:
Hi. Thank you for receiving us.
[Translation]
The Regroupement des distributeurs indépendants de films du Québec has existed since 2008. It was established by independent distributors of Quebec films after the temporary closing of Cinéma Excentris—Cinéma Parallèle at the time—which created a crisis for Quebec distributors.
At that point, we realized that independent distributors had much in common and that they could hold discussions amongst themselves and with various levels of government, broadcasters and the industry in general.
We represent nine independent distributors in Quebec—in other words, the majority of Quebec distributors. We also release most of the Quebec films in the province.
Since our association was created, we have made headway on a number of issues. We have negotiated agreements with the Société de développement des entreprises culturelles—SODEC—in Quebec, and with Telefilm Canada at the federal level. We have met with representatives of the provincial government and other governments. We have proposed a number of agreements to those various governments.
We have also spent a lot of time discussing issues our industry is currently dealing with. Recently, the merger between Entertainment One and Alliance Films created the largest distributor in Canada—a huge company that controls most of the country's distribution activities. That is a major source of concern for us, especially since we do not consider it to be a Canadian company. It is based on Jersey Island and it is publicly traded in England. Entities outside Canada are controlling a significant portion of our industry.
The majority of films funded in Quebec are funded by that entity or its subsidiaries—Christal Films, Films Séville or eOne. They are all part of the same family.
Most of the public money is going to a company based in a tax shelter, and we all find that somewhat ironic. It has caused difficulties in terms of distribution work and the distribution economic model in Quebec for independent distributors, who are still behind many films.
I will give you a great example. Everyone is saying that eOne released Mommy, the Xavier Dolan film we are all very proud of. It has been seen around the world. However, let's not forget that Louis Dussault, my colleague from K-Films Amérique, distributed J'ai tué ma mère. Had he not distributed that film, Mommy would have never seen the light of day. That is a very important point.
Major changes are taking place in the industry when it comes to digital platforms, which have taken up a tremendous amount of space and changed the public consumption patterns. The public is no longer as bound to television. One of the main sources of revenue for distribution and film funding has historically been broadcasting—television licenses. The number of those licenses has decreased because of the important place taken up by platforms such as iTunes and Netflix. Those platforms are currently not managed by the CRTC, both when it comes to Canadian content and reinvestment in Canadian cinema. We think it is important to acknowledge those facts. In my opinion, the federal government has some work to do in that regard.
We prepared a brief that will be submitted to you later. We wrote in French, but it has to be translated into English before we give it to you, and that will be done soon. In the meantime, Louis will give you a summary.
I would just like to add to Andrew's opening statement. It is in fact fairly ironic to see that Entertainment One, which merged three Quebec and Ontario film companies, controls 90% of public money, in addition to being a tax shelter. That company evades taxes. It is controlled by stockholders on the London Stock Exchange.
We are currently outside the control of Netflix, which has no specifications, does not pay taxes, has no obligations, does not reinvest its profits and prevents legal companies—which do pay their taxes—such as Super Écran from buying films because Netflix requires exclusivity.
Two types of companies are currently controlling our industry. In practice, they are tax shelters. That's a figure of speech.
I'm sorry to have to assign you reading.
The brief first provides a snapshot of the current situation. The landscape of film distribution, screening and broadcasting in Quebec has changed considerably over the past few years. The consolidation of major distribution companies—which we just talked about—through various mergers or acquisitions, as well as major technological changes, have sharply accelerated this phenomenon, which leaves less and less room for independent films.
Independent films represent Canada around the world. Xavier Dolan did not start with Mommy. He started with J'ai tué ma mère, which was a resounding success at the Cannes Festival in 2009. Without J'ai tué ma mère, there would have been no Mommy. Independent cinema, which the members of the Regroupement des distributeurs indépendants de films du Québec represent, is the cinema that represents Quebec and Canada around the world, now and in the years to come.
I could talk about a film that was just selected for a major festival, but since we are not allowed to discuss it, I cannot mention it before the first week of June. You will hear about it. It's an independent film, a first feature, funded by SODEC and Telefilm Canada. That is what we represent—films that promote Quebec and Canada around the world.
