Canadian Heritage Committee on May 11th, 2015

[The Chair (Mr. Gordon Brown (Leeds—Grenville, CPC)), Conservative, Gord Brown]

Good afternoon, everyone. I am going to call this meeting number 46 of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to order.

Today we are continuing with our study of the Canadian feature film industry. In fact, it is our last meeting for hearing from witnesses.

In the first hour we have with us from the Directors Guild of Canada, Tim Southam, president at the national office, and David Forget, director of policy, also at the national office. From the Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada we have René Savoie, the administrator. Via video conference, from Vancouver, British Columbia, from the Moving Picture Company, we have Michelle Grady, head of film.

Each of the three organizations will have up to eight minutes each.

We will start with Mr. Southam. You have the floor for eight minutes.

[Tim Southam, President, National Office, Directors Guild of Canada]

Mr. Chairman, honourable members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, my name is Tim Southam. I'm a working director, a filmmaker, and the president of the Directors Guild of Canada. With me is DGC's director of policy, David Forget.

I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you in the course of your current review of the Canadian feature film industry. We are experiencing significant change in the audiovisual sector and commend the committee on its timely decision to review the state of Canadian feature film in particular.

Just as feature dramas and documentary have a special place in the hearts of audiences everywhere, for filmmakers feature film is a foundational art form. Even as other screen genres like Internet and series television become highly compelling media for directors, feature film remains the bedrock form many of us dream most of making.

There are several reasons for this. Some are purely mythological, the desire, for instance, to follow in the footsteps of Truffaut, Spielberg, Campion, Scorcese, Bigelow, Jutra or Cronenberg, but the key reason is that independent feature film is the form that utilizes most completely everything a filmmaker has to offer to the viewing public, as a visual artist, a dramatic artist, and as a storyteller. It's a form that uses the director’s skill set fully, from either writing or working with a writer, through directing actors and composing shots, to sound design and exhibition. It is therefore a form most likely to develop a singular voice and most susceptible of offering a unique viewing experience for audiences everywhere.

Feature film has often been Canada’s best foot forward on the national and international stage.

Unfortunately, despite feature film and documentary's pride of place in the media and in audiences' collective imagination, English Canadian films are becoming orphans in their own land.

Taxpayers who fund these films are denied the ability to access them. Diminished access translates directly into diminished choice for Canadian audiences. Something needs to be done.

Our focus today is on how we can strengthen existing regulatory mechanisms in support of the financing and exhibition of Canadian feature film, particularly as they apply to the dominant trend towards home and mobile viewing.

Much has changed since the last time the standing committee engaged in a study of the Canadian feature film industry in 2006. Most significantly, digital platforms offer more and more ways to access content. Audiences are more in control of the viewing experience and have more choice than ever before. As a result, there is greater pressure on the historical “orderly” marketplace, and as exciting as these new platforms and windowing strategies may be, they do not yet come accompanied by strong business and financing models.

We also note that several key things have not changed since 2006. It merits repeating that in its 2006 report the committee noted, in its words, an “absence of a broadcasting policy to support the promotion of Canadian feature films”. The report further recommended “that the Department of Canadian Heritage...develop a new policy for the exhibition of priority programming on Canadian television” and “that the Government of Canada direct the CRTC to develop a policy that supports the promotion as well as viewing of Canadian feature films, long-form documentaries, and dramas”.

The report got it right, and in 2015, television is still where most Canadians watch movies. The burning question is, where are the Canadian movies in this home-viewing universe?

The Directors Guild of Canada has three specific suggestions in order to more fully leverage home-viewing trends. All three would result in delivering significant resources to Canadian feature film and documentary without requiring the addition of any new public moneys to the system.

The first suggestion is on Canadian feature films and documentaries as programs of national interest, PNI. To ensure that resources for programs of national interest are allocated in line with the government's policy intent, the CRTC should require broadcasters to set aside a minimum 1% of their Canadian revenue specifically to support the creation of original Canadian feature films and documentaries. These revenues should be sourced from within the broadcasters' existing Canadian programming expenditures requirements, but over and above the existing 5% PNI requirement. The result would be increased and sustained support from broadcasters, addressing the chronic meagre licences currently being offered.

