:
Mr. Chair, members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, thank you for inviting the Association québécoise de la production médiatique, or AQPM, to take part in your review of the Canadian feature film industry.
My name is Marie Collin, and I am the president and CEO of the AQPM. Joining me today is Brigitte Doucet, Deputy General Director.
The AQPM is proud to appear today to discuss Canadian film, more specifically, Quebec's French-language film industry. Our productions are known the world over, receiving an enviable number of accolades and awards, from Incendies and Mommy to Gabrielle and Monsieur Lazhar, just to name a few. Films like these have positioned Quebec, and Canada, as formidable players in the industry.
Without government support and commitment, this level of exposure and success would not be possible. The Government of Canada has previously demonstrated its commitment to cinema through funding support, as well as through the Canadian feature film policy. The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage reaffirmed that commitment in 2005 and now, 10 years later, is reviewing the Canadian feature film industry to determine how to achieve the objectives set out in 2005, in light of the changes the industry has undergone since then. Today, we will talk to you about the new challenges facing the film industry and the tools it needs to overcome them.
In 2000, the federal government refocused its support for the industry, announcing a new feature film policy. Under the policy, public investment in the industry should help build larger audiences for Canadian films and make them more accessible to Canadians. The challenge of meeting those objectives today is not what it was back then. No one thought at the time that the digital revolution would replace the silver screen experience. Today, however, it is clear that movie watching is happening less and less in movie theatres and more and more on other distribution platforms, mainly television.
According to a recent Telefilm Canada survey, 84% of films aren't viewed at the movie theatre, and a Department of Canadian Heritage study, released just this week, pegs that number at close to 97%. The Telefilm Canada study provides an overview of the changes in Canadians' film selection habits. The study also shows that Canadians are interested in watching Canadian films, as long as they are just as good as foreign ones.
I'm going to digress for a moment. It's important to make something absolutely clear: French-language films in Canada face just as much competition as their English-language counterparts. Francophone viewers, too, have access to the full range of foreign films, often choosing to watch the original or French dubbed versions, especially American ones, which are extremely popular. What that means, then, is that the challenge facing our industry in 2015 is not just to produce high-quality films that will appeal to audiences, but also to make them accessible to viewers on all distribution platforms.
If we are to make high-quality films on a par with our foreign competitors, the government must continue to fund film production and, ideally, enhance that funding. In 2000, the Canadian feature film policy pegged the average production budget of a Canadian film at $2.5 million. It sought to increase that budget to $5 million to improve the quality of Canadian feature films, in an effort to meet policy targets. And yet, in 2014, the average production budget of a Canadian fictional film funded through the Canada feature film fund was just $3.4 million.
Keep in mind that the tax credit is based on eligible labour expenses and that enhancing the tax credit would mean not just more funding for Canadian films, but also more jobs in Canada's film industry.
In our industry, tax credits are an integral part of production funding. Because of that, production companies have to borrow the money they will receive through tax credits from financial institutions before they can start production. They incur bridge financing costs until the Canada Revenue Agency pays out the tax credits. And those costs keep going up because of tax audit timeframes.
Consistent with our recommendation to the government of Quebec, which is currently considering its feasibility, the AQPM is proposing that, 30 days after applying for a tax credit, the production company receive payment of 75% of the amount receivable, with the remainder being paid out upon completion of the tax audit. The program would become more efficient and production companies would have greater access to funding.
The AQPM would like to highlight the great job that Telefilm Canada does administering programs. With a pulse on the industry's needs, the organization has ensured that programs and the success index have adapted. Despite budget cuts in recent years, Telefilm Canada continues to invest more or less the same amount in the development and production of Canadian films, roughly $75 million a year since 2006.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the committee members, as well.
I'd like to start by telling you a bit about our organization. Fondation Québec Cinéma emerged from the Quebec film community's need to pool its resources in order to promote its works. We are dedicated to promoting Quebec film, artists, craftspeople and professionals, and to building our national film heritage.
