivaines et des écrivains québécois, in my capacity as president of the organization first elected in December 2004 in the first of three consecutive mandates.

To begin with, I would like to give you some background information about UNEQ, a professional organization founded on March 21, 1977 by 50 or so writers on the initiative of Jacques Godbout. The UNEQ represents almost 1,400 writers, poets, novelists, playwrights, essayists, authors who write for children and scientific and technical writers. The UNEQ's mandate is to work to promote and disseminate Quebec literature in Quebec, Canada and abroad, and to defend the socio-economic rights of writers. It was recognized in 1990 as the most representative association of artists in the literary community under the Loi sur le statut professionnel des artistes des arts visuels, des métiers d'art et de la littérature et sur leurs contrats avec les diffuseurs, L.R.Q, chapter S-32.01.

The UNEQ was also certified in 1996 by the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal, giving it the exclusive right to negotiate with federally regulated producers for the purposes of reaching a framework agreement setting out conditions of employment for self-employed professional writers.

I do not intend to discuss the direct impact of the PromArt and Trade Routes programs on the UNEQ, which was not one of the beneficiaries of these programs, for obvious reasons. Instead, I will focus on the international dissemination of the works of some of our members that is made possible through federal government support.

Among the cancelled programs, PromArt was the one most often used by publishers, who would receive assistance towards the payment of travel costs for writers invited to meet with their foreign readers at book fairs and launches, or any other activity connected to book promotion outside Canada. Only travel costs were covered under PromArt. This was, therefore, a shared-cost program which was deeply appreciated by both publishers and writers, as it lowered the cost of promotional campaigns and facilitated agreements with foreign editors who had translated the book, or with foreign organizations that invited authors to their countries. It is through the attendance of our writers and publishers at international meetings, symposia and book fairs that Canadian and Quebec literature can become better known internationally.

Last August, Pascal Assathiany, Director of Éditions du Boréal publishing house, pointed out that the PromArt program had enabled two writers whose works had been published by his firm to make a name for themselves across the globe, including Gil Courtemanche, author of Un dimanche à la piscine à Kigali, and Gaétan Soucy, author of La Petite fille qui aimait trop les allumettes, who subsequently saw their work translated into a number of languages. Through PromArt, these writers were invited abroad by Canadian embassies and several different countries, including the Netherlands, as the publisher himself pointed out to journalist Paul Journet of La Presse, saying, and I quote: “These invitations helped them see their work translated into more than 20 languages. Only about $3,000 or $4,000 was needed to pay for their plane ticket and their stay there, and to organize meetings.” According to Mr. Assathiany, in the last five years, between $25,000 and $30,000 has been invested in promoting works published by Boréal. Even if we multiply that by the number of Quebec publishing firms whose writers have made a breakthrough internationally—a half-dozen at most—we would still be talking about modest, but at the same time extremely useful, amounts of money, as I am sure you will agree.

Again, the Association nationale des éditeurs de livres, or ANEL, generally benefited from the Trade Routes program. In 2008, it received approximately $15,000 under the program, a grant that allowed the organization to take part in the Escale du livre in Bordeaux, in the Book Fair in London, and to successfully carry out a project in China which has had a direct impact on the career of writers whose works, on such occasions, benefit from exposure outside our borders.

Notwithstanding the allegations made by the former Minister of Canadian Heritage, Ms. Josée Verner, allegations that continue to be made by her successor, Mr. Moore, to the effect that these programs were poorly managed and ineffective, for their part, publishing sector stakeholders believe that, even though grants provided were modest, the funding served its purpose, which makes the cancellation of these programs that much more regrettable, in their collective opinion.

Another comment made was, and I quote: “[…] most of the budget comes from Québec Édition, a partnership between ANEL and SODEC, and the Association for the Export of Canadian Books”, this time by Pierre Lefrançois, Executive Director of the ANEL, when speaking to the same journalist from La Presse. He went on to say: “But, for an organization like ours, every penny counts.”

Naysayers like to repeat that Quebec and Canadian publishing is oversubsidized. However, they may be interested in knowing that government assistance only represents 7 p. 100 of the industry's total revenues.