We also recommend that, as Canada’s national public broadcaster, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation play a more significant role in the licensing and promotion of Canadian feature films and documentaries.

The second suggestion is on Canadian feature films and documentaries on video-on-demand and pay-per-view services. Building audiences begins with having access to the content. The CRTC requires pay-per-view and video-on-demand providers to license all new Canadian feature films that comply with relevant codes as “suitable” for each service. However, the commission has declined to provide clarity on how the word “suitable” should be defined. Greater clarity regarding the term “suitable” would result in increased access by Canadians to our cinema on pay-per-view and video-on-demand services.

The third suggestion is in regard to Canadian feature films and documentaries on over-the-top services. In recent years, Canadian broadcasters have had to compete with new over-the-top subscription video-on-demand, SVOD, services. There is no question that exempting over-the-top SVOD services from CRTC regulation has enabled these services to avoid the system-building requirements shared by other content providers, including any participation in the Canada Media Fund. As a result, over-the-top providers operate as free riders with regard to ensuring Canadian content and culture in the broadcasting sphere.

Enshrining this competitive advantage for a subset of providers makes little sense. As an initial step, the CRTC should again require reporting from over-the-top providers regarding: the level of Canadian programming, including the number of titles, hours, and share of total content; the level of expenditures on Canadian programming; Canadian programs for which rights were acquired in exclusivity; and Canadian subscriber levels.

The financing, production and distribution landscapes for feature film and documentary have been revolutionized by the advent of new viewing platforms and digital networks. Yet none of these developments alter the need for a critical mass of capital to generate first-rate content created by Canadians for Canada and the world.

As additional measures, the DGC believes we must strengthen existing tools such as tax credits, the Canada feature film fund, the National Film Board of Canada and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and reverse cuts made to these instruments and services.

In addition, it is important to follow the migration of audiences toward the small screen, and to more effectively secure the involvement of home services for the financing and dissemination of Canadian feature films, including the traditional television networks and new Internet services.

Mr. Chair, committee members, I would like to thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you today, and would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

Thank you very much.

We will now move to René Savoie.

You have the floor for up to eight minutes.

[René Savoie, Administrator, Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Hi, everybody. I'm going to speak in French, but I understand English pretty well.

I represent the Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada, which has 24 members who are producers. These producers all work in French in areas where it is a minority language, from Newfoundland and Labrador to British Columbia, and are mainly developing the television production and digital media industries.

A few members have produced feature films, and a number of them dream of being able to develop projects like this in the future. The example that the growth of the television industry and the development of its talents and capacities in the regions through active participation in the Canada media fund lead me to believe this will happen. Our members currently develop and produce major drama series for major Canadian broadcasters.

To give you a better understanding of our current situation, I have prepared an overview of the status of French-language feature films in Canada in minority situations from the perspective of an Acadian producer working in his area. It's a portrait that I submitted on March 11, 2015. Since the document was written, I have participated on behalf of the APFC in a bilateral meeting with the FCCF, the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française, and with Telefilm Canada. The conclusions we came to following this meeting were very telling. That is why we have modified our presentation for your committee. It is essential for the APFC to have feature films that show the reality of francophones across Canada and that showcase the cultural wealth of our great country.

In the document submitted on March 11, we showed that, for francophones outside Quebec, the feature film industry hasn't changed much in the last 10 years. There was one feature film in 1998 in Acadia, another made for $1.2 million in Ontario in 2011, and three projects made on very small budgets for emerging talents in the last six years. It's a very poor record. Francophone feature films in minority situations is a rare thing.

Almost all French-language feature films in Canada are produced in Quebec. Francophones in minority situations make up 12.5% of the country's francophone population. The Official Languages Act stipulates that federal organizations must take positive action to be equitable toward francophones in minority situations.

The issue of funding a feature film project is often what prevents it from being made. Telefilm Canada, which recently had it's budget cut by 10%, provides up to 30% to 35% of funding to feature film projects. The rest of the funding comes from federal tax credits and provincial programs, as well as distributors or other broadcasters. Otherwise, producers must be clever to find sources of funding to cover the budget and produce the film.

Provincial funding is the main problem faced by francophones in minority situations who want to produce feature films. Quebec invests $25 million a year in cinema. Manitoba is the other Canadian province that provides enough assistance to cinema to make producing projects possible. However, there is no equivalent assistance for francophones in minority situations in the rest of Canada.

