[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, December 5, 1995
.1108 
[English]
The Chair: Colleagues, I'd like to bring this meeting to order.
Before we welcome our guests from Telefilm, I want to raise a matter with you, because it involves a special meeting we should have next week. As you know, the CBC is going through particular cuts, as is the case with most government agencies of one kind or another. That naturally was announced a couple of weeks ago, and we have rather a troublesome schedule in that the Juneau report is not now expected until the middle of January. Parliament will be in recess until February 6, and then Mr. Martin's budget is expected to come down in the later part of February. So what we face as a committee is the question of how we deal with this matter of the CBC in any way and have any possible contribution to the debate over the finances of the corporation and how that applies to Mr. Martin's budget considerations. How do we deal with that matter, in view of the schedule?
I will put it this way. We could have a meeting about the CBC in the second week of February and it wouldn't mean anything, because I would think 98% of the budget, or a very big part of the budget, would already be finished with. So should we have a meaningful discussion about the cuts facing the CBC?
One of the reasons why I raise it is that the CBC has already announced it's going to cut $227 million from its budget. But there is also the possibility Mr. Martin may want to take even more, another $123 million, to raise it to $350 million. So the question is whether we as a committee have any contribution to make to that debate.
What I'm getting to is that I think we should have a meeting next week. I haven't had a chance to talk to all of you. I've looked at the schedule we have. It's already full. The only opportunity we might have is to have what you might call a special meeting, or at least a meeting outside the current schedule. The current schedule calls for meetings next Tuesday at 11 a.m., next Thursday at 11 a.m. So I'm proposing we have a meeting next Tuesday at 9 a.m.
.1110
What it means is having two meetings back to back, but I can't see how we can get around it.
So we're going to have a meeting next Tuesday morning at 9 a.m. We will invite someone from the CBC, someone representing the production staff there, the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, and we'll hear about what they believe to be the impact of these cuts on the CBC and where we should go from there. We'll set aside maybe about an hour or so. Then we'll have to consider whether we as a committee should issue any kind of a statement, and we'll leave it at that.
Mr. Abbott.
Mr. Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Chairman, I don't want to enter into debate with you, but it seems to me that without having the mandate.... Bearing in mind that the mandate was supposed to be delivered on September 30, or 15, or whatever the date was, and again in November, I really seriously question how we can evaluate the issue of the budget cuts if we don't understand what the mandate of the corporation is going to be.
The Chair: First of all, you're presuming, I suppose, that the mandate of the corporation is going to change. I'm not aware of any suggestion of that kind, or whether Mr. Juneau is going to change the mandate of the corporation. I think we just have to proceed along the course that the CBC faces these cuts; there are certain views held as a result of those cuts. I guess a change in the mandate is a possibility, but I don't think that really should be part of our discussion. We don't know whether Mr. Juneau is going to recommend that or not.
Ms Guarnieri (Mississauga East): Mr. Chair, if I might make a suggestion, since we do have guests waiting to make a presentation, perhaps we can hear their presentation and then, perhaps at a steering committee, further discuss the matter you raise.
The Chair: That's fine. But I'm just using my prerogative as chair. I'd like to bring these matters to your attention, but I can't call a steering committee or a full committee meeting when matters of this kind come up. I just believe that as chair I have a responsibility to call a meeting next week, and unless someone wants to move a motion otherwise to kill that decision, I think we should go ahead.
Yes, Mr. Ianno?
Mr. Ianno (Trinity - Spadina): I was just going to say if you needed a motion to go ahead for a 9 a.m. Tuesday meeting....
The Chair: I hope we don't have to be that formal. I would hope we could do it at the call of the chair. Is that all right with you, Ms Guarnieri?
So we'll just go ahead and have the meeting at 9 a.m. next Tuesday morning. I'm sure that this is going to throw my staff into a tizzy.
Yes, Mrs. Gaffney.
Mrs. Gaffney (Nepean): I have an eye appointment at 9 a.m., so I would be late coming. I can't give up an eye appointment. I've been waiting for months.
The Chair: I know it's tough. Anyway, thank you very much.
My apologies to our guests. We have with us today, colleagues, Robert Dinan, who is the president of the board of directors of Telefilm Canada, and François Macerola, who is director.
I believe Mr. Dinan is going to open. He has maybe about a 10-minute statement, and again, as with other witnesses we've heard in the last couple of weeks, Mr. Dinan will talk about some of the activities of the organization in the past year or so, and some of the problems perhaps that they faced. If he has a contribution with respect to national unity, so much the better.
Go ahead, Mr. Dinan.
Mr. Robert Dinan (Chairman, Telefilm Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, distinguished members. Thank you for your warm welcome.
[Translation]
For the past 30 years, Telefilm Canada has been working at the very heart of a realm that is closely linked to the spirit of the Canadian people, the realm of film and television. By stimulating a feeling of identity, belonging and pride among Canadians, this sector makes an undeniable contribution towards Canadian unity.
Our spirit, our collective imagination, defines what we are as individuals and as a people. It reminds us of our roots and our history, and helps us forge our future. It unites us in the contemplation of high quality works, that recount our stories, open us up to the world and help us build our dreams.
This collective imagination also helps us build a contemporary mythology, create our heroes on the small and large screens, and transcend frontiers.
.1115
Here are a few examples: Le Déclin de l'empire américain, I've Heard the Mermaids Singing, Anne of Green Gables, Les Filles de Caleb, Blanche, Million Dollar Babies and countless other works have sparked deep emotion in Canadians everywhere.
Every day, this imagination is enriched by new experiences and new arrivals, people whose past and culture ensure our perpetual growth and help us redefine the social and cultural fabric of our country.
Telefilm Canada is an integral part of the assertion of Canada's culture. Telefilm was created by the federal government in 1967 to stimulate development of the film industry. Subsequently, it was gradually allocated new budgets and programs that enabled it to support production of television programs and related sectors within the audiovisual realm, including distribution, dubbing, and the national and international marketing of works produced here.
Telefilms investments have played a vital role as a lever for the Canadian private sector. They have led to the creation of over 900 feature films and more than 1200 television programs and series which have considerably enriched Canada's cultural heritage.
Since its creation, Telefilm has served as one of the most important catalysts of Canadian talent in the audiovisual realm. It has enabled thousands of artists and cultural workers - directors, scriptwriters, directors of photography, musicians, editors, technicians and actors - to develop and refine their talent in their own country and to communicate with their fellow citizens. And many among them have gained international recognition.
In a world where the globalization of markets threatens to result in cultural uniformity, it is more and more important that each country protect the distinctive character of its national production.