As for overall subsidies granted the publishing industry, they are infinitely smaller than those that benefit Bell Helicopter or Bombardier.

Given that our best writers have access to creative development grants provided by Canadian Heritage through the Canada Council for the Arts, the cancellation of programs that provide assistance for foreign exposure, as well as the promotion and export of Canadian works, sends a particularly paradoxical message. In the absence of new programs to support the international promotion of our literature, again, to quote Pascal Assathiany: “It would be a little like subsidizing Bombardier to produce airplanes, but not helping it to sell them on the international market.”

Notwithstanding the alleged ineffectiveness of the PromArt and Trade Routes programs, their cancellation seems to consistent with a logic that I and my colleagues find worrisome. Since the Conservatives first took office, we have had occasion to deplore the dismantling of cultural services in our Canadian embassies, which is becoming increasingly difficult not to interpret as the expression of an ideology that clearly does not support international exposure for the craftspeople and products of an industry that contributes just as much to Canada's image as it does to its economic dynamism.

A statement made to the National Post last September by Minister Jim Flaherty, with respect to the cancellation of these programs, continues to haunt me: “We are a conservative government, and Cabinet ministers also wear that hat”, he said. This is not a bureaucratic process, but a decision made by ministers who sit on the Treasury Board and have their own ideas about these programs. I don't have to tell you that I certainly hope I am wrong in fearing the worst.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your kind attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Now the spokespeople from INIS, please.

[Jacques Blain, Producer, Business Development, Cirrus Communications, Institut national de l'image et du son (INIS)]

Thank you very much for inviting us, Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank the members of the committee.

I intend to share my five minutes with Mr. Hamel.

My name is Jacques Blain and I am a member of the Board of Directors of INIS. I am here today representing the Chairman of the Board and the Executive Director of the organization, both of whom are outside of the country.

Jean Hamel, who is the Director of Communications and Marketing, will make a brief statement, and I will have some final comments at the end.

[Jean Hamel, Director of Communications, Institut national de l'image et du son (INIS)]

Thank you very much.

My presentation this afternoon will, in fact, be a summary of the brief that we provided today, in both French and English, I believe. It is a short summary outlining our main points.

The INIS is a professional training centre that contributes to the development of the film, television and interactive media community in Quebec and Canada, by providing access to training programs for both individuals and businesses that respond to the demands and changes occurring in the audiovisual, communications and entertainment markets. Since its beginnings in January 1996, the INIS has trained some 381 professionals who work as screenwriters, directors and producers. The most recent surveys conducted by the INIS confirm that nearly 80 per cent of graduates are in positions directly related to the training they received—often in key positions. In addition to these graduates from the regular programs, there are several thousand professionals who have come to the INIS to upgrade their skills in the short and medium term.

The INIS is the only French-language institution of its kind in Canada. It belongs to a network of four training centres, including the CFC in Toronto, the NSI in Winnipeg and the CSTC in Ottawa. Since 1994, the federal government has provided grants of almost $14 million dollars to the INIS to help it carry out its mission. However, on Friday, August 8, 2008, the INIS was informed that the National Training Program for the Film and Video Sector, funded by Canadian Heritage and administered by Telefilm Canada, would not be extended beyond April 1, 2009. This decision followed on the heels of an evaluation which did not actually recommend that the program be cancelled. We are still unaware of the specific reasons for its cancellation, but its impact on the INIS is quite clear. For the Institute, the cancellation of this program will mean the loss of approximately $900,000 annually, or almost 25 per cent of its operating budget.

In addition, if the INIS is no longer able to access the Canada New Media Fund, another program funded by Canadian Heritage, the shortfall in its operating budget stemming from the loss of the federal contribution will exceed $1 million. The Institute's funding structure is based on money received from both levels of government, and on contributions of both money and services from private enterprise. Since 1994, the share of government funding has been constantly decreasing. Indeed, it went from more than 90 per cent in 1994-1995 to 53 p. 100 in the current fiscal year, 2008-2009—in other words, we have achieved a near perfect balance between public and private sources of funding.