Our major areas of focus have always been access to content, education and outreach. Each and every year, the foundation's activities reach more than one million people at home and abroad, through the Jutra awards, and the Rendez-vous du cinéma québécois and Tournée du cinéma québécois film festivals. In fact, I was invited to appear before the committee today to talk to you about the Tournée du cinéma québécois festival.
The festival goes to the heart of the foundation's mission, which is to promote Quebec's films, facilitating access to content and showcasing Quebec's film artists and craftspeople across the country. The foundation is thankful to its institutional partners—Telefilm Canada, SODEC, the Secrétariat aux affaires intergouvernementales canadiennes and the Canada Council for the Arts—for enabling it to continue its work as a cultural mediator, facilitating access to content and bringing works to Canadian audiences.
Furthermore, we are extremely proud of the fact that the Tournée festival helps satisfy the needs and expectations of Canada's francophone community, by making French-language works accessible. The festival is a major event in every community it stops in, bringing festival audiences new films and putting on special activities in schools, featuring film artists, craftspeople and professionals. They are really the ones who bring the festival to life. By supporting the tour and introducing their films, they enhance the highly valued synergy of the festival showcase.
Quickly, I'd like to give you a few statistics on the 2014-15 festival. Already this year, we've seen a 34% increase in the festival participation rate. More than 20 guests and artists from Quebec's film community are touring with the festival. We've reached more than 7,000 Canadians, both francophones and francophiles, members of the general public and students alike. One indicator, in particular, is significant because it speaks to the committee's efforts to promote exceptional Canadian content. We noted that 48% of young participants had never seen a Quebec film before. We are also pleased to note that, thanks to festival stops in these communities, theatrical films are enjoying a second wind, as are more specialty films that either weren't released or distributed or were subject to limited Canadian release.
We would like to make a few recommendations. Greater funding would, of course, be welcome, as always. But we also believe that working with partners to integrate measures into certain settings would make it possible for projects like the Tournée festival, as well as other promotion and outreach projects focused on Canadian film, to reach the public. Such an initiative would better position us to access the audiences we seek at specific times throughout the year.
The purpose of the Tournée festival is certainly not to make money but, rather, to build Canadians' knowledge and recognition of our cinematographic production and the vast landscape it represents.
In conclusion, I'd like to point out that audience fragmentation is a very real issue for us. In our view, there is no such thing as a bad place to promote film, be it in commercial movie theatres, libraries or art cinemas. Our goal is to stay in step with the audiences we serve, audiences with different views and beliefs.
:
Thank you kindly, Mr. Brown. I'd also like to thank the committee members for inviting us to appear today. I'll try to keep my remarks brief. Just a note for the interpreters: I won't be presenting my brief in full, so as not to go over my eight minutes.
Joining me are Marie Brazeau, SODEC's Director of Hospitality and Film Operations; and Fannie Sénéchal, Director of Communications.
I'd like to give you an overview of Quebec's film sector and a few of the key challenges it faces.
But first, I should point out that SODEC, or the Société de développement des entreprises culturelles, has been around for 20 years now. It's a crown corporation governed by various Quebec laws. Over 100 employees, a board of directors and several advisory committees guide SODEC's work in a number of areas.
We are active in the film sector, but we are also involved in books, music, television, and arts and crafts. Our job is to promote all of those cultural exports and to enhance their international visibility. That makes SODEC the single government agency dedicated to supporting Quebec's cultural businesses, both in Canada and around the world.
And we do that through assistance programs, providing some $39 million in funding support to Quebec's film industry. We operate a merchant bank, and provide bridge financing for tax credits and other tax measures. Through these activities, SODEC is responsible for a significant number of productions every year. Just to give you an idea, in 2013-14, we reviewed 1,144 funding applications, approving 405 and financing 28 fictional feature films in Quebec.
Looking at the figures for the Canadian film industry, you will see that a very high proportion of Canadian content comes from Quebec. And, of course, the bulk of those productions also receive support from Telefilm Canada, the Canada media fund and other federal programs.