The various provincial organizations that help television production in particular do not have specific programs for feature films, and the current conditions do not indicate that the situation of producers in minority situations will improve in the coming years.

The APFC believes that it is essential to support the development and production of feature films in minority situations. Sections 41 and 42 of the Official Languages Act indicate that federal institutions have a duty to ensure that positive measures are taken to enhance the vitality of French linguistic minorities in respecting jurisdictions like the feature film industry. APFC has the following possible solutions.

We think the government should put in place a special assistance program for screenwriters in minority situations. A small amount would be enough to develop three or four projects professionally. It is also essential to create a special envelope to provide an additional incentive for production projects. An extra incentive in the financial structure to highlight the importance of producing feature films in official language minority communities is necessary to make up for the lack of provincial funding. This type of measure would strongly encourage producers to get involved in producing feature-length films. It would surely have a snowball effect with time, and the number of films made would proliferate.

For the last 10 years, the Canada media fund has set aside a special envelope entirely for producers in minority situations. It has led to the growth of the television industry for francophones outside Quebec. Initiatives like this enable our talent to stay where they live and develop projects in their respective regions.

Through the Canada media fund, we are now producing dramatic series, as well as variety shows, documentaries and programs for young people. These are the same people who often end up on set with seasoned television series performers. They hone their skills and eventually make feature-length films. It is also the same scriptwriters from the regions who have feature-length film projects in their back pocket.

Let's imagine for a moment that there were a way that would enable us to make feature films in French outside Quebec. It would be a marvellous way to see to the future of films conceived and made in the regions that would show the richness of Canadian heritage through the stories and cultural diversity of the people and the landscapes. It is very easy to believe that such a possibility exists and that the federal government's good will could make it possible for such incentives and programs to be created, be it at Telefilm Canada or the Official Languages Secretariat of the Department of Canadian Heritage.

The APFC believes that the programs that govern Canadian feature film financing must develop and provide equitable support to francophones involved in production in minority communities and contribute to the industry's development, as well as the promotion of Canadian culture. An acceptable assistance program would support one or two films a year, worth $500,000 for production and $200,000 for writing. We think that is quite modest to facilitate the production of a few feature-length films and the promotion of this industry for francophones in minority situations. A well designed program would not require much in the way of administration fees.

If the funding that the federal government provided to Telefilm Canada before the 10% cut was restored and was subject to an obligation of putting in place a program like this, it would be a very good policy initiative that would contribute to the promotion of the Canadian feature film industry.

The APFC is sure that the committee will take into consideration these recommendations and obligations under the Official Languages Act of Canada. It also believes that the committee will see to the adoption of conditions that will help ensure the development of the feature film industry. It will eventually allow our members to create, produce and distribute independent francophone feature-length films that will give a voice to francophone communities in minority situations.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen and Mr. Chair.

I would be pleased to answer any questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

Thank you, Mr. Savoie.

Now we will go to Vancouver via video conference. We will hear from Michelle Grady, who is the head of film at the Moving Picture Company.

You have the floor for up to eight minutes.

[Michelle Grady, Head of Film, Moving Picture Company]

Good afternoon. I'd like to thank the chair and the committee for inviting me to speak with you today.

My name is Michelle Grady, and I have been fortunate enough to be involved in the Canadian feature film industry for over 20 years. For the past seven years I have been head of film for MPC, the Moving Picture Company. MPC has been a global leader in visual effects for over 25 years. The company started in London, England, was purchased by Technicolor in 2004, and we opened up our first Canadian operation in 2007.

The subject of this committee study is a review of the Canadian feature film industry. One of the parameters of your review outlined in the invitation was to explore ways to promote the value of the industry, including the quality production services offered in Canada. The invitation also noted that you'd be interested in hearing about changes that have taken place since the last study on the feature film industry in 2006.

In terms of production services, there's been arguably no greater change in that time than in the introduction and growth of the feature film visual effects industry in Canada. Prior to that time there had been a small industry focused on Canadian television and feature films, but what has developed is an internationally recognized and award-winning hub for large-scale, blockbuster, Hollywood feature film visual effects. In fact, Vancouver has become a top two hub in the world for this work, and Montreal is on its heels.

