THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, November 24, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5:00 p.m. [ET] to examine and report on the strengthening of federal institutions’ arts, culture and heritage responsibilities in official language minority communities in Canada; and, in camera, to examine and report on such issues that may arise from time to time relating to official languages generally; and, in camera, to consider a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Allister W. Surette (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Hello. Before we begin, I would like to ask all senators to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please make sure to keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. Do not touch the microphone. Activation and deactivation will be managed by the console operator. Finally, please avoid handling your earpiece while your microphone is on.
I am Allister Surette, senator from Nova Scotia and chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. Now, I would like to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Gerba: Amine Gerba from Quebec. Welcome.
Senator Cormier: Welcome. René Cormier from New Brunswick.
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
Senator Patterson: Rebecca Patterson from Ontario.
Senator Poirier: Good evening and welcome. Rose-May Poirier from New Brunswick. I am the deputy chair of the committee.
The Chair: Thank you. I would like to welcome everyone with us today, as well as those listening to us online on sencanada.ca.
Today, pursuant to the order of reference received from the Senate on October 29, we are continuing our study on the strengthening of federal institutions’ arts, culture and heritage responsibilities in official language minority communities in Canada.
We are pleased to welcome this evening from the Regroupement des artistes cinéastes de la francophonie canadienne, Bruno Boëz, Executive Director, and Jocelyn Forgues, Filmmaker. We also welcome from the Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada, Carol Ann Pilon, Executive Director.
Good evening and thank you for accepting our invitation. You have five minutes for your opening remarks. We will start with Mr. Boëz and Mr. Forgues, then hear from Ms. Pilon.
Bruno Boëz, Executive Director, Regroupement des artistes cinéastes de la francophonie canadienne: Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, thank you for inviting us to appear before you and for giving us this opportunity to share with you the expectations of our sector. My name is Bruno Boëz, and I have been the executive director of the Regroupement des artistes cinéastes de la francophonie canadienne, also known as RACCORD, for two years. I work out of Toronto, Ontario.
RACCORD was formerly known as the Front des réalisateurs indépendants du Canada. Last year, the organization changed its name to better reflect the diversity and French-speaking heritage of its members.
For 20 years, RACCORD has been the voice of francophone minority community filmmakers in Canada. It currently has 80 artist filmmaker members across eight provinces and one territory.
Jocelyn Forgues, Filmmaker, Regroupement des artistes cinéastes de la francophonie canadienne: Hello. My name is Jocelyn Forgues, former president of RACCORD and active member of the organization as a filmmaker based in Moose Creek, Ontario. RACCORD is the only national organization representing filmmakers working in Canada’s francophonie. As such, over the years, RACCORD has developed services to meet our specific needs in order to contribute to our professional development, as well as the creation and dissemination of our works. RACCORD mobilizes its members for networking opportunities, particularly through an annual forum that allows us to break out of our geographical isolation.
RACCORD is also a project laboratory, and this past year has been an opportunity to launch many initiatives: a project to circulate our works, a magazine dedicated to Franco-Canadian filmmaking with evidence-based data on achievements and impacts on the sector, a series of podcasts, and a new à la carte mentoring service.
Mr. Boëz: However, the sustainability of these new initiatives, which are vital for filmmakers and francophone minority communities, is not guaranteed. It depends on partnerships and project funding that must be renewed each year, with no guarantee. It also relies on an understaffed team, with fewer than two staff members.
One of the obstacles we have identified is the lack of core funding from the federal government. We depend highly on Canadian Heritage’s official language envelopes, for which there is no guaranteed funding beyond 2028. The recent increases were welcome, but created inequality among organizations. Some received significant amounts, while others received minimal amounts, even though they were in dire need of development.
Furthermore, RACCORD does not receive core funding from the Canada Council for the Arts, even though it serves a pool of artists. In recent years, the screen industry in French-speaking Canada has been booming, creating more and more series and films. However, efforts must continue to distribute these works and make them better known to Canadian and international audiences. Our audiences, especially in francophone minority communities, need to see and hear themselves. RACCORD has identified several barriers to this access and proposes solutions that it would be happy to share, so that federal institutions can strengthen the distribution of works, in line with their mandate to promote the development of French-speaking communities.
Mr. Forgues: Federal institutions must not only continue but also increase their investment in production and support for services that assist filmmakers and projects rooted in Franco-Canadian culture, such as RACCORD’s Plan-Séquence mentoring program. These initiatives are a real boon to our communities; they encourage the professional development of emerging artists and the further development of our established artists, and they bring their works to the screen, showcasing the cultural richness of Canada’s francophonie.
