Canadian Heritage Committee on April 29th, 2015

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Between increasing funding without changing anything at all, and increasing funding once we have a new plan to meet the new challenges, what would you choose?

[Marie Collin]

First of all, we have to pay tribute to the work Telefilm Canada has done in the past few years regarding both development and production. The people in that institution put a great deal of work into their projects. They tried to adapt to a reality that is moving at a maddening pace. They worked with partners in the market. They also need to be congratulated because they were dealing with budget cuts, but attempted to touch the core of their operations as little as possible. It is very important for us to point out that the team at Telefilm Canada understood well the work it had to do with its partners.

Moreover, it will no doubt be very important that everyone who works directly or indirectly with the film industry meet at the working group that is sponsored by Telefilm Canada. This will make it possible to analyze the new situation and to examine operational models, distribution windows and marketing.

Earlier, Ms. Simard mentioned that in a universe where we are flooded with content, the marketing of products must go far beyond the marketing for film theatres. Indeed, we know that consumption outside of these venues represents 97% of views. Our models however are still attached to the distribution to movie theatres and that marketing. We know that the marketing and promotion of products is the key component, after we have produced a quality piece of work.

Yes, funding should be increased to support production, but it has to be done in a context where we are also revising the way we do things. That has to be adapted to 2015.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

Mr. Hillyer, you have seven minutes.

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Lemieux, could you answer Mr. Dion's question?

[François Lemieux]

I would like to add something to what Ms. Collin said about whether funding should be increased or reorganized. It is important to understand that tomorrow's viewers—young people—and everything that concerns education is at the heart of our priorities.

Let's talk about touring. There are a lot of areas where we managed to get the viewing public in to view Quebec films. There are still some provinces where we dearly wish to develop with our local partners the project of presenting Quebec films and contributing in our way to greater circulation of these works and to making them more accessible.

That is a priority for us. The taste for things like this is acquired at a young age. In all of the schools we visit in Canada, one student out of two has never seen a Quebec film. I think that that statistic is eloquent and shows that there is still work to be done in showcasing our cultural products.

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

In my opinion, there is a problem regarding the number of Canadians who can view Canadian or Quebec films. It is not just a problem involving the production of films. Ms. Simard said that she funded 400 films a year.

[Monique Simard]

We received 1,440 applications last year. We were only able to support a little over 400 of those, including short films, documentaries, programs for young filmmakers and feature films. It is true that there are a lot of applications and we can only choose about a third of them.

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

More films are produced than are ever seen. I did not know that the film The F Word was a Canadian film. I only found out when someone mentioned it at the last meeting of the committee. Personally, I do not go to see a film simply because it is a Canadian or a Quebec film, but I find that a large number of Canadian films, especially Quebec films, are just as good as Hollywood movies. They are certainly of equal quality and the genres are similar. If I have to choose between a Hollywood film and a Canadian film that are equally entertaining, I will choose the Canadian one. However, I don't always know which films are Canadian and where I can find them. The films are not all shown in Cineplex venues or other movie theatres of that type.

[Monique Simard]

May I answer, Mr. Hillyer?

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Yes.

[Monique Simard]

We have talked very little about the distribution of films; we only alluded to it briefly. Distribution is one of the important issues..

For a fiction feature film to receive funding from SODEC, Telefilm Canada or other Canadian organizations, you need a distributor; however, there are not many distributors in Canada and those that exist are large distributors. They also distribute American films. As you know, Canada is considered a national market for American films. There is a whole distribution strategy that does not encourage our national cinema, be it from Quebec or the rest of Canada.

For movie theatres, there is a system called the booking system. The films have to be popular. If a film has not generated good revenue the first weekend, it is immediately replaced by another. Enormous films are the subject of large publicity campaigns. Take Fifty Shades of Grey, for instance. I did not see it, but I read the reviews. The film was the object of a worldwide campaign, and it was first at the box-office everywhere in the world. More money was spent on marketing than on the production of the movie. There was so much publicity that everyone in the world went to see that movie.

It is extremely important that we reestablish a balance. We have to examine the role of distributors and what is required of them. Films that are supported by public funds should rightly be accessible on all platforms. I define myself as an agnostic with regard to platforms. I can view a movie on an iPad, a cinema screen or a television screen. We now have to consider all of these platforms. We have to consider the success of a film according to the number of people who view it on all of these platforms. As long as it is only box-office revenue from the actual theatre that counts, we are always going to have the current problems.