The witnesses who appeared before me talked about the popularity of Quebec cinema on the world stage. I won't start listing film titles, but as everyone knows, for the past four or five years, Quebec films have received acclaim at the Cannes and Berlin film festivals as well as nominations for best foreign language film at the Oscars. This year, Denis Villeneuve has been selected for the official competition at Cannes. Even though the film wasn't produced in Quebec or Canada, he is still a French-Canadian filmmaker from Quebec who made his first films here. We have been supporting him since he began his career.
Quebec's film and television industry generates more than 16,000 full-time jobs, according to a recent study.
When Telefilm Canada officials appeared before the committee just over a month ago, they underscored the importance of co-production, and we share that view. In addition to the financial networks possible between Quebec and Canadian institutions, co-production is a critically important way for us to increase the production budgets of films made here, films that will bring us international exposure. Clearly, we promote co-productions by participating in all international markets, supporting our producers and arranging missions. Last year, we had seven Quebec-Canadian majority co-productions and ten minority co-productions, increasing the number of films we can make.
SODEC places tremendous importance on its initiative to bring together francophone co-production stakeholders. We have made working in francophone markets a priority for our film companies. Every year, 250 professionals gather for three days to discuss feature film projects. In the winter, we organize scriptwriting workshops in Quebec. The resulting production volume has been 40% of reviewed projects over 12 years, which is huge.
Now it is time to discuss the real issues. The previous witnesses talked about them.
We are seeing a literal shift in film and TV audiences. The results of our joint studies with the Canada media fund and Telefilm Canada make that perfectly clear. And when we look at trends in other countries, be it the U.S. or in Europe, we see the same thing. What that underscores is the need to strengthen certain tools in order for Canadian cinema to survive and be accessible and to provide for new funding sources. We still have a long way to go when it comes to distribution, which we talked about a little bit. Perhaps I could touch on that during the question period.
I'd like to use the little bit of time I have left to talk to you about funding sources.
Films are usually financed through parliamentary funding allocated to SODEC, on one hand, or Telefilm Canada, on the other. Both sides have tax credit systems, and feature films are often based on TV shows. For the most part, they receive support from Radio-Canada.
All of these funding envelopes are dwindling. Distributors, who play a role in the financing scheme, are scaling back their contributions as well. And because other funding sources are drying up, SODEC and Telefilm Canada are under more and more pressure. Here, feature film production budgets hover between $4 million and $4.5 million, which is modest.
That brings me back to what was said previously. We have to find new sources of funding for the culture and film industry and, incidentally, for Canada's and Quebec's cultural heritage. In fact, the report put out by the task force mandated to examine issues in the film sector and chaired by my predecessor, Mr. Macerola, talks about that. According to the report, it is crucial that the CRTC require foreign companies to contribute to the funding of authentic cultural productions in order to keep the nation's cultural production from diminishing.
The review panel established by Mr. Couillard's government to examine Quebec's tax system recently released the Godbout report, which was also very clear on the subject. The report urged the government to review its fiscal spending in order to find funding sources for the cultural sector. The panel recommended that the government consider taxing residential Internet service in order to revitalize the cultural sector and put new resources at its disposal. These are extremely important issues.
The Canada media fund, formerly known as the Canada television and cable production fund, has been in existence for 20 years, put in place to fund national TV production and foster the development of production companies in Quebec and Canada. The fund was jointly financed by cable companies, satellite owners and the federal government, with the contribution ratio varying over the years. The fund was an incredible tool to support and develop production companies across the country, in every province, while giving them the resources to produce high-quality films and television series. Without the fund, I don't think we'd have those high-quality productions today.
Technology has changed and so have the issues. The methods people use to access cultural products are much different than they used to be. For those reasons, we recommend bringing the fund in line with current realities through support mechanisms based on the same philosophy as those established in 1993-94.
I am very proud of Quebec film, and equally proud of SODEC's support for short feature films. As virtually the only organization providing real assistance for short feature filmmaking, SODEC has helped many of our great filmmakers get their start.