However, being deprived of as significant an amount of funding as $1 million per year, the INIS loses one of the main levers allowing it to seek financial contributions from private companies and support through services offered on a “two-for-one” or “three-for-one” basis, for every dollar paid. The consequences of cancelling the program therefore include a decrease in independent revenues and the underfunding of the Institute, to the tune of some $2 million in money and services. In concrete terms, the cancellation of the program compromises the very existence of the Institute. Were the INIS to close, we would be looking at the permanent loss of exceptional expertise that has been built up over a 13-year period and to which, it should be pointed out, the federal government has contributed some $14 million. The closure of the Institute would also mean there would no longer be trained professional graduates able to successfully move into professional circles.

A simple solution to the problem caused by the cancellation of the National Training Program in the Film and Video Sector would be to immediately include the INIS in the National Arts Training Program. If the National Arts Training Program does not appear to be the appropriate solution, in the opinion of the federal government, it is urgent that the latter provide a clear response regarding its short- and long-term intentions for professional training in the film, television and interactive media sectors. The survival of a unique institution with a long track record is at stake.

I would now like to turn it over to Jacques Blain, who is a producer, and who can speak from experience about the Institute's positive impact on professional activities in the film and television sectors.

Thank you.

[Jacques Blain]

I would like to complete our presentation with some final comments made without notes.

I have been a producer for 30 years. I take part in the everyday activities of the INIS as a member of the board and as a trainer, from time to time. I also benefit, on a daily basis, from the training provided by the Institute. I produced the film C.R.A.Z.Y and the series La Vie, la vie. We produce series such as Naked Josh and Ciao Bella in French and English.

The INIS is an organization with very deep roots in Quebec society, because all the trainers come from the community. They are not theorists; rather, they are practicians who teach students who have been very carefully chosen. Indeed, 80 per cent of them end up finding jobs. In an environment where technological change is both quick and significant, the role of the Institute in our fast-paced society is absolutely vital.

There is also a lot of discussion about the new generation, which is of particular interest to me. Many baby-boomers, including myself, will soon be leaving the industry. If we do not train people capable of doing the job, we will be in very dire straits.

Canada and Quebec currently have a marked advantage when it comes to production. We export our expertise. A fellow who worked with us until last year is now the Director of Fiction for TF1, the largest French-speaking television network in the world. So, we export both expertise and productions.

I find it rather irresponsible, on the part of the federal government, to completely withdraw support. Federal funding represents 25 p. 100 of the Institute's operating budget. It simply is not possible to take that kind of action at a time when it is essential to excel in the world. We absolutely must find a way to restore the Institute's budget. The very survival of the organization is at stake—an organization that has been successful, since its creation, in providing Quebec with new directors, producers and authors, and in developing professional development programs that have benefited everyone.

I must admit that I am at a loss when it comes to the intricacies of government programs, but if another program comes forward that allows to compensate the lost funding, that would be an absolutely essential step in ensuring the survival of the INIS.

Thank you for your attention.

We're ready to answer your questions, in French or in English.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you very much.

Now, Ms. Brouillé, please.

[Colette Brouillé, Executive Director, Réseau indépendant des diffuseurs d'événements artistiques unis (RIDEAU)]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

My name is Colette Brouillé. I am the Executive Director of RIDEAU, the largest network of French-speaking presenters of artistic events in Canada. I would like to thank the committee for agreeing to hear the views of an institution from the performing arts sector.

After 30 years of existence, our organization has 150 members based in over 200 sites across Quebec, and three member networks in French-speaking Canada as a whole. In 2007, box office revenues totalled $87 million in Quebec alone.

RIDEAU also operates at the international level. A leader in the presentation of the performing arts, it is one of the founding member organizations of the AREA network, which brings together partners from Canada, France, Belgium and Switzerland.

Every year, RIDEAU organizes the Bourse RIDEAU, the largest annual gathering of Francophone professionals from the performing arts. Our 22nd edition, which has just taken place, attained a new attendance record, with 1,400 participants. Among these, some 50 artistic companies showed their works to presenters from here and abroad, and 170 booking agents set up stalls at the venue. Over a three-day period, these stalls were visited by festival or theatre presenters intent on building their programs.

In concrete terms, the Bourse RIDEAU is a market place for discussing business, signing contracts and making deals. It is a forum for commercial transactions, a meeting point for supply and demand, and an extraordinary showcase that brings together established and emerging artists, from every discipline, which has huge economic spinoffs for Canadian companies at various stages of their development.

