LANG Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Official Languages

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, June 3, 2003

0910

The Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.))

Ms. Cécile Chevrier (President, Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada)

0915

0920

0925

0930

The Chair

Mr. Pierre-Raphaël Pelletier (President, Fédération culturelle canadienne-française, Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada)

The Chair

Mr. Robin Cantin (Director of Communications, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada)

0935

The Chair

Mr. Louis Paquin (President, Productions Rivard, Winnipeg, Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada)

0940

The Chair

Mr. Robert Charbonneau (Productions R. Charbonneau, Ottawa, Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada)

0945

The Chair

Mr. Mark Chatel (President, Balestra Productions, “Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada”)

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance)

0950

Ms. Cécile Chevrier

Mr. Jason Kenney

Ms. Cécile Chevrier

The Chair

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.)

0955

Ms. Cécile Chevrier

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

Ms. Cécile Chevrier

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

Ms. Cécile Chevrier

Mr. Louis Paquin

1000

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ)

1005

Ms. Cécile Chevrier

The Chair

Mr. Pierre-Raphaël Pelletier

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Cécile Chevrier

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Cécile Chevrier

Mr. Robin Cantin

The Chair

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.)

Ms. Cécile Chevrier

1010

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Ms. Cécile Chevrier

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Ms. Cécile Chevrier

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Ms. Cécile Chevrier

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

Mr. Pierre-Raphaël Pelletier

Ms. Cécile Chevrier

1015

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Cécile Chevrier

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Cécile Chevrier

Mr. Robert Charbonneau

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.)

1020

Ms. Cécile Chevrier

Mr. Pierre-Raphaël Pelletier

Mr. Raymond Simard

Ms. Cécile Chevrier

Mr. Raymond Simard

The Chair

1025

Ms. Cécile Chevrier

The Chair

Ms. Cécile Chevrier

The Chair

Ms. Cécile Chevrier

The Chair

Mr. Robert Charbonneau

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Cécile Chevrier

Mr. Pierre-Raphaël Pelletier

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Louis Paquin

1030

The Chair

Ms. Cécile Chevrier

The Chair

Ms. Cécile Chevrier

The Chair

Ms. Cécile Chevrier

The Chair

Mr. Robert Charbonneau

The Chair

Mr. Michael Wernick (Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Canadian Heritage)

1045

1050

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Michael Wernick

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Michael Wernick

1055

1100

The Chair

Mr. Michael Wernick

The Chair

Ms. Sandra Macdonald (President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Television Fund)

1105

1110

1115

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Michael Wernick

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

1120

Mr. Michael Wernick

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Sandra Macdonald

1125

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.)

1130

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Ms. Sandra Macdonald

1135

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

1140

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Michael Wernick

The Chair

Mr. Michael Wernick

1145

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Michael Wernick

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Michael Wernick

Mme Sandra MacDonald

Mr. Michael Wernick

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Michael Wernick

The Chair

Ms. Sandra Macdonald

The Chair

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Mr. Michael Wernick

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Mr. Michael Wernick

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Mr. Michael Wernick

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Mr. Michael Wernick

1150

The Chair

Ms. Louise Baillargeon (Vice President, Canadian Television Fund)

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard

Mr. Michael Wernick

Mr. Raymond Simard

Ms. Sandra Macdonald

Mr. Raymond Simard

Ms. Sandra Macdonald

Mr. Raymond Simard

Ms. Sandra Macdonald

1155

Mr. Raymond Simard

Ms. Sandra Macdonald

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard

Ms. Sandra Macdonald

1200

The Chair

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

Mr. Michael Wernick

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

Mr. Michael Wernick

The Chair

Ms. Sandra Macdonald

The Chair

Ms. Sandra Macdonald

The Chair

Ms. Sandra Macdonald

The Chair

Mr. Michael Wernick

The Chair

Mr. Michael Wernick

1205

The Chair

Ms. Sandra Macdonald

The Chair

Ms. Sandra Macdonald

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Official Languages

NUMBER 025

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, June 3, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0910)

[Translation]

The Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, we have a busy morning ahead of us. It is time to get things under way. I would ask you to take your seats.

This morning's meeting will be divided into two parts: the first will run until 10:30 and the second from 10:30 to midday. During the first half of the meeting, we will hear, amongst others, from the Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada, which is presided by Ms. Cécile Chevrier. Ms. Chevrier, I would ask that, if possible, you limit your comments to 15 minutes because you have also asked that we give the floor to the people who are here with you. You are accompanied by Mr. Pierre-Raphaël Pelletier, President of the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française, Mr. Robin Cantin, of the FCFA, Mr. Louis Paquin, Mr. Charbonneau and Mr. Mark Chatel. I don't know if everyone will have the opportunity to speak because, after half an hour has passed, I will be opening the floor to members of the committee in order that they can ask you questions.

We will then have a short break and when we start up again we will be hearing from Ms. Sandra Macdonald, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Television Fund, as well as some representatives from the Department of Canadian Heritage, some of whom have already arrived.

Ms. Chevrier, I am going to begin by giving a brief overview of the situation. At the moment, in Canada, times are tougher than usual for francophone television producers outside of Quebec, indeed some would say for those outside of Montreal. In autumn, there will be a second round of funding allocations, and they could well find themselves in the same situation. The committee has, therefore, decided that it would be timely to study this issue and may even make recommendations to avoid this situation being repeated.

On that note, I hand the floor to Ms. Chevrier.

Ms. Cécile Chevrier (President, Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to be as brief as possible, but as you know, the situation is very complex.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, the great privilege we are given today, through this invitation, extends to all of Canada's French-speaking communities. Indeed, beyond all relevant considerations pertaining to economics or the creation and loss of employment, the situation that brings us here, before you, is one that infringes upon the rights of these communities.

There is no need for us to explain to parliamentarians the crucial importance and imperativeness of television in our world. Like any modern society, the francophone communities of this country need to see themselves reflected in this mirror. They too need to better recognize and know themselves and thus evolve through self-expression.

What we wish to discuss here is of outmost concern to the francophone communities of this country. This is why we are accompanied here today by representatives of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada and of the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française, who will both able to elaborate what we, members of the Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada, deem to be our first and foremost motivation; representing our communities on Canadian television screens.

Also with me today are my colleagues Louis Paquin, Robert Charbonneau from Ottawa, and Mark Chatel. I have given them the task of telling you what it means to be a producer. They will also speak to you of the impact our work has upon our communities, from job creation to creativity.

However, for the time being, I wish to address the huge obstacles facing independent producers of French-language productions in an overwhelmingly English milieu.

The Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada represents 15 producers and 11 production houses situated in Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa and Moncton. The reason why we are so scarce can be directly attributed to the difficulty that exists when you choose to produce French television in the regions instead of the centre.

Access to available public funding in production, to the Canadian Television Fund or Telefilm Canada, is absolutely crucial to a broadcaster's commitment and financial participation in a submitted project. Yet, with the exception of TFO, all French-language television is based in Montreal. It is this reality that clearly represents the greatest and most constant challenge to French-language television production outside Quebec.

To this effect, it is significant to note that the first step of the APFC since its 1999 inception was to take part in a gathering organized and sponsored by Telefilm Canada in Montreal. During this session, we were received by the heads of all the French-language broadcasters and specialty channels. This marked the beginning of what I would deem a resounding growth curve for our industry and much credit must be given to all groups and individuals who helped make this possible; the Canadian government, especially Ms. Sheila Copps, Minister of Heritage Canada, Telefilm Canada and the Canadian Television Fund, as well as the members of the Groupe de travail sur les arts médiatiques created by Heritage Canada in 1998; the National Film Board of Canada, the Canada Council for the Arts, la Société Radio-Canada, the CRTC as well as other significant partners. Through this concerted effort, the producers of the APFC were immersed, trained, supported and developed. At least five IPOLC projects were created for us. They have all been successful.

Where the Canadian Television Fund is concerned, less stringent criteria and improvements have enabled French-language television production outside Quebec to access unprecedented funding and thus benefited us immensely. Therefore, since 2000, the volume of production, the diversity, quality and overall scope of our submitted and financed projects has been in constant progression.

For example, between 1999 and 2002, the total amount of attributed licences, in other words the broadcasters' investment in our communities, rose from $1.6 million to $4 million. Whereas in 1999, production by members of the alliance totalled $9 million, in 2002 this number had increased to a total of $16.7 million.

Francophone producers outside Quebec are the only French-language content suppliers other than the SRC in-house regional productions in the regions.

¿ (0915)

We have contributed a total of 285 television hours, going from 49.5 hours in 1999 to 107.5 hours in 2002. We produce drama series, soap operas, documentaries. In short, we have produced and continue to produce all categories of television programs. Several of our productions received prestigious prizes and recognition, as well as “Gémeaux” nominations and invitations to festivals both in Canada and abroad.

Such was the picture at the end of 2002 where French-language television production outside Quebec was concerned. Needless to say that this came about thanks to the efforts of all those previously mentioned.

However impressive these numbers may be, when we consider the entire Canadian television industry, such promising data represent only a very minimal portion of this sector's considerable economic activity. Indeed, if we evaluate the Canadian Television Fund's $200 million contribution alone, we see that it represents approximately 20 % of television's global production volume, which is an estimated one billion dollars, an amount which is increased by Statistics Canada's 2.4 multiplier effect.

Let us now consider, if you will, how these millions of dollars are apportioned. Toronto and Montreal being defined as the two principal production centres in the country, the 2002 English CTF-LFP envelope was distributed as follows: 55% of the funding was distributed to productions outside Toronto and across all regions of Canada.

In terms of the French CTF-FLP envelope, 85% of its funds went to Montreal-based productions whereas only 10% was allocated to productions outside the province of Quebec. It is important to note that 2002 was an exceptional year for members of the APFC as our average is generally closer to 8% of the CTF-LFP envelope.

However meagre our portion of the CTF-LFP envelope may have been, this year it is decreased even further. Indeed, 2003 may well be a catastrophic year for French-language television production outside Quebec. It all began with the decision to adopt a new way of evaluating productions. Called “broadcaster priorities”, this new system gives broadcasters a leading voice in television programming.

Our point of view regarding this matter has already been amply documented. As early as November 12, 2002, we voiced our concerns to the President of the Canadian Television Fund's Board of Directors. In February 2003, a letter and paper addressed to the Honourable Sheila Copps made clear the alarming situation at hand.

As President of the APFC, I have the immense privilege and yet the very heavy responsibility of having been appointed by Heritage Canada to the board of directors of the Canadian Television Fund. As such, I am the only member of the board to have opposed their broadcaster priorities criteria.

If I were to sum up my experience during these past few months, I would say that it has been totally, entirely and fully that of a minority, that of powerlessness and of immense disappointment as it became apparent to me that the system was incapable of respecting its commitments to all those I obviously represent in the position I occupy; the francophone minority of Canada.

These broadcaster priorities reduced to nothing the advantages from which our projects could benefit from the CTF-LFP. In this year's two rounds of funding, we acknowledge a general 60% and 50% refusal rate. Where we are concerned, the refusal rate is of 72% and 78% respectively. All in all, only four out of 17 submitted projects were financed. For French documentary projects, only two projects outside Quebec, out of a total of 46 French submissions, were financed.

We are in a crisis situation. All the efforts and support, the formidable coming together of energy that was put forth to sustain what is a just and indispensable activity, an industry that is as fragile as it is promising, could very well be reduced to nothing. Having exhausted all arguments and strategies, aware of the many obstacles we must surmount, we still remain determined to continue working as producers.

¿ (0920)

We are businessmen and women who create jobs, but we are also cultural agents, deeply anchored in our respective regions. Our roots, as well as our inspiration, lie in our communities, in our Franco-Canadian identity and reality. Yet, having no more arguments to offer and being aware that our minority situation also translates into marginalization where the larger issues that interest an ever-changing industry are concerned, we are left with only one thing: the law. Our ultimate protection is that which guarantees the rights of Canada's official languages communities. This is why we are before you today.

What has happened to French-language television production outside Quebec confirms what is unanimously believed by all stakeholders: we must revise the way in which the Canadian Television Fund functions because it is, at present, inequitable. Also, contrary to the generally recognized notion that considers the CTF to be an independent agency which is almost privately run, we insist that the very foundation of this institution be examined. Let me explain.

The CTF was created by the Canadian government. Its financing is the consequence of CRTC decisions that requires the private sector to contribute, much in the same way as a tax, a portion of its revenues towards the making of quality Canadian content. The cable distributors' contribution is thus matched by the federal government funds, that is Heritage Canada's participation to the Canadian Television Fund.

This being the case, we demand that the CFT be imperatively governed by this country's fundamental principles. We also affirm that, beyond bilingualism, linguistic equality, the promotion of minorities, cultural diversity, and the law on official languages must rank among the parameters that govern its functioning.

Given what has happened to the members of the French-speaking producers alliance, we are forced to acknowledge certain very troubling facts. However, the most dismaying conclusion of all is that the Canadian government itself, in this particular case, appears powerless before its own commitments towards minorities.

If we recognize that Telefilm Canada and the Canadian Television Fund, like all agencies and institutions that emanate from Heritage Canada and other federal institutions, are governed by fundamental values and principles regarding duality, equality and diversity, and that in our society, television represents the principal vector for culture, information, communication and the expression of Canadian identity, the conclusion we arrive at is the following: by giving broadcasters, most of whom are privately owned enterprises, a decisive right and even a veto as regards the entire distribution of public funds available to television production in Canada, through the CTF-LFP and CTF-EIP, this very notion of “broadcaster priorities”puts the Canadian Television Fund, Heritage Canada and the Canadian public in a position where they are incapable of assuring an equitable sharing of the funds based on the very values that govern the institutions of our country.