In our highly competitive industry, both nationally and internationally, let’s remember that without skilled craftspeople and, above all, without creative artists, the French-language screen industry cannot truly flourish, produce quality content, and, most importantly, reflect the under-represented voices of our communities. Thank you for your attention. My colleague and I will be happy to answer your questions.
Carol Ann Pilon, Executive Director, Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada: Honourable senators, I am Carol Ann Pilon, executive director of the Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada, or APFC. Thank you for inviting me to contribute to your current study. While the study covers a wide range of topics, my remarks will focus specifically on funding for independent production.
The APFC is the professional association representing French-language content production companies for television, film and digital media in official-language minority communities.
For 25 years, we have promoted the outstanding audiovisual content produced by our members and defended its cultural, economic, identity-related and linguistic value for the entire country to those responsible for public policies. Our organization plays a leading role in Canada’s francophonie and the audiovisual and cultural sector to ensure that francophone OLMC producers have equitable access to opportunities in the audiovisual industry. That access depends on the elimination of barriers to the creation, production, dissemination and discoverability of our content and requires accountability to OLMCs from the federal institutions involved in the arts, culture and heritage.
Our members come from the four corners of the country, from Yukon to Nova Scotia, including New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia. Through their endeavours, our members and the professionals they work with — screenwriters, directors, performers, technicians and musicians — contribute to economic vitality, cultural vitality and the survival of their communities of origin, while expressing a diversity of francophone voices in Canada.
Our communities have undeniable talent, and our distinct histories enrich audiovisual content for Canadian audiences.
While OLMCs account for 14% of francophones in Canada, they generate just 7% of French-language audiovisual production in Canada.
The profound changes in the Canadian audiovisual sector exacerbate the imbalances among industry stakeholders. Canadian companies will continue to face strong pressure in the coming years, in part because of decreased spending on national production, in contrast with the consistent growth of foreign production. In this context, French-language audiovisual production is dealing with a funding deficit that is limiting its ability to adapt to the new ecosystem. To continue to offer a variety of content that is competitive and of high quality, the funding provided must better reflect the realities of each linguistic market and support the ability of French-language content to shine in Canada and internationally.
The production of French-language content is also limited by persistent inequalities in access to public funding. More funding is needed to ensure its growth and relevance. For a number of years, the francophone community has been calling for the rebalancing of public funding for original French-language productions.
This need is even more pressing for francophone minority producers operating in a fragile environment marked by the exodus of audiences to foreign platforms dominated by English-language content, competition from Quebec productions, barriers to export and greater dependency on public funding.
In order to meet these challenges, a series of structural measures are needed to guarantee sufficient and long-term funding that is truly representative of the diversity of Canada’s francophonie.
The solutions depend in particular on making permanent investments in the institutional pillars of independent production, the Canada Media Fund and Telefilm Canada, and on increasing the funding earmarked for francophone OLMCs. The budget measures announced by the government provide significant support, but it must be made permanent. Regulatory policies are also needed that recognize the essential role that independent OLMC production plays in preserving culture and the French language and that guarantee community access to services that meet their needs.
The indicators point to a gradual decline in audiovisual production in the coming years, which will have a real impact on the future of producers and creators and on the ability of the APFC to represent their interests, at a time when they will need us more than ever. Given the threat to our cultural sovereignty, the APFC will continue to defend the place of independent audiovisual production by OLMCs. sector. To maintain its leadership and strengthen its impact, however, the alliance must itself receive substantial and predictable funding in order to provide long-term support to the French-Canadian audiovisual sector.
Thank you for your attention and I look forward to your questions, either on this topic or any other matter that is part of your study.
The Chair: Thank you for your remarks. We will now proceed with the question period. I suggest that each senator be given five minutes for the first round, including the question and the answer.
Senator Poirier: My question is about something that has already been discussed, but I will ask it anyway to see if you would like to provide any clarifications.
My question is for all of the witnesses. In your opinion, do current federal programs and their funding for the arts, culture and heritage meet the needs of the television, film and multimedia industry in francophone minority communities? If not, what specifically would you recommend to the federal government to ensure more stable and equitable funding tailored to the reality of francophone minority communities? I know some witnesses have already answered this question, but my question is for all of our witnesses.
Ms. Pilon: As I said in my opening remarks, I think the first thing is to make the funding permanent. We were very happy when the federal government announced on November 4 that it was renewing Telefilm Canada’s $50 million in funding. Even though the entire sector — including anglophones, francophones, OLMCs and others — worked towards that objective, the fact is that the renewal is for three years. So making it permanent would provide continuity and predictability for productions, which are planned and developed over several months if not years before funding is received for a specific project. Long-term certainty is needed.