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

You have 45 seconds.

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Okay.

I simply want to say that if we provide funds for the production of movies

because it helps culture,

it doesn't make sense if we don't help people to see those movies. We are not contributing to culture if no one sees the films. So my opinion is that we have to find a balance.

Thank you.

[Monique Simard]

That is our position. The SODEC position is in the report on film. We will be making changes to our regulations very soon, and to our programs, to take all of this into account.

As we say in English,

it's the number of eyeballs that count, not the platform.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

Thank you.

Mr. Nantel, you have four minutes.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

I will be brief.

Thank you, Ms. Simard, for your comments.

I want to make sure the committee understands the stakes very well.

You say that distribution is a key factor in obtaining funding. Perhaps that needs to be reassessed, because the distribution through movie theatres is the main point in the mandate of the distributors, and then they go to the second phase, which is television. That is an important issue.

I see that the people who are here at this committee, including Ms. Collin and Ms. Doucet, are indicating that they agree with this.

[Monique Simard]

We agree with that on this side as well.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

That is the noise we heard in the microphone.

My comments are addressed to everyone here.

Among all of the recommendations that came out of your testimony and the testimony of all the other people who came to meet with us, what is the one you would most like to see in our report?

Could we agree that one priority for you would be support for Telefilm Canada, so that that organization can continue to fulfil its mandate, since it adjusts well to the various realities and the evolution of the markets?

Ms. Collin, you talked about this concept of reform, that is to say to provide 75% of the amounts in 30 days and 25% later. This is in keeping with what others said to us, including the CMPA, regarding the phenomenon known as the grind. We all adore that expression, which we learned here.

What other recommendation would you like to see? I'll give you two possibilities. First of all we all know that the CRTC cited a long conversation with the public last fall prior to its decisions on Canadian cultural content. Its decisions displeased a lot of people, and rightly so since they jeopardize a certain number of things.

Is that why you mentioned the idea of mandating a working group to study these issues? Do you want to draw some conclusions regarding these future changes?

[Marie Collin]

I think we should not mix up what the CRTC is going to do and what the working group could do. I don't know what the CRTC is going to do, but if I understood correctly, it is really going to examine all of the technological and audiovisual content.

Cinema is not disembodied and cut off from all of the other contents or other genres. It would be very important to group together certain things. Indeed, if we talk about the cinema experience while considering only the operation of movie houses and distribution, we see, as Ms. Simard pointed out earlier, that this is now concentrated in the hands of one or two large players in Canada. That is not exactly the same reality.

These are extremely similar realities, but I think that we have to think of a way of changing the funding. We have to review the distribution methods, review the role of the distributor, review the impact of the platforms and review the way in which success is calculated. Some work has already been done on this at Telefilm Canada, but I think, and allow me to reiterate, that things are moving extremely fast. We absolutely need to take stock of things with all of the players who work in this area.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Is this the type of topic you would like the working group to discuss, for instance, the role of the distributor in this new ecosystem?

[Marie Collin]

Yes, among other things, but our priority is surely the funding of productions and their marketing. I agree with Ms. Simard; the films have to be seen and we have to have the resources to promote them.

There is something quite astounding that we see in this industry. You can have the best film in the world, but if the weather is too nice outside during the weekend of the premiere, it will not do well and it will be withdrawn. That is sad, because if it is too nice outside as is the case today, all of the money injected into marketing for that one weekend is wasted. Today was a beautiful day such as we seldom see in Canada. Everyone was outside. No one wanted to go to the movies, and so the movie was taken out of the cinemas.

Aside from the fact that we can see films on other platforms, all of the marketing is tied to that and the shelf life of the movie in theatres is practically tied to the weather outside.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Since I only have 15 seconds, I will address Ms. Simard.

Ms. Simard, would your fourth point be to add the the visibility of our films as an issue?

[Monique Simard]

That's for sure. However, that visibility will be achieved when we understand that funding has to be modulated and that much more has to be granted for development, distribution and visibility. The constraints have to be removed.

Since you are a federal committee, I think it would be high time to see whether the Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act are up to date and keeping pace with the 21st century. I think there are some important adjustments to be made there.