SODEC also administers a program targeting young people, to cultivate the next generation of filmmakers. In most cases, people like Denis Villeneuve and Philippe Falardeau, whose names are now well-known and who are at the top of their field, have humble beginnings here, in Quebec, starting out with short films that have taken them far. We want to be there for them when they start their careers, but also later on, when they have made it to the top.
Thank you very much.
:
In our brief, we talk about the fact that the methods people use to consume cinematographic products have changed, both in Quebec and in the rest of the country. People go to the movie theatre much less than they used to; movie viewing is much more concentrated on conventional TV, pay TV, specialty TV and video on demand platforms. DVDs represent another, although less popular, viewing platform. The model is changing gradually. There are also all the other services for which we, unfortunately, have no data. For instance, we don't have any information on the use of non-CRTC-regulated services, even though we know they represent a growing trend among consumers.
According to the Heritage Canada study that came out this week, TV-based movie viewing has decreased slightly, both on conventional and pay TV platforms. My feeling is that, if we meet in another five years, or perhaps even sooner, we will likely see an even greater shift towards Internet-based and on-demand viewing.
One thing is certain: Quebeckers still have an appetite for Quebec films; they merely consume them differently. It is crucial, in my view, to bring funding mechanisms in line with the current viewing landscape and to accommodate consumers' new viewing habits. As I see it, with this new context come new opportunities to deliver our cinematographic products to consumers.
Furthermore, as both we and Ms. Simard pointed out, Quebec is home to a wealth of cinematographic expertise. And despite language and cultural differences, the province's filmmakers are being recruited elsewhere, including Hollywood. Just think of Denis Villeneuve. They have succeeded in making films that have gained international popularity. In other words, not only have our funding and support programs made it possible to satisfy consumers' needs, but they have also enriched our market with tremendous expertise. Our industry has built a high-calibre workforce.
In that respect, and in terms of viewing habits, I would say that Quebec's market and Canada's English-language market are not all that different. We have a very successful star system, which is a tremendous asset. But, as I said, it doesn't protect us from our U.S. competitors. Audiences don't care about a film's budget; all that matters to them is its quality. From a consumer's standpoint, all movies are equal. That means that, beyond the distinctly Canadian and Quebec identities of their productions, our filmmakers have to set themselves apart from their international competitors, making consumers want to opt for homegrown films over foreign ones.
I thank the witnesses for being here with us today.
Your testimony is very precious. It allows us to understand the issues today's film industry—our cinema—is up against in 2015. Indeed, the previous study goes back to 2005. Another study on that sector was way past due.
I often say that when we were elected, in the last elections in 2011, almost no one had an iPad. Today, almost everyone has one. Viewing habits have of course changed. Most of us, when we do not go back to our ridings, and if we are not working, probably watch a film on Netflix. So we are sinners too.
First of all, I want to thank Mr. Lemieux. Honestly, in my opinion, your organization is at the heart of francophone music. Your mission is to distribute and to raise awareness about the product, to make it known. That is terrific. It brings us back to this notion of cultural events bringing a lot of people together, which is gradually becoming an anachronism. We heard this in fact from the managers of performance venues two days ago.
I thank the AQPM people, because you have repeatedly met these challenges and technological changes, especially as concerns the accessibility of culture. Among other things, you contributed to the report produced by Canadian Heritage, which you mentioned earlier.
There's something specific I would like to hear your opinion on. At the very end of the report on pages 101 and 102, viewership is discussed, and the sources television viewers now have access to, to view content. They talk about on-demand television, specialty tv channels and cable. Can we have some information on broadcasters such as Netflix? There are no statistics to do the market analyses that are so important for movies. Our cinema has to be supported by the state if we want it to keep its place and role.
:
As a producer, I made over 150 films. I was then the executive director of the National Film Board of Canada's French Program during five years, and I took part in the great digital shift at the NFB, by opening interactive production studios, among other things.