Let us look briefly at the state of Canadian film. Before the creation of Telefilm, few feature films were produced in this country outside the National Film Board of Canada, through a lack of an infrastructure and adequate financial resources.
Since then, we have made great leaps forward. Telefilm itself finances an average of 25 feature films each year, of all types: comedy, drama, historical films, movies for children, police thrillers, psychological works, and moral and social narratives.
In English Canada, in spite of direct competition from American films, audiences for Canadian films have doubled over the past five years thanks to a new generation of filmmakers from Toronto such as Patricia Rozema, Bruce MacDonald, Atom Egoyan and David Wellington, who made I Love a Man in Uniform. For instance, Exotica, by Atom Egoyan, made over a million dollars at the box office.
In Quebec this past fall, four films made in Montreal were being screened in movie theatres, four films quite different one from the other: Liste noire by Jean-Marc Vallée has already made its million at the box office; Le Confessionnal by Robert Lepage almost certainly passed the $400,000 point last week-end; L'Enfant d'eau by Robert Ménard has made over $350,000; Le Sphinx by Louis Saïa has generated over $250,000 in box office receipts. Other films will certainly follow.
There were five Canadian films invited to the 1995 International Film Festival in Cannes, and three of them were their directors' first feature films: Le Confessional by Robert Lepage, Rude by Clement Virgo, and Soul Survivor by Stephen Williams. Clement Virgo and Stephen Williams are two Toronto filmmakers with Jamaican roots. Their films reflect our country's multiculturalism as it is now.
[English]
The theatrical market unfortunately remains a tough one for Canadian productions, owing to competition from the United States, which still captures over 90% of screen time. But our films nevertheless do well, if we take into account the huge market represented by video and Canadian and foreign television.
Let us consider what's happening in television. During the early 1980s Canadian drama programs accounted for only a tiny proportion of air time. As a consequence, Canadians were watching largely American programs.
In creating the broadcast fund in 1983 the government made the following wager: if we augment the number of Canadian programs available and ensure that they are of high quality and broadcast at peak viewing hours, the public will be increasingly keen to watch programs made here.
We can say that the wager has been largely won, due in large part to Telefilm. The latest trends show that on the English-language side nearly 40% of viewing time is devoted to Canadian programs. A recent example is the miniseries Million Dollar Babies, which was watched by nearly 5 million Canadian viewers, as well as reaching a large audience in the United States. This increase is undoubtedly linked to the huge success of programs like Anne of Green Gables, Road to Avonlea and E.N.G.. These programs, broadcast for numerous seasons, have developed faithful viewer following and have given Canadian audiences a taste for home-grown products.
.1120
In Quebec, viewing time of programs made here now stands at 80%. Audiences definitely favour Quebec programs - witness the success of such series as Lance et compte, Chambre en ville, Les Filles de Caleb, and Blanche. The series La Petite Vie is another phenomenon. It was seen by more than 4 million viewers - roughly 57% of Quebeckers.
I would also like to mention the success of our children's programs. Our young children are the adult audiences of tomorrow. It is comforting to know that they have already developed a marked taste for productions made here.
Telefilm has fostered development in the industry in all of the country's regions. The opening of the offices in Halifax and Vancouver has certainly done much to stimulate regional production. Telefilm's regional investments have increased enormously over the past 10 years. They currently account for 30% of our allocations, compared to 10% a year ago. Vancouver has become, after Montreal and Toronto, one of the country's three major production centres. A number of our cinema and television's greatest names come from the west, including Anne Wheeler and the late Philip Borsos. Last year young Vancouver director Mina Shum received great acclaim for her film Double Happiness. The west has also had some terrific successes on television, with programs like Danger Bay, Destiny Ridge, Neon Rider and North of 60.
The Atlantic provinces are not lagging behind. This past year the variety series This Hour has 22 Minutes, which casts an amused eye over Canadian current events, has tripled its viewing audience across the country. The children's series Theodore Tugboat, which continues to enchant young children, has been sold to over 50 countries.
In cinema, Telefilm recently financed the first Acadian feature ever, Le Secret de Jérôme, a highly successful film based on a true story that took place in New Brunswick during the 19th century.
Telefilm ensures the equitable sharing of production and development funds between the country's anglophone and francophone communities. Generally speaking, we allocate 61% of our funding to projects in English and 39% to projects in French. Telefilm also devotes about $6 million annually to the dubbing and subtitling of regional productions in the country's other official language. This measure has a double advantage of offering Canadians access to all of the country's products and of facilitating penetration in the foreign markets.
Telefilm responds to the specific needs of the anglophone and francophone sectors of the industry. It has created special programs for regional production, to support documentaries, to encourage co-production in French and to assist emerging creators in the field of cinema and facilitate distribution of feature films in the English sector.
[Translation]
I would now like to talk a bit about the influence of our works abroad.
What art travels better than cinema? During the last year, Telefilm's Festivals Bureau entered 560 works in 121 festivals and special events across the world, which won some thirty awards.
Our cinema has also been successful in distribution abroad. One of the most remarkable achievements has undoubtedly been that of producer Rock Demers' Tales for All series, which has been sold to over 120 countries, including China, an international success on a grand scale.
Atom Egoyan's film Exotica has been sold to 56 countries and was screened in recent months in 250 US movie theatres. Many other Canadian films have been sold to over 30 countries.
In the realm of television, many productions have already been sold to over 50 countries. This year there has been unprecedented success. Several programs produced here have obtained over 35 per cent of the market share in France, including The Boys of St. Vincent by John Smith. In the US, Million Dollar Babies reached over 13 million households, and the two episodes obtained an average of 24 per cent of the market share.
We've also witnessed the American triumph of the children series, The adventures of Dudley the Dragon, which was broadcast over 200 American channels on PBS, and the series Pacha et les Chats, broadcast under the title Kitty Cats, is fast becoming equally popular.
The American network CBS is also interested in our productions. It has bought the second season of Due South, which will start broadcasting as of this week.
.1125
So it is encouraging. In focusing on Canadian stories, our directors and scriptwriters have created works with universal appeal.
Virtually non existent when the Canadian broadcast program development fund was created less than 15 years ago, the Canadian television industry now ranks among the world's high achievers. Canada is now even the second largest exporter of audiovisual products in the world.
Seven Canadian companies are now listed on the stock-market: Alliance, Cinar, Nelvana, Malofilm, Coscient, Atlantis and Paragon. In five years, their combined annual revenues have more than doubled and now stand at close to 400 million dollars. Telefilm has contributed in a major way to their development.