This being said, power in a sector as eminently crucial as that of television is henceforth in the hands of decision-makers who do not have such obligations. Their decisions will therefore be solely dictated by the economic laws of the market. Is there a problem? Most certainly, and the prevailing tendency does not augur well.

The idea that these envelopes could be handed to the broadcasters, according to the newly proposed system, would be as devastating for all regional producers, young producers, and all that are “small” versus “big”, as the priorities are in the present formula. In a sector as crucial as television, such a lack of balance is unworthy of our society.

In light of all commendable intentions to seek out the largest possible audience for television programs financed by the taxpayers, the law of the survival of the fittest, the laws of the market and their consequences on our communities must be amended so as to take into consideration, before any other interests, the constitutional laws and principles on which this country was founded.

¿ (0925)

In the case of French production outside Quebec, it goes beyond a question of principles. It is a question of immediate survival. Already we know the dice are loaded when Radio-Canada, a public television network financed by Canadian taxpayers, gives out only 13 of its 420 priority points available to French-language television production outside Quebec. Another illustration is that Radio-Canada gives out only three of the lowest priorities to the entire French documentary production outside Quebec, choosing instead to support 11 documentary projects under the LFP and absolutely none in Moncton.

What has occurred in this very difficult year is an outrage to the entire Canadian francophone community. The aborted 2003 productions would normally have been aired in 2004. Important projects we intended to submit in the CFT autumn rounds are now being questioned seriously. It is distressing to note that when all is said and done, during the very year that will mark the 400^th anniversary of the founding of Acadia and the beginning of the francophone presence in Canada, we will be absent from television screens. Certain projects will be saved in extremis thanks to emergency intervention. But we cannot continue this way, with our very survival under attack.

For some time now we have entertained the idea that an envelope be established for French-language production outside Quebec. Many have resisted the idea, myself included, because I have always maintained that we must position ourselves competitively as mainstream producers. Others fear that we will be relegated to some sort of ghetto. However, at this point, our answer to such concerns is simply that it is better to be in a ghetto than in a cemetery.

In conclusion, three recommendations seem to summarize the essential problems we have put forth.

First, that the government undertake a complete examination of the Canadian Television Fund situation, focusing specifically on its status, governance, responsibilities and obligations with regard to the principles that define Canadian society.

Second, that a portion of the public funds invested in independent production in Canada be immediately assigned to French productions recognized as being outside Quebec and that this allocation be proportional to the percentage of francophones in the population in question. As for the means by which this would be administered, the parameters and definition of such allocated funds (envelopes, minimal guarantees or something else), we ask that the Department of Canadian Heritage appoint a competent person to study the matter and make appropriate recommendations before July 1.

Third, recognizing that the greatest obstacle to French television production outside Quebec is our access to broadcasters, and considering public television's deplorable performance, we recommend that all public or national televisions as well as all televisions that receive public funding provide a minimum of 15 per cent of all the licences given out to independent production of French content outside Quebec. Then and only then will the Canadian francophone community be able to recognize itself in the mirror.

Thank you.

¿ (0930)

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Chevrier.

We now go to Mr. Pelletier.

Mr. Pierre-Raphaël Pelletier (President, Fédération culturelle canadienne-française, Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada): For at least 25 years, the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française has represented five national artistic groups, such as theatre, publishing, and so on, and 11 provincial and territorial cultural groups. So we are talking about a large group of people involved as artists and craftspeople in our communities.

The Fédération culturelle defends and promotes the interests of creators throughout the country, in our French-Canadian and Acadian communities. So we have been fighting for 25 years and we speak out in various forums, and to the governments involved, to put forward the idea which is so clear to us, that major international institutions such as Radio-Canada, the Canada Council, Telefilm Canada and the National Film Board, must give adequate funding—and Ms. Chevrier gave the percentages earlier in her presentation—so that our creators, in communities outside large urban centres such as Montreal, can produce creative work that gives our community access to its sense of belonging, to its cultural identity and to what we call our cultural diversity throughout the country.

It is unthinkable that public funds would be used only for interests concentrated in the large centres, when we know very well that culture and the arts in this country need funding wherever federal institutions are located, to ensure that our imaginative spirit is reflected on television screens, in our communities and in our lives.

I will say this one last time, because I do not want to dwell on this, but it is distressingly sad to have to remind the Canadian government, particularly people from the Department of Heritage, which I consider the department of culture in this country—at least for French Canada and Acadia, the Department of Heritage is the department of culture—that it is extremely crucial that public funds be at least adequate for our creators in all parts of the country. We are talking about our living francophone community, and if we do not do this, we are condemning it live in a ghetto in Quebec. Under this scenario, there would be an English Canada and francophone Quebec. We maintain that this country can be something other than that.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Pelletier.

We go now to Mr. Cantin, the Director of Communications with the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada.

Mr. Robin Cantin (Director of Communications, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada): Thank you.

As you know, there is absolutely no doubt that independent production contributes to the vitality of our communities and is directly linked to their economic and social development. Cécile spoke about a mirror for our communities, but it is also a window enabling our communities to portray their situation and lives to all Canadians, francophones in Quebec, minority francophone communities elsewhere, and our francophile friends.

Given this, we were extremely surprised to hear that a federal government agency, particularly an organization in which Heritage Canada is directly involved on the board of directors, would adopt a policy that compromises this entire sector so important to the development of francophone and Acadian communities.

I hope that Mr. Wernick will explain to us how much importance was attached to the federal government's obligations with respect to the official language minority communities in the discussions that led to the introduction of these new criteria last fall. We are thinking particularly of section 41 of the Official Languages Act that Heritage Canada is responsible for enforcing, and of the principles of protection for minorities as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The solution selected to lessen the blow to production of activities outside of Quebec, namely to draw on funds from the Official Language Communities Support Program to enable some producers to keep their heads above water this year can only be seen as exceptional, a response to an emergency. By the fall, a procedure must be put in place to ensure that minority francophone communities get their fair share of the envelope of funds available.

Thank you.

¿ (0935)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cantin.

We will now hear from Mr. Louis Paquin, the owner, president, CEO, and the big boss of Productions Rivard, in Winnipeg.

Mr. Louis Paquin (President, Productions Rivard, Winnipeg, Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada): I am the co-owner of Productions Rivard, a company named after the Reverend Léon Rivard, the first francophone film-maker in Manitoba, who worked mainly in the 1930s.

I will only speak for a few minutes, but I would just like to remind you that when we started our production company, we had three objectives.

The first was to tell our stories, the story of the west and the story of the francophone community that no one else knows and that the people in Montreal were not interested in telling.

The second objective was to contribute to the development of local resources to ensure that Manitoba could be a French-language production centre. We decided that if we did not contribute to production activities, to a certain cultural content, and if we remained mere consumers of cultural content, the francophone community would die.

Third, Charles and I wanted to develop a viable company. We wanted to show that culture is something worth doing.

At the time, our information showed that the government had established an infrastructure, including Telefilm Canada and the Canadian Television Fund and so on, that allowed francophone distributors to enrich the program by granting licences to independent producers. In their turn, they could receive further financial support from national institutions.

Since the beginning, Productions Rivard has produced documentaries on our star entrepreneurs, starting with Michel Dorge, the drummer with Crash Test Dummies. Next we did three variety programs in which we presented 60 different artistic groups from across Canada, a series on wildlife in Western Canada, a documentary on the giant, Beaupré, a 26-episode puppetry series written by a Franco-Manitoban author on the “francization” programs, to mention just a few.

We did these productions with Manitoba craftspeople, and sometimes using francophone teams from all parts of Canada. Yes, we did have to train a number of these people. We should not forget that the National Film Board had left Manitoba 10 years earlier, and that Radio-Canada had reduced its resources. So there were almost no local resources available.

With the support of the NFB, Telefilm Canada, Human Resources Development Canada and our province, we succeeded. I would like to stress today the commitment made by over 120 people with the same dreams as our owners, namely to tell our stories and to celebrate our cultural heritage.

The message received by Franco-Manitobans during the last round of funding is that it is possible that the last few years were a dream and that our role in the francophone production industry is more than fragile, that it is merely an illusion. For four years, we felt a palpable energy that instilled pride in our authors, technicians, actors and support staff. They were proud to work on programs that showcased our community's diversity and vitality on Radio-Canada, TFO, Canal D and TVA.

Productions Rivard even won a prize as company of the year in the category of youth integration in 2001. This prize was awarded by the National Human Resources Development Committee of the Canadian francophone community. We get job applications from young graduates of the École technique et professionnelle in Saint-Boniface for positions in the communications sector.

Today, we have to explain to the local media, to representatives of the Franco-Manitoban School Division, to the Collège universitaire in Saint-Boniface, to industry representatives and to anglophone stakeholders in Manitoba that francophone production outside Quebec has been seriously compromised, as has its legitimate role. People are confused and worried. The confidence that had been slowly gaining ground in our community is under serious threat. The idea that we too could contribute to French-language production motivated young people and older people to renew their hope in the viability of our cultural sector.

The only thing that can restore hope is a political commitment on the part of institutions, supported by administrative policies that quantify the commitment. Unfortunately, our position as a minority, our history and our geographic situation mean that without some clear, specific criteria regarding content objectives, we will be marginalized.

The program administrators, regardless of whether they work with a distributor or a financial body, will not be able to maintain a commitment to community production, because the needs of Montreal will always seem more important. We must demand that the institutions involved ensure that there be a strategic place reserved for productions by the communities. Without directives or policies from above, forcing program managers to retain an important role for productions from outside Quebec will always guarantee that productions by these communities will be compromised.

¿ (0940)

The latest round has shown us that we can no longer count on champions. After they have left, we have to start anew. If the policies are in place, production becomes an integral part of operations.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Paquin.

We will now hear from Mr. Robert Charbonneau, who is the president of Productions R. Charbonneau, and I believe he also produces the program called FranCoeur, which is shown in eastern Ontario.

Mr. Robert Charbonneau (Productions R. Charbonneau, Ottawa, Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada): Since there is not much time left, I apologize to the interpreters, since I will not be reading verbatim from my brief.

This year, our company is celebrating its 25^th anniversary in Ottawa and we are a founding member of the Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada. One of the great needs of our minority community is to make itself known and recognized on-screen. Once you have been on television, you become part of the mainstream as Mr. Guy Fournier explained so well in his recent report for Téléfilm Canada and the CRTC.

In his report, Mr. Fournier explains that there is Quebec and then there is English Canada. In the 45-page report, there is no mention of French Canada as a minority community. Unfortunately, Mr. Fournier's vision is shared by a number of Quebeckers, and even some Canadians, and by far too many people involved in television and its funding. It is perhaps because of that vision that today, more than 85 to 90 per cent of the funds are still devoted exclusively to Montreal.

Were it not for the people at TFO and Radio-Canada, here in Ottawa, all independent productions would only be in English or would be American.

Since 1996, our company has produced more than 255 half-hour television segments consisting of magazine-type programs, children's programming, documentaries and drama. We have become the local outlet for drama students in our francophone schools including l'École secondaire publique De La Salle, la Cité collégiale as well as the University of Ottawa. The same applies to our students in theatre, arts, television production and communications as well.

Last year alone, we hired more than 100 production professionals and we are the first ones to produce a children's series for Radio-Canada in a minority community and the first to produce a drama, the series entitled FranCoeur, for TFO.

FranCoeur has proven to be a shining example of the enormous appetite that a large part of the francophone minority community has for television that hits close to home, television that tells their story, a story that has fed the imagination of local media and TFO viewers. I have spoken to your clerk about the media coverage that we had during the crisis. Dozens of articles were written to highlight the series that was filmed in a rural setting last year.

The reaction on the evening that FranCoeur premiered, during the TFO fundraising drive, was unprecedented. Over the past few weeks, as viewers realized that the series might not be renewed, people were quick to act. This series has become their own. Our people in Ontario deserve this one, and many more as well. I believe that these stories must be told and produced—and I emphasize the word produced—and the parts should be played by people from our area. Whether it be in Manitoba, Acadia or Ontario, these stories must be told by the people who live there, because they are entitled to them. They all contribute to the fund, and they should be able to see their children on television, and have their son or daughter write the screenplay and be part of the team that creates the series to protect an image that is their own.

Thanks to the fund, our local production budget for last year was more than $600 million, and the drastic change that has been made to the fund over the last few months has almost killed all of the work that we have been doing since 1996: more than 150 people have been forced to work on English-language projects; we have lost our up-and-coming talent pool; highly specialized and well-paid jobs are moving out of the area; time and money invested in training will now go to benefit someone else.

The quality of our programming as well as their cost were highly competitive. The subject matter was different; it helped us to stand out and strengthen the image of our francophone populations.

So, we cannot turn back now. Time is running short; we need to reassure our people, our screenwriters, our actors and our television craftspeople by telling them that an immediate long-term solution is at hand to save television production for the minority francophone communities, a solution that will allow our viewers to see and hear their own stories, stories that deserve to be told, stories that have been developed and crafted by our own people.

The French-Canadian population watches, on average, more than three hours of television a day, according to the latest statistics, and I firmly believe that the work that this committee will be doing over the coming days and weeks will, I hope, have a positive influence over the content of those three hours.