We do have some solutions, which we previously proposed to the Government of Quebec. We are now addressing you, since you represent the federal government. When it comes to federal jurisdiction, we would like a tax system to be implemented to fund the film industry and provide ways to support the capitalization of independent distributors with a 1% tax on the revenues of various telecommunications operators, through whom a growing part of the film offering goes—Internet service providers, cable companies and mobile operators.
Most telecommunications operators actually provide the three services separately or together. A portion of that amount of money must be set aside for capitalization funds for independent distributors. That fund would directly benefit the entire Quebec and Canadian film industry: better funding of advances to producers, better funding of marketing activities for theatrical releases—
:
Hello everyone. My name is Virginia Thompson. I'm an independent producer. I'm well known for my television career and my first feature film, which I produced, distributed, and marketed. It was
Corner Gas: The Movie. It went really well.
I want to get to the questions you asked me to answer today. First of all, concerning the effectiveness of government funding, it worked really well for Corner Gas: The Movie. The project was financed by Telefilm, the Canada Media Fund, Bell Media, federal and provincial tax credits, Tourism Saskatchewan, the Bell Fund, and Kickstarter crowdfunding.
The results were over-the-top. We sold out 100 theatres across the country. The film reached seven million Canadians through television. It made 220 million impressions online. It trended on Twitter nationally, both on the opening night in theatres and again during its broadcast premiere on television. It even trended worldwide. Over 55,000 DVD Blu-ray units have been sold to date, and they're still selling.
The next question was about how the film industry has changed since 2005. In response, I would echo my colleagues that everything has changed. In 2009 when Corner Gas the TV series wrapped, 3.2 million Canadians watched our show finale. It was the highest audience ever for a scripted show in English Canada on television. In 2009, online viewing and Facebook were new, and Twitter didn't exist. In just over five years we've moved from a linear world to a digital world. Viewers versus distributors are now in control of what they watch and their behaviour is clear. They'll watch films in a cinema, on television, on computers, on tablets and on phones. They'll pay to see films, find a way to watch films for free and share films illegally online. The good news is that they want to engage with films and the people who make them.
Let's talk about the success story again. In April 2009, when we were a TV show, our highest audience—and it's a record in Canada—was 3.2 million Canadians. But in December 2014 when we released the film, we more than doubled our audience in this new digital space. So there's some good news to be had, and I think there are ways of being successful in the future. The takeaway for me, and what I learned, is that today's world is all about engagement. If filmmakers engage with Canadians at home, their films will have a global reach. The paradigm shift for feature films is that the first screen, cinema box office revenue, has too much weight in measuring success. Today, from my perspective, the cinema screen is promotional and the real revenue is in the screens that follow it.
But let's go back to the effectiveness of government funding. It's an interesting story. I'll try to be quick.
In 2013, Corner Gas: The Movie was impossible to finance in Canada. In 2014, after listening to the market, I suggested a new approach to finance, promote and release the film with Carolle Brabant at Telefilm. Telefilm had to break their rules and create a pilot program for our film to move forward. It was a risk for all parties but it worked.
So, what happened in 2013, the bad year? We prepared our pitch. We were in a new world. The producers had a big audience engagement plan. We were going to refresh cornergas.com and launch a Facebook page and Twitter feed. We were going to use Brent Butt's 80,000 Twitter followers to get the word out. We were going to launch a quick Kickstarter crowdfunding campaign and get the audience involved, and we had a lot of different online things you saw play out this year.
We had a brand, a great story, and a great marketing plan. But what went wrong for us, first of all, was a lack of development dollars. We were first-time feature filmmakers. I'm very established in television but I had never made a feature film, and in the current system there was no money for me. That system was dry for us when we applied because the system gives established producers envelopes of money—and I agree with that—but there's very little money for the first-timer, or even people like us. We didn't fit within the system that was in place.
There are very few distributors in English Canada. eOne has a lot of power and it really was the core distributor that could handle a brand like ours. We did meet with some others as well. There was a problem with the movie from their perspective. It wasn't a niche picture and it was difficult to market, even though we said we wanted to market the film with them and we were willing to raise funding to do that for them. This was out-of-the-box thinking from their perspective and they offered us a third of the cash that we actually required to make the film.
We had a huge gap, so we went to CTV and they also said no. Why? Because they were not prepared to wait 18 months for a film to come to their network. That's how the system works. I asked what would happen if we did an event-based release in cinema and it went directly to all screens afterwards? They said, “We'd really like that, but it's never happened before in Canada”.