In spite of these remarkable successes, Telefilm support will continue to be a decisive factor in the industry, especially in the case of productions with high Canadian content. In a market as limited as the Canadian one, and in an increasingly difficult financial context, public investment continues to be a vital lever to other investors.
To continue to develop, it is imperative that the industry increase its volume of activity, especially in film. Continuity and visibility are vital requirements of success in a highly competitive market. To this end, the sector must increase the number and diversity of its coproductions with other countries, and increase also its export volume by exploring new markets, including those of Asia and Latin America.
In addition, the industry must immediately take up the challenge of the new technology and establish itself as a world leader in the production of high quality content. Telefilm has developed a program to this end. It will be implemented in a few months.
Telefilm Canada is an essential organization for Canadian unity. It has a national mandate, offices in every region of the country and is recognized as a leader in the international promotion of Canadian products.
In closing, I would like to reiterate that the Canadian film and television industry is a dynamic and efficient partner to the government in the affirmation of our culture and our national identity. It is the vital tool for cultural development across the country. It must therefore be wholeheartedly relied upon and encouraged, so that our creators can develop all the facets of their talent and show us the true reflection of what we are.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much. We appreciate that.
Mr. Macerola, you're not going to speak right now, are you? So you'll be in a position to take questions.
I understand that Mr. Abbott would like to start the round of questioning.
Mr. Abbott: Before we start into the report you've provided to us, I wonder if we could deal with a niggling issue that was in the paper today over the expenditures at the Cannes festival. What's that all about, and can you give us the background to that?
Mr. François Macerola (Director, Telefilm Canada): It was in the newspaper today?
Mr. Abbott: Yes.
Mr. Macerola: Again?
Mr. Abbott: Again.
Mr. Macerola: I think that Telefilm Canada has played a very important role in Cannes. On the other hand, for the last five years I guess we've spent something like $500,000. But we have more than a role of promoting the Canadian film industry in Cannes. We are directly involved in the marketing of a certain number of films, which are selected on a regular basis.
On the other hand, when I arrived at Telefilm Canada in the last fiscal year we made the decision that we were going to reduce our involvement in Cannes. What you read this morning must be related to the past at Telefilm Canada. It was a history of the kind of money we were spending and the champagne that some people were drinking and all that stuff.
Having been at Cannes for the last 25 years, I must tell you that there are some exaggerations in what you've read. I'm quite sure of that.
Nevertheless, we want to reduce our financial participation in Cannes, and I will go to my board sometime next week with an action plan, with expenses limited to something like $150,000 or $200,000. By that, I mean that we're going to reduce the number of our people who go there and the amount of money we spend in direct or indirect marketing and that maybe we will change locations. Instead of being on La Croisette, we're going to rent an apartment on the other side of the street, which will be less expensive. Nevertheless, we will be able, with that kind of expense, to provide the private sector people with a really high-quality level of services and we're going to save a lot of money.
.1130
Mr. Abbott: Thank you.
I'd like to deal with the comments at the top of page 3 and at the bottom of page 8:
- In a world where the globalization of markets threatens to result in cultural uniformity, it is
more and more important that each country protect the distinctive character of its national
production.
Obviously I concur with what we have there. But in what way, other than getting Canadian actors working, is there any Canadiana in Due South? It's an entertaining program, but it's virtually indistinguishable from any American programming, with the exception of having a Mountie running around in a red coat.
In other words, I'm a little confused. I'm sincerely confused. When we're talking on one side of the coin of defending our culture with 30 millions of Canadian taxpayers' dollars, or whatever it is, and we must support this, I'm sincerely confused between.... I can understand Anne of Green Gables. That's easy to understand. But I am confused with the ongoing....
I think you suggested that there would be ongoing funding from Telefilm for people like Alliance and so on and so forth. We're basically producing something which is very...it looks like milk. I don't know. It's not Canadian. I'm trying to relate the opening statement on page 3 to something like the ongoing funding and the great success that we've had with Due South. I can't make those two things mesh.
Mr. Macerola: At Telefilm Canada we're planning to transform the morphology of our portfolio a little. For example, the same company, Alliance, has been involved in Black Robe, which is strictly and profoundly Canadian, and I personally believe that's the price you eventually have to pay to have a fair success in the international marketplace. You must be Canadian, and that's the price you'll eventually have to pay.
But a project like Black Robe does have a high level of cultural density. Due South is a bit different and the cultural density is less apparent. Nevertheless, that series is produced by Canadians, written by Canadians and made by Canadians, and at Telefilm Canada we're always trying to balance our portfolio. So over a five-year period, you'll have some Due Souths, some Black Robes, some La Petite Vies and some Eldorados.
It goes without saying that when Telefilm Canada puts money into Due South, we're expecting a more important return or recoupment rate. Another decision we've made at Telefilm Canada is to balance according to the cultural density of the productions and according to the recoupment positioning of Telefilm Canada within one particular project.
When you say Due South, you know according to what I've read that they have some high ratings at CTV, and on the other hand, at the Geminis they've been chosen by the members of the television community as the best television series. They've won something like six or seven or eight.... Mind you, the cultural density is a bit different.
Mr. Abbott: Understand that I am not being critical of the show.
Mr. Macerola: No, no.
Mr. Abbott: I am trying to relate that show to your mandate.
I suggest that if you take a look at Richard Dreyfuss in Stakeout, as an example, which was supposedly set in Seattle but in fact was filmed in Vancouver, there's this whole grey area that I just don't understand.
I really don't understand it. Either we're going to be doing something that is Canadian and that's what our millions of dollars are going to be buying or we are trying to make work for actors and technicians in Canada. Is that it? Are we going to be doing the same thing with our actors and technicians in Canada, for example, as we've done with our Canadian football players in the CFL?
.1135
This whole area is so obtuse, so ``out there'', that I need more definition from you. To use a classic example, would Alliance have been incapable - and understand that I'm not picking on them -
Mr. Macerola: No, that's okay.
Mr. Abbott: - of producing the show without the direct dollar investment of the Canadian taxpayer?
Mr. Macerola: My answer is yes, it would have been capable. To produce only the demo, it had to spend a lot of money. I made that decision concerning Due South, and for me it was very important to be able to challenge the American networks with something that is, to me, Canadian.
As I told the chairman of Alliance, Robert Lantos, it goes without saying that maybe we won't be involved in Due South for two, three, four, or five years. In Quebec we have the same problems. We are financing really high-density cultural programming. Nevertheless, these films are emitted in Quebec; they're almost not seen outside of Quebec. When we have to take that kind of decision, it's always a question of balance, as I've said in many presentations that I've made to the Juno people.