As to the Canada Media Fund, which is the largest fund and the most important for television production, once again, we welcome the government’s investment. We are very pleased with it, but more needs to be done. We had actually asked the government to double its funding for the Canada Media Fund, and the Liberal Party also promised to do that when it was reelected in 2021.
Regarding OLMCs, some initiatives taken by public funds are exemplary, including by the Canada Media Fund. In its contribution agreement with the Canada Media Fund, the federal government requires that a minimum of 10% of the funding envelope for French-language production be earmarked for OLMC productions. That funding envelope has been in place since 2024 and has helped the OLMC television production industry grow. The APFC has just signed a similar agreement with Telefilm Canada requiring that 5% of Telefilm’s investment in French-language production be allocated to francophone minority production.
This is a strict framework that helps the industry grow.
Senator Poirier: Do you have anything to add?
Mr. Boëz: I would say that our network of filmmakers depends on the consolidation and development of core federal funding. I said this in my opening remarks: The organizations that represent artists are underfunded. We are also waiting for a status report from the organizations to find out what funding and personnel are available to enable us to carry out our mandate under the best conditions possible.
As for RACCORD, we got the improvements from Canadian Heritage that we were able to get; they cover inflation and I was only able to add one day for my only employee. So that is not enough to support the dissemination of works by RACCORD members and to strengthen professional development services, since it is a developing industry which is behind Quebec’s industry and the English-language industry. We have to do something now, and not in 5 or 10 years, to provide the best conditions possible to support filmmakers’ work and projects.
Senator Cormier: Welcome and thank you for your work.
First of all, we are here to try to understand how federal institutions support your development and that of your members.
My first question is for RACCORD. In your presentation, you mentioned certain obstacles. For example, you mentioned that there are no distributors for independent French-Canadian productions.
Without distributors for independent French-Canadian productions, you said that buyers, operators and programmers do not know the collections well. You also said that streaming services do not provide enough space and visibility for French-Canadian content. Finally, you said that the current system for collecting and preserving independent film jeopardizes whole sectors of heritage.
I would like to better understand what role federal institutions could play. There are those that are part of the multi-party agreement — Canadian Heritage, the NAC, the Canada Council, the CBC, the NFB and Telefilm — as regards preservation, for instance. Which federal institutions could help reduce the obstacles that you are facing, specifically with regard to preservation, as well as the lack of distributors which limits exposure to content?
Mr. Boëz: As to the preservation of content, Canada has an excellent system for collecting and preserving all NFB productions. All feature films supported by Telefilm Canada are systematically stored by Library and Archives Canada, in keeping with international preservation standards.
Other creations and productions, however, such as short and medium-length productions, and even self-produced features that are supported by the Canada Council and provincial and municipal counterparts, are not collected or preserved. Their preservation is left up to rights holders and producers. It is not really their job to think about the long-term preservation of digital files that have to be remastered and preserved under the best conditions, in keeping with international standards. That is not really their job.
So there are a lot of holes in our system right now. The danger in terms of making our collections more visible is the following: how will we do it in 10, 20 or 30 years? How will a festival programmer want to program French-Canadian films?
Senator Cormier: I understand the issue well, but which federal institution could help you? Canadian Heritage? Who do you think could help you with that?
Mr. Boëz: At the last bilateral meeting with Canadian Heritage, I suggested a meeting with the various federal bodies, namely, the Canada Council, the NFB and Telefilm Canada, to consider a structured model for the collection and preservation of those films. I think federal institutions have a role to play in sharing ideas and discussing this together.
Senator Cormier: You are referring to one of your partners in the multiparty agreement, a collaboration agreement between the FCCF and its members. Perhaps that is the body you are referring to.
Your two organizations are talking about core funding issues and making funding permanent.
My question for Ms. Pilon from the APFC is the following. You signed an agreement with Telefilm Canada. I understand it can help you identify institutions and improve assistance from federal institutions. You signed an agreement with Telefilm Canada that has a number of objectives: strengthening creative communities, increasing project funding, increasing visibility, and supporting research and data sharing. You mentioned $50 million and said that 5% is earmarked for OLMCs under that agreement. What is your opinion of the agreement? Does it meet your needs? It is recent, but can you already anticipate real results for your members?
Ms. Pilon: The agreement was negotiated in good faith by Telefilm Canada and the APFC. We are very pleased with the agreement, which we worked on for seven or eight years. It took a lot of persistence to convince Telefilm to make commitments and to state them in the agreement we signed. Even if there is a lot of good will at the table, teams always have new members. I have to say that the commitment to support French-language production in minority communities has increased a great deal since Telefilm Canada’s new CEO arrived.