More than 11 companies and 15 long-standing members of the francophone minority community are ready to promote this principle of fairness.

Thank you.

¿ (0945)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Charbonneau.

Now we will hear our last witness, Mr. Chatel, President of Balestra Productions.

Mr. Mark Chatel (President, Balestra Productions, “Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada”):

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, distinguished guests; seven years ago, when I arrived in the National Capital Region from Montreal, after having earned my master's degree in the United States, I never expected to fall in love with this city, Ottawa, nor did I expect to settle here and start not only a family but a television production company as well.

Maybe it is because of the pride I feel in being a Canadian, something that goes back to the years when I represented our country internationally as the Canadian fencing champion, or maybe it is because of my very first job in communications, when I hosted a Radio-Canada program for young people in Windsor, Ontario... I was struck by the assimilation that I witnessed in the schools. It was cool to speak English in the school yard. But the radio program was so popular that the young people thought it was broadcast from Montreal; it was as if the expectations were much lower in the region.

Maybe I decided to settle in the national capital because I am the type who tries to bring together the aspirations of our Canadian youth from one end of the country to the other. I have decided to try and help the young people of Canada. My company, Balestra, which is a fencing term for leaping forward—because I want to make great strides with our youth—has as its mission to produce positive content to instill great visions for Canadian youth, on television and in the new media.

At the time when the dropout and suicide rate among young people is rising, it is imperative that we create content to help young people to learn about one another, to believe in themselves and to aim high. We must give young francophones the hope that they can make a significant contribution to their community, no matter where they live.

This is one of the main priorities for my company and, I hope, one of the main priorities for the Canadian government. I also have a dream of a Canada where all young people might be able to dream in their own language, from one end of the country to the other.

However, the situation is critical for television production in Canada at this time. You are now aware that it is almost impossible to undertake any productions without the support of a special fund for regional producers. It is unfortunate that young people living in minority communities find themselves deprived of their own reality on the small screen. Television remains the most powerful medium and the youth are almost never represented.

From a personal point of view, I hate to think that our television industry is now on shaky ground; I wonder if I will still have a company in six months, something that is affecting my life choices, such as, for example, whether or not I should have a child or return to Montreal in order to work in this field and experience this passion. What kind of a signal would it send to young people when a producer who wants to promote their interests cannot himself thrive in French, in a minority community? Does that not tell young francophones that in order to dream in French they must leave their community and move to large urban centres in Quebec?

I hope that I am wrong and that your committee will ensure that that does not happen.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Chatel. Thanks to all of the witnesses for their presentations.

We will now move on to our questions, beginning with Mr. Kenney.

And since we intend to finish at 10:30 a.m., we might only have time for one round; please keep that in mind.

Mr. Kenney.

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you to all of the witnesses.

I have a question for Ms. Chevrier with respect to the new policy on broadcaster priorities.

[English]

I don't understand, Madame Chevrier, why you're objecting to allowing the broadcasters to have a role in setting priorities. It seems to me a matter of common sense that the broadcasters are in touch with the demands of the viewers and are closer to what the viewers want than the producers are. Why has the rest of the board on which you sit supported this policy, and...

¿ (0950)

Ms. Cécile Chevrier: [Inaudible—Editor]

Mr. Jason Kenney: The board that you were on. Excuse me.

Why should the broadcasters themselves not have a role in deciding what productions they're able to air for their own consumers?

[Translation]

Ms. Cécile Chevrier: In the case of French-language productions for minority communities, as soon as we examined the proposal to replace the previous Canadian content criteria by the broadcasters priorities, I immediately saw that there would be problems for us because, as I said in my brief, French language television production in Canada, with the exception of TFO, is entirely located in Montreal. We are not a priority for them. It is already difficult to gain access to these broadcasters, to get a licence, to negotiate a project with them.

So, when I saw that, I realized that TFO would be our only hope to have certain projects adopted as a priority. We did manage to gain a little more, but not very much.

History has shown that this was indeed harmful for us. Why is that? Because these new evaluation methods cancelled out the criteria that had been previously negotiated, during a crisis in 2000, when we came close to going under.

At that time, we had been given certain advantages to make up for the difficulty we had in accessing broadcasters, such as an improvement in the licensing, a higher multiplication factor, etc. So projects went through. The progression was phenomenal during those two years. All of that will be cancelled out with the priority.

In answer to your question about not allowing broadcasters to decide, I would say that broadcasters do have a hand in the decision-making. And that is how it will remain. In any case, the broadcasters do the broadcasting. But what has just happened proves that the Canadian television funding system as it now stands is not equipped to defend a minority, to ensure diversity. It is full of holes because the public funds—and I maintain that these are public funds—are allocated according to unilateral decisions, almost by veto, made by television decision-makers who have no obligation to ensure that there be diversity, etc.

Therefore, it creates a problem for the regions and minorities who are the first ones to be shut out when a problem arises; that is obvious.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Castonguay.

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As a francophone from New Brunswick, I realize once again that for many people, there is French Quebec and English Canada. Personally, I find it frustrating, as someone who knows about our country. I think we have a role to play in broadcasting information in French, so that people will understand that there are francophones outside Quebec who have something to contribute to this country.

That being said, could you tell us who sits on the board of directors of this fund? That might help us to understand why, at some point in time, decisions are made that seem to favour broadcasters, without taking into account certain realities. The answer to that question will help me to better understand these issues.

Secondly, before changing the funding rules, was any time given to studying the impact that such changes would have on the various francophones communities outside Quebec, in the smaller areas? Did anyone take the time to do that?

Finally, when decisions are made by the board of directors or when changes to the way in which the funds are distributed are considered, is any thought given to linguistic duality or respect for francophone minorities outside Quebec?

¿ (0955)

Ms. Cécile Chevrier: Along with your comments, I would like to thank you for your questions. I am also from New Brunswick, from Moncton. I am an Acadian.

The fund board of directors are designated by the large national associations. For example, we have the Canadian Broadcasters Association, and professional corporations. They represent the broadcasters, the cable distributors and the industry. You will be hearing from representatives of the Canadian Television Fund later on; they can probably give you more specific details. I would feel uncomfortable identifying all of those people.

As to your second question, that is, whether or not we have measured the impacts, I must admit that it was something that horrified me from the very outset. Notwithstanding the highly competent staff at the fund—I would like to make that clear—and their great dedication, it was impossible for them to measure the impact of something that was as intangible as the tastes, the desires, the last-minute decisions of a broadcaster who asked to submit 12, 15 or 20 priorities. So it was impossible to determine what impact there would be on production except, of course, for the argument that I raised about the fact that there were no set priorities for us, other than the five from TFO.

About duality and the respect for minorities at this time, the amounts available through the Canadian Television Fund are divided into thirds: one third and two thirds; so, one third for the French side, two thirds for the English side. On the other hand, some people, and most certainly the Canadian Television Fund, have argued that the fund is an arm's length agency that is under no obligation to the government.

I say that you cannot be a little bit pregnant. If Canada recognizes its linguistic distribution, one third, two thirds, it should, to my mind, also recognize the minorities. But as to whether or not duality and the diversity of minorities are recognized as principles by the fund, I think that question would be better answered by the representatives who will be appearing later on. Thank you.

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: If I understand you correctly, when it comes to those who are in francophone minorities living outside Quebec, if a vote is taken amongst those who are sitting around a table, and if the majority is not in their favour, for whatever reason, it becomes very difficult for these people to find their place in the sun.

Is that what you mean?

Ms. Cécile Chevrier: I must say, quite honestly, that the board of directors are very nice people, but they have no power. Some are indifferent, that is true, but I cannot say that anyone is overtly hostile. In some cases they are friendly, in other cases indifferent, and in all cases they are powerless.

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: You said that you cannot be a little bit pregnant. So why can we not talk about this impotence? How can we solve the problem? I think it is important. We have to find a solution so that francophones throughout the country will, once again, have their own place in the sun. How can we do that?

I realize that this agency is independent of government, but, on the other hand, this is public money. And I think that public money must be spent according to the realities that exist in this country. So tell me what must be done. I have seen your recommendations, but I would like you to tell me in a few words what we should be doing.

Ms. Cécile Chevrier: I think Mr. Paquin would like to answer that question.

Mr. Louis Paquin: I can answer that one and I will also answer the question about the broadcasters' right to decide.

In practice, if we leave our situation to chance, when a broadcaster needs content, particularly if it involves public funds such as Radio-Canada, a decision can be made to source some content from a given region. There is no question to remove the broadcaster's right to decide on programming; content can be chosen from various regions.

At this time, when there is no obligation, people must, of course, make decisions, whether it be the Canadian Television Fund, Téléfilm, or a broadcaster; for example, if there are 50 ideas on the table, if there is no obligation to source 15 per cent of the ideas from the regions, there is no motivation to deal with us. But if they were told that 15 per cent of the ideas had to come from the regions, the broadcasters would be seeking us out.

Take TFO for example. According to my experience, and that of other producers, I believe that the TFO people sit down with us to discuss content because they have decided that the TFO branding will appeal to francophones outside Quebec. When we work with other broadcasters, it is like trying to date a girl who wants nothing to do with you; you make the advances, you throw out ideas, you do everything you can think of, and you are given the cold shoulder. But if suddenly you hit the right note, then, she comes around.

I can give you the example of “géant Beaupré”. When I made the pitch for “géant Beaupré”, I was going under, because no one had ever heard about “géant Beaupré”. When I said that Beau Dommage had recorded a song about this giant, I was in. I had found something relevant. But many other stories are irrelevant to them.

The bosses do not make the decisions, the people in the system do. Whether it is the Canadian Television Fund, Téléfilm, Radio-Canada, or someone else, if there are no guidelines forcing them to choose content from the regions, we will all be left on the sidelines. If there are no incentives, there is no budget.

When Radio-Canada appeared before the CRTC, there were amounts set aside for content from outside Quebec. The regional broadcasters must share that money with us. It is hard for them. We need a budget for regional broadcasters and a budget to kickstart French-language production outside Quebec. That is in the guidelines.

À (1000)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Paquin. I am sorry to interrupt you but your time has run out.

By the way, I would like to do some advertising for Willow Bunch. For those who would like to see the giant, Beaupré, or his remains at least, you will find him in Willow Bunch, a small village in the south of Saskatchewan.

Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Madam, gentlemen, thank you for your presentations and thank you especially for making us aware of the urgency of this situation. I have learned many very interesting and worrisome things. I know that we don't have much time but I will try to move quickly.

First of all, the Minister of Heritage speaks for us internationally in terms of cultural exceptions. It is the same government that, through the CRTC, has shut down regional and community television, and, if I have understood correctly, will also be shutting down production. Therefore, the Canadian cultural exception will mean uniform Canadian production, and that will be the cultural exception. I think that before advocating for this outside the country, we should be expressing it here. And yet, if I have understood you correctly, that is not where we are headed, on the contrary. So I would like to thank you for having made us aware of that. That is the message I understood.

The second message deals with Mr. Dion's action plan. I think that one can draw inspiration from it, or at least understand it differently. He said that our three priorities are health, education and immigration. I believe that Mr. Pelletier was one of the only ones to disagree when that report was tabled, whereas everyone else was heaping praise on the report before they had even looked beyond the cover page. Everyone said that it was absolutely marvellous.

In fact, without minimizing their importance, health, education and immigration are one thing; however, we also need to express our vitality and it is through culture that we can do that. The most eloquent illustration of the Canadian government's lack of interest in French-Canadian culture is probably the fact that it is not mentioned once in Dion's action plan. One wonders then why Heritage Canada, which is responsible for the Official Languages Act, doesn't give a penny. I am sure there is a connection to be made, and it is not an indirect one.

I would now like to ask you what you think Heritage Canada's legislative obligation is to meet your requests. To make the question more concrete, are there any legislative rights, as there are in education, health, but especially in education where francophone communities have had to go to court to have their rights recognized, that you could use to back up your requests, that is to say rights that could help you bring the government to court under section 41, in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or any other rights?

À (1005)

Ms. Cécile Chevrier: I won't hide the fact that that is something we've already been looking at. I also won't hide the fact that I told the board that I would go to the Supreme Court. What is happening just doesn't make sense.

I am not a lawyer, and I am not a constitutional expert, but it seems to me that a crucial and specialized sector such as television—television being the brainwashing instrument par excellence in all countries of the world—should be accessible to francophones outside Quebec. Just as everyone in Canada has a telephone, everyone should also be able to receive television programming.

So it seems to me that in a country like ours, that projects an image of respect for minorities and diversity, it shouldn't be possible that we have nothing to support us, to ensure that out of $200 million we shouldn't also have our share at some point. It is impossible for this to be the case.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Chevrier.

Mr. Pelletier has asked to speak.

Mr. Pierre-Raphaël Pelletier: Yes, it's too tempting. The lady has dangled the bait and I can't pass up the opportunity to take a bite.

Listen, it is absurd and even very disquieting to see an official languages vision that does not make the link between language and culture, a link that would ensure, from the outset, the cultural diversity of our communities through national institutions. You asked if we have any legislative rights. Let's not fool ourselves. As long as the Official Languages Act depends on people's goodwill, I'm sorry, but that says a lot. It can make us feel virtuous but there are no measures to back it up.

We're telling you this in concrete terms. When the Canadian government or a department provides public funds for creators, one would think that all creators in the country would benefit from this, and not only a handful of people in Montreal. The opposite is also true for Toronto, for the anglophones.

