Canadian Heritage Committee on March 30th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We are resuming the meeting.

The next questioner is going to be Martin Champoux from the Bloc.

You have five minutes, Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank all the witnesses for their patience. We can't avoid the voting process. You have been very patient. Thank you.

I would like to speak to Ms. Cyr and Mr. Pelletier from the Association des réalisateurs et réalisatrices du Québec.

I'll get right to the point. You spoke about the current lack of teeth or effectiveness of the federal Status of the Artist Act. I think that we could make the legislation a little more flexible and responsive.

In your report for the Quebec government, you said that Quebec didn't control all the tools for developing the audiovisual sector. You also said that the federal government didn't manage to develop an international hub for French‑language productions.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this matter.

[Gabriel Pelletier]

I don't know whether my comments are related to the Status of the Artist Act. In terms of the act, our association represents a number of directors in Quebec who have trouble expressing their views and negotiating reasonable agreements, or at least agreements that pay them decent wages.

I'll give you an example. At the National Film Board of Canada, or NFB, we read a study conducted by the Service aux collectivités at the Université du Québec à Montréal. The study showed that the average annual salary of documentary filmmakers, for example, many of whom work for the NFB, is $19,000. Of course, when you compare this average annual income to the income of NFB producers, which ranges from $83,000 to $108,000, you can see why these artists find it difficult to earn a living and express their views in a federal agency.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Pelletier, I would like to address your presentation. You spoke about the particularly difficult negotiations with the NFB that lasted almost five years before an agreement was reached.

What obstacles did you face that resulted in this process taking five years?

[Gabriel Pelletier]

As you know, there's only one director per film set. You can't expect the directors to go on strike to obtain better conditions. They don't have any balance of power.

For us, arbitration is the solution. It took us 15 years to negotiate a collective agreement with independent producers, and five years with the NFB. I find it unacceptable that documentary filmmakers are paid an average of $19,000 a year and that they must wait five years to obtain better conditions.

Arbitration gives the arbitrator the power to impose decisions. This ensures that the parties don't incur delays that interfere with negotiations and that they don't negotiate in bad faith.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

You also pointed out that only the contentious issues should be arbitrated rather than the entire agreement.

Do you have any particular issues in mind? Do the same issues always stand in the way?

[Mylène Cyr]

If you want, I can answer this question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have one minute left, Mr. Champoux.

[Mylène Cyr]

Okay.

You referred to the part where we ask that arbitration be available for the renewal of a framework agreement. For the reasons given by Mr. Pelletier regarding the lack of a balance of power, we must have the leverage provided by arbitration in order to speed up the renewal of agreements, but under certain conditions. That way, we give ourselves a time frame to negotiate. If a party initiates arbitration, we wouldn't want to have to place previously negotiated conditions on the table before the arbitrator. We want the opportunity to use arbitration to really wrap up the negotiations.

The contentious issues certainly change depending on the negotiations. It's true that, what we see—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Ms. Cyr.

I'm sorry, Martin. That's the end of your five minutes.

I will now go to Peter Julian from the NDP for five minutes.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank our witnesses for their presentations. They spoke very eloquently. I also want to thank them for staying with us later than 5:30 p.m. We had to go vote.

I'll start by speaking to the witnesses from francophone minority communities, namely, Mr. Pelletier, Ms. Cyr and Ms. Morin, as well as Mr. Alonso.

In our study, we want to know how the Status of the Artist Act can help francophone minority communities. You spoke about compulsory arbitration and the fact that federal institutions must respond to the requests of artists, who negotiate in good faith.

What areas should we focus on to improve the situation of francophone artists in minority communities?

[Mylène Cyr]

The current federal legislation covers very few directors. Although both status of the artist acts date back over 30 years, only 50% of artists manage to have RRSPs and insurance coverage through collective agreements.

The producers' associations say that many of the artists who work in subsidized productions aren't unionized. This means that the artists don't have a social safety net.

As it stands, the burden of negotiating with each producer is enormous. Artists' associations don't necessarily have the resources to do so. Since the grants come from public funds, we believe that they should be contingent on the producers giving the artists some basic conditions. The existence of these conditions should stem from the grants and shouldn't depend on the artists' associations.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Ms. Cyr.

I have the same question for Ms. Morin and Mr. Alonso.