If we agree that from a commercial perspective a large part of the Canadian film industry is the services it provides to the Hollywood movie business, then we now need to acknowledge the important place of feature film visual effects in that Canadian production services category.

What are visual effects? In simple terms, digital visual effects are the various processes by which imagery is created or manipulated outside the context of live-action shoot. Visual effects involve the integration of live-action footage and computer-generated imagery to create shots that look realistic but would be dangerous, costly, or simply impossible to capture on film.

As a quick example, suppose this dialogue we're having now is part of a sci-fi movie. Aliens invade the room that I'm in. Aliens disembark their ship, take me onto their ship, and leave. We would film me with a little bit of dialogue. As soon as the aliens come in, that entire scene is digital; it's created on the computer. I would be created in the computer, right from all the follicles in my hair, to my jacket, to the room. The rest of that scene is entirely digital, done within the computer.

Here are a few compelling statistics for you in terms of the importance of VFX. Every one of the 50 highest grossing films of all time heavily employed visual effects. More movie budget dollars are being allocated to visual effects, which now garner 30% to 35% of production spending for the top 50 movies, compared to about 25% four years ago. VFX is a high employment industry; it takes an army. A 2013 study tracking the growth of visual effects within top-grossing films noted that on 25 of the recent VFX-focused films, VFX jobs accounted for 45% of the jobs on the film.

As we can see, VFX is a growing sector, but taking this a little bit closer to home, of the top nine companies in the world servicing this niche market, eight have set up significant operations in Canada. I'll list them because you may not be aware of the names: MPC, ILM, Digital Domain, Sony Pictures Imageworks, Double Negative, Framestore, Method Studios, and Scanline.

When we opened up MPC Vancouver in 2007, we were 50 or so people; today we're 600. We opened up in Montreal in 2013 and we're 550 people there today. We can take that growth curve and to varying degrees map it onto the 15 or so companies that have either been homegrown or are Canadian locations of international brands. On a creative level, we're delivering some of the best work in the world. Since opening in Canada, MPC has been nominated for several Academy Awards, and we've won one.

Why is the growth of VFX important? Our film industry is transitioning, like many, to a largely digital workflow. In so doing, new types of jobs are being created; new companies are forming, and in general, new opportunities are developing. In that context we have established a globally recognized centre of excellence within Canada. The types of jobs being created are highly skilled, highly paid, and in high demand. The average salary in my company is 48% higher than the Canadian average salary. Our average age is 29 years old, and we have many opportunities for employees at all levels of the experience spectrum.

Given the growth of our industry, demand for talent by far outstrips the supply of talent. As a result, we are developing creative ways of growing the workforce, including taking on intensive and expensive training programs. In both MPC Vancouver and Montreal, for example, we've developed an academy where we hire three rounds of 25 new grads per year, and provide them three months of paid additional training and a 12-month employment contract. These brand new artists who have just graduated have the opportunity to work on the biggest, hardest, most successful movies coming out of Hollywood today, such projects as Batman v Superman, Terminator 4, The Fast and the Furious franchise, and the list goes on.

How can the government help promote the value of the industry? The provincial and federal governments have been essential partners to industry in the success story of Canadian feature film, and specifically in the development of the feature film VFX sector. To continue to support this success story, government can ensure we have supportive policies in the crucial areas of tax credit, immigration, and education.

The VFX work we're talking about is competed for fiercely on an international scale. The work does not have to come to Canada. It can go anywhere at the push of a button. This has led to many jurisdictions offering new and improved tax credits, but one of the towering strengths of any film tax credit system, in my opinion, is consistency and predictability. A federal film tax credit policy and practice that supports the themes of consistency and predictability is a great support.

The international competitive nature of this sector also has implications for our workforce. Talent moves around, and we need to have quick and seamless access to it if we are to compete. This does not mean the industry is not committed to the development of Canadian talent; it is. However, given the nature of the industry and its rapid growth in Canada, access to foreign talent is a competitive necessity. As a result, immigration of highly skilled talent to bring experience and mentorship to Canadians is absolutely critical. Immigration policy and practice that strengthens our ability to offer jobs and offer work permits quickly and consistently is a great advantage.