Senator Cormier: Can you give us specific examples of how this is helping producers in real terms?
Ms. Pilon: Telefilm has undertaken to invest 5% of its budget for French-language production in French-language projects from minority communities. That is specific. That is the first time Telefilm has made that kind of commitment with a specific figure.
In the past two or three years, we have endeavoured to increase those commitments and they worked with us. Telefilm’s investment in French-language production rose from $500,000 annually to more than $2 million. That is a measurable increase that will have an impact in the longer term, as the funding from the Canada Media Fund did for television. We expect this commitment for film will have a similar impact on the development of the film industry.
Senator Gerba: I understand that the issue is making the funding permanent, but I would like to hear your thoughts on artificial intelligence. It will likely affect production, film and dissemination, specifically as regards copyright and discoverability.
I have three questions in that regard. To begin, I would like to hear about the issues you face as producers and the problems it causes in the development of your productions.
Secondly, what kind of assistance should be provided to OLMC artists to benefit from artificial intelligence?
Finally, in your opinion, how should the federal government respond to those issues?
Ms. Pilon: The Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada is a member of the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions and shares the coalition’s positions on the responsible development of AI. That begins with respecting copyright on creative works.
We often hear that there is pressure to allow exceptions to copyright to allow for text and data mining. In my opinion, there should not be any exceptions for that kind of activity, even though we do of course hope that Canada will participate in the development of artificial intelligence and become the leader it aspires to be. That has to be done within the framework of existing legislation.
Next, there has to be transparency in the use of generative AI, so if companies use copyrighted works they must of course disclose and compensate copyright holders for the use of those works.
As I said, legislative measures are needed for the identification of content to inform the public if content is entirely AI-generated so that people know what they are dealing with, if a work is in fact completely machine-generated or if there was human interaction.
Works that are completely machine-generated should not be protected by copyright.
I will stop there and hand it over to my colleagues.
Mr. Forgues: Obviously, as a filmmaker, I’m not really an organization, but I work in the trenches.
I think training would be the number one thing for RACCORD members and minority communities. They need a better understanding of what AI is, and how it can be used as a work tool. Video editing software, for example, is already using AI smart filters to remove details, or to clean up the audio so the dialogue is clearer. AI is already used as a work tool.
Beyond that, I think our members need AI training. Getting federal government support to provide this specialized training to our members would be a good starting point.
I believe it’s a question of definition. I see it as a work tool, so for me, there are fewer drawbacks. The issue for me is creation. I wouldn’t want our works to be created by machines instead of humans, instead of artists. Human nature is a great thing, and we like our fictional works to generate emotions in our audiences. There’s a strong human side to it.
That said, I’m happy to see that the various levels of government are already thinking, and talking about, definitions. Let’s not forget that creation is a process, not an end product.
If we want to see ourselves in the works, then they need to be created by people, humans, artists. I’m not convinced computers or robots would have the capacity to reflect the Fransaskois or Acadian culture simply by drawing on the content of the World Wide Web.
It’s up to the different levels of government to introduce regulations in their guiding principles, for example, to define what they are willing to fund. Do they want to fund works created by machines, or works created by French-Canadian artists?
I believe the various institutions are already thinking, and talking about, definitions. Now, they have to work with artists in the field to come up with a good agreement, because AI is here to stay.
[English]
Senator Patterson: I will speak in English, but please feel free to respond in French.
You have talked about a couple of areas; I was going to ask a question one way, but you have just piqued my interest as well very specifically related to training.
With the bill we are studying, the intent was to make all of this more accessible. One of your comments was that the federal government should help facilitate this training. Has anything happened to make access to training for francophone artists actually come to fruition, and what further help do you need?
Mr. Forgues: The answer is yes. There have been some very good initiatives in the past from the federal government. I wouldn’t be here today without those initiatives, so thank you.
[Translation]
In the early 2000s, interdepartmental partnerships with official language communities, which we used to call IPOLCs, were established. There was, among others, the partnership between Telefilm Canada, Radio-Canada and the NFB to offer training sessions in production, scriptwriting and direction. Three groups of participants received the training, and I think all of them still work in the industry.
Some works were created thanks to IPOLCs. Then, IPOLCs disappeared, and agreements weren’t renewed. However, organizations such as Telefilm Canada introduced new programs, such as Écrire au long, to support scriptwriters in official language minority communities looking for training, and to work in the field. There were seven editions of these programs, which led to a few feature films being shown in theatres. I would say there have been some good initiatives.
Then the APFC, RACCORD and other such organizations were left to support their members. RACCORD is happy to offer training to its members, but it needs additional funds to help them go further.