Today, there is indeed an issue with visibility, since the offer is overabundant. There are no more borders. The concepts of time and space are now entirely relative, and as Ms. Collin was saying earlier, everything is changing extremely quickly.
During the few years I spent at the NFB, I had to change our technology three or four times to adapt the productions. If we want to be visible, the real challenge today is to continue to support the works that are written, produced and filmed by Canadians and Quebeckers, in our case, in Quebec. We have to find the necessary means and resources. The Canada Media Fund is one of the models we had; I mentioned it previously.
The discussion we are having here today is also being held in all of the European countries, be it in France, Germany, England or elsewhere, because all of us are grappling with the invasion of an extremely abundant offer on our territories. How can we establish our own offer in our own country? That is the big issue. To be able to do it, we have to have the necessary means. I think we have to support creation and production, but I also think that we have to be able to support what I call the development of the works, that is to say the marketing, the commercialization, the distribution, and we must do that with all of the means at our disposal, including social networks.
I think that the Internet and cell phone technology are basically the two big “highways” through which today's culture will be consumed, not only film, but also music. This is the case everywhere in the world. We should in some modest way put these two highways to work to ensure that the producers have the resources they need. I say—
Thank you for having invited me to appear before the committee today.
I am going to speak in English. Even though I began my career in Quebec and I worked for a long time in both parts of Canada, I now work only in English. I am going to let my Quebec colleagues make their comments in French.
[English]
To do this in eight minutes is going to be a big challenge for me, but I'll try. I've been doing this for 42 years. I began in 1973, when I was still a student at McGill, with my partner Victor Loewy. He and I started a film distribution company. A few years later, in 1977, with another partner, Stephen Roth, he and I produced our first two feature films, which were called L'Ange et la femme and In Praise of Older Women.
What began as a little company between university students grew into Alliance Communications, of which I was the chairman and chief executive. In 1993 I took the company public on the Toronto Stock Exchange, and in 1998 I sold my controlling interest. For more than 20 years, Alliance was the dominant Canadian film and television distribution and production company. It was also a leading specialty broadcaster until it was resold some years after I sold it and then was split up.
For the last 15 years, I have focused exclusively on producing feature films at my current company, Serendipity Point. Over the course of my career I have produced some 40 films and have financed and distributed many others. I've had the privilege to work with some of the world's greatest stars, such as Dustin Hoffman, Annette Bening, Viggo Mortensen, Michael Caine, Ralph Fiennes, Jeremy Irons, Paul Giamatti, and Rosamund Pike. I've worked with some very distinguished directors, such as David Cronenberg, Denys Arcand, Atom Egoyan, Jean-Claude Lauzon, István Szabó, and Bruce Beresford.
The films we made, such as Barney's Version, Eastern Promises, The Sweet Hereafter, Sunshine, and Being Julia have been nominated for Academy awards. They have won Golden Globes and prizes at the Cannes film festival, in Venice, and in Berlin. Here in Canada, these films have won the screen award for best picture five times, and they have been selected to open the Toronto International Film Festival on 10 occasions. They have been distributed globally and some, though definitely not all, have made a profit.
Black Robe, Being Julia, Sunshine, eXistenZ, Barney's Version, and Eastern Promises all grossed in excess of $20 million worldwide. My production of Johnny Mnemonic surpassed $50 million. Here at home, Black Robe, Johnny Mnemonic, Barney's Version, and Eastern Promises all grossed over $3 million at the box office, and Men With Brooms over $4 million.
That is the good news.
One other piece of good news is that during my watch we have come a long way from when I first started. I'll share with you just one anecdote of how it all was back in 1977 when I produced In Praise of Older Women.
We were having a lot of trouble getting the movie theatres to commit to show the film. It had been selected to open the Toronto film festival and had a tremendous amount of publicity around it, so we thought it would be a good idea to open the film right after the festival, but we had a lot of problems getting a commitment from the then theatre circuits. I went to see the man who was then the head booker for what was then the biggest circuit in the country, a company called Famous Players, which at the time was owned by Paramount.