As we try to increase the numbers of Canadian youth who are ready to enter our growing industry, having schools that are generating graduates who are properly trained for the work of today is crucial. In addition, helping employers with the financial burden of internal training to upscale new graduates would encourage more employers to develop internal programs like the one we've developed at MPC.

In conclusion, what I'm attempting to demonstrate is that feature film VFX is arguably the biggest advancement the Canadian feature film service sector has made in recent years in terms of expanding the business model, and we've developed this at a time when VFX in feature films has been growing in importance in the film industry as a whole. With government as a partner, we've built a centre of excellence within Canada that is competing and winning on a global scale. We create highly desirable jobs for the present and into the future.

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak, and I'm open to questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

Thank you very much.

We will now go to questions, and we will start with Mr. Young, for seven minutes.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Thank you, everyone, for taking time today to inform this committee.

Mr. Southam, we had a brief discussion just before committee regarding feature film versus serial. I wanted to raise that again on the record here, because you're stating that of everything a filmmaker has to offer to the viewing public—visual artists, dramatic artists, and storytelling—feature film is the best vehicle. Does that relate to serialization, and how does that relate to the Canadian industry? We've heard from previous witnesses that serialization is dominating filmmaking now. How is that helping or hurting the Canadian industry?

[Tim Southam]

You're quite right, and those who have told the story of how series have become a dominant storytelling form in the screen industries are bearing out all our experiences. Many more people watch and enjoy series and feel that television series are as good an experience for the viewer as a feature film.

That's reflected also in how our members work. We work a great deal in television series, and by television series I mean serialized entertainment on all platforms, and many of our members work in feature film.

I would draw one key distinction, which I think is of interest to this committee in one way, and that is one of our most distinguished members is Clement Virgo, who is the writer, director, and producer of The Book of Negroes, which started as a feature film project and became a miniseries, as did Orphan Black by the way, a well-known Canadian series.

Clement draws the distinction between his work as a filmmaker on the one hand and on the other hand as a hard-hat director, as he calls it. By a hard-hat director he means the way he spends his time when he's offering his services as a gun-for-hire director on any number of projects around the continent.

He has directed The Wire, a famous HBO series. He is very active in Canadian episodic, but he does draw a distinction between that work and the work he does as a feature filmmaker primarily, but also as a feature filmmaker working in formats like the miniseries, for instance, The Book of Negroes, or for example, a series that he may have conceived himself, written, or put together with fellow writers.

In the end it goes to authorship. What feature film has tended to do in our low-budget environment, an environment in Canada where we don't have a lot of money, is it has allowed individuals like me to be both the writers and directors of a single work and therefore the authors of that work.

A series tends to take me and put me in just a little part of it. I'll direct one or two episodes, and I'm certainly not the writer of that series. It's using my skills and my craft, but it may not really be drawing on me as the total progenitor of that project.

I think what's great and worth sustaining in the focus on feature film is that this 90- to 120-minute thing is likely to be a very authored thing in Canada and in some sense have its own voice and be its only story, a story that can go to festivals and go into cinemas and onto television around the world, with a kind of specificity that may be more representative of the story I want to tell than the larger format series.

In a sense, it's simply an instrumental difference between the two functions. That is what I meant when I said that feature film employs me more totally as an artist than series most often, but it's not exclusively the case.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

How does that work for the other people who work in the industry, the writers, the actors, the people who work on the set, and others? Are we benefiting from serialization in Canada as much as others?

[Tim Southam]

Oh, yes. Series is a dominant form. It's an exciting form. It's a place where many of us are having a great deal of fun as artists and craftspeople. Certainly the writers are no exception, but imagine other members of our organization, production designers, editors, sound editors, assistant directors, production managers. You can well imagine the incredible level of skill that's being developed by all that personnel working in both series and feature films and with the quality of series now, we're finding that work, the amount of skill that's acquired in series, translates very well to making better features.

There's a huge synergy there.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Before or while you're directing a movie do you have a relationship with government agencies, for instance, the NFB or Telefilm? How often might you interact with them professionally and what kind of support do they offer directors, if any?

[Tim Southam]

As a director in development, that is to say someone who is creative—and feature film is a very good example of this, where I am at the origin of a project in collaboration with a producer and/or a writer—my interaction with those government agencies that you've listed is very frequent.