It goes without saying that we want to invest in Alliance because we guarantee the Canadian component of that company. Otherwise, it would be easier for them to make more money and more profit by going completely, totally American in their production. I think we at Telefilm Canada are the cultural conscience of Alliance. What we inject into Alliance does guarantee to the Canadian public a minimum of Canadian content coming out of that particular company.
The Chair: Time is up for this round.
Mr. Ianno.
Mr. Ianno: I have a couple of questions. In terms of the investment that Telefilm has with Alliance and many of the other organizations, whenever there is a production, what percentage is generally Telefilm's?
Mr. Macerola: The average would be around 35%.
Mr. Ianno: And when money is made from that production, do you get a 35% return?
Mr. Macerola: Yes, we get returns. Absolutely.
Mr. Ianno: So you get 35%?
Mr. Macerola: Yes, we get returns according to our investment and according to our position of recoupment. But yes, the final goal is to -
Mr. Ianno: Did you say three-thirds or did I misunderstand? Or did you say 35%?
Mr. Macerola: I said 35%.
Mr. Ianno: Sorry, I just wanted to make sure.
Mr. Macerola: Yes, that's the average.
Mr. Ianno: So when Due South is making money, we're getting a return from that?
Mr. Macerola: Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Ianno: I'm curious because I know there is sometimes a bit of difficulty with the movie industry, similar to the incident in which the writer of Forrest Gump received zero after it generated $500 million in revenues. So when you say 35%, it's 35% of what?
Mr. Macerola: It depends. Because we do invest in production and distribution, we're getting money directly from the exploitation of this film at the box office, for example. On the other hand, we're getting part of the action of the producer's share, which comes at the end of the recoupment process. We've received money down there for only two or three films in the history of Telefilm Canada, because in order to have a net producer's share, you have to gross at the box office five times the cost of your production. So what we're mainly getting is a piece of the action from the marketing and the distribution.
Mr. Ianno: With all of that, what does that mean in terms of dollars? How much did you put in for Due South?
Mr. Macerola: In terms of dollars, I would say it means a rate of recoupment of something like 20% to 25%.
Mr. Ianno: Sorry, I don't just want to deal with percentages; I want to deal with real numbers. Whether it's for ten episodes of Due South or for the whole gamut of their numbers, when they spend $10 million and you put in $3.5 million, what do you get in the end when they start getting returns?
Mr. Macerola: With Due South last week, we would have received a cheque for our total investment, because we put something like $3-point-something million into it.
Mr. Ianno: And what did Alliance put into it?
.1140
Mr. Macerola: With CTV, I would say $5 million to $6 million.
Mr. Ianno: In other words, this was the investment when you do the revenues, and then where do the expenses go? Is there another trick done on the expenses so in effect the net is very little, you get 35% of it, and they in effect get a big chunk of the expense? Or is it that out of the $10 million expenditure, in effect you are getting the proportionate amount also in the expense side?
Mr. Macerola: The sales agent or the distributor keeps 35% of the box office or the sales, depending on the quality of the film. It can vary from 20% to 35%. After this, the distributor has to pay for the theatre screens. Normally on $1 it's split 50-50 with the exhibitor. You deduct from this amount of money the marketing expenses.
Mr. Ianno: But let's deal with Due South because we can understand it.
Mr. Macerola: In Due South the only difference is you are not paying for the exhibition of the film. So you're reducing from $1 the sales agent commission, and after this you're reducing the amount according to the expenses, which are really low in television sales.
Mr. Ianno: So the 35% is on the expense side for putting a movie into the theatre. What happens on TV when CTV puts it on?
Mr. Macerola: The 35% is shared among the investors. Let's say that we make a sale on television of $1 million. The producer, the distributor or the sales agent will keep 25% of the $1 million, leaving $750,000. From this you deduct the expenses. Let's say, for example, the expenses are $50,000 or $100,000. The remaining $650,000 is divided among the investors according to their position and their rate of recoupment.
Mr. Ianno: Okay. Regarding works such as Anne of Green Gables and Les Filles de Caleb and others, you said 60% of it is dubbed for the other language. How does CBC fit into all of this? Do they get any of the use of the work?
Mr. Macerola: No. The use of the work remains with the private sector producer and distributor, not even with television -
Mr. Ianno: Do you believe Telefilm, since they are putting money in, should have some rights on that side of it?
Mr. Macerola: We have some rights. We have some equity into the production, but the rights are exercised by the distribution people.
Mr. Ianno: So CTV, even though they're an investor, will pay fair market value for Due South.
Mr. Macerola: Yes, absolutely, depending on the status a broadcaster wants to have with any production. The broadcaster can very well be an investor, and at this time they are getting part of the equity or they are only buying, according to some licence fees, a certain number of plays for a particular program.
For example, Radio-Canada or CBC, when they buy Anne of Green Gables or Les Filles de Caleb, are paying something like, for example, $125,000 for one episode. For this what they're getting is the right to broadcast this series three times during a seven-year period. And they're making some money, because I'm quite sure they're selling for more than $150,000 worth of commercials.
As I told some people from Radio-Canada who would like to have a piece of the action, you have only to increase your involvement. Instead of only using your money to buy a certain number of plays in order to exercise a certain number of rights, you have to put in $100,000, $200,000 or $300,000. In this way you could get a piece of the action equity-wise and your property designed to your positioning recoupment and a piece of action you are going to get from the producer's share.
.1145
Mr. Ianno: If I were a private sector individual and I had Telefilm's money and I went into negotiations with CTV and Alliance for something like Due South, would I be getting more of a return than Telefilm is? Would I negotiate better?
Mr. Macerola: I don't think so, frankly speaking. I really don't think so, because we know the business. We've been in that business for 25 years now. We know our players.
We take risks sometimes. We have developed some programs that are strictly commercially oriented. If you want $1, then you must assure a recoupment of 75¢, and so forth.
Mr. Ianno: If we took Telefilm and put it into the CBC, what would happen?
Mr. Macerola: You will destroy the private sector television industry in this country.
Mr. Ianno: In other words, the tax credits and all the rest that goes along with it, considering that it's a vibrant business, wouldn't be able to survive, even though that remains?
Mr. Macerola: No, because with one Telefilm dollar you generate at least two times the volume of production. This means that when Telefilm Canada puts up $100 million, we generate $300 million.
That's very important, and what I'm afraid of is that eventually that money will disappear, vanish somewhere in the CBC.
Mr. Ianno: What was the total amount of the film industry in Canada last year?
Mr. Macerola: The total for films? Canadian or foreign? Everything? The box office was $500 million, revenues.
Mr. Ianno: No, the total expenditures in the film industry.
Mr. Macerola: The public investment?