I said to him that for the film to have any chance in the marketplace it needed to have firm commitments with specific firm dates in some of the best theatres across the country. Otherwise, if it was just going to be floating and hoping to get into a theatre some day, we really had no chance. He said, “Why would I do that”? I said, “Well, it's a great film, so why don't you see it?” Because he hadn't. He said, “I don't need to see it: it's Canadian.”
Voices: Oh, oh!
Mr. Robert Lantos: That is an exact quote.
We've come a long way. That was in 1978. That wouldn't fly today. Canadian films do get access to theatres, and if they have a distributor who is willing to ante up and spend serious marketing money, which is really what it's all about, then the theatre doors are wide open. In many ways, those tough old days are behind us, but we have many more obstacles and challenges facing us today.
The biggest challenge is really a global showdown between independent films and the Hollywood studios. It isn't that one has declared war on the other; it's just that the studios today have an average budget per film of about $130 million. That significantly exceeds the total annual expenditure of Telefilm Canada and all Canadian films. That is per film and does not include the marketing budget. They have a typical marketing budget for a big Hollywood so-called tent-pole franchise movie, such as the one that opened this weekend, the new installment of X-Men.
The typical marketing budget is about $150 million. That is for a global launch, and this is a fairly recent idea. This idea of of releasing films globally in every country in the world and every theatre on the same day, and backing it with enormous juggernaut marketing budgets, really only developed over the course of the last dozen years. I won't get deeply into a sermon about the digital age here, but that's what the cause of it is, for better or worse. The digital age brought piracy along with it, so the Hollywood studios' approach to beating the pirates is to release their films on the same day in every city in the world, in order to get ahead of the pirates.
Also, in the digital age, the Internet makes that possible, because you can advertise globally, which is something you couldn't have done 15 years ago. If you were to turn back the clock a dozen or 15 years, Hollywood studio movies would be released in America, and by the time they got to places like Japan or Scandinavia, it could be a year later. Today it happens on the same day.
What does that mean to independent films, not just Canadian films? European films and Australian films face the same hurdle. Ours is a little greater because of our geographic proximity to this giant. The hurdle is that you have two, three, and sometimes four of these juggernauts being released every single weekend of the year, with the number of screens they occupy when they open in 10,000 or sometimes 12,000 theatres on the same day, and the cacophony of noise that's made by these massive advertising campaigns is such that the smaller independent voices have a harder and harder time being heard.
I was here a few minutes ago and heard the discussion about getting eyeballs to see Canadian films, about films not being seen or heard from. That is the major challenge here. As I say, it's not specifically a Canadian challenge. It's the challenge of independent film versus the six studios, and it's the challenge of making films that are essentially made for grownups, films that have stories to tell that may be of interest to people who may be over 25, versus the business of the Hollywood studios. They each make their one exception per year, but for the most part their business is to make repeatable franchise movies aimed at the under-25 audience, which rushes to the movies on the opening Friday night. That's the challenge we face. That's the biggest challenge.
Here in Canada, we have a few other issues, such as, for example, the massive talent drain we have, which is incomparable to anywhere else. Most of our stars, our directors, our writers, and some of our producers, when they have the opportunity to go to Los Angeles and work with much bigger budgets, avail themselves of that opportunity. They don't quite share my penchant for masochism, and I don't blame them.
Some of Hollywood's biggest names are Canadian. Directors such as James Cameron, Paul Haggis and, more recently, Jean-Marc Vallée and Denis Villeneuve are also making Hollywood movies. Movie stars like Ryan Gosling, Jim Carrey, and Keanu Reeves are all from here, but they live in L.A. and they work in L.A.
In the face of all these obstacles, here's the question I have for this committee when we get around to switching sides and you speak: what's the importance and value of feature films? Why should they be supported? Why should they be supported at all and why should they be more supported by government? There are several answers to this question.