It's extremely important interaction. It happens at two levels. One is, of course, in elaborating a budget and a shooting plan and securing financing for the project, but also at the more advanced stage of development, it's a creative relationship. It's one where the conversation extends to content on script and becomes incredibly important to how this film is going to happen, where it's going to be shot, and who's going to be in it.

It's a critically important conversation, one where I dare say if it didn't exist, none of us would be here.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

That sounds pretty important. Thank you.

Michelle Grady, you talked about tax credits being consistent and you talked about immigration. Would you take a minute and be more specific about those two areas and what government can do to help the industry grow?

[Michelle Grady]

Sure.

In terms of tax credit as a first line, in the service sector the most difficult thing for our clients is uncertainty, if they feel that tax credits in the jurisdiction are not solid or are wavering. They're planning their budgets so far ahead that seeing this jurisdiction as consistent and easy to use is a huge draw. It doesn't take their eyes off of us, as a start.

With regard to the tax credit itself, visual effects for feature film and television does not exist anywhere in the world in any form without a reasonable tax credit incentive. It's the competitive environment that we work in.

When it comes to immigration, we're growing quickly in Canada. As I said, it's been over the last four years that we've become one of the top two hubs in the world for this.

Generally the work is growing, but we're attracting that work from other sectors. There's talent out there who have been working at this high level for years. We don't have the volume of artists in Canada yet, and we don't have enough artists who have worked at this peak performance level. We use immigration to bring in the numbers, but also in terms of bringing in experience.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

Okay, thank you very much.

Mr. Nantel, you have the floor for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for being here today. This is our last meeting on the film industry. So your testimonies will be freshest in our memory.

My question is for the representatives of the Directors Guild of Canada.

You mentioned an aspect I'm less familiar with, the idea of allocating a percentage of receipts to Canadian programming of national interest. Has the situation deteriorated? Did this 1% ratio already exist?

[Dave Forget, Director of Policy, National Office, Directors Guild of Canada]

The ratio as such does not exist, but it's the total of a number of formats, including dramatic series, feature-length films and feature-length documentaries. We have noticed one thing since this approach was implemented. Ultimately, these are important programs, and it is worthwhile to target a portion of the total expenses of broadcasters and to ensure that there is a licence.

In fact, when looking at the data, we realize that there is a lack of money allocated to feature films and feature-length documentaries. If it's worth including them in the category of national interest programming, it is also worth spending the money to make sure they are produced. We don't think the resources available for all dramatic series should be decreased, but it would be a good idea to impose at least a percentage to ensure that there is funding for feature films.

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

Of course.

Do these Canadian interest programming criteria apply to all broadcasters or just CBC/Radio-Canada?

[Dave Forget]

No, they apply to all broadcasters.

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

I imagine that CBC and Radio-Canada are usually good allies for you. However, CBC/Radio-Canada's current economic situation must not be helping you.

[Dave Forget]

The environment is difficult for everyone.

The CRTC's implementation of this policy — and not necessarily in detail — was among the committee's recommendations in 2006. The desire was to have an approach to ensure that there was support for promoting and financing feature films. It's relevant for the CRTC to have a policy on this. However, there is a lack of support for feature films. We suggest adding obligations. It doesn't increase the obligations as a whole; it just ensures that a portion of the money is set aside for feature films.

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

Since you have spoken at length about series, I'll ask you one last question.

What do you think about the CRTC's pilot project on what would qualify as Canadian content? My understanding is that if these criteria were applied, The X-Files series would be Canadian content. Is that right?

[Dave Forget]

That's right.

We are trying to understand the motivation for that decision. We understand that it is a pilot project. Of course, we are in a world with international competition. Obviously, our opinion is that the quality of our products will achieve success.

However, few major dramatic series with a budget of at least $2 million per episode are produced every year. We think that there are four to six a year. The impression is that for projects of a certain level of excellence, we don't have directors. There may be a screenwriter and a performer, but many members of our association won't be considered.

We question the logic behind this. Do people think there is a lack of quality, talent or skills in our communities? Quite the contrary. These directors we're talking about work on major international projects and are entirely capable of taking part in these kinds of project. We question this logic. Why do we need such a major shift?

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

It's a pilot project, fortunately.