Mr. Ianno: No, overall investment. Would it be $5 billion?
Mr. Macerola: No, not that much. I would say $2 billion.
Mr. Ianno: So if the $100 million disappeared from that industry, would it still be $1.9 billion, or would it somehow go to $1 billion?
Mr. Macerola: The only problem is that you're not going to produce Canadian films. Out of that $1-point-something billion, you have $1.2 billion of American-produced films, in Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal.
Mr. Ianno: So it's only $800 million.
Mr. Macerola: When I refer to Canadian production - and we must remove from that some other co-productions and so on - it's $500 million.
Mr. Ianno: If you did co-production, then it would be $800 million?
Mr. Macerola: Yes.
The Chair: Mr. Macerola, I want to ask you about the television production Octobre, by Pierre Falardeau. You say in your annual report that it was, among others, a feature film that was well received by the Canadian public. I thought it came under a considerable amount of fire. How do you substantiate that remark that it was well received?
I say that because a number of critics said that it reflected separatist sympathies -
Mr. Macerola: Oh yes.
The Chair: - and some people weren't very happy, especially having Canadian tax dollars giving it financial support.
Mr. Macerola: Yes, but I would say that the film grossed something like $350,000, and for a Quebec film it's a fair success.
Mr. Ianno: It doesn't matter what the consequence is as long as the $350,000 is made.
The Chair: Is that how you -
Mr. Macerola: That's not what I'm saying. I'm referring to the box office being $350,000, but when you divide by $7, you realize that you've reached something like 50,000 people with that film. It has been sold to -
Mr. Ianno: I don't think that's what the chairman's question was.
Mr. Macerola: Well, my answer is that when we reach 50,000 with a theatrical film, in Quebec or in Canada, it's a fair success. That's why we say that the film has been well acclaimed by the Canadian public. It has been sold to television, and a significant number of videos have been sold to the Canadian public too.
I'm not saying that it's a masterpiece. We're only saying that for the type of -
The Chair: I just want to get an understanding of what you define as success. If you define the success as making a lot of money at the box office, that's fine and dandy, but I think some people would suggest that, even though it made money, it was distributed and shown at the expense of, say, Canadian unity, or of this country, and produced in support of separatists. We around here, at least on the government side, and Reform, don't want any truck or trade with separatists, and we don't feel good if we see tax dollars going towards productions that perhaps reflect separatist sympathies.
.1150
Mr. Dinan: Mr. Chairman, I was president of the corporation at the time when the decision was made to finance the film in question. Being an anglo-Quebecker, born and raised in Quebec City, and being a very staunch and proud Canadian, and having very proud Canadians on the board...the questions were raised.
I share your concern. All members of the board share that concern.
It's always a hard tightrope to walk. We prefer to err, to make our mistakes, on the side of openness and tolerance.
I'm very Canadian. I worked on the referendum and I worked for the no side. I'm very preoccupied with the question of Canadian unity. Still, the role of the corporation as we interpret our mandate is not to let the guillotine fall or to censor. It's basically with that principle of tolerance in mind that we do not decide what the culture is or what the agenda is. If the technical people and the people who approve the projects in-house figure this has the technical merit and it meets the quotas and they green-light it, the board does not second-guess.
The Chair: I didn't see the film. I can't criticize something I haven't seen. I'm only asking you for your position, given the fact that there was criticism of the film. If you feel comfortable with what you did and with what support you had, we as a committee should hear that. That's all I'm saying. I think you've explained your position.
[Translation]
Mr. Macerola: I would just like to add that we shouldn't take shortcuts and say that the film was a success because it generated so much money at the box office.
I am trying to tell you that when you compare this film with any other Quebec film produced thanks to Telefilm Canada's investment, you notice that first of all it was a film which was an honest success, second, that it was a film which got great reviews, and third, that it was a film invited to many foreign festivals.
I was not with Telefilm Canada, but I don't want to say that I had nothing to do with the decision. I don't know what criteria were used to say yes or no. The only thing I can tell you is that projects are not initiated by Telefilm Canada, to begin with. Projects are started up by private sector companies. When Telefilm Canada looks at a project, there are as many cultural elements as commercial elements that influence the decision one way or another.
As I was saying earlier to Mr. Abbott, it is always a matter of balance and of the role of an organization such as Telefilm Canada in Quebec. Should we say that there are periods of history that we don't want to show, or that there are periods of history that we will continue to show and that we will help to finance, making sure, however, that it will be done by serious and major professional companies?
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Macerola, I was just waiting for the interpreter to finish. I have difficulty talking while the interpreter is using her mellifluous tones in my ears.
Mr. Dinan said the agency, Telefilm, shouldn't act as a censor; and I certainly agree. One of the reasons why I raised the question is that the Canada Council was here last week on the matter of what I call the ``dichotomy'' that runs through the way we teach Canadian history in this country. When that matter was raised, the Canada Council showed some reluctance to get into that area because of perhaps some perceived political sensitivities.
.1155
So on one hand, the Canada Council shows a reluctance and a sensitivity to touch an issue that might be red-hot, and yet in your case you went ahead - and I'm not condemning you for it - because you don't feel that you should be a censor, and gave financial support to that film.
The Chair: Mrs. Gaffney.
Mrs. Gaffney: Thank you very much.
In reading your report budgets for 1995-96, I notice on page 7 of the report that you received a $109 million appropriation from the Government of Canada, $23 million from revenues, and $13 million carried over from the previous fiscal year. Is it normal that you carry over something from the previous year every year?
Mr. Macerola: Yes.
Mrs. Gaffney: You have to do that. You have to budget for that.
Mr. Macerola: Yes, absolutely.
Mrs. Gaffney: Okay, looking at page 5, you also say that you intend to increase your revenues. I didn't get all the way through the report. I don't exactly know how you were going to increase those revenues from your $23.6 million a year. Could you give me a couple of examples?
Mr. Macerola: Well, now our rate of recoupment at Telefilm Canada is something between 21%, 22%, or 23%. Over a 5-year period, we would like to increase that rate of recoupment by another 20%. That means an increase in our revenues of close to $10 million to $15 million. The danger is how we are going to make these decisions.
I've had I don't know how many meetings with the committee, as you know. At a certain point they were afraid that Telefilm Canada might become a little bit too commercial, like Radio-Canada and CBC did seven or eight years ago.
My answer was always the same. It's trying to keep a balance between Due South, in which our rate of recoupment will be higher than 40%, and taking some cultural risk with a film like Rude, or a film like Eldorado, where we know very well in advance that our rate will be less than 10%. So it's always a question of trying to balance, always investing in Canadian production.