Ms. Pilon: In 2019, the APFC negotiated an agreement with Telefilm Canada, the Canada Media Fund and a private partner, Netflix, to support professional development initiatives for producers, scriptwriters and directors. On some of those initiatives, we worked with RACCORD, which was called FRIC back then.
This followed the agreement between Heritage Canada and Netflix, under which $25 million was set aside for industry development, and we benefited from that.
Those funds expired, and most of the Netflix-supported programs over the last few years ended, mainly because online platforms are now subject to the Broadcasting Act, which is being implemented through various CRTC regulatory decisions. This means platforms are waiting to see what their obligations will be before agreeing to support something or renewing partnerships.
As Jocelyn just said, this means that even if partnerships are renewed, the responsibility now falls on small organizations like ours. At RACCORD, there are two people, and it’s the same for us. Our first responsibility is to represent our members, and make sure they have equal access to funds, and business and industry development opportunities, including professional development. However, we’re not training institutions. That’s not our specialty. We do it, because we’re part of an ecosystem, so it makes sense.
Skills need to be developed if we want more productions, if we want our members to produce more feature films and large-scale series. Achieving that objective will always be difficult, because our demographic weight limits the pool of creators, producers, technicians and artists we have in our communities.
We’re always trying to catch up, going backwards, and because we’re really small organizations, we often have to anticipate industry movements and trends to stay relevant. It’s asking a lot from us to be responsible for training our members, but we do it.
What we’d like to see, actually, is the responsibility being given to the businesses, organizations and institutions creating and offering this type of training for anglophones and Quebecers. Those organizations should include OLMC artists, producers and creators in their programs, while adapting those programs to our realities. That would be more effective.
Senator Moncion: I’m trying to understand the funding element. How is the funding you receive distributed? You use the funds you get from the federal government to operate, and to represent your members, your clients. How do your members get paid? What’s the funding model being used? Do they sell to the public? I’m trying to understand how it works.
Ms. Pilon: I can speak for the production side. The APFC is funded in part by a government grant. It represents a small portion of the organization’s funding, about a third, actually. The rest comes from the members themselves. They fund the APFC through the royalties they collect on the volume of work they produced the previous year, and the producers are funded per project. For each project they work on, they receive funds generally from three sources: broadcasters, public funds, and provincial and federal tax credits. They can also access other small amounts of funding.
In the francophone market, French-language productions in a minority environment receive funding from three equal sources. In Quebec, broadcasters invest up to 50% in production licences, while the rest of the funding comes from tax credits and public funds. Over the last few years, public funding for French-language productions from Quebec has increased, because broadcasters don’t have enough money.
English-language productions get funding from similar sources for broadcasting, but they also get revenues from international sales. The anglophone market is much more lucrative, generous and accessible than the francophone market. As a result, 1% to 2% of the financial structure for French-language production in Canada comes from international sales or investments. For the anglophone market, it’s about 20%.
That’s why French-language minority productions rely heavily on public funds. We receive much more public funding for our projects than English-language productions or French-language productions in Quebec.
Therefore, when investments in those institutions are made, without measures or a framework in place to ensure that the funds are sent our way or invested in our productions, we find ourselves even more penalized.
Senator Moncion: I imagine the same thing applies to your organization.
I noticed that you need to report to the government and account for all the funds you receive. That is required in arts and culture. However, when it comes to education or health, provinces receive millions of dollars from the federal government, but they don’t have to be accountable for it. That’s demanding a lot from your small organizations. It’s a lot of work for small organizations like yours to account for the few dollars you receive.
Mr. Boëz: That’s true. We have to report on financial contributions of $1,000 or $2,000. Sometimes that can represent one or two days of work, and that’s not necessarily sustainable. That said, we need the funds if we want to continue providing our services. We rely on Heritage Canada for 70% of our funding. We also look to the regions and provinces for money. This allowed us, for example, to create a new mentorship program called RACCORD+.
We’ve created a network of experts, including RACCORD members who are working with young and established artists and filmmakers. This investment simply cannot be renewed. We’ll have to submit another proposal next year. The main issue is that we’re a national organization, but we serve only one province. Federal funding is not enough. Organizations like RACCORD have to get funding from regions, but can serve only part of the members of those regions. That creates inequities among members when it comes to access to services.
The solution is to increase federal funding for national organizations.
Senator Moncion: We’ve seen the federal government make a lot of funding cuts over the years. How do these cuts affect you, or are you getting more money?
Mr. Boëz: We received a boost from Canadian Heritage, as I said earlier. We’re also turning to the Quebec government. As a result of our long-standing collaboration with this government, we’ve been able to develop the Plan-Séquence mentoring and project support program, which Mr. Forgues spoke about earlier, also with the backing of Telefilm Canada.