Then we went to Cineplex and we said that the movie Veronica Mars had just come out. It was event-based and it did very well. So we asked if they would do the same thing with Corner Gas. They agreed.
But we still had a big problem. We didn't have an eligible Canadian distributor. We now had Cineplex, we had the screens, we had the broadcaster, but we kind of broke a cardinal rule. I asked Telefilm and they gave us the opportunity to self-distribute the film. The film was a great success, as we all know.
Here are my recommendations, very quickly, if I have some more time.
Telefilm and the CMF are crucial and need to be bolstered in the digital age. There needs to be adequate development dollars available for producers with established track records that aren't feature film producers. Content creators are making content for all screens now, we all need to kind of.... Anyway, I can get into that.
Producers who have been turned down or are unable to access adequate funding from Canadian distributors but can demonstrate bona fide market support and credible financing for their films should be able to access Telefilm funding. We did that and it worked. It would be a huge help for producers if Telefilm had a small department to follow the cradle to grave creative financing, marketing, and distribution.
The government should look at the federal tax credit grind on new forms of funding like Kickstarter. We get grounds, so it's hardly worth going there, but we did it for marketing purposes.
During production, Telefilm should allow producers to be compensated for the marketing that they do because they must market while filming or they lose the huge opportunity to tell their stories to the audience when they're releasing a film.
I believe that marketing funding for Canadian distributors should be shared—sorry guys—between the distributor and the producer in order to reach audiences. Audiences want to speak to the creators. I believe in distribution, but I think we need to work together.
Ladies and gentlemen members of the committee, on behalf of the Union des artistes, I want to thank you for inviting us to appear as you consider the Canadian feature film industry.
As the chair mentioned, I am the President of the Union des artistes, commonly known as UDA. UDA is a professional labour union representing artists working in French in Canada, and artists working in a language other than English or French in Quebec.
We represent 12,700 artists who work as actors, singers, hosts and dancers. Our members work in a number of disciplines, including feature film productions. For example, they are actors, stunt doubles, voice actors and dubbing directors.
UDA's role is to defend the social, economic and moral interests of its members, who are mostly self-employed workers. Negotiating minimum working conditions and artist compensation in our areas of responsibility is at the core of our activities. Our role is also to represent our members in political forums such as this one.
I want to begin by emphasizing the appropriateness of the study you have undertaken. The Canadian and Quebec film industry plays a key role in promoting our cultural identity, and it is now facing considerable challenges. As an actress working in the film industry, I could attest to that myself.
I know that a number of witnesses you have heard from so far have told you about the industry's challenges and put forward concrete solutions. That is why I would like to focus on a specific issue that has not been discussed up until now—the future of French-language dubbing of film and television works.
Dubbing plays a critical role in our film industry. It allows the public to view English Canadian and foreign films in a language close to them. Made-in-Canada dubbing provides Canadian francophones with a high-quality experience. In fact, the works dubbed here do a better job of taking into account the Canadian public's language and cultural sensitivities. Many other countries around the world also prefer dubbing as a language adaptation model.
In Quebec alone, about 800 professionals and artists are involved in dubbing. That includes actors and directors who are members of the Union des artistes, but also hundreds of artists and artisans such as technicians or adaptors—authors who translate from English to French.
The Association nationale des doubleurs professionnels, or ANDP, which represents the 14 biggest dubbing companies in Quebec, estimated the industry's revenues in 2012 at $23 million.
Today, I want to raise your awareness of the fact that the Quebec dubbing industry is currently experiencing a crisis. For a few months already, a slowdown has persisted in terms of activity, leading to a number of layoffs. UDA actually just renewed its collective agreement with ANDP and agreed to a decrease in artists' rates from 15% to 25%, depending on the type of production. This extraordinary measure shows how serious the current situation is.
We took a vote, and I will not hide the fact that the majority voted in favour of that reduction by a ratio of 5 to 1. Of course, it was unbelievable. Our union works on protecting our artists' quality of work, and we had to negotiate lower rates. That took a lot of courage from self-employed workers. They have all my admiration, sincerely, as those are families and self-employed workers who are already in a precarious situation. In their case, decreases of 15% to 25% are huge. I applaud them and admire their courage.