I'm not referring to so-called Canadian productions that get something like five or six points out of ten. We're always investing in productions that have at least a Canadian content equivalent to eight points according to the definition of Canadian content by the CRTC.
We're investing in Canadian productions, well-established Canadian productions. We're trying to invest not only in Montreal and Toronto but everywhere in the country, trying to develop the film industry in every single province of this country. It's always a question of balance.
Mrs. Gaffney: Okay.
Mr. Macerola: We have difficult decisions to make, because not only do we want to increase our revenues, but we want to reduce our infrastructure, and Cannes is the best example of difficult decisions we're going to make in order to reduce our administrative costs.
Mrs. Gaffney: You also go on to say that in accordance with a memorandum of understanding with the federal government, 61% of the projects you produce are in English and 39% of the projects are in French. Obviously more than 50% of the projects are in French as opposed to English, which is more than what the Canadian population is. I wonder if, of that $23 million in revenue that you receive, the same percentage split would apply.
Mr. Macerola: They do come from English Canada mainly, I would say on the ratio of 75% English Canada and 25% Quebec.
Mrs. Gaffney: For revenues.
Mr. Macerola: For revenues.
Mrs. Gaffney: So why is there that high a percentage of favouritism - it's probably not a good word to use - towards projects in French as opposed to English, if you are receiving the bulk of your revenue from the English population?
Mr. Macerola: But last year the overall investment was 61% English and 39% French.
Mrs. Gaffney: What was it again? I'm sorry.
Mr. Macerola: Let me double-check to be sure.
.1200
Mrs. Gaffney: That was the projects. I'm talking about the revenue now, the revenue received from those projects.
Mr. Macerola: Yes, but the revenues were, as I said before, 75% from English Canada, 25% from Quebec.
Mrs. Gaffney: I see. Thank you.
Mr. Serré (Timiskaming - French River): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I'm always upset when they refer to the rest of Canada as ``English Canada''. I'm from the rest of Canada and I'm not English. About 35% of the population of the rest of Canada is not English. So I would ask members and witnesses to refer to it as ``the rest of Canada'' and not ``English Canada''.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mrs. Gaffney: I don't know how you're going to feel about this question. The revenues you're earning are not very high. Could Telefilm Canada be privatized and would Canadians receive the same level of filming we're receiving today if it were privatized?
Mr. Macerola: You can always privatize an organization such as Telefilm Canada. But in five to ten years the Canadian content of your programming would decrease dramatically.
The only reason why Telefilm Canada is there is that we're a cultural organization. We're making decisions according to a certain number of cultural criteria. At the other end, we're trying to develop the film and television industry in this country.
It goes without saying that at a certain point the private sector would survive. The Alliances and Atlantises of this world will survive; but I guess many small companies would disappear. You know very well that when you privatize an organization, you do expect a return on your investment. That we do at Telefilm Canada; but more than that, we do expect a profit on your investment.
In the film milieu and in the television milieu, if we are going to privatize Telefilm Canada, only one type of feature film or one type of television programming will be produced in this country. It will be the heavily commercially oriented type of production. At that time nobody will be interested in injecting money into small projects. Nobody will be interested in injecting money into films produced in Quebec, or outside Quebec, such as Le Secret de Jérôme. That's the role we have to play: trying to balance everything in this country and trying to act as a catalyst for the cultural efforts of this government.
Mrs. Gaffney: In your budget you spend $125 million on Canadian events. Knowing we have a problem with Canadian unity at this point in our lives and we're very much interested in trying to promote Canadian unity, and also knowing you are spending more than 50% of your project money inside Quebec now, what would you see Telefilm Canada as doing to try to promote national unity more?
Mr. Macerola: One problem I have with Telefilm Canada, frankly speaking, is that when I took over on April 1, I discovered that Telefilm Canada was a Montreal-based organization. I want to change that. I want to decentralize Telefilm Canada. I want the people from the Atlantic provinces and the people from the western provinces and B.C. to be able to take the final decisions. So I want to decentralize.
On the other hand, I've realized there is no balance between French-speaking people and English-speaking people in Montreal. I want to transform that - very, very slowly, but I want to transform that so at a certain point at head office there will be a 50-50 split. Now it's 95-5. So we have a lot of work to do to transform the image of Telefilm Canada into being a truly national organization.
On the other hand, I personally believe we should inject more money into versioning and dubbing. That's very important.
We should try to be imaginative and maybe establish a premium where there is a co-production between one particular province and another one. The only problem is that in Alberta, for example, they're ready to co-produce with Quebec, and the only problem is that Quebec wants 75% of the expenses to be made on their national territory and Alberta wants the same.
.1205
At a certain point, it's very difficult to be able to establish co-production agreements among the provinces. The role of Telefilm Canada is to try to harmonize the roles, try to harmonize the private funds, try to be able, at a certain point, to work in close relationship with the provincial authorities like the Alberta Motion Picture Development Corporation, SODEQ, and so on and so forth, and at a certain point to try to privilege the exchanges of talent within the film and television media.
The Chair: Thank you.
Let's try to be more mindful of our time. We're going over on our rounds and it's not respectful to other members.
Do you have a point of information?
Mr. Ianno: Yes. I just want to know what he meant by national territory in Quebec.
Mr. Macerola: I don't want to give any kind of political meaning to that. Quebec, like Alberta and Ontario, does have a territory. You know very well that in Quebec -
Mr. Ianno: So you meant provincial boundaries. Okay.
Mr. Macerola: For me, provincial boundary has the same meaning as national territory.
The Chair: Mr. Abbott.
Mr. Abbott: Thank you.
I want to bounce off what Mrs. Gaffney was just speaking about. Going to your annual report, page 62, I see that in terms of assistance expenses, the totals are English production at $45.9 million and French production at $35.4 million.
Then, reflecting back on the comments of our chairman and the question that was asked, I find this very uncomfortable. What we're really talking about here, as I understand the dialogue so far today, is an organization that uses Canadian taxpayers' dollars disproportionately for French over English production and doesn't see any problem with putting together a separatist film. I have to tell you that I'm very uncomfortable with that. Can you help me get out of my discomfort?
Mr. Macerola: The only thing I can say is that in the overall television and feature film production last year we did inject 61% in English and 39% in French. To me, that is a good ratio.
Mr. Abbott: What are these numbers I was just reading? On page 61 it says English production was $45.9 million and French production was $35.4 million.
I probably wouldn't be as distressed about it if it weren't for the questions our chairman was asking. It seems to me that if we're going to be using Canadian taxpayers' dollars, it would be a nice idea if they were being used for unity rather than disunity. I have yet to have any feeling of comfort that you've answered that challenge.