First, feature films are like cultural flagships. When a Canadian film is in competition at the Cannes film festival or is nominated for an Academy award or a Golden Globe, it's like a Canadian athlete competing at the Olympic Games or world championships. When they get prizes, it's like winning the gold medal. It's an honour to our country. It makes the world take notice of us and our stories. It allows us to take our place in the global cultural mosaic.
Feature films do that better than any other medium today because they have attracted that much more attention. Even though we are in the golden age of television and it is a very effective mass medium, still the greatest attention goes to the biggest award show of all, the Academy awards.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.
Thank you very much for inviting me to feed into your examination of Canada's feature film industry. Today I'll be giving you a very quick overview of TIFF and our role in supporting the sector, the new direction our organization is taking for the future, and some specific recommendations around our film industry.
TIFF is a not-for-profit charitable organization that transforms the way people see the world through film. You know us best for our flagship event, the annual Toronto International Film Festival. It is one of the two most important film festivals in the world, and it's the largest public film festival anywhere. The festival is also a must-attend event for the international film industry, which comes here to do an enormous amount of business. The festival is global, but it is also the key launch pad for most new Canadian films.
We are now an organization that runs a building showing films on five screens every day of the year for audiences of all ages. We're one of the very few film festivals in the world that actually owns our own infrastructure, a building that acts as a flagship and allows us to interact with our audiences every day of the year. We also bring films to over 152 communities in every province of Canada, and we've been doing this for over 20 years. This unique film circuit, a model that other countries have studied, includes film clubs, community-run film festivals, schools, art galleries, and even libraries.
For the sesquicentennial, we have a very large dream: to identify 150 essential moving-image masterworks from our history, to digitize them, and to make them free to all Canadians in 2017.
Now I have just a few numbers: we have an annual economic impact of $189 million, and 1.4 million people attend all our activities every year.
Today I'd like to address two areas that I think are key to the success of Canada's film industry: acting globally and talent development.
These days, if you're not a global player, you risk irrelevance. The creative economy is moving at such speed and undergoing so many changes that you must develop international relationships and markets if you want to flourish and indeed survive.
TIFF's strategic direction is to be global: to be the global leader in film culture and set new directions for our audiences and the industry. Starting this year, we will bring Canadian films and filmmakers to key markets around the world. Our initial focus will be on London, New York, Los Angeles, and Beijing. Our initiatives will promote Canadian cinema and provide opportunities for Canadian talent: a higher profile, more co-productions, access to new funding partnerships, and larger audiences.
We recommend that the federal government take a leading role in growing the export potential of Canadian film. A funding program to develop international markets, one that allows Canadian filmmakers, artists, and arts organizations to promote Canadian cultural industries abroad, would have significant impact. Every other major film industry is now extremely aware of the international marketplace. We must be more aggressive in this area. For Canadian films to succeed, the industry must tap into international audiences, financing, and partnerships.
To be a global player in the entertainment sector requires desirable and competitive content. This comes from creative artists, the people who capture the imagination of audiences. Talent development is an essential part of this process. This is the R and D component of our industry. Our talent needs to be trained, developed, mentored, and given opportunities to work and play in this new global environment. It is not enough to excel nationally. We need to continue to provide as many opportunities as possible for future generations to hone their skills.
The Toronto film festival is the leading global launch pad for Canadian films. We provide Canadian talent the opportunity to rub shoulders with over 5,000 industry professionals from around the world. We have a number of programs, both at the festival and throughout the year, that are designed to develop and mentor the finest young new talent we have in Canada: filmmakers, writers, producers, and actors. Our talent development programs offer increased profile, access to networks, and training, all of which contribute to building careers that can function in a competitive international environment.
We urge the federal government to invest in talent development programs, not just our own but also the fine work done by other film training institutions across the country. This is an essential investment in the future. As technology assumes increasing importance in our world, the one thing technology cannot replicate is human creativity. We must invest in the creativity of future generations of Canadians. Their creativity will build our economy.