[Marie-Christine Morin]

Good evening. Thank you for asking this very important question.

As I said earlier, this legislation must have an obligation to deliver in relation to the socio‑economic conditions of the artists and artisans represented.

Overall, this legislation is quite declaratory. It's necessary to add this obligation to deliver in relation to the socio‑economic conditions of artists. As my colleague said, access to this social safety net is impossible for people who, even if they fall under the definition of professional artist, are completely excluded from the plans currently in place. They must contribute to specialized plans and pay the employer's contribution, which affects their already precarious economic situation, since their average salary is already lower than the—

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Ms. Morin, I must interrupt you because I also want to give the floor to Mr. Alonso.

[Alexandre Alonso]

Thank you for your question.

Producers must first and foremost call on our local artists. When a producer uses royalty‑free music libraries from abroad, they aren't involving our local artists. Above all, let's use our local artists and make it a legal requirement to do so.

Second, our association represents authors and composers in a given territory. Our accreditation means that we cover a territory where the majority of people speak French. However, some producers covered by this legislation are located in territories where English is the majority language. These producers have a strong tendency to hire artists who speak the same language.

If a minimum number of French‑speaking artists had to be hired by these producers in the predominantly English‑speaking provinces, this would be a step in the right direction. We're convinced that the Status of the Artist Act must form the basis for the Broadcasting Act. To obtain content that complies with CRTC regulations and quotas, we believe that French‑speaking talent must also be hired to ensure a strong Broadcasting Act.

Did I answer your question?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Yes. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Peter. I think you have run out of time. I have allowed some leeway here so Mr. Alonso could finish his sentence.

I want to thank the witnesses for coming and for their absolute patience. As I said earlier, votes are a necessary evil, and they do tend to take us completely off course. I want to thank you for staying the extra few minutes, and for answering the questions so very clearly.

Now I will give time for the witnesses to leave so we can move on to our business. We only have 10 minutes, and if all members of the committee are willing, that could become five if we move very quickly to deal with the business of the day.

Madam Clerk, can we begin? Have the witnesses all left?

[The Clerk]

Yes, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

This is not an in camera meeting, but we really wanted to have the time to do it.

Colleagues, this could be quick and dirty. I just want you to know that, on April 6, we should finish up our recommendations from the report on COVID. If we finish it on April 6, then we would be able to move on and get the report back to us in record time.

We also need to have consideration of when we're going to do the Rogers and Shaw report. I know that Ms. de Billy Brown would like to talk about that and give you a bit of headline on what she thinks and where she thinks we should go.

I also want to quickly say that I am hoping we can have a subcommittee meeting on Monday, April 11. I think the clerk will let us know what time we can use, because we don't have to stick to the ordinary time, and we can get that subcommittee report done.

Can we do that on April 11, Madam Clerk?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

I have a point of order.

There have been discussions among the parties. I did send Peter an email, but he was away.

I think there's some belief that there is plenty of time within.... We may have a bit of a light week ahead of us so we can fit any committee business within the next week, rather than going into the following week, and perhaps enjoy our constituency weeks—work very hard, meet with lots of constituents and do the work of the people.

We're well through the one report. The other report is fairly short. I don't see a lot of opposition. I think there will be time to find time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Bittle.

I just want to point out some of the processes involved here.

We are not asking for a full committee meeting on Monday, April 11. We're asking for a subcommittee meeting, which is only going to be the vice-chairs, the chair and Ms. Hepfner. We just want to get a clear sense of where we're going so that, when we come back, we can know where we're going, because we have a lot of things to move forward to organize our schedules. We still have two more witnesses for the Status of the Artist Act.

We have the ability to maybe hear from Ms. de Billy Brown about what she hopes we can look for so we can send her some sort of input before she gives us the Rogers-Shaw report.

Would you like to move forward, Gabrielle?

[The Clerk]

Dr. Fry, Mr. Champoux has his hand up in the room.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Sorry, Martin, I cannot see the room. You are all tiny people in that room right now in my view.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Chair, I want to address the proposal to hold a subcommittee meeting on Monday, April 11. We discussed it here earlier. The vice‑chairs are here. I think that we agreed that we would settle things, as Mr. Bittle was saying earlier, sometime next week.

I don't think that anyone is planning to hold a subcommittee meeting during the break weeks.