Mr. Dinan: Your point is well taken, Mr. Abbott. However, to come back exactly to the film in point, it's not the objective of the corporation at any time to encourage a film or anything that goes against Canadian unity. However, Telefilm is not necessarily the arbiter for political opinion, although we do follow it closely to make sure there aren't inaccuracies or factual distortions.
Mr. Abbott: With the greatest respect, how can you say you don't encourage that when Telefilm turns around and gives money or invests? Isn't that encouragement? How can you say you don't encourage?
Mr. Dinan: We encourage a project. We will finance a project. That doesn't mean we encourage a particular thesis or a particular point of view.
The October crisis did happen. The film concerns a historical event. It has technical merits and it came green lighted as to the feasibility and as to the point system of Canadian content. The point system does not have political correctness points involved.
Mr. Abbott: Does it have anything to do with truth?
.1210
Mr. Dinan: Truth, yes. But still, even historical events can be romanticized and can be the subject of fiction, and it's still a product that stands on its own.
Mr. Abbott: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: Well, we could pursue this line for a long time, but I suspect that if you go to Quebec house in Paris, they don't use too many Quebec dollars to promote federalism in this country. In other words, they take a political line and they're going to promote Quebec nationalism, the destiny of Quebec and the separation of Quebec. They're very careful, and they watch over their money.
We on the federalist side seem to be very careless, and I don't understand it. I just don't understand it. I love this country, and I'll be damned if I'm going to support anybody spending one nickel of my money to contribute toward disunity in this country or the dismemberment of this country.
Let me say one more thing, Mr. Macerola. I'm not criticizing you, because I think most of us in the country have fallen into the bad habit of using what I might call a bifurcated language. You mentioned earlier in reference to the Falardeau film that it was a Quebec film. Well, do we have a New Brunswick film? Do we have a Newfoundland film?
Mr. Macerola: Yes.
The Chair: Oh, do we? Do we refer to it as a Newfoundland film?
Mr. Macerola: Sometimes, yes.
The Chair: I suspect we don't. I suspect it's an English-language film.
In the interests of this country, Mr. Macerola, I think we produce Canadian films. I don't care if they come from Huntsville outside of Toronto, from outside of Okotoks, Alberta, or from Rimouski, Quebec; they're Canadian films. I would suggest to you and to all others that we should clean up our language for the sake of the country. That's all I'm suggesting.
[Translation]
Mr. Macerola: Might I bring up the fact that Quebec is still a part of the country?
[English]
The Chair: I'm not trying to -
[Translation]
Mr. Macerola: When you refer...
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Macerola, this is not a matter of denigrating Quebec or francophones.
[Translation]
Mr. Macerola: I would like to finish, if I may. You say, amongst other things, that if you go to the Quebec delegation, those people will use the money to promote Quebec nationalism. To me, that is not what is important.
What is important is to have organizations like Telefilm Canada in the country, organizations which are well received, be it by people who speak French, by people who speak English or by the allophones of the country.
It is an organization which recognizes this reality and invests in projects. You say that Telefilm Canada hasn't done anything, concretely, for national unity. To the contrary, we have done a lot. Just think of the dubbing program, a program of $4 or $5 million a year, which puts anglophones in contact with the francophone reality and vice versa. To me, that's very important.
If I speak of Quebec's film production, it's because it is internationally recognized that in Canada, anglophone and francophone film productions are different, in the same way that Acadian francophone film production is also different.
All that I want, as director of a cultural agency, is to be able to speak in a profoundly Canadian voice, while at the same remaining very profoundly respectful of the different realities in our country.
[English]
The Chair: I just want to make it absolutely clear. Perhaps I didn't express myself clearly enough, Mr. Macerola. I didn't try to suggest for a moment that your agency does not contribute to Canadian unity. I know you do, and I know you're good Canadians. I don't question your work, your loyalty or anything like that. I don't question that.
I think that in a sense, Mr. Macerola, your agency is reflective of all Canadians. I don't think we Canadians do enough to protect ourselves. We have people within this country who want to break it up, and I just wish we would be more aggressive in protecting ourselves, because if we don't protect ourselves, we may lose the greatest country on earth.
I'm not trying to single you out for any kind of criticism, but I think it's part of this Canadian disease: it's them and us; it's French and English; it's Quebec and the rest of the country. Damn it, it's one country. Yes, it has regions and it has a million parts, and that's why this country is fascinating and so wonderful. But at some point I think we have to say it's Canadian.
.1215
Mr. Peric.
Mr. Peric (Cambridge): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Macerola, could you tell us how many films you have produced in French with this so-called separatist component?
Mr. Macerola: Are you referring to Octobre? I do remember that ten years ago, in 1980, Telefilm Canada was involved in a film called Référendum. There will be another film on the referendum in which Telefilm Canada has, by the way, injected some money, and there has been the Octobre film. That fit personally.
Mr. Peric: Since we have two official languages, it doesn't bother me if you spend 50% on either language of production, as long as it's Canadian.
Mr. Macerola: The ratio is a little bit high. At that 61%-39%, it's a bit high, according to the population of Quebec.
Mr. Peric: Maybe you should consider spending 50-50.
Mr. Macerola: But according to the memorandum of agreement I signed with the government, I must spend something like 60-40. So I can go higher than that, except, at a certain point, for feature films.
Last year I had a problem with Toronto. They were underspent by $6 million or so, so I took that money, and it has been transferred. About $1 million or $2 million has gone to the Atlantic provinces to produce Le Secret de Jérôme in French, and the other $2 million or $3 million has gone to Quebec to produce one or two Quebec films.
So at a certain point last year, the ratio was totally unbalanced, because we produced something like 60% in French and 40% in English, but my objective is always to keep the ratio at around 35%-65%. That, to me, would be the ideal ratio, but it's not easy, because we don't initiate projects at Telefilm Canada.
Mr. Peric: So you could produce films in French in, for instance, Yellowknife?
Mr. Macerola: If there were somebody interested, absolutely. Why not?
The Chair: Mr. Serré.
[Translation]
Mr. Serré: I don't have any questions, but I have a few comments to make on this morning's meeting. I'm astounded by the comments I've heard this morning from certain MPs on both sides. We are here to talk about the role of Telefilm Canada in promoting national unity. I see MPs object because we spend a bit more on French language projects than the percentage of the Canadian francophone population.
There are reasons for this. It is precisely in the context of promoting national unity that we must spend a little bit more. If we always limit ourselves to the percentage of the population of Quebec as compared to that of the rest of Canada, we will always spend 25% in Quebec. But the country will break apart, as you said yourself.