When we speak about this in Quebec, people in the regions understand because they have the same issues. Why is it that our artists and creators in these regions cannot create in their own region? It is absurd to see this when internationally, we say we are a great country, with a shining cultural diversity, that we want to consider the uniqueness of these creations in order to protect them from market globalization, and yet here, for all intents and purposes, we shoot ourselves in the foot.

The Chair: Mr. Sauvageau, you have the floor.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Cantin wanted to add something, but in any case I have another brief question.

What do you think the ideal amount would be in order to be able to meet our commitments? Are we talking about 10, 15, 20 or $30 million?

Ms. Cécile Chevrier: Fifteen per cent, minimum. Somewhat like the aboriginal envelope, where there are reserved funds.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I didn't want to draw the parallel.

Ms. Cécile Chevrier: It's true that there are reserved funds, but they also have access to general funds. In fact, this year they had much more than we did. That in itself is revealing.

Mr. Robin Cantin: I simply wanted to point out that yes, section 41 is certainly a possibility. However, like Cécile and Pierre, I am not a legal expert. I am told, however, that the Office of the Official Languages Commissioner is conducting a study. I see that Dyane Adam is with us today. Perhaps that would be a possibility. Of course we will try to keep up-to-date.

The Chair: Before moving on to Ms. Thibault, I would like to point out that the committee has a special working relationship with the Official Languages Commissioner. She is free to intervene after the witnesses if she so chooses. She has done this in the past and I hope that she will do it again.

Ms. Thibeault.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Thank you. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

Ms. Chevrier, at the end of your presentation you mentioned the possibility of dedicating a budget to production outside Quebec. You say that you do not agree with that, that you prefer the competitive approach. However, if I have understood correctly, this is what you're asking for in your second recommendation.

Is that correct?

Ms. Cécile Chevrier: It is a very difficult choice. It is true, as I said in my brief, that under normal circumstances, many of us would prefer to be competing. For now, though, as long as certain issues have not been resolved in terms of the status and management of funds, and obligations, this cannot be. We will die first.

Therefore, perhaps the way to proceed would not necessarily be via a fund, but rather via an obligation that all concerned, be it the Canadian Television Fund, or Téléfilm Canada, throughout the system, spend 15% for production outside Quebec. That is something we will have to think about, but the concept of 15 % has to be integrated into the system, in the end.

À (1010)

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: I must admit that as a lay person, I am finding it very difficult to make sense of all these levels. You have a fund, you have an alliance. It is quite difficult to understand.

I have before me figures from the Canadian Television Fund. Perhaps I should wait to ask this question, but I would like to have your feedback. These are amounts that are granted by language group. Who decides who will receive the funds? Is it 50% to anglophones, 30% to francophones, etc.? Are these amounts established in advance or are they amounts that can change from year to year?

Ms. Cécile Chevrier: I would agree with you that it is an extremely complicated and complex sector. Yes, initially the funds are shared between anglophone and francophone groups. There are also what are called envelopes, that is categories, for example documentaries, theatre, etc. All that is decided in advance.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Is this carved in stone?

Ms. Cécile Chevrier: Well, before...

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: How is it that we have a francophone envelope outside Quebec of $10 million, when the envelope for anglophones in Quebec is $17 million? Can someone explain this to me?

Ms. Cécile Chevrier: You would have to put that question to a funding official.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to welcome you to our Standing Committee on Official Languages. We are honoured to have you here today.

I can understand your frustration, not coming from Quebec and being a Canadian francophone. I hate using the expression “francophone outside Quebec” because I am a Canadian francophone, even though sometimes, Heritage Canada does not take its responsibility by taking steps to show all Canadians that there are Canadian francophones.

I am very disappointed in the way Radio-Canada treats francophones in Canada. I am very disappointed. I would like to make those comments at the outset. I am truly worried. Acadians will be celebrating their anniversary and once again, we are going to have to fight to appear on Radio-Canada's screen. I am very disappointed that there was a congress in Toronto on the weekend, for a rather well-known political party in Canada and I, a francophone, had to watch English-language television in order to get the results. I am truly disappointed that we had the Canada Games in Bathurst, in New Brunswick, and that we had to fight to have them broadcast in Canada. I am truly disappointed by the fact that there was a Francophone Summit in Moncton that Radio-Canada interrupted in order to broadcast the news from Montreal that the general manager of the hockey team had been appointed. I was truly disappointed by that.

Have you considered, given your excellent presentations, requesting not only a study on the part of the Official Languages Commissioner, but also investigating and perhaps taking legal action against Radio-Canada and Heritage Canada? I'm talking about going to court and finding out what our rights as French Canadians truly are? I'm thinking especially of Radio-Canada. Perhaps there should be a fourth recommendation whereby you ask the Government of Canada to change Radio-Canada's name to Radio-Montréal.

Mr. Pierre-Raphaël Pelletier: Thank you very much. That was very good because it follows our thinking exactly.

Ms. Cécile Chevrier: In terms of legal action, this is something we are thinking about, and if it is taken, it will be led by the major national organizations, that is the SCFA, the SCCF and the APFC. It takes a long time, however; I think that for now we need to act immediately in order to save production outside Quebec so that when we do end up before a judge, at least we'll still be alive to talk about it.

À (1015)

Mr. Yvon Godin: I'm having trouble understanding Heritage Canada, the Government of Canada or the Dion plan, as our colleague Mr. Sauvageau was saying earlier. Is there anyone who's really saying that the government is ignoring what is happening and that it really wants to give Montreal all the rights and forget about the other regions? Is one region being favoured? I think that the government can come and say that there are decisions that have to be made. You're generous when you mention 15 per cent; I would say more than 15 per cent.

Ms. Cécile Chevrier: Twenty-five per cent?

Mr. Yvon Godin: Isn't it the government's responsibility to say that Radio-Canada's mandate is not to follow the market? Radio-Canada's mandate is to bring Canada together, not just to show the rest of Canada what is happening in Quebec. It has to bring all of Canada together and show the regions of this country each other. The name is Radio-Canada. It is not Radio-Montréal.

I come back to this. I find it insulting to see Montreal every time the television is turned on. I feel insulted and it is not because I do not like Montreal. I adore Montreal; it is a beautiful city. But Radio-Canada has a mandate. The only one that can make it respect that mandate is the government through regulations and legislation. There has to be a precise and clear mandate that tells them to make their decisions, and to make them according to the law, and to ensure that there is programming from outside Quebec.

Ms. Cécile Chevrier: I think a cleanup is required in all of this. You're absolutely right.

Robert would like to speak.

Mr. Robert Charbonneau: I think that you're right and I would go even further. I think that all broadcasters are subject to the CRTC. All francophone broadcasters who have francophone viewers receive public funds. Therefore, any broadcaster using public funds, including Radio-Canada, should have a moral obligation to support francophones. I'm referring especially to networks whose programs are broadcast outside Quebec.

We know at least two or three that broadcast outside the province. There is Radio-Canada, TVA and TFO. TQS and TV5 are also scattered here and there, there is ARTV, etc.

The system that was established is based on numbers. In terms of numbers required, we're talking about millions and millions. However, there are only one million of us outside Quebec. We could never do television dramas. I could never tell you your history about Acadia, and Acadians could never see themselves on the screen under the new policies, the new guidelines within, for example, Telefilm Canada and other organizations.

Earlier, someone asked why the broadcasters don't have the right to make their case. TFO tried. TFO had five priorities for the broadcasting rights program. Only one was accepted at the LFP level, FranCoeur. So even though those famous priorities exist, only the strongest win at the outset because they can invest the most fantastic amounts they wish in these projects.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Simard.

Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, I would like to thank you for your excellent presentation. It brought me up to date on an issue which Mr. Paquin often referred to in the past. Now it's clear.

Of course, what is going on is quite sad. For instance, in our neck of the woods, in francophone Manitoba, les Productions Rivard have become a kind of institution. We really like watching programs from Quebec, but we basically prefer watching homegrown shows, which are usually better at reflecting cultural sensibilities. Therefore, I feel it is very important to continue to promote our local organizations.

A few moments ago, you talked about a minimum envelope. I think it's sad that this type of thing has to be imposed. Many of my questions have been answered, but I want to come back to that particular aspect, because it's a bit sad that we have to impose minimum thresholds. Basically, if it has to be done to protect the industry, it should be done. Again, I think it's sad that when we lose a champion on a board of directors, our businesses are threatened.

However, the government does invest a significant amount of money in the fund. Do you think that an option could be for the Department of Canadian Heritage to play a greater role? We could impose a minimum threshold of 15% or change the structure of the board in order to bring in people who are more sensitive to the needs of minorities. Do you think that is an option?

À (1020)

Ms. Cécile Chevrier: I think so, but the government will have to become more actively involved in the fund, in the status of governance and in the other areas as well. It's a feeling I've got, and I can't put my finger on it, but in the three years I have been here, I have given the matter a lot of thought, and I think that idea is worth exploring.

To come back to what has already been said with regard to support, I have to say that the various organizations and work groups representing all the stakeholders in our field, such as the CRTC, have supported us. I won't name them all, but their support was unwavering and that is why some projects within the IPOL have worked in our favour.

In fact, there is a funny little paradox I would like to share with you. Each year, the Banff Arts' Festival traditionally brings together the industry's decision-makers. This year, Telefilm Canada offered us training with regard to the international market under the IPOLC. We are not even sure people know about us in Moncton. I found that very strange.

To answer your question, I think that the government should be more involved.

Mr. Pierre-Raphaël Pelletier: For Fédération culturelle, it is clear that the Department of Heritage—I have said it and it's not a joke—is the department of French Canadian and Acadian culture. The department must be given all the necessary means to truly reflect our cultural diversity.

Mr. Raymond Simard: Can you briefly describe the process leading to project approval? Can you apply once a year or twice a year? How does that work?

Ms. Cécile Chevrier: Depending on the type of production, there are two periods for applications, namely the spring and the fall. In the fall, you can only apply for documentaries. To apply, the first condition is that you must have the support of the broadcaster. This support translates into what is called a license, in other words, the broadcaster's investment in a given project. The more money the broadcaster is willing to put up, the greater the chances of the project being developed. On top of that you have to add the well-known priority criteria. The criteria are based on a decreasing rating system, in which the first rating is 20 and the last is 1. Some broadcasters have more, others have less. Radio-Canada was up at 40 and TFO had 5 this time.

So, you get the license and then you can go through one of two programs within the Canadian television fund. There is the LFP, the license fee program. From the outset, we've had a serious problem with this program, because it contains the priorities. The other program is the EIP, the Equity Investment Program, which is managed by Telefilm Canada. The LFP is an objective program, that is, you can get a license if your project has enough Canadian content. There is a chart to assess Canadian content. That's the license you get for a project. Of course, your program will only be eligible for the LFP if it has the support of the broadcaster.

The EIP is a little more subtle, because they have to take the LFPs decisions into account. Projects are evaluated objectively, that is, a project's content is assessed to see whether it is good or not, or whether it should be supported or not. Of course, I could go into much more detail, but I will spare you.

It's fairly complex, even for producers. Every year, we tear out our hair because the criteria keep on changing.

Mr. Raymond Simard: Thank you.

The Chair: Are you alright, Mr. Bellemare?

I have a question for you, Ms. Chevrier.

I would like to come back to something Mr. Simard was asking you with regard to Telefilm Canada. I will have an opportunity to discuss the matter further tomorrow when Telefilm officials appear before the committee. The issue has to do with the ratings criterion, namely 1,5 million viewers, which is a problem for your association, its producers and members, something I read about in the papers and in various reports. Can you explain this criterion to us and how it applies to you?

À (1025)

Ms. Cécile Chevrier: It's a new problem for us. The Executive Director of Telefilm Canada, Mr. Richard Stursberg, had campaigned in favour of this criterion. I agree with it on principle. It makes sense for the system to finance the most popular projects. That goes without saying. However, that carries with it the danger of the lowest common denominator and of sidelining people like us.

In fact, the ratings issue was very hard in the case of FranCoeur. Telefilm Canada was reluctant to support FranCoeur because of that. It wasn't because of the quality of the project, the quality of the script, or even the political benefit of staging a drama in Ottawa which was at issue.

The Chair: Are you talking about the criteria?

Ms. Cécile Chevrier: A dramatic series should be able to attract 1.5 million viewers to be even considered by Telefilm Canada. So, if we are to attract 1.5 viewers outside Quebec, that includes everyone, and I mean everyone.

The Chair: If you're not a national network, such as Radio-Canada or TVA, is it possible to attract that many viewers?

Ms. Cécile Chevrier: It's impossible.

The Chair: Therefore, TFO cannot compete from the outset because of this criterion, which eliminates everyone who is not a national broadcaster like Radio-Canada or TVA.

Mr. Robert Charbonneau: TFO, TQS, Astral and so on.

The Chair: Mr. Sauvageau, you asked to come back for two minutes.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You drew a parallel with grants given to aboriginal communities. I was not going to get into that, but given that you have paved the way, I would like to speak about that issue.

Have you discussed the possibility of having a specialized channel like they have? You spoke of ghettoïzation, would such a channel be too ghettos?

Ms. Cécile Chevrier: Obviously we have talked about it. I would remind you that the “Conférence nationale de la production des régions” took place last autumn, at the end of September. The conference was held in Moncton. We brought together more than 40 francophone regional producers, Quebeckers and members of the APFC, and we discussed the possibility. There is no doubt that television is the passport to public funding. There is no getting away from that. Ghetto is indeed the right word. We must not forget that part of our work, and in my case at any rate, part of what drives us to become poverty-stricken producers, is, of course, to have the opportunity to be a window for our communities in Quebec. Part of our work is to communicate our experiences and showcase our realities.