However, most of the funding comes from the Quebec government, and it’s paying off. Some of the projects are now on the screens. Ten days ago, at our annual forum, we took stock of the past 10 years. We realized that, of the 50 supported projects, a dozen were able to secure funding from either the Canada Council for the Arts or Telefilm Canada.
These training programs and mentoring initiatives should be encouraged. However, it’s always risky to rely solely on substantial project funding and reporting requirements, with no guarantee of adequate funding the following year. We need to ensure the long-term viability of these services, especially for the members who join us each year, particularly the next generation, who have expectations.
The Chair: Thank you. We’ll now move on to the second round. Please keep your questions and answers as succinct as possible.
Senator Poirier: Thank you. My question is for all the witnesses. Do you believe that federal institutions are living up to their responsibilities towards your sector, as required by the Official Languages Act with its new obligations? Why?
Ms. Pilon: There’s always room for improvement. As I said earlier, French-language production in minority communities accounts for 7% of the francophone production volume in Canada. This falls well short of our demographic weight. Radio-Canada’s obligations, for example, to produce French-language content in minority communities are progressively increasing over their latest licence term and will reach 6%. This means that, of all Radio-Canada’s independent French-language production, 6% of the budget will fund production in minority communities and 94% will fund production in Quebec. So, is there room for improvement? We believe so.
At this time, we negotiated this agreement with Telefilm Canada for 5% of the French-language production volume. We set it at 5% because this will help us build an industry. We must also do this with sustainability in mind. Injecting money without giving the industry the structure required to invest it wisely is neither beneficial nor helpful to anyone.
Public funding for film is subject to strict quotas. It’s necessary to work with us to develop our needs. The promotion of training, skills development, access to international markets and the responsible integration of AI into our practices always involve joint efforts and discussions. This is how we can make our institutions more accountable.
Senator Poirier: Are these discussions paying off?
Ms. Pilon: Yes. We currently have a signed agreement with Telefilm Canada that took a long time to finalize. This agreement was reached with them. However, if there had been, for example, a regulation under the Official Languages Act that better set out how institutions should fulfill their responsibilities, it might not have taken eight years to reach an agreement.
Senator Poirier: Does the English-speaking minority in Quebec face the same challenge?
Ms. Pilon: You would need to ask about their level of satisfaction with the institutions. In French-speaking Canada, we have an agreement negotiated with the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française and five federal institutions. These institutions are the Canada Council for the Arts, the National Arts Centre, Telefilm Canada, Radio-Canada, the NFB and Canadian Heritage. This agreement gives us a way to work on issues together and to meet regularly. There’s accountability now. We would like to add some investment targets to this, obviously. I think that this is our goal.
Senator Poirier: Thank you.
Mr. Boëz: As Ms. Pilon said, since Canada’s francophone minority communities account for 14% of the population, I don’t understand why we can’t have 14% of the investments, including 14% of prime time. If we had to identify the last prime time series on Radio-Canada produced by francophones outside Quebec, we would have to dig a bit. I always have my audience in mind. I’m a filmmaker. My audience is international, of course. However, if we want to see, recognize and hear ourselves on our screens, I think that the audience has a right to do so as well, in that sense.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Cormier: Thank you. Please keep your answers brief, because I have many questions. The multi-party agreement just discussed, the collaborative agreement with the FCCF and its partners, such as the APFC . . . You have partnerships with the Canada Media Fund, which isn’t a member and which didn’t sign this agreement. In other words, would it be possible for this collaborative agreement to include other partners that could assist you? No action plan is tied to this agreement. There have been action plans in the past. Should this happen? Should there be an action plan?
Ms. Pilon: Each discipline is quite unique. Perhaps an action plan should be developed for each discipline. In terms of new players, the Canada Media Fund isn’t even a signatory to the agreement. It isn’t an institution like the NFB and Telefilm. It’s its own beast. I believe that the FCCF took steps to include Global Affairs Canada as a signatory. I’m not sure where things stand with this.
Senator Cormier: Do you think that it would be beneficial to include Global Affairs Canada? Are you facing challenges in exporting your productions abroad?
Ms. Pilon: Yes, it may be good to have that conversation. We interact with them regularly, but it would be nice to have other disciplines at the table so that they can better understand our issues when they develop their program and determine how to help the sector access international markets. They could better understand our approach and our realities in French-speaking Canada in order to avoid penalizing us in terms of access to programs and funding.
Senator Cormier: You’re a member of the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. Did they ask for the cultural sector to remain exempt from the federal spending cuts plan?