The Quebec government, which also knows that this crisis is threatening the industry's sustainability, reversed its 2014 decision to reduce the tax credit for dubbing by 20%. In fact, Quebec has reintroduced that tax credit in its March budget.
There are three main reasons behind the current crisis. First, the competition is increasing.
France is still our traditional competitor, but new players have joined the field such as Belgium, Spain, Italy and Morocco, which have entered the market with an extremely competitive offering.
Second, our dubbing sector finds itself in an uneven playing field. Several of the countries I just mentioned can provide more attractive rates and funding conditions for local and foreign producers. France also still has regulations that require feature films released in theatres to be dubbed in France. The difference in market size, market structure and funding conditions provided mean that, all too often, a film is dubbed overseas based on the idea that Canadian broadcasters will buy it anyway.
Third, the emergence of new virtual distribution models—which were discussed earlier—is also contributing to the current crisis. Theatrical releases still have the highest proportion of works dubbed in Canada. The industry tells us that about 80% of theatrical releases were dubbed here. They are usually foreign, mainly American, productions.
However, we are increasingly losing our grip on film productions not shown in theatres, such as DVDs, as well as television productions such as television series and virtual broadcasts. Here, I am thinking of Netflix, the Internet, as well as Illico, in Quebec. The shift in the public's viewing patterns toward virtual content—products that are not dubbed here—contributes to the current crisis.
The Union des artistes has long been thinking about and discussing these issues with its members and with various Quebec government agencies through forums and consultations. We think that now is the time to take action.
In concrete terms, here are our three main recommendations for the federal government.
First, we suggest that the Canada Media Fund—CMF—program for dubbing and subtitling be enhanced, to take into account the market's evolution and to better achieve its objective of increasing accessibility to the current programming. By improving, I mean simplifying and expanding access to the program, and its enhancement.
Second, we suggest that the government change its rules for awarding grants to Canadian producers of feature films and television content, so as to require Canadian producers to have their productions dubbed in Canada when they receive public funding. For example, we estimate that the dubbing of 25% of Canadian series fully funded in Canada is currently out of our reach. It is absurd that productions made in Canada, which are funded by our own government and which we want to make accessible to all Canadians, are giving business to our competitors.
Third, we suggest that rules related to Canadian content be revised, so that francophone television broadcasters prioritize Canadian dubbing when available and so that they have to increase the percentage of local dubbings across their programming schedule.
We are actually somewhat worried about the potential effects of the the CRTC's new broadcasting regulatory policy announced on March 12—
:
I will summarize as best I can.
We have put forward proposals to improve the situation of independent film distributors in Quebec, who account for the majority of all distributors. They provide production funds for independent films, which constitute the majority of films produced in Quebec, even though they do not receive most of the funding.
We suggest that capitalization envelopes be introduced to help distributors participate in project development. That should have been one of the conditions for allowing the merger of Christal Films, Séville and Alliance. That merger has created a huge monopoly that is currently channelling 90% of the funding for production and distribution. No conditions were imposed on the merger. Normally, the development of capitalization assistance envelopes for companies left behind should be allowed, as those make up the majority of companies developing independent films in Quebec.
We also want financial assistance for developing a content aggregator. Details on what a content aggregator is are in the document. We also want VOD and SVOD platforms to be regulated so as to ensure they are investing in Canadian productions, which is not currently the case, and even less so when it comes to Netflix.
We also want a subsidized network of cinemas dedicated to art and experimental films to be created to provide the Quebec public in all regions of the province access to its national films. I could add that this idea is even more applicable to English Canada, since there are no independent theatres beyond the chains, such as Cineplex.
Those are all the comments we have prepared. You will find more details on them in our brief.
Thank you, Mr. Weston, for letting the witnesses finish up. That's very appropriate. I hope that we will have an opportunity to come back to your question. As for me, I have some burning questions, specifically about the Quebec film industry, which is so prolific and of which I believe all Canadians are very proud.
Ms. Prégent and Mr. Charron, I feel that two major issues arose from your testimony, including translation. As you pointed out earlier, that is a major aspect. You also talked about the visibility of content produced in Quebec and alluded to the changes made by the CRTC.
We have here an example of a union of workers, actors and performers that decided to take a wage cut of 15% to 20%—which, in this case, is as exceptional as it is pragmatic—to be able to face the international competition.