Obviously, all television networks would be happy if we had our own regional television. They would be rid of us. If we were only to have our own regional television, it would certainly be dangerous. We would run the risk of ending up in a ghetto.

I would reiterate that we must target the general public whilst protecting what we are trying to create. It is something of a dilemma.

Mr. Pierre-Raphaël Pelletier: The “Fédération culturelle canadienne-française” always insists that we be allowed our quotas and content on the major national networks in order to ensure inter-cultural exchange.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you.

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Paquin.

Mr. Louis Paquin: Earlier on, somebody mentioned that the Department of Canadian Heritage could take on a bigger role. I think that is very important. Often, people in Montreal and Toronto forget that funding from the Department of Canadian Heritage is cultural funding. When the money goes to the machine that is Montreal, it becomes an industry. People forget that it is cultural funding and that, therefore, there are objectives to be met. If it were not for the Department of Canadian Heritage, they would be able to run amok. It should not be a case of “take the money and run”, responsibility goes hand in hand with funding. The Department of Canadian Heritage controls cultural funding for a reason. If not, there would be nothing more than federal tax credits.

À (1030)

The Chair: In the research paper prepared by our researcher, Mr. Ménard, figures are given for the percentage of the francophone envelope allocated to francophones in a minority situation for each fiscal year from 1997-1998 to 2001-2002. For 1997-1998 the figure was 3.3 per cent, the year after that, it was 8 per cent and the following year, it was 7.5 per cent. It was 5.2 per cent for 2000-2001 and, as Ms. Chevrier said, it was 10.5 per cent for 2001-2002.

I was wondering if you have an estimate for 2002-2003 and, in particular for the fiscal year which has just started?

Ms. Cécile Chevrier: According to the calculations that I have just scribbled, and this is by no means certain, I think that we will get about 7 per cent.

The Chair: You have never got the 15 per cent that you proposed. That is why you decided to accept the principle and make a recommendation. You were perhaps worried that restricting yourselves to 15 per cent would work against you.

Ms. Cécile Chevrier: That is correct.

The Chair: Okay.

Ms. Cécile Chevrier: When people such as Robert and myself make drama series, the envelope gets used up quickly. Drama series are a lot more expensive than documentaries.

The Chair: We will conclude this hearing and begin the next in two minutes. I would ask you to stay in this room.

I am going to propose something that is not customary. Since you know that tomorrow afternoon at 3:30 p.m., in this room, we will be hearing representatives from Telefilm Canada, Radio-Canada and TFO, perhaps some of you can also be here. If there was an informal opportunity to ask questions, our colleagues may be able to go and see you in order to better understand the situation and the dynamic you are facing.

I would invite my colleagues to think about the drafting of a report as early as next week. So I will conclude on that.

Mr. Charbonneau, you have the floor.

Mr. Robert Charbonneau: Since the series FranCoeur was the first drama ever produced outside Quebec in 50 years of television in Canada, I have brought a little souvenir with me. It is a lovely coffee cup with a nice little cow on it for any members of Parliament who might like to use it.

The Chair: If Mr. Paquin could circulate a copy of his program on Beaupré the giant, I think there might be some interest around the table.

With this I thank you.

À (1032)

À (1040)

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, if you would like to take your seats, we will continue this meeting. The witnesses we have before us now are representatives of the Department of Canadian Heritage, namely Mr. Michael Wernick, associate deputy minister, who will make the first presentation.

Afterwards, Ms. Sandra Macdonald, president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Television Fund will take the floor.

Mr. Wernick, you have the floor.

Mr. Michael Wernick (Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Canadian Heritage): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am accompanied today by several of my colleagues from the department. They are more competent than I am to answer detailed questions, with regard to funding rules and other topics. With your permission, I will introduce them briefly.

There is my colleague Susan Peterson, who is the assistant deputy minister responsible for cultural affairs in the department; Mr. René Bouchard, who was recently appointed director general of Broadcasting Policy and Innovation; Mr. Robert Soucy, director of the Canadian Audiovisual Certification Office and who is very well versed in the funding of television programs and feature films.

I have circulated our presentation for all your guests; I do not intend to read all the pages in detail. I thought it might be useful for the committee to have a bit more information about the broadcasting system and the context in which we are working, with the ad hoc situations that Ms. Chevrier and her colleagues described very well this morning.

I would begin by saying that our department fully accepts the diagnostics and pleas made by Ms. Chevrier and her colleagues. We have no reservations about what she said concerning the importance of television production from a cultural standpoint, from the standpoint of official languages or linguistic duality, as well as the role that these stories play for communities and for Canadian culture and identity. We fully accept the importance of these issues and we want to try to find solutions quickly, so that is why we want to give you a bit of background.

The first page of our presentation is an effort to summarize in a single page Canada's entire broadcasting system. I note that several members of this committee are also members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. We eagerly await the report of this committee which conducted a very important study of the broadcasting system. The committee did an indepth examination, heard many witnesses, visited many places and we await its recommendations. I must say that for all issues related to broadcasting, the important work of this parliamentary committee will be our road map, our context and our starting point for all issues arising in the coming months.

Who are the key players of the system? This is a system that is progressing rapidly and I will not repeat all the figures here. There is private television, the important role of the CBC/Société Radio-Canada, major private networks, educational television, specialty channels and pay TV, digital services and satellite broadcasting which is experiencing ever more growth. Today, 2 million Canadian homes receive television signals by satellite and not cable. This has become a very important issue of choice and diversity.

There is also the production sector which is largely a small and medium-size business sector. There are large companies, or relatively large ones such as Alliance Atlantis and others, but for the most part, there are primarily small and medium-size businesses across Canada, in all regions and in all major centres.

If there is one thing in my presentation that I would consider important, it is the graph on page 3. It describes the balance between the measures that involve demand in the system and those that concern the supply. The world of francophone producers in minority situations, indeed the world of all producers in the regions and elsewhere is affected by two types of factors. On the left side of the table, you see all the instruments that influence demand for the product. Mr. Chairman, I know that your committee has closely examined the role of the CRTC, an independent and autonomous regulatory agency, with the regulations set out by the commission, and the conditions of licence imposed on broadcasters such as the Société Radio-Canada, TVA and Astral. That is very important in terms of their behaviour.

The SRC and CBC play a very important role because they order and purchase programs from producers. The behaviour of these two corporations is important.

À (1045)

It is not the department's role to interfere in the day-to-day operations of a public broadcaster. I believe that representatives of the SRC will be appearing before your committee and will be able to answer your questions. The NFB also plays an important role.

Ms. Macdonald, who now works for the Canadian Television Fund, was formerly the government commissioner for cinematography and president of the NFB, and that mainly plays a role in the development of a new avenue.

International co-productions are a very important tool because sometimes, the costs and risks can be shared with a foreign producer; that's very important in a market like Canada. So there you have a list of the instruments involved in the demand.

On the other side, there are the measures concerning supply, and the Canadian Television Fund plays a critical role in this. This is to be discussed in greater depth today, but I want to stress the role of other instruments that could also change the trajectory of the Canadian feature film and television production sector.

The following pages in our brief describe in greater detail the role of these institutions and the special efforts deployed with regard to creative producers in minority situations. I will not review all this in detail, but the Canada Council for the Arts, the Canadian Independent Film and Video Fund, which subsidize very small projects, the two tax credits offered by the Government of Canada and once again, the role of the SRC, the CBC and the NFB as production houses are very important tools.

This gives you an overview of the system that affects francophone producers in minority communities and the Canadian Television Fund is the largest subsidizing instrument. It plays a role but it's not the entire system. Progress can be achieved if we mobilize all the other tools in the system.

There's also an important role for a voice in decision-making and for your information, I describe here the current situation in terms of membership of the decision-making bodies of all these public agencies, appointed representatives who come from minority francophone communities. Right now, there is no one on the management committee to fulfill that role, but in the past there was one representative from New Brunswick.

The pages that follow provide more details. Perhaps we could just go on to questions if there are specific points you'd like to raise. I know your committee has examined the role of the CRTC. That sometimes raises thorny issues, namely whether the government should or should not do something. There is an independent regulatory agency, and the limits of our ability as well as your ability to direct the CRTC are occasionally a source of frustration for you as well as for us. With regard to programming demand, CRTC decisions are very important. The Commission rebuilt the regulatory structure that governs Canadian television in the past three or four years. The most significant decisions concern general television policy, the renewal of major licences, and the conditions imposed on these television networks.

A specific investigation that we conducted on the situation of francophone minority communities dealt mainly with issues of broadcasting and service availability, but it did not place the same emphasis on subsidy measures. There are factors here that affect the vitality and size of the system which we could discuss later. Community policy also plays an important role.

With regard to the SRC, we give a brief description of its budget, its accounting and interests. They are an important partner in the structure of IPOLC agreements. The same is true for the NFB, for international co-productions, the Canadian Council, the Canadian Television Fund and Telefilm Canada which are the most important sources of funding for television production and feature film. I'm going through this quickly, but if you have any questions, I'll be pleased to go into detail.

I'd also like to highlight the Canadian model. The department does not choose programs or films, nor does it decide in detail how things should be chosen. We delegate this function to an autonomous agency with a board of directors that has its own responsibilities and which is accountable to the Parliament of Canada.

À (1050)

The Chair: Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Wernick, far be it for me to be impolite from you, but as you pointed out in your document, a lengthy study was conducted by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on this whole issue, including Telefilm Canada and all that...

Mr. Michael Wernick: Yes.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Today, our order of reference deals with the Canadian Television Fund. I find it all very nice to find out everything that's going on at Heritage Canada, but now we're being told about Telefilm Canada. I would appreciate it if officials from Heritage Canada discussed more specifically what's on the agenda.

The Chair: Mr. Sauvageau, we invited representatives of the department to give us an overview.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: An overview of everything not just the Canadian Television Fund?

The Chair: Please go on, Mr. Wernick.

Mr. Michael Wernick: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's simply a matter of giving you a bit of a context because sometimes people turn to the Television Fund to settle or deal with issues that involve the broadcasting system, but there are other important instruments out there. Now I'd like to go on to the last slide.

We work very hard to mobilize all these agencies. The system works better when we can link the demand instruments with those that deal with supply.

Let me go on immediately to the Canadian Television Fund, because this spring there is a tendency to try to get rid of the fund and say that it doesn't work. I must say that I don't want to defend all the details. We are perfectly prepared to accept Madam Chevrier's first recommendation, to the effect that the governance structure and the funding should be reviewed. The examination of the fund will continue in the context of the report that we will be receiving from the committee chaired by Mr. Lincoln.

The beauty of this fund is that it's a public-private partnership; it's not a departmental program and it's not a government agency. It's a public-private partnership and I would go so far as to tell you that the issue for both us and you today is to determine what level of interference by the department is appropriate in such a partnership. It's a mixture of public and private funds and it is governed by an 18-member board of directors. The good thing about this fund is that there is a consensus among all stakeholders in the Canadian television sector about the priority allocation rules and the business plans. It is not departmental officials who make decisions, nor even officials of the NFB or Telefilm Canada. There are representatives of cable companies, private broadcasters, public broadcasters, educational television broadcasters, many producers as well as associations representing producers in Quebec as well as producers in the rest of Canada.

They all have a voice; they can all vote and make decisions. Most decisions are arrived at by consensus; they are unanimous. One can say that this is a partnership where we have to tie together public policy objectives, those of the government, with common sense and the reality check provided by the stakeholders. This is an experiment that has been going for eight years now. This year, we are in the eighth cycle and this is the first time I appear before a parliamentary committee to explain all this.

Quite clearly, some troubling events have taken place this year, but it must be pointed out that the fund generated at least 2,000 hours of programming for each fiscal year in the past eight years, and it's a success story from a cultural and economic standpoint. It has helped the production sector develop and has aided broadcasters, especially new specialty and digital broadcasters, to fill their program schedule with Canadian programming because the dominant factor in the allocation of funds is the licence paid for by the broadcaster.

Allow me to go back a bit.

The fund only subsidizes programs that have already been ordered by a broadcaster, so there is no risk to have a subsidy program that accumulate a pile of program tapes that are never watched by Canadians who paid for their funding. All programs financed by the fund are broadcast and this year again, we will be funding approximately 2,000 hours of programming which will be watched by Canadian and foreign viewers. So there are elements of this fund that work very well.

We are highly aware of our responsibilities on the public side of the public-private partnership. There is a contribution agreement that manages the allocation of public funds. We contribute half, and the agreement is available, it is made public and you can examine it and ask questions.

As a department, we have to decide at what level we can be involved. There are certain aspects of the structure about which we are emphatic, such as the emphasis placed on cultural objectives. We must also respect the linguistic allocation of two-thirds, one-third.

À (1055)

We also need measures to promote regional productions; we must enhance or respect linguistic dualities. But we must also ask ourselves one question: Do we really want to impose detailed allocation rules, or do we want to benefit from the experience and expertise offered by the board of directors and give it a fiduciary responsibility to manage the fund as a whole?

Members of the board have mechanisms for accountability and annual reports. There are no secrets with regard to this fund. The allocation rules, the eligibility criteria, the annual reports are all on the website. I think that Ms. Macdonald and I can try to answer your questions on this topic.