Ms. Pilon: Yes.
Senator Cormier: They also called for national legislation on generative artificial intelligence to include a requirement for companies developing generative artificial intelligence systems to disclose data. Do you have the data needed to make a case for your funding needs? My question is for Mr. Boëz, Ms. Pilon and Mr. Forgues.
Mr. Forgues: No, we don’t have enough. We could do better. That’s why we created the Raccord Image magazine. It’s our calling card for business development, discussions, negotiations and festivals with potential programmers. We have incomplete data in our industry. Federal institutions show certain images, but we want a true picture of our industry. Our picture of the industry focuses on the significance of film collections. That’s the data. What was the first feature-length fiction film and the first documentary in the Canadian francophonie? Our magazine answers these questions. It took a great deal of research. The magazine will continue to collect data from all over to paint a picture.
Senator Cormier: Your responsibility is actually to collect this data. This could be the responsibility of organizations such as Statistics Canada, but this may not be the case.
Ms. Pilon: When they’re available, because there’s a challenge. The Canadian Media Producers Association and the Association québécoise de la production médiatique carry out studies each year. They have access to data through tax credits. When producers apply for tax credits, they must disclose their entire budgets. They have all this information, even though it isn’t their job to produce statistics. They can do so.
When we ask them for statistics on OLMC productions, they can’t provide these statistics. There must be a minimum of four projects per data category requested in order to disclose this data. I believe that the Canada Revenue Agency has this rule. So when we ask for data, it’s highly aggregated. Sometimes it covers three, four or five years. We can’t measure a trend when we have a figure for every five years.
There are barriers to obtaining data. Even with the CRTC, which collects a great deal of data, we don’t have access to much data on OLMCs because the CRTC doesn’t require this data. We’re lobbying the CRTC, even though broadcasters, both platforms and traditional broadcasters, are asking for lighter reporting requirements to the CRTC. In contrast, we feel that it’s vital to have granular OLMC data in order to gauge where we stand in this system, to see the good and the not-so-good and to pinpoint the right issues.
Senator Cormier: Are you satisfied with the CRTC’s recent definition of Canadian content? There was quite a list.
Ms. Pilon: I haven’t read it all yet. The decision is 91 pages long. We’re still analyzing it, but we have some concerns.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Cormier: We would appreciate your feedback if you have any.
Senator Gerba: Ms. Pilon, you spoke a number of times about the need to access foreign markets. I imagine that this is for your members. I would like to know whether you think that the federal government is doing enough to help you access these markets. If not, what would be needed to help you access these foreign markets and promote the diversity of cultural expressions of the Canadian francophonie?
Ms. Pilon: Foreign markets for French-language productions are challenging. For example, Quebec has SODEC, which has been active in the international markets for a number of years. They work hard to connect Quebec producers and to organize business-to-business activities and meetings to promote projects and works selected for festivals. Telefilm Canada also does this work, but mainly for English-language productions. We still work quite well with them. We’ve been organizing delegations abroad since 2019. We’ve developed an export strategy. That said, when we want to work together, it becomes a bit more difficult to position ourselves in this market.
When I travel abroad, people ask me whom I represent. I talk about francophone producers in Canada. They talk about Quebec. They love Quebec. I tell them that we’re not from Quebec, but from outside Quebec. We would like to see more support from Telefilm Canada and better collaboration with Quebec institutions when it comes to this distinction. That way, French-language Canadian productions can also include productions outside Quebec when we travel abroad to develop new business partnerships.
Senator Gerba: When you travel abroad, could you and Quebec take a Canadian approach to participating as a team?
Ms. Pilon: That’s what we want. Sometimes there are collaborations. However, Quebec has a responsibility to its people. Even though they have a policy for development and partnership with the Canadian francophonie, their main interest lies in developing their own sector and industry. Telefilm Canada is often part of these initiatives. If the Canadian francophonie isn’t systematically invited to participate in these initiatives as part of efforts to engage with foreign partners in the international francophonie, we must take it upon ourselves to get involved in these discussions. That’s what we do, but it’s more difficult.
Senator Gerba: Do embassies play a role? Could they play a role?
Ms. Pilon: Yes. Global Affairs Canada as well.
The network has nevertheless crumbled over time. New investments were made with the creative export strategy. However, this strategy wasn’t renewed. We still don’t know where the cultural attachés will end up or how we can continue to develop ties between Canada and foreign countries.
Senator Gerba: If you had a recommendation to make in this area, what would it be?
Ms. Pilon: It would be to keep supporting efforts abroad for producers and the francophone minority community and to better align initiatives between Quebec and francophone Canada.