Ten per cent of the artistic programming presented through the Bourse RIDEAU is made up of foreign content: productions which, for the most part, tour Quebec or Canada within two years of their presentation at the Bourse. This creates an opening onto the world stage for all of the audiences served by RIDEAU, as well as its members across Canada. The countries of origin of artists who perform at the Bourse RIDEAU, and then on tour, are responsible for international transportation costs, while we defray the domestic transportation costs and daily expenses during their stay.

A government's support for its exports is a guarantee of quality for the importing country. Without this support, business dealings become much more difficult. The cultural industry should not be exempt from these principles. Yet budget cuts imposed by the government, particularly to the PromArt and Trade Routes programs, effectively end this reciprocity, thereby destroying years of work and investments and adversely affecting our international image.

It is in this spirit of reciprocity that the Bourse RIDEAU hosts a delegation of foreign presenters. At the last edition, presenters from Belgium, France, Switzerland and Mexico came to witness, for themselves, the vitality of our artistic productions and, more concretely, to sign performance contracts with Canadian artistic companies. That is just one of many examples I could choose.

You will have heard some pretty big figures mentioned at your recent meetings. Ours are smaller, but just as convincing. At the 2008 Bourse RIDEAU, the theatre company Le Clou presented its latest work, entitled Isberg. Allow me to give you some details regarding the economic spinoffs of their participation in a single tour across France: 16 performances, which represent 33 per cent of the 2008-2009 season for that show; five designers and the playwright will receive residuals; a 33 per cent increase in performance fees and residuals for the actors; the production will be presented at seven different venues, including one of the most important festivals for young audiences, Mélimôme, which is an ideal showcase where other presenters can see their performances and include them in their own programming; independent revenues of some $80,000, which represent 13 per cent of the company's independent revenues for the 2008-2009 season; and, finally, meetings that have already been scheduled with presenters, in order to develop co-production agreements for the company's next production.

That is just one example, compared to the 50 or so productions presented annually and 170 booking agents and artistic companies that attend the event. These spinoffs, it is safe to assume, can be multiplied accordingly.

Another remarkable initiative is that 10 foreign presenters invited to the Bourse RIDEAU got together and, in association with SODEC, created a $40,000 prize for a singer, called the Prix des diffuseurs internationaux. The winner of the prize in 2009, singer-songwriter Caracol, will thus be able to take her latest show on a European tour involving no less than 10 performances in French-speaking Europe. In 2008, Andrea Lindsay, originally from Ontario, was the prize winner. This has enabled her to give 12 performances at 11 different venues in France, Belgium and Switzerland.

In 2009, support received by RIDEAU from the Trade Routes program totalled $16,000. We found out in November, three months away from the event, that PromArt was withdrawing our financial support. The figures that have just been mentioned clearly demonstrate what an important economic lever these investments were.

How could anyone possibly have shown this kind of support to be ineffective, such that the program would be cancelled? If the program had flaws—flaws that we would like to see properly explained—it is important that they be analyzed alongside members of the artistic community, and that solutions be found quickly, based on a vision that goes beyond the effect of a single program.

For RIDEAU, it is essential that the networks which present artistic events, which affect the daily lives of people throughout Canada, have access to funding from the Department of Canadian Heritage, in order to maintain and develop their international relationships. Presenters of multidisciplinary productions are not part of the Canada Council's clientele.

Furthermore, we would be remiss in not mentioning the elimination in the medium term—in our view, unjustified—of the Skills Development program. According to studies, this program was effective, particularly in Quebec. With the challenges facing the new generation of presenters, it is critical that we continue to develop and adapt business models in our sector and to fully support these initiatives.

In closing, I would like to point out that RIDEAU believes in cultural diplomacy—the process of forging ties with foreign countries with a view to increasing their understanding of the ideas and ideals of our government, of its institutions and the culture it represents. We believe that this diplomacy operates primarily through international programs focused on dissemination and education, as well as cultural exchanges.