Do you feel that governments understand the magnitude of your effort?
The infrastructure is often very heavy, very difficult to move. It's dangerous when that becomes frequent. The members of the committee often wonder whether there is a way to be more proactive, more lively in the face of technological changes. When we were elected in 2011, no one had an iPad, but everyone has one today.
Do you feel that governments are reacting fairly quickly to technological changes?
For example, advertisements seem different to me. I am noticing more and more of a slide in television ads, for instance. I'm hearing people I do not recognize, who speak with a funny accent, and I am wondering whether Quebeckers did the translation into French.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for the opportunity to share with you today our company's experience with the Canadian feature film industry. If this industry can be simplistically separated into production, distribution, and exhibition, it is the production space that we occupy, and I would like to speak to that today.
Our company, Cinespace Film Studios, has been running for 28 years. It's a family owned and operated film and TV studio business based in Toronto with three studio campuses, but now also has a large studio campus in Chicago.
ln the late 1980s, my senior family members, Nick, Larry, and Steve Mirkopoulos, were among the founders of the Studio District in east end Toronto. As such, we were all thrilled to be part of both Ontario's blossoming film and TV production industry, as well as hosting our share of high-quality domestic film and TV production. While the 67¢ dollar at that time ensured a steady stream of American service production into our facilities, early projects such as the CBC series Road to Avonlea and David Cronenberg's M. Butterfly demonstrated that we, as Canadians, were excellent at telling our own stories, and compelling enough to interest foreign markets in purchasing them.
ln more recent years, we have seen projects such as the bar-raising TV series Flashpoint and David Cronenberg's continued film patronage with Cosmopolis and Maps to the Stars. Speaking of those films, and as an example of our domestic legacy, later you'll be hearing from Canadian actress Sarah Gadon, who is with us today and who has been inside our facilities on 10 occasions in her young career, eight of these projects being Canadian.
I would be remiss if I did not report that the vast variety of Canadian film and TV projects that we have hosted over the years were directly a result of federal tax credit programs and initiatives such as Telefilm and the Canada Media Fund, which I congratulate you on, and I thank you for supporting this amazing industry.
We at Cinespace have always been able to host a mix of both American service clients and domestic clients over the years in our studios. Indeed, I believe that the high level of quality and service demanded by our American clients pushed both local technicians and local service providers alike to raise their game, and when these same crews had the opportunity to work on Canadian films, they had the refined skills to make these films better as time went on. And we at Cinespace always found ways to accommodate Canadian film projects, both in terms of availability and pricing. We established subsidized pricing models that saved on upfront costs for Canadian film producers, allowing them to put more quality on the screen and become more globally competitive from the get-go, thereby increasing their export potential and financial strength. This subsidized pricing model culminated in significant levels of repeat business from these Canadian film producers.
However, our industry has experienced seismic shifts in recent years. While 80% of our business used to be feature film and 20% episodic or TV series, today 90% of our business is episodic and only 10% is feature film. The same holds true in our Chicago facilities, where we host four prestigious prime-time TV series such as NBC's Chicago Fire and Fox's Empire, but no feature film projects at all. There has been a significant shift in the volume of content creation from film to episodic, due in no small part to the rise of Netflix and other digital platforms, and due to the major Hollywood studios cutting back their slates to adjust to a more unpredictable box office.
This is a perilous development from the perspective of trying to continue to accommodate film projects, because the more TV series we host, and the more successful they are in terms of renewals and multiple seasons, the longer they leave their sets standing in our studios, and the less opportunity we have to rent our studios to feature film clients, both Canadian and American. Realistically, however, this scenario is even worse for Canadian film producers, since their more modest budgets and typically last-minute financing arrangements make it prohibitive to book studio space well in advance.
Even leaving lower Canadian budgets aside, given our history of subsidizing Canadian projects, the recent shortage of studio space from the episodic wave has barred us from even getting to the studio pricing discussion. There are no longer studio space vacancy gaps, because we are now at 90% occupancy compared to a historic rate of approximately 65%, where we could accommodate Canadian projects in studio vacancy gaps and not incur large opportunity costs by turning American projects away.