What happened this year? I would like to focus on page 15, which deals with the financing of the fund. I think that one aspect of what happened this year was the reduction in funding, because there's always more demand than money available for this fund. That has always been the case and always will be. There's a great deal of demand. Therefore, the allocation rules are more or less the way decisions are made about who receives funding and who does not. The acceptance and refusal rates change from year-to-year. For the past eight years, public investment has been quite substantial, but when there are fewer resources, we see that the rejection rate goes up. That's what happened this year.

Pages 16 and 17 contain more or less the same background information provided by Ms. Chevrier. We have made a lot of progress since 2000 with the incentives. What changed in the graph for 2000-2001 is that the fund board of directors examined the issue of minority community productions and added certain elements based on an incentive model. Encouraging broadcasters to reorder and to reduce cost of production in minority communities has produced quite satisfying results and a remarkable rate of progress in the two years that followed.

This year we saw a failure. I accept Ms. Chevrier's assessment on that. The failure is probably caused by the change in the rules. An element was added in the decision-making rules, and Sandra can describe it better than I can, but it gives more weight to the decisions of broadcasters. They already have a choice, and have to make a decision because they have to order a program. That's the starting point. The licence they pay to producers is the dominant factor in the assessment grid. Moreover, the broadcasters' priority framework is added as part of the point system. I fully accept that Ms. Chevrier recognized immediately that that would have a specific impact on minority community production. She was right.

At the time, the board of directors decided to go ahead with the system to replace another model which we will describe if you wish, and a consensus was reached about this with the SRC, private television networks, educational television, the Association des producteurs de films et de télévision du Québec as well as the ACPFT. They all believed at the time that this would have a positive effect in terms of allocation rules in a situation where there's a great deal more demand than supply.

Á (1100)

The Chair: I must ask you to wrap up so that we can go on to Ms. Macdonald because we are running out of time.

Mr. Michael Wernick: I understand.

The challenge we face is to review the situation. The fund has already allocated about $192 million of its resources for this year. There may be approximately $15 million left for this fall. Therefore, the cards have been more or less played for this year and we have to review the situation before the 2004 cycle. We fully agree that the criteria point system and many other things must be reviewed. If the committee wants to recommend more in-depth structural changes, we absolutely want to pursue this in the context of the report from the committee chaired by Mr. Lincoln.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Wernick.

Ms. Macdonald.

Ms. Sandra Macdonald (President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Television Fund): Mr. Chairman, I thank the committee for inviting me here today.

My name is Sandra Macdonald and I am the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Television Fund. I am pleased to appear here before your committee today to answer your questions regarding the support provided by the Canadian Television Fund to the production sector for linguistic minorities in Canada.

I'd like to begin by introducing Ms. Louise Baillargeon who is with me here today. Ms. Baillargeon is the Senior Vice-President of the Canadian Television Fund. We'll be pleased to answer your questions in a few minutes.

As you undoubtedly know, the Canadian Television Fund or CTF was created in 1996 as a result of a partnership between the public and private sector. At that time, the Department of Canadian Heritage and Canada's cable companies decided to join forces to support Canadian television programming.

The CTF includes two distinct funding programs.

The first one, called the Licence Fee Program, or LFP, is administered directly by the CTF.

The second one, the Equity Investment Program, or EIP, is administered by Telefilm Canada for the Canadian Television Fund.

The committee has invited the Executive Director of Telefilm Canada, Mr. Richard Stursberg, to appear before it tomorrow. Mr. Stursberg will then have an opportunity to provide you with more information about the activities and achievements of the Equity Investment Program with regard to Telefilm Canada's obligations under the interdepartmental partnership with official language minority communities.

Since its creation, the Canadian Television Fund has allocated one-third of its budget to French-language productions. Although this division is disproportionately high relative to the population, it has always been deemed fair by the CTF and its stakeholders. This conception of fairness will remain a fundamental value of the fund.

[English]

As I mentioned a few moments ago, the equity investment program is administered for the Canadian Television Fund by Telefilm Canada. Accordingly, that program is not only guided by the objectives established for the fund by the Department of Canadian Heritage, but is also bound by Telefilm's corporate plan and obligations as a crown corporation. Furthermore, the program it administers, the equity investment program, is a selective program that has a certain flexibility in choosing to support the types of programming that best reflect its cultural mandate, including minority-language programming.

That flexibility is not the case with the CTF's other funding program, the one administered directly by the CTF, the licence fee program. I've attached a chart outlining the differences between how funding is done for the two programs. Perhaps the clerk can make sure that's available to everyone.

You will see from there that the decision-making processes for the two funds are completely different. They bear little resemblance to one another.

The licence fee program is the successor to the Cable Production Fund, which was one of the two pieces merged in 1996 to create the public-private partnership. This is the private part. It gets its resources almost entirely from cable revenues.

It was designed from the beginning, before it was part of the merged fund, to base its funding decisions on market demand. Its purpose was to provide objective, quasi-automatic funding support to productions without making a subjective assessment of their creative or cultural merits once their basic eligibility for the program had been established. However, within this rigid framework, the licence fee program has sought to strengthen the cultural diversity of the programming it supports by providing incentives for regional and minority-language productions.

Practically speaking, the licence fee program can be called objective in that it uses a mathematical ranking system that awards points to productions based on a series of criteria. When it comes time to award funding, the LFP begins with the production that has earned the highest-ranking score and works its way down the list until all the available funds have been spent.

In accordance with its market-driven design, two of the licence fee program's three ranking criteria are directly linked to decisions made by Canadian broadcasters.

The first criterion evaluated by the LFP is the amount of money a Canadian broadcaster or group of broadcasters is willing to pay for the right to air the show. This is called the broadcast licence fee. Simply put, the higher the broadcast licence fee as a percentage of the program's budget, the more points it will earn on the licence fee program's ranking scale. Since broadcasters pay licence fees in accordance with their interest in a particular show, this becomes a concrete demonstration of a production's importance to its broadcaster.

The second funding criterion on the licence fee program's ranking scale is what we term the broadcaster priority. The Canadian Television Fund allows broadcasters to identify a predetermined number of productions as priorities for their broadcast schedules. Broadcasters are required to order these priorities from the most important, in their view, to the least important. A ranking score is then assigned to each priority on their list.

By way of example, if a broadcaster was allotted 20 priorities for the spring funding round, their top priority was given 20 points; their second, 19 points; and so on down the list.

As broadcasters naturally assign higher priorities and are willing to pay higher licence fees to productions they believe will draw the highest audience, the LFP relies on these two criteria as a proxy to determine the attractiveness of a show to Canadian audiences.

Á (1105)

The third-ranking criterion on the LFP scale assigns five points to small and medium-sized production companies in order to level the playing field between smaller companies and larger ones. It should be noted that all Canada's minority-language producers operate small or medium-sized companies, and therefore all benefit from these additional ranking points.

There are also two particular incentives built into this ranking system to help regional productions. Since many minority-language producers are based outside of Montreal or Toronto, these incentives are of particular importance to them.

First of all, the licence fee program advantages productions created more than 150 kilometres outside of Montreal or Toronto, by adding a multiplier to the calculation of their licence fee points. Regional productions, and particularly French-language shows produced outside Quebec, therefore receive more ranking points for every dollar paid by a broadcaster than their Montreal or Toronto counterparts. In other words, a broadcaster can pay less for a regional production and still rank just as highly at the LFP. This incentive exists to make regional and minority-language productions even more appealing to Canadian broadcasters.

Once such productions have succeeded in ranking at the LFP, they receive an additional benefit of a larger percentage of funding contribution. While the average licence fee program contribution represents 15% of a production budget, all French-language productions, regardless of where they're made, receive a 5% bonus on the whole budget of the production. Regional productions are entitled to an additional 5% regional bonus, French-language productions made outside of Montreal receive another 5%, and French-language shows made outside of Quebec receive yet another 5%.

Since these bonuses are all cumulative, a French-language production made in Moncton would receive a licence fee contribution worth 35% of its budget, compared to a French production made in Montreal, which would only receive a contribution of 20%, or an English language production made in Toronto, which would only receive 15%.

With the licence fee program and equity investment program working in tandem, the Canadian Television Fund has demonstrated some positive success in supporting minority-language productions. For example, in 2002, the CTF—both programs together—provided almost $11 million of financing to 23 television projects produced outside of Quebec in French. These shows delivered some 135 hours of original programming from that production community.

In the spring of 2003 we saw a very significant drop in support for all types of programming due to the CTF's smaller budget this year. This affected our capacity to support minority-language production, along with all other categories of production.

The fund started 2003 with almost $70 million less than it had last year. This is due to the depletion of some $40 million in fiscal reserves in 2002, which were not available, of course, once they were spent; a $25 million reduction in funding from the Government of Canada; and a change in CRTC regulation that permitted cable companies to redirect $5 million worth of contributions, which were formerly coming to the Canadian Television Fund, to their local community channels. In all, this represented a reduction of some 24% of the funds available in 2003 to support programming at the Canadian Television Fund.

As a result of the reduced budget, both programs of the Canadian Television Fund were not able to sustain the same level of support to any sector of programming activity this year. Decision-making for the spring is not yet completed. We have final results for drama, variety, and children's programming, but only a partial picture for documentaries. Minority productions sustained a higher rejection rate than in the past couple of years, but not a higher rejection rate than for the total universe of CTF productions.

Á (1110)

[Translation]

Upon request of the committee, the CTF prepared statistics drawn from its last complete fiscal year, that is 2002-2003. This data provides a picture of the financial contribution of the fund to programs created by linguistic minority communities.

It would be appropriate to point out that we designate a production as being French or English according to the language of production and not the language of the producer. We fund English-language productions that are produced by companies that work mainly in French and vice versa. We do not ask applicants to indicate their ethnic origin.

I will conclude this survey of the funding offered by the Canadian Television Fund to production programs. Obviously, this year has been particularly difficult for us all. All the productions whose applications for funding were declined this year were good productions. It was also difficult to have to refuse so many applications, as was the case this year. Our refusal rate for some areas of production, notably drama, was over 80 per cent. Obviously, if we had more funds, our responses would have been different and positive for more people. We tried to do our best under the circumstances. If we could improve one thing, our primary objective would be to ensure that the Canadian Television Fund's money, both the public part and the private part, is used so as to obtain the best possible results for the Canadian public and for the production and broadcasting industry.

Á (1115)

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Macdonald.

We will now go to our traditional question period, beginning with Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. If I may, I would like to address my first question to Mr. Wernick.

On page 2 of the sheets that you gave us, there is a table showing the Canadian situation. There are 96 private television stations. Would it be possible to know—not necessarily today—the exact number of English and French stations?

The information also shows that the CBC has 24 basic stations, 16 English and 8 French. That looks good, since it means that one-third of the stations are French and two-thirds English. That said, we also need to take into account the number of employees and the budgets of the two English networks, in comparison with the two national French networks. Do you feel that Radio-Canada and TVA are on an equal footing with the English networks? Are Radio-Canada and TVA available in all provinces?

Mr. Michael Wernick: In the case of TVA, yes, following a recent decision. It must be available every where, but that is not the case for specialty channels.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I would simply like a little more information about this table, since someone from outside the country looking at this would think that everything is bilingual everywhere and that the situation is great. So I would like some clarification. I did appreciate your comment about the $25 million budget cut; you basically said “if we have less money, we will accept fewer projects.” Then we go to page 16.

I first want to come back to page 15, because you more or less said that Ms. Copps had guaranteed—and it is important to know this—that the $25 million would be restored. She said that in the House of Commons, to producers, to everyone, but we are still waiting. People have to prepare their budgets.

Do you really think that the $25 million will be added to the existing $75 million already there?

If we look at the amounts for the past seven years, we see that there was always $100 million available. I would like to know, first of all, whether the $25 million promised by Ms. Copps will be provided. I would like to know, second, what the justification was for cutting the $25 million. After all, it amounts to one quarter of the budget. I would like to know, third, whether you feel that you have the right to give money without any type of intervention. I think that cutting $25 million amounts to intervening, if not directly, at least indirectly.

Do you have the right to transfer $75 or $100 million without verifying compliance with section 41? Is that legally possible?

If I still have time, I would also like to ask Ms. Macdonald some questions.

Á (1120)

Mr. Michael Wernick: I will not try to defend the budget decisions that were made, or even talk about them, because it was a Cabinet decision. I imagine that many factors went into that decision. Now we have to accept it. Right now, this morning, I do not have any confirmation that there will be additional funds this year. The Canadian Television Fund and the board of directors are still basing themselves on the current hypothesis, which is that there is $230 million available. If there is an announcement over the next few days or weeks, so much the better. The board of directors will then have to decide how to allocate that funding. For the moment, we do not have any confirmation about an additional investment.

That is why I said that the cards have more or less been dealt for this fiscal year, whether we are talking about funding for dramatic programming or for children's programming. The letters of acceptance or rejection have been sent, and the producers have to adjust, by looking for funding elsewhere or changing their business plans. The situation is serious for producers; we fully recognize that.

The question about inappropriate intervention is a fundamental one in my opinion. To what extent do we need to intervene? We could provide the contribution agreement to the committee. It is long, detailed and very complex. It contains a lot of measure about the Canadian Television Fund's accountability to the government and therefore to Parliament. If that is not enough, we can improve and change everything. We have not put emphasis on how the Canadian Television Fund should promote regional productions or respect linguistic duality. I must say that I do not really know how our obligations or even our principles, under sections 41 and 42, translate into specific decisions. We fully recognize our special responsibility to these communities and this kind of content, but there will be productions funded this year, and I do not know to what extent we should insist on a specific result of how a judge would treat a hypothetical case in which someone complained about the fact that the Canadian Television Fund had funded five programs instead of seven. What is the appropriate threshold? It is a matter of judgment. I fully recognize that we are very disappointed by what has happened, and we want to regain the momentum and further the progress of previous years.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I would like to make a comment before going to Ms. Macdonald.