Today, we are here to talk about the cancellation of inexpensive government programs, although we are still waiting to see evidence of their ineffectiveness. To say that these programs are a “waste” of public money, in order to justify their cancellation, reflects a deplorable lack of understanding of the real issues and of the extraordinary role played by our artists and cultural workers, who have done so much to enhance Canada's image at large. Whether by accident or as a consequence, is this image now not being tarnished?

Thank you for your kind attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

We have one half hour left, so try to keep your questions and responses within five minutes, please.

Mr. Rodriguez, first question.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I, too, would like to welcome you to the committee. Thank you very much for being with us today.

Ms. Brouillé, you concluded by saying that you would like to be given proof that these programs are ineffective. We would all like to see that proof. However, when we ask the government to show us why these programs are not working, it hides behind the fact that documents are confidential, and so on.

Mr. Chairman, to that end, I tabled a motion asking the government to provide the documents which were the basis for making the cuts by last Friday at noon. However, we have received nothing, with the exception of a two- or three-word e-mail. I am very anxious to receive those documents, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, the government is hiding behind documents that it promises to provide, but that we never receive. Furthermore, you and others have been telling us, week after week, that these programs are working, even though they do not have all the facts as to the way they are managed. They told us that the monies received had been used by artists, craftspeople and companies. Those programs have resulted in numerous success stories.

My sense is that this is a case where the baby has been thrown out with the bath water. These programs may not be entirely perfect, but rather than cancelling altogether, an intermediate solution could have been found. People have suggested that the programs be restored, and that they be managed by the Canada Council for the Arts.

Do you agree with that?

[Colette Brouillé]

Presenters of multidisciplinary events are not part of the Canada Council's client base. We have to find another way of working. We fully agree that Canadian Heritage should be given a budget to manage for the purpose of meeting the needs of multidisciplinary presenters.

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

That is a very good point you make: that people who could avail themselves of these programs previously now be part of the Canada Council's client base.

Mr. Hamel and Mr. Blain, you said that federal funding amounted to 25 per cent of your revenues, which is huge. Is there a danger that you will cease to exist?

[Jean Hamel]

Yes, that risk is real. A 25 per cent cut to our operating budget obviously has a very concrete impact. As I explained, that 25 per cent is on top of the money we will not be getting from the private sector. Very often, collaboration takes the form of technical services.

Let me give you an actual example. The company Technicolor is a major partner of the INIS and provides services at a rate equal to three for one. In other words, that company gives us $3 worth of services for every dollar we spend.

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

You say that the INIS is the only French-speaking institution to provide that kind of service and training.

[Jean Hamel]

Training at that level.

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

At that level, yes.

[Jean Hamel]

I would just like to try and clarify the level of training provided by the INIS. One may be tempted to think there are other institutions of the same type out there. However, the training we provide is of a level comparable to what is offered in universities, for example, or other private training centres.

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

So, there could be an important gap. You have trained screenwriters, directors, and people who work in production.

[Jean Hamel]

Yes, producers. As part of our regular programming, we train people in three different fields: screenwriting, direction and production. As part of our professional development programming, we provide training in all the professions.

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

Thank you very much.

Monsieur Péan.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

I know him. He specializes in literature for young people.

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

I am very happy to see you here today, because we have heard a lot about people who work in the theatre, in music and in dance. You are here from the publishing sector, representing writers. I would like to ask you to tell us a little bit more about the impact on the people you represent. We have tended to think mainly about people in the film and dance communities in terms of these cuts. But I am very happy that you are here and I am interested to hear what you have to say.

[Stanley Péan]

Well, as I was saying, writers are affected in so far as their publishers secure invitations to book fairs or launches, where there is a translation agreement in place. It is in that respect that PromArt, for example, could benefit a writer, because he or she would have his travel expenses paid to attend an event such as—and here, I am thinking of Gil Courtemanche or Gaétan Soucy—the launch of his book in foreign language translation. That applies to both of these two writers and to others as well who have seen their work translated into different languages.

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

I presume that other countries provide those services as well.

[Stanley Péan]

Reciprocity is such that, when foreign writers come here, their cultural diplomacy service is the one that sends them. The example that comes to mind is France, which is a very significant partner for the Quebec publishing industry. When book fairs are held in Montreal or elsewhere in the province, writers are often invited to attend through the French cultural service.