So now we are faced with the problem of not having enough studio space to accommodate Canadian films, and many Canadian films not having the resources or the certainty to book studio space in advance. And even if they were to book in advance, it is no longer economically viable for Cinespace to continue to subsidize Canadian films without some firm equity participation or recoupment mechanism already included in the financing structure. lt is within that context that I would like to make a few humble recommendations with regard to Telefilm, based on our experiences and those of our producer clients.
To further develop our domestic film industry, there are two groups of film producers that Telefilm is trying to help—emerging film producers and established film producers. We at Cinespace are in the unfortunate position of finding it difficult to help any of them at this time with our subsidized studio pricing model, because we do not have the space available, and because we cannot structure an in-kind studio rental well in advance that provides at least the potential for a financial return with a piece of equity in the project.
We need the whole ecosystem improved in such a way as to generate more opportunities for us to help Canadian films, and more successful Canadian films, in order to encourage more help from other key service providers and investors.
My first recommendation is to have Telefilm engage directly with the key service providers that have silently subsidized these film projects, and have them consider entry into a formal public-private partnership. ln this way, windows of studio time, equipment, capacity, and so on can be reserved in advance for Canadian film projects in the pipeline in exchange for a piece of equity in the film project. Then Cinespace and other key service providers can economically justify the subsidized reservation of capacity in the face of heavy American business volumes that pay full rate.
Evidence given to this committee by producer Jennifer Jonas on March 23 suggested a public-private working group to sort out the federal-provincial tax credit grind. I would suggest that such a working group tackle the additional agenda item of identifying willing participants in a partnership to solidify infrastructure and capacity for Canadian feature film. Cinespace would certainly be the first to participate in such a partnership in order to continue our proud legacy of helping to produce Canadian film.
My second recommendation is specific to the group of emerging film producers that Telefilm is aiming to assist. These are the young cultural leaders of Canada who have inspiring ideas and visions, but limited resources. We at Cinespace have helped many of them over the years. While some of their projects were successful and others were not, the common thread is that they were so badly underfunded that their chances of a successful onscreen product were always grim. The general sense within my emerging producer clientele is that, much like Hollywood studios have reduced their slates in favour of commercial slam dunks, Telefilm should consider supporting fewer overall Canadian film projects, but do a more careful analysis of the commercial viability of these projects ahead of selection, and then increase the funding amounts to produce and market each of these projects. The film business has always been global, but now with the explosion of digital platforms there is so much product out there that Canadian films absolutely have to stand apart. Scale and quality are the keys to making this happen.
My third and final recommendation is specific to the group of established film producers that Telefilm is aiming to assist. These are the senior cultural leaders of Canada who have succeeded in projecting Canadian artistry and culture globally and whose standing attracts investor financing that Telefilm either serves to trigger or complete through the envelope system. These are the film producers that we absolutely need to succeed because they are a good bet to recoup money and provide a return to the Canadian taxpayer. However, recent changes to the Telefilm envelope system require these producers to spend 100% of their envelopes on a single film project, and this envelope amount must represent only 30% of the total budget. ln the case of a number of Canadian film producers, this requirement now pushes the budgets of their films to well over $10 million, which for a non-Hollywood studio project is considered a “dead zone.” This term refers to the fact that to repay their investors, these producers will require a substantial theatrical release component, meaning the shouldering of $2 million to $3 million in release costs in Canada and $40 million in the United States. This required increase spent on promotion, which could amount to more than the value of the actual film, creates a Catch-22 situation that can defeat the very purpose of the envelope system.
The general sense within my established clientele is that Telefilm should give them back the discretion on envelope spending limits. These guys are seasoned producers, with decades of experience in this industry, so they know exactly how to succeed in producing Canadian films. They just need to be given the flexibility to go ahead and do so, free from the bureaucracy but with the full support of the primary agency that's mandated to help them produce film.
ln closing, I want to thank you again for the opportunity to speak today. Most importantly, I want to thank our government once again for its stalwart support of the Canadian film and television production industry. The systems we have in place are commendable, but as detailed in my remarks there is considerable room for improvement.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, for allowing us to appear before you today for this review of the Canadian feature film industry.
My name is Stephen Waddell. I am the national executive director of ACTRA, the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists. Joining me, from Montreal, is ACTRA member Sarah Gadon. In addition to being recognized as one of the stars in TIFF's inaugural rising stars programme in 2011, Sarah has also graced the screen in a number of films and television series, including Cosmopolis, Antiviral, A Dangerous Method, Maps to the Stars, and the upcoming TV series11/22/63, which will be filmed this summer in Toronto.