The Chair: You have one minute left, Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: It seems to me that if $100 million has been given for the past eight years, it is a bit late to wonder whether those millions of dollars have really been aimed at the right objective. It seems to me that it is somewhat late to ask that question, but still...

Ms. Macdonald, Ms. Chevrier painted us a rather bleak picture in her remarks, and Mr. Wernick concurred with her. Things are not going well. In your presentation, on the other hand, the picture seemed much brighter.

Do you share the major complaints found in the report provided to us this morning about the drastic cuts to producers in francophone minority communities? Would you agree with the third recommendation to alleviate the problem somewhat by providing a set amount of money for a given type of production?

I would like to know whether you share the views of Ms. Chevrier and Mr. Wernick about the current situation, or whether your reality is different. Do you support the third recommendation?

Ms. Sandra Macdonald: To begin with, I must say that Ms. Chevrier does not quite see things the way we do, but we may see that change in the future. As I said, at the Canadian Television Fund and the Fund's board of directors, of which Ms. Chevrier is a member, we are obviously all very disappointed by this year's results, since the rate of rejection or refusal for projects and applications is much higher than in previous years in all categories.

There are two reasons for that. The funds at our disposal have been reduced by one-quarter, whereas in certain cases, requests for financial support is high and ever growing. We obviously have a problem that comes down to simple arithmetic to some extent: less money and more requests. So there are more projects that cannot be funded.

That said, I can assure you that we have done everything possible, in both programs, to provide special support for programming from the regions, certainly more for programs in French outside Montreal and even more for those outside Quebec.

As I mentioned, as part of the objective of our licence fee program, a French-language producer outside Quebec can receive a contribution of up to 35 per cent of a project's budget.

Á (1125)

The Chair: Ms. Macdonald, I left a little extra time, but we have to move on now.

Mr. Bellemare, Mr. Godin and Ms. Thibeault. Then Mr. Simard and Mr. Castonguay. There will be only one round.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.): Mr. Wernick, Ms. Macdonald, I first want to congratulate you: after seven years, it is time for the seven-year itch. It is because of your success that we want to ask you questions and look at how you operate. So if we are asking questions today it is because we are interested in something that seems to have been quite a success.

If I have correctly understood what you are saying, the government should contribute more. As a member of Parliament, I have just received this copy of the 2001-02 report. The 2002-03 report, I am told, has not yet been printed or distributed. So instead of asking you questions that you could obviously answer easily, I will take a different approach and give you the impressions of a member of Parliament who has read your report. You may want to change how you present your next annual report as a result.

Reading your report, I notice that on your executive or your board of directors, there are people from TV Ontario, but not from TFO. So as a Franco-Ontarian, this raises questions for me. Then I see the following groups: Rogers Cable, Shaw Cable, Corus, producers Barna-Alper, Keatley Films Ltd., Memory Films Productions Ltd., Radio-Canada—some say Radio-Montreal, and it is certainly not Radio-Ontario—and Télé Astral. So those are the people making the decisions about your projects. There is almost a hint of conflict of interest. It is not the case, but there is a hint of that, since these people who are on the executive are also the ones deciding who gets what.

Among your three objectives, one reads as follows:

2. To reflect Canada to Canadians by assisting the creation and broadcast, in prime time, of high-quality, culturally significant Canadian programs in both official languages [...]

Then when you talk about the future, you say that the board has to show flexibility with respect to industry demands. It strikes me when I read "industry demands" that it is not really industry demands that you need to react to but community demands. Your funding comes mainly from Heritage Canada and not from Industry Canada, and so the Government of Canada's message is not about industry but about heritage. And heritage means culture, the arts, education, official languages.

I also have the impression that your point system is about profitability. Is it profitable to produce these things?

Maybe it is the wrong department that seems to have given you your guidelines, from what I read, but I get the impression that this is really a matter of culture and that it is really Heritage Canada that should give you the message or has already done so.

Then there is the breakdown by language and program title. For example, with respect to dramatic documentaries, feature films and so on, the ratio of French and English programs is two to one. But when we look at children's programming, the ratio is four to one, but in favour of English programs this time. I would have a whole series of questions to ask you. I do not understand why English producers would get four times more than French producers for children's programming, since at least one-third of Canadians are French-speaking, and if we include immersion programs, I would say that it is 50/50.

Á (1130)

So there are many Canadians from one end of the country to the other who would like to see French productions, not only francophones but also francophiles, that is, anglophones who want to learn French and who want their children to learn French.

So I hope that the next report will be better, but I see this as a mortal sin. I am sure that you will react...

The Chair: Mr. Bellemare, I have to interrupt you. In order for Ms. Macdonald or Ms. Baillargeon to have a couple of minutes to respond, you will have to end your comments soon.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I'd better get on with it because the Chairman will tell me I'm out of time. When we look at productions by linguistic minorities, the Canadian Television Fund contributes $20 million to anglophones, and $8 million to francophones outside Quebec. I'm having trouble understanding this. When I read the report, I get a very negative impression, a very negative response, I get the feeling I want to push you on this, although that is not the right approach.

So when it comes to broadcasting rights, every project must be licensed by Canadian payTV or a specialty channel or by another broadcaster, be it the traditional public or private television networks or educational television, before it is eligible for CTF funding. This is a major obstacle for many aspiring producers, because if you're not well connected, if not a member of the club, as it were, if you don't have a sponsor, then it's tough luck.

Do you have a response to these impressions?

Ms. Sandra Macdonald: Of course. As I have already said, the fund is a sort of blend between a public organization with a full range of obligations associated with the receipt of parliamentary appropriations this is Telefilm Canada and a private corporation with its most of its revenue coming from cable distributors. The funds' board of directors was designated by the CRTC in 1994, and continued with the Canadian Television Fund when the two parties merged.

The CRTC chose to ensure that stakeholders in the industry would have the ability to appoint their own representatives to the Board each year. That is why we have the names you see there for this year. Next week, there will be a different group from the same industry sectors, including production, radio broadcasting, cable distribution, education, and so on. In addition, five members are appointed by the Minister of Communications.

First of all, I should point out that the Board of Directors was established by the CRTC. We have always allocated one-third of our funding to French-language productions, and two-thirds to English-language productions. If you read the report in detail, you will note that the number of production hours purchased with this funding is in the region of 80 per cent and 55 per cent. This is an asset for French-language production, which can generally obtain a lower cost per production hour than the English-language equivalent. Obviously, the number of hours is a very important consideration for us, and we never stop trying to increase it.

As for a children's programming, we begin with one-third and two-thirds; then, we provide funding for four types of programming that receive support, including dramas, children's programs, variety programs and documentaries. Each type is allocated a percentage of the available funds; the amounts are linked to applications made over the past three years. If we have more applications for children's programming, the percentage for that type of programming will be higher than for the others. There is also a difference according to whether productions are in the French-language or English-language market.

Á (1135)

The Chair: I am afraid I have to interrupt you, Ms. Macdonald, or we will run out of time. All our colleagues here must have a chance to ask questions.

Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would also like to thank our witnesses today.

First of all, Mr. Wernick, I would like to say that I thought that it was nice of you to say that we were all in agreement. However, once again, this is just sympathy, and I must say, with all due respect, that that does not get us anywhere. Even if you say that everyone agrees, the fact remains that we have a problem that never gets solved. As far as I am concerned, sympathy is far from my thoughts. What I want is action from Heritage Canada.

On page 4 of the document we read: “Minority francophone communities—a voice in decision-making”.

If we look at the list of members of the board of Radio-Canada and CBC, we see that there is one person from New Brunswick, Clarence LeBreton, out of a total of 12 members. Does that mean that no one else in Canada is a member of the board of Radio-Canada? I think the document should make it clear who in Canada is a member of the board of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. That is the objective of the document, but it mentions only one person from New Brunswick: namely, Clarence LeBreton.

One voice in a decision-making process that involves a number of people gets nowhere. It is similar to a situation in which the counsellors of a city were all located downtown. That would mean that the downtown area, and not the outlying streets would benefit from this arrangement.

I think this is where change should happen. I am criticizing Radio-Canada once again, but I must say we are given every reason to do so, particularly since we are talking about taxpayers' money.

As far as the CRTC goes, the document shows that there are 19 members, including one person from Ontario. If that is not correct, that means that the document does not really give us the correct information. There are 18 members on the board of the Canadian Television Fund, one of whom is from New Brunswick. Once again, I'm wondering whether the document is accurate.

You were also saying, Mr. Wernick, that the government should not interfere. I will use an example which, in one respect, will be on a different subject. However, this is just for the purpose of presenting my case.

The employment insurance fund is financed by employers and employees only; the government does not contribute to it. However, it got involved in this fund. Now, it is the government that sets the employment insurance premiums. It actually took this power away from the Employment Insurance Commission.

When money is involved, the government is not afraid to intervene. This is how it appropriated to itself $43 billion that people had paid into the program. And you, the Deputy Minister of Canadian Heritage, say that the government should not get involved...

Á (1140)

The Chair: Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: ...in a program that the government is responsible for making accessible to all Canadians!

I will not go into detail about what I said to the other group that was here earlier, but I would like to hear your reaction. You say that the government should not get involved. However, the fact is that it gets involved in everything that has to do with Canada, when it suits its purposes. We are talking here about defending the French language in Quebec and about offering services to Canadians and giving them an opportunity to express themselves on television, for example.

Despite all the sympathy you expressed—and I appreciate that—you say, nevertheless, that the government should not get involved. In this case, do you not think that the government should get involved, particularly given the fact that Canadian taxpayers are footing the bill?

Mr. Michael Wernick: You misquoted me, I did not say that we could not or should not get involved. In the case of partnerships between the public and private sectors, a decision has to be made regarding the level of involvement. I can give you today the contribution agreement. The committee can make some recommendations about how to improve it.

The Chair: You have made the suggestion twice, Mr. Wernick, so please do send us a copy of the contribution agreement as quickly as possible so that we can distribute it to all committee members.

Mr. Michael Wernick: I would suggest three options for you to consider and to question future witnesses on.

The first suggestion is to take a certain amount of money out of the Canadian Television Fund and use it to establish a special fund to be managed by Telefilm Canada. We would choose the amount 10, 12, 15 or $20 million, and we would subtract it from the amount given to the CTF. We would then establish a special fund for official language minority productions. This would be an option, but it would have certain consequences.

The second suggestion would be to improve the way in which the CTF operates. Ms. Chevrier mentioned the best-known option: the establishment of a reserve within the Canadian Television Fund, one-third of which would be earmarked for French-language production, and 15 per cent of this amount would be set aside for official language minority producers. That would be a valid option.

The third suggestion would be to follow the usual rules and to ensure that if the results to do not meet a certain threshold, a minimum amount would be provided in the reserve allocation. We can also adopt incentives, and offer more substantial bonuses.

Those are more or less the options available. If you have any other recommendations, we could act on them.

Slide 4 shows that there is some minority representation in the decision-making processes of the major agencies involved in the audiovisual field. If the committee thinks that this is inadequate, it has the right to recommend that the government appoint more people. These representatives are appointed by the Governor in Council. However, some legislation is already in place.

Á (1145)

The Chair: Thank you.

It is your turn, Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: There are 18 members on the board of the Canadian Television Fund, and only one of them is from New Brunswick. Where are the other 17 from?

Mr. Michael Wernick: They are not appointed by the department or by the minister. They are appointed by the associations that are partners in the Canadian Television Fund. The Canadian Association of Broadcasters, the CAB, appoints four of the members. It selects four delegates from among its members. The Quebec Association des producteurs de films et de télévision chooses one person. The Canadian Film and Television Production Association appoints two. The minister appoints 5 out of the 18 members. One of these individuals must represent the department—in recent years that person has been me—another represents Telefilm Canada—Mr. Charles Bélanger, and the other three individuals are managers appointed by the minister. I should mention that in the last three or four years, the minister has decided to reserve one of these three management positions for a representative from the Association des producteurs francophones du Canada.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I'm going to come back to my question, because you have not answered it.

There are 18 members on the board of the Canadian Television Fund, whether they are appointed by the minister or not, but one of them is from New Brunswick. Where are the other 17 from? Are they from Montreal, Quebec City...?

Mr. Michael Wernick: It changes every year, depending on the appointments. Sometimes there is a distributor from Vancouver, Montreal or Saskatchewan. This year, I think the representative for educational television is from Alberta.

Mme Sandra MacDonald: No, that person is from Saskatchewan.

Mr. Michael Wernick: It changes each year.

The Chair: Your question will have to be very short, Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: How do you explain the fact that English-language productions in Quebec get $17 million, even though there are fewer than 1 million anglophones in Quebec, while francophones outside Quebec get only $10.7 million, and there are over 1 million of them throughout this country?

Mr. Michael Wernick: Funding is not through an envelop or a reserve and it is not a predetermined amount either. This merely reflects the fact that minority anglophone producers can sell their products to far more companies.

The Chair: You have the floor, Ms. Macdonald.

Ms. Sandra Macdonald: Many English-language productions in Quebec are done by French-language companies that produce programming in English and French. There are a number of French-language companies that do productions in English.