I would be remiss if I did not mention the importance of your federal agencies in supporting the sector, particularly Telefilm Canada, which is the essential agency in our feature film sector. Telefilm has been TIFF's long-time partner, and together we will continue to drive a global agenda and support and promote Canada's talented filmmakers, both within Canada and abroad.
In summary, Canadian films need to be championed on the global stage, and Canadian filmmakers need the proper training, professional development, and opportunities to compete internationally.
Thank you very much.
:
That's very kind of you. My apologies for being verbose.
I was going to suggest that there are good reasons for supporting feature films beyond the cultural ones, which I think we have discussed and we all know about. If you do a cost-benefit analysis, approximately 70% of the budget of every film is spent on labour, which in turn is taxed at source. The films themselves often find the greater part of their revenues outside Canada, thus generating export revenues. They are a tremendous source of environmentally friendly and well-paid jobs. Finally, Canadian films in Canada provide Canadians with a Canadian option, as opposed to only being exposed to American movies, which, were it not for Canadian films, would definitely be the case.
However, Canadian films are the orphans of a very well-designed system of cultural support for the Canadian media. What I mean by that is this. In television production and in digital production today, there are quotas. Every broadcaster in Canada, whether it's a network or specialty or pay television, has always had and continues to have Canadian content obligations.
There has never been such a thing for feature films. There has never been any quota of any sort, nor am I advocating one today, but the foundation upon which the very prolific Canadian television production industry was built—and I was very much a part of it for a very long time—is based on a series of regulations overseen by the CRTC that are designed to create a marketplace, a domestic marketplace, for Canada to have homegrown productions. There is no such thing for feature films. Even in broadcasting there have never been specific regulations requiring any broadcaster to designate airtime and specific dollars to theatrically released feature films. There are in other countries. Certainly in France there's a great deal of that, but not here, and there never has been.
In the absence of these kinds of regulations and legislated support systems, Canadian films have been on their own. In English Canada, they have a particularly great mountain to climb. The advantage Quebec has is that it has its own language. English Canada shares a language with our neighbour to the south.
I have some concrete suggestions in lieu of regulations and quotas. One of them is that the tax credit that's currently equally available to feature films and to television productions be increased for feature films, so that if a television production is eligible for x percentage of its spend in tax credits, feature films should be eligible for double x, and by feature films I mean specifically films designed for and released in movie theatres.
I will also urge the government to entertain the notion of increasing the budget of Telefilm Canada, which, as I mentioned earlier, is less than the budget of one Hollywood movie. Doubling that budget perhaps would equal close to the budgets of two Hollywood movies. I think it would be a very wise and cost-efficient investment, both commercially and culturally.
Finally, I would also suggest that the money spent on the marketing of Canadian films, especially when spent in Canada marketing Canadian films, be eligible for the same tax credits as the production of Canadian films, because the marketing dollars are just as important as the production dollars in order to actually accomplish the mission and get films to people and people to films.
Those are my specific suggestions. Thank you for giving me the extra time.
I thank both of you for having come to share your viewpoints with us. It is clear that you are very different actors, but both extremely competent.
I thank the TIFF people for the work they do that brilliantly showcases Canadian cinema on a yearly basis.
[English]
You have been expanding all the time. It became a huge event for Torontonians to embrace their love of that art, and it's a very important one.
[Translation]
My comments are for Mr. Lantos.
[English]
It's clear to me that you've been there for a while. You've been there for all these crusades. That explanation of the 1977 screen space was very eloquent.
I feel that I need to ask you one thing first. Clearly, Canadian cinema is much more involved in the creation of a cinéma d'auteur. If I look at your production list, I think you're really into this. Clearly, this is defining Canadian culture.
When I hear people say that Canadian movies aren't good, it's because they compare them to blockbusters like Transformers and stuff, but independent movies do happen in the States too. I remember when Dallas Buyers Club was a big thing. Right after that, I saw Mud, with the same actor, Matthew McConaughey, which an independent film from the States. They do exist.
What has made you so passionate about supporting and producing such movies all the times, movies for grownups, as you've said?