Sarah and I are here today as the voice of ACTRA members, 22,000 professional English-language performers from across Canada. For almost 70 years we have represented performers living and working in every part of the country, performers who are pivotal to bringing Canadian stories to life in film, television, sound recordings, radio and digital media. Recently, we appeared before the CRTC as part of the Commission's Let's Talk TV consultation. Like all stakeholders from across Canada's recorded media sector, ACTRA spoke to the challenges our industry faces and the need to concentrate resources on areas where they'll have the most impact. Though the individual issues might differ from those of today's hearings, the underlying force that drives both of these endeavours is change.
Sarah.
:
As professional performers we know this danger all too well. We've seen and felt firsthand the dramatic changes our sector has undergone. We know that standing still only means falling further behind.
Amidst the reality of shifting audience habits, revolutionary technological upheaval, and an ever-shifting global marketplace, Canadian content is not only critical to our national identity, but it aIso plays an increasingly important role in our nation's financial well-being.
Content creation is the essence of our digital economy. According to The Conference Board of Canada, Canadian cultural industries contribute more than $85 billion, or 7.4%, to our GDP, and more than 1.1 million jobs to our economy. Additionally, in a report released by the Canadian Media Production Association earlier this year, total production volumes related to Canadian content films alone, in 2013 and 2014, totalled $376 million and supported 8,100 full-time equivalent jobs. Foreign film production in Canada during that same time period accounted for $857 million and just over 18,000 full-time equivalent jobs.
lt's clear that culture is not a frill. It is a major industry based on renewable resources. Given the right tools, Canada's content creators and cultural industries will continue to play a leading role in economic innovation and growth, job creation, and the development of new digital technologies.
Stephen.
:
Our presentation today will focus on three key points: first, the need for sustained, long-term investment in public funding instruments; second, the need to keep Canadian feature films Canadian; and third, the difficulties faced by Canadians in actually seeing Canadian films.
Public funding is crucial to helping our cultural industries attract private investment. The government must continue its investment in Canada's cultural assets by committing to long-term funding for the industry's economic drivers.
As a crown corporation dedicated to promoting the advancement of the audiovisual industry in Canada, Telefilm Canada supports the development, production, distribution, and marketing of Canadian feature films. Telefilm aIso administers Canada's co-production treaties and the Canada Media Fund's funding programs, and, additionally, Telefilm helps develop and promote feature films through its Canada Feature Film Fund. The spirit and intent of the CFFF is to encourage the promotion of Canadian feature films that have high box office potential while aIso supporting a wide range of genres, budgets, companies, and regions. Equally as important, each dollar from the CFFF triggers $2 in additional financing for digital media projects and $3 for feature film projects. Clearly the fund is an important economic generator worth supporting.
Unfortunately, since its parliamentary appropriation was cut by 10% in 2012, Telefilm has struggled to do more with less. We would like to echo the comments made by other presenters before this committee about the pressing need to fully restore Telefilm's parliamentary appropriation.
Sarah.
:
Canadian feature films need to be Canadian. lt is crucial that the government maintains the current Canadian content requirements governing a production's access to public funding for the creation of Canadian feature films, such as the Canadian film or video production tax credit, co-production treaties with other countries, Telefilm feature film financing, and the Canada Media Fund.
Some producers and distributors have proposed that Canadian content requirements for leading performers be weakened to attract financing. This is absolutely the wrong approach to take. lt is impossible to build a dynamic Canadian feature film production sector by casting non-Canadian performers in all of the leading and challenging roles. Weakening the existing guidelines around non-Canadian performers in key roles would be detrimental to the Canadian film sector and make it impossible to successfully establish a distinctly Canadian voice.
Quebec has managed to develop a system for both its onscreen and behind-camera talent. As a result, Québécois directors are increasingly being sought after on the international scene. For example, the upcoming sequel to the classic Blade Runner will be directed by the award-winning Canadian director Denis Villeneuve, whom I've had the chance to work with.
English Canada needs to adopt this approach when promoting its own artists and creators. lt is vitally important that we Canadian performers be given the opportunity to develop our personal brands creating a virtuous cycle where suddenly having a recognizable Canadian as a lead helps to secure all the important financing.