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to have to adjourn at 12:10 p.m., because there is a vote in the House of Commons. This is a vote on a procedural matter and we can hear the bells ringing at the moment.

You have the floor, Ms. Thibeault.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Wernick, we have heard a great deal about these agreements entered into between your department and Telefilm Canada or the Canadian Television Fund, for example. I would like some reassurance from you. Is there a clause in these agreements requiring compliance with the Official Languages Act? Is that stated clearly in the agreement?

Mr. Michael Wernick: These agreements contain clauses on linguistic duality, on objectives and obligations, but I think—and I can check on this—that there is no direct reference to the Official Languages Act. This is one of the framework statutes that governs all our actions.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: I understand what you say, but as is increasingly the case in bills presented in the House of Commons, I would like to see a clause that provides specifically that this organization is subject to the Official Languages Act.

Mr. Michael Wernick: Telefilm Canada is clearly subject to the act.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: But that is not adequate.

Mr. Michael Wernick: The question is whether the Fund can impose this obligation on a third party.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Right.

Mr. Michael Wernick: Mr. Bélanger, there is something I would like to point out.

I don't want Mr. Bellemare to leave with the impression that members of the board of directors manage the Canadian Television Fund in a way that benefits their own companies.

The board of directors has one single purpose, to establish rules for funding allocation. Every autumn, the board holds a discussion and decides the rules. We never discuss specific productions. We discuss premiums, reserves and allocations, establish the rules of the game, publish them on the Internet, and the broadcasting system does the rest. There is a very clear code of ethics in place. And the directors' legal liabilities towards business corporations in Canada are also very clear. We never discuss specific productions.

Á (1150)

The Chair: Ms. Baillargeon.

Ms. Louise Baillargeon (Vice President, Canadian Television Fund): I just wanted to respond to Ms. Thibeault's question.

The Canadian Television Fund is a private corporation, and is therefore not necessarily subject to the Official Languages Act. However, we have chosen to apply the spirit of the act. Anyone can contact us in either of Canada's two official languages. There will always be someone available to speak French or English. Simultaneous interpretation is available at all board of directors' meetings, as it is in government meetings. Over 50 per cent of our staff is of francophone origin. The people involved may not necessarily be francophone any longer, since they live in Ontario and elsewhere. But we do our best, and publish all our public documents in both official languages.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Is that sufficient for you, Ms. Thibeault?

Mr. Simard.

Mr. Raymond Simard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have several questions, and I would therefore ask that your answers be as concise as possible.

I'll begin with Mr. Wernick.

I am happy to see that you share Ms. Chevrier's point of view, and are ready to seek solutions. I think this is a very important beginning. Of course, you recognize the inequities involved here.

You mentioned interference as well. But in my view, this is good management rather than anything else. When we invest $100 million in a fund, some follow-up is needed in my view. Recognizing there are problems is a sign of good management, not interference.

I would like to know whether you have already contacted Ms. Macdonald and her group in an attempt to find solutions, without waiting for committees' recommendations.

Mr. Michael Wernick: The situation Ms. Chevrier described should be viewed in the larger context of what happened in spring. Many people are unhappy with the results. As Ms. Macdonald pointed out, there was less money and more productions were rejected. Pressure is therefore being put on the board of directors to do what it does every year, to conduct a post-mortem so that it can correct and improve the rules by November. The board is going to change next week. There will be a new group of directors who will of course analyze everything that has happened. Then, we will determine how we can improve the rules of the game. Thank you.

Mr. Raymond Simard: Ms. Macdonald, you said earlier that funding had been cut. We all sympathize with you. Nonetheless, we are talking about percentages and a fair share for all the regions.

We are talking about percentages. Therefore, since producers in the regions represent, we are told, about 15 per cent of the total, would you agree to have 15 per cent of funding always set aside for them?

Ms. Sandra Macdonald: This would certainly not be my decision to make, but the Board's decision to make. We already have what we can call a minority-language fund. It is intended for Aboriginals and administered by Telefilm Canada. It was established to meet the needs of a fairly small percentage of the population scattered across the country; these are people who find it difficult to be competitive within the system. And the fund was a specific part of the agreement with Canadian Heritage.

Mr. Raymond Simard: You also mentioned a bonus system, Ms. Macdonald. If I understand correctly, it applies only once the project has been approved. Is that correct?

Ms. Sandra Macdonald: That is correct.

Mr. Raymond Simard: So you have to get through the first stage and be approved before you can get a bonus.

Ms. Sandra Macdonald: The first stage as far as we are concerned is eligibility. We almost never reject projects from producers outside Quebec. When we do reject them, it is usually because the projects are not productions that we generally provide financial support for. For example, we occasionally receive an application to produce a documentary, that in our view is closer to the style of a news program.

There is also a licensing program. In some cases, we have to check the figures for radio-broadcasting licences and priorities. But all the companies involved here are small companies, and receive a bonus for this.

Á (1155)

Mr. Raymond Simard: Apparently, in your annual reports you state that you are not an agent of Canadian Heritage or of Her Majesty the Queen.

I would like to know who you are accountable to. Are you accountable to those you fund, or to the people you represent?

For example, if people in the regions are worried about the way the funding is managed, whom do they complain to?

They are here today, but I am not sure we are applying the right process.

Ms. Sandra Macdonald: We are accountable to a number of bodies.

As I said, we have a Board of Directors, which is established by the CRTC on the private-sector side. We have added a few people, but generally administer cable distribution funds.

Most government funding is administered by Telefilm Canada, since it reports to Parliament. It has its own board of directors, appointed by the Governor in Council.

In the past, we also had a $100 million fund. This year, the fund contains $75 million, which are shared. For example, $15 million are set aside for feature-length films. That entire amount goes to Telefilm Canada. Then, $2 million, also administered by Telefilm Canada, is set aside for Aboriginal-language productions. The rest is distributed as required. This year, we allocated only $8.4 million of the $75 million to broadcasting rights programming.

The Chair: One last question.

Mr. Raymond Simard: Mr. Wernick may already have answered this question. In principle, who establishes and assesses approval criteria? If I understand correctly, this is done by the board of directors.

Earlier, the witnesses said that for certain productions a minimum threshold of 1.5 million viewers was set. Was this threshold imposed by the board of directors? If so, it seems a little insensitive towards small producers.

And lastly, how do you assess such criteria? For example, do you take into account the fact that producers in the regions are often less well equipped?

Ms. Sandra Macdonald: Firstly, it should be pointed out that there are small producers scattered across the entire country and they all have access to several other sources of funding.

For example, when I was commissioner at the NFB, we had a studio in Moncton where we carried out several projects. The support of a broadcaster was not a prerequisite for carrying out a project with the NFB.

Furthermore, all provinces currently have their own support program for producers in their province. You do not have to have a broadcasting licence to have access to tax credits.

Since 1983, in accordance with the federal government's broadcasting policy, the television production fund has been based not on support for producers but on audience accessibility. It is the audience that is key. In fact, we must ask ourselves how funding a production can be in the interest of the general public if nobody is going to see it.

That is why, when the broadcasting fund was established at Telefilm Canada, audience accessibility became, and has remained, a key factor. We believe that it allows us to be accountable to the general public.

Â (1200)

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Castonguay.

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Firstly, I would like to thank our witnesses. We could easily spend several days trying to understand the complex nature of this structure. You are experts, we are not. Nevertheless, we feel strongly about issues that affect Canada's French-speaking community.

If I have understood you correctly, two-thirds of the fund is allocated to the English-speaking community and one-third to the French-speaking community. Around 15 per cent of French speakers live outside of Quebec. Do you not think that basing allocation on this figure would be a simple, fast and very effective means of ensuring that minority French-speaking communities are recognized?

I worry that if we do not take concrete, precise action to give French-speaking communities a chance at survival, they run the risk of quietly slipping into oblivion. We should remember that these are minority communities, that decisions are made by the majority, and that, by definition, they are more likely to be overshadowed.

From a practical standpoint, do you not think that this would be the simplest, the fastest and most efficient means of recognizing these communities and helping draw them from the shadows?

Mr. Michael Wernick: That is part of the solution. Obviously, if we were to set up a reserve or a guarantee, it would have an effect. Money would be available and people would use it. Another crucial factor is the way in which broadcasters behave. If they are not interested in a given program, even if we were to offer all the grants in the world, it may be to no avail. I know that you are going to speak to Radio-Canada about its behaviour. I would recommend that you also speak to private television broadcasters. You should also speak to TVA and other broadcasters. Broadcaster demand is the deciding factor in terms of results.

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: I can understand that, Mr. Chairman, but, on the other hand, if people are unaware of our product, broadcasters are unlikely to request it. The best example is what we saw recently with Wilfred, the young guy from New Brunswick. Had he not been successfully marketed, he would never have had his breakthrough, because he is from a minority community. It is a chicken and egg scenario.

Mr. Michael Wernick: If we want a permanent solution, we need to harmonize supply and demand measures. That is what will produce results quickly.

The Chair: Thank you. I would also like to ask a few questions.

[English]

Madame Macdonald and Mr. Wernick, for the record, for what it's worth, I'm one of those who spoke in the House before the budget vote in support of reinstating the $25-million cut, and I would hope that we do that, if not this year, certainly for next year. That's my personal wish, and that's how I would like to see things unfold.

I wanted to ask you about the $40 million that you referred to that was spent. Was it all spent last year?

Ms. Sandra Macdonald: Yes.

The Chair: Why was all of that $40 million spent last year? Were all the reserves depleted?

Ms. Sandra Macdonald: Yes. Part of the reason was that we had a situation last year in some ways like this year. We had a great amount of demand, and one way to keep the rejection rate from being too high was to use the reserves to fund more projects.

The Chair: Using all the reserves last year has compounded the problem this year.

Ms. Sandra Macdonald: It did.

The Chair: Mr. Wernick, you were part of the group that reviewed the criteria for this year. Is that correct? The criteria have changed somewhat for this fiscal year.

Mr. Michael Wernick: Yes.

The Chair: Could you or Madame Macdonald please send to the clerk of the committee what the criteria were, before and after? It seems, judging on the progression, as Madame Chevrier explained this morning, that there was a very nice progression in terms of the allotments and allocations, which is now somewhat diminished, even in terms of percentage, Madame Macdonald. I'll get back to that.

While the board was reviewing criteria, did it, in any way, shape, or form, consult as to the possible effects of these new criteria with the community at large?

Mr. Michael Wernick: In a nutshell, the change was that a certain amount of the point score before was tied to what were called visibly Canadian elements, whether that was the story, the setting, or aspects of the production having clearly more creative elements. That was very controversial. There was a lot of pressure to remove those because of the certain subjectivity or an impact on the kind of programming that was made. It was the broadcasters who pushed for something more objective. And when they brought it to the fund as a proposal, we played with different models of it and arrived at one that had the support of the producers' associations from Quebec and the producers' association, the CFTPA.

Madame Chevrier did say at the time that she thought it was going to have an impact on minority production, and she was right. The rest of the board, the other 17 members, felt that it was a reasonable way of breaking ties and having a clear relationship in a year that we knew was going to be difficult. The projects that should get through should be the ones that the broadcasters really wanted. They were in the best position to judge where they would draw an audience from and where they could get advertisers from.

So we did increase the weight the broadcasters had in the selection profile. There was no doubt about it. We knew we were doing that.

The consultation is essentially the membership of the board. When you have representation from all these communities, they do their homework before coming to the board meeting and deciding. The two delegates from CFTPA go through an exhaustive process with their membership, which is quite diverse, as do the others. So I wouldn't say there is a transparent public process, but there was an awful lot of work done between, say, September and November, before the decisions were taken.

Â (1205)

The Chair: So the consultations were within the system and not beyond.

Now, Madame Macdonald, you mention in your presentation that the number of rejections is the same throughout, whether they're from minority communities or not. That may be so, but the level of funding proportionately, finance-wise, as Monsieur Simard was saying, was 10.5% for the francophone population and, I believe, 12% for the anglophone minority populations last year. That, percentage-wise, is also dropping by at least 25%, so the impact this year on the francophone minority and I don't have the numbers for the anglophone minority is not proportionate. It is much greater, at least by a factor of 25%.

Ms. Sandra Macdonald: And what I would say is, first of all, that we are down 25% in our funding—

The Chair: No, it's not proportionate. I understand that you've been reduced by $25 million plus $40 million, which was spent all of last year. That affects everyone. You said that, and that's clear. Beyond that, there's a further impact of 25%, because proportionately from the previous year where the funding was at 10.5% for the francophone producers, it is now 7.5%, an estimate.

Ms. Sandra Macdonald: I would say two things.

First of all, of course, you saw from Mr. Wernick's chart that there was a big jump-up for two years from what had been a lower level. There was a drop this year back to a level that was more like three years ago. If we indeed had had the $25 million, because we knew, the board members didn't, they didn't know the projects, we would have seen, in fact, a proportion that would have been much more like last year for this particular group.

The Chair: These are questions for information only, because I have to leave. Number one, could you provide information to the clerk of the committee in terms of the aboriginal funding, the mechanisms, the percentages, the numbers and so forth, also on a four-year or five-year basis? Number two, could you tell us whether or not the private networks, TVA and Astral, have put minority francophone productions or minority anglophone productions in their priority for this year's funding scheme?

Thank you very much. I apologize for the rapidity, but we must adjourn to proceed to a vote in the House.

We'll see you here tomorrow at 3:30 p.m.