The French language market in Canada is restricted to an audience of approximately 8 million people, if you include the millions of francophones outside of Quebec. I'm not opposed to spending a bit more than that percentage. I even think that Telefilm, the CBC and all the country's cultural organizations should respect that. The market for the rest of Canada is maybe 21 or 22 million people.
I think it's a lot easier for a producer to sell his product when he knows he has a market that's three times as big. And anglophone productions sell better in the United States and throughout the world.
I hope that the MPs can see that reality in a context of promoting national unity. I would also like to add that when we speak of francophone productions - correct me if I am wrong - , we are probably also including the production Jérôme, in Acadia, etc... There are francophones outside of Quebec who are in a minority situation and we must help them.
.1220
I would like to thank my colleague for bringing that point up and for having said that he would not object if the proportion was 50-50. I think that we have a role as a government, as a cultural agency. You also have a role and I would encourage you to continue in this way, because I think it's very important.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Ianno.
Mr. Ianno: I have a couple of funding questions. In terms of film in Canada, do you have the number in terms of what the value of the tax credit that goes to the film industry is?
Mr. Macerola: The tax credit program hasn't been established yet by the government, but the objective is $75 million, I guess. Out of that, I'm quite sure that $55 million or $60 million will go to television and $10 million to $15 million to film.
Mr. Ianno: You're saying it's not established, so the tax deferrals that are in their limited partnerships don't contribute towards film.
Mr. Macerola: I'm referring to the tax credit program. I know that there are some negotiations going on between the Department of Canadian Heritage, the Department of Finance, and some private sector people representative of professional associations, but it will be in force in a month or two.
Mr. Ianno: How about the existing of the tax deferrals limit -
Mr. Macerola: The CCA?
Mr. Ianno: Yes.
Mr. Macerola: Now it works under a grandfather clause, but in the old days, good days, it was close to something like maybe $100 million a year.
Mr. Ianno: I see. Thank you very much.
The Chair: I think we're pretty well out of questions. I have one more question.
In your annual report you make mention of both the successes and the lack of success with respect to Canadian films. You're saying that Canadian films, some of which are supported by Telefilm, are doing quite well on the international market outside of Canada. However, when it comes to Canadian theatres, I think you even use the word ``poor'', that our Canadian films are doing poorly in Canadian theatres. This is not news. This is old hat. I'm not blaming you and I'm not blaming anybody in particular, but the fact of the matter is that our Canadian films are not doing well in theatres.
Do we just throw up our hands? Do we continue the policy that has been in place for some time and continue to live with these dismal results, with 3% of the films shown in Canadian theatres being Canadian?
Is it time for Telefilm and others to change policies, or are we just going to accept this damned fate of the poor showing of Canadian films in Canadian theatres?
Mr. Macerola: Personally, and I've made some recommendations to the government, I believe that the only way to succeed is to increase the critical mass of Canadian films available to both markets, the French and the English.
On the other hand, at a certain point we must remind the Americans that we are an independent country, that we're not a domestic market, and that it's a shame that the Americans are occupying more than 90% of the screen time in the theatres of this country.
The Chair: You may have difficulty convincing Mr. Valenti of that.
Mr. Macerola: Jack Valenti made a statement two weeks ago that he was ready to go along with the rules developed by the countries in which the American majors are doing business.
As I said to the Juneau people, I personally believe that there is a lot of money within the system and at a certain point we will have to be imaginative and find new ways to finance organizations like Telefilm Canada and maybe CBC and Radio-Canada.
The Chair: Yes, Mr. Dinan.
Mr. Dinan: I want to add that the corporation is also implementing measures to see that the films we finance find a Canadian audience. We are obliging people more and more to use test audiences, and we are letting them know that we want them to make sure their film is going to find an audience.
Therefore, we're slowly reducing the number of art house films we usually finance, which used to be slightly more than half, for instance, 10 out of 17. We're going to reduce that to encourage productions that have more popular appeal.
The Chair: I'm going to bring this meeting to a close, but I think Mr. Serré wants to offer a little postscript.
Mr. Serré: Have you helped produce or finance a production in French outside Quebec besides Le Secret de Jérôme, and have you helped produce productions in other languages besides French and English?
.1225
Mr. Macerola: Yes. I don't have the titles in mind, but yes, we did participate in the financing of feature films, drama, documentaries and television programs in French. In other languages, we've been involved in one film produced in Inuit, a film co-produced between the Dene community and some film producers from Alberta.
[Translation]
Mr. Chairman, may I add that if I was an MP - I'm not trying to lecture you - , I would be proud of an organization such as Telefilm Canada which, at some point in its 28 or 29 years of existence, has perhaps made some questionable decisions. As to Octobre, I recognize your right to ask this kind of question.
But we shouldn't forget that this organization funded hundreds of hours of very high quality productions for children, which means that children in Vancouver are aware of the life of children in Quebec, and vice versa. Telefilm Canada canadianized the airwaves, be it on Radio-Canada or the CBC, at the times when there are the greatest audiences. We are working more and more with private broadcasters.
If you go to video stores you still see very good quality Canadian films, and that is because of organizations such as these. It is not easy these days to have an organization such as Telefilm Canada, in Canada, with a head office in Montreal, in the circumstances everyone is aware of, but we draw strength from our decisions. We are brave enough to want to work with all our partners. For us, it is important to develop film productions and a collective imagination which will bring us together, not necessarily today, but in the future. With the country's creators, there must be a vision and we must make sure that future generations recognize themselves in our national collective imagination.
We don't have enough resources, we make difficult decisions, we try to be creative, but we won't abdicate in the name of any principle because we think that the country's cultural life is in part due to organizations such as the CBC, the National Film Board and Telefilm Canada. It's necessary. It's vital.
We will make mistakes. We will miss a few, but overall, when you analyze the results over a period of three or four years, you'll say: "Bravo, they've done their work".
[English]
The Chair: I want to thank you for those remarks on behalf of all of my colleagues. I think we do appreciate the complexities of the challenges facing the agency.
I'm sure you've detected a heightened concern for national unity around here. I think that we, as parliamentarians, have a responsibility to share that heightened concern with you and share with you our anxieties. It's a great country and we have to do absolutely everything possible in keeping it together.
Mr. Peric: It's the best country, not just a great country.
The Chair: It's the best.
Mr. Peric: Any country can be a great country, but Canada is the best.
The Chair: Thank you. And thank you for coming.
Remember, colleagues, we have that special meeting next Tuesday at 9 a.m. We do have a meeting this Thursday, but remember next Tuesday at 9 a.m.
This meeting is adjourned.