Maintaining the Canadian Audio-Visual Certification Office's point scale is an important component for establishing Canada's star system, but it's only one part of the puzzle. lt is imperative that we aIso properly market and promote feature films both at home and abroad. If Canadians don't know about the great work we're creating, how can they be expected to watch it?
Homegrown, creative talent in Canada and in Canadian productions must be the norm, not just because it's the right thing to do, but because we need to continue to tell Canadian stories.
Stephen.
:
Feature film funding in this country must place a greater emphasis on marketing and promotion. It's not enough to create Canadian stories and leave them on the shelf. They must be shared with the world. This means supporting Canadian feature films at home and abroad and finding new and innovative ways to help Canadian productions stand out from the pack and be seen. Canada sits on top of the world's largest generator of English language entertainment. Our physical proximity to the United States and our disproportionate population bases mean that all too often Canadians are overwhelmed by the sheer volume of productions from south of the border.
Outside of Quebec, getting Canadian films in front of Canadian eyeballs is a monumental challenge. The Ontario Media Development Corporation's 2013 industry profile showed that in 2012 Canadian English and French language feature films generated $27 million worth of revenues, or a 2.5% share of the national box office sales, which totalled $1.9 billion. In the English language market, though, Canadian features only captured 1.5% of total box office sales compared to American features, which made up 82.4% of sales.
There's an opportunity being missed here. Canadian creators are making award-winning feature films and the sad fact is that Canadian audiences never get a chance to see them because our cinemas are dominated by U.S. product. The CRTC has not helped either. By diluting its Canadian broadcast exhibition requirements the CRTC has taken away any incentive for Canadian broadcasters to air Canadian feature films. Our domestic feature film industry has suffered as a result of this decision. Instead of being exposed to Canadian stories, the stories that matter and resonate with us, Canada is little more than an afterthought to the American entertainment behemoth, which simply includes us as part of its own domestic box office. Until Canada reclaims, celebrates, and actively promotes the work being done within its own borders, Canadians will continue to have their own cultural heritage treated as second-best and not be given the opportunity to see distinctly Canadian films. It is crucial that we reform Canada's film broadcast and distribution sectors and give Canadians the opportunity to experience their own rich and diverse cultural heritage.
We ask this committee to consider our modest proposals for improvements in the funding and distribution of Canadian feature films, which must feature Canadian performers in leading and challenging roles in order to create distinctly Canadian films that Canadian and international audiences will want to see.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mirkopoulos, I wanted to thank you for the work you do with young people, to help the next generation come up. Congratulations.
Now, I'd like to talk to Ms. Gadon and Mr. Waddell, from ACTRA.
Ms. Gadon, it's a privilege to have you with us. We know how busy you are. You star in a number of roles and you're also a director, if I'm not mistaken.
Thank you for your dedication, and I'd also like to thank ACTRA for, once again, bringing a witness who works directly in the field. Ms. Gadon is an actress, so hearing from someone like that with first-hand experience is always very insightful.
[English]
I really appreciate....
I'll switch to English. I feel that I can speak your language directly.
Ms. Gadon, the first time I really noticed you was when I saw the poetic image of Toronto in Enemy. Clearly, this was a co-production. I want to hear from both of you. What is your stance on co-production? Should we do more? Clearly, for you and for Denis Villeneuve, it was a moment to see, and it was very “heritagey” to see Toronto in such a poetic manner.
What is your stance on co-production?
:
I have had a successful career as a product of co-productions, and the variety of co-productions that exist within Canada and abroad.
A Dangerous Method was the first film that I did with David Cronenberg. That was a co-production between Canada and Germany. Cosmopolis, after that, was a co-production between Canada and France. Then, of course, when I worked with Denis Villeneuve it was his first English-language film and a co-production as well.
I think it's important that we have co-productions within Canada because our industry is so widespread. We have brilliant performers and brilliant technicians coast to coast, and we need to be able to work with each other.
It's especially important for me, because it catapults us into the international spotlight. If I hadn't done Enemy, I wouldn't have had the opportunity to go to international film festivals. If I hadn't had the opportunity to work with David, I would have never gone to the Venice Film Festival, to Cannes. Because of that, I've been exposed to and been able to work with filmmakers all over the world.
It has been incredible for me, and I think it's the future of our industry.