[English]
Senator Patterson: I’d like to follow up on that, because I can’t remember who said it in their opening comments, but you did have recommendations for us, and that was the fourth recommendation on how we can better protect.
I always go back to sustainable, predictable funding being essential to anything that you do, and I appreciate the last two recommendations.
What else can we do to support minority francophone arts in general? What do you recommend to us that needs to be brought out in order to fulfill what we’re trying to accomplish with the Official Languages Act?
[Translation]
Mr. Boëz: There aren’t any distributors in the Canadian francophonie that handle francophone Canadian works, be they series or films. In this sense, it’s always best to help ourselves. I believe that having an organization that can build bridges and connections with distributors, television networks and festivals is important for development both in Canada and abroad.
At RACCORD, we do this in a certain way. We do this with festivals. No one knows us, either in the United States or in France, where we developed our “RACCORD fait son festival” project. It’s the best challenge. No one knows us, so we must work hard to tell our story. Our film collections are unknown. It’s a wonderful challenge to take on.
Indeed, in French-speaking countries, as soon as we speak French and say that we come from Canada, people assume that we’re from Quebec. Two years ago, I was with a filmmaker from Winnipeg at a festival in Normandy, France. For the first time, the audience connected with a Franco-Manitoban who was showing a documentary distributed and produced by the NFB. We used the question-and-answer session to discuss the realities of creation and production in the Canadian francophonie. It was quite a moving experience. These indispensable collections must be recognized. We need a funding organization that can support this visibility.
[English]
Senator Patterson: Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you. This brings us to the end of this discussion, unless you have any further questions and the witnesses are willing to stay with us for a few more minutes.
Senator Cormier: I’m turning to Ms. Pilon, but this may also concern our other witnesses.
We’re talking here about the situation with the Official Languages Act. We’re still waiting for the regulations on Part VII, which will affect your development. I would have been curious to hear your thoughts on this.
However, I would like to focus on the Broadcasting Act and online content. The CRTC has a major responsibility in defining Canadian content. At the APFC, you said that you wanted the CRTC to impose minimum requirements on all broadcasting companies with regard to first-run original French-language programming produced by OLMCs. I would like to hear your thoughts on this. I believe that this is extremely important for both producers and directors. What’s your relationship with the CRTC in this area, and what are your expectations regarding the CRTC’s role and responsibilities in implementing this legislation?
Ms. Pilon: We’re concerned. I can’t say that we aren’t concerned. We understand that this is an ecosystem and that online platforms have a role to play.
That said, only two Canadian broadcasters currently have expenditure requirements for independent OLMC productions. These broadcasters are Radio-Canada and TV5Unis. They’re the only ones. Private broadcasters don’t have expenditure requirements for French-language Canadian programming outside Quebec. If the CRTC has been reluctant to impose expenditure requirements on traditional Canadian broadcasters, what will they do when it comes time to set conditions of service for foreign companies? We’re quite concerned about this.
We’re asking for substantial funding for independent productions so that we can compete with Quebec productions, but also with English-language productions that attract all the attention of our communities. We agree on this. We aren’t just competing with French-language productions in Quebec, but also with productions from around the world. If we don’t have the means to fund productions at a level that makes us competitive, we won’t attract broadcasters or audiences. All this is intrinsically linked.
In the case of television, because the CRTC has jurisdiction over television, we know that it involves a commercial enterprise, that broadcasters must sell advertising to fund and invest in productions and that advertisers want audiences. They want people to tune in to these programs so that they can sell their products. In the case of French-speaking minority communities, our population base is so small that it doesn’t carry much weight in the economic equation.
This becomes a commitment and a social project. We can decide in Canada that we’re truly a bilingual country and that we want communities and individuals in minority situations to access content that reflects who they are and that speaks to them. This requires a commitment and political will.
Senator Cormier: Do you have any comments to make?
Senator Gerba: I have a brief question. Mr. Boëz, you mentioned that you have only one employee, and I know from people around me who work in production and co-production that there is quite a lot of demand for budget details and other information. How do you manage to cope with that?
Mr. Boëz: Leading and representing a collective of artists across French-speaking Canada is a huge challenge. I don’t know how I manage it. We succeed because we are passionate about what we do.
Filmmakers face challenges in their field. They submit projects and are regularly rejected, but fortunately they sometimes receive funding. In fact, we fight because we believe in it. I have a very good employee at the moment, and I am grateful to her. However, this is also a time when we need to be innovative and champion new projects, which is why we have launched a project to circulate works, a magazine and a series of podcasts, because we need to be visible and show that we are here.
Ms. Pilon: I think the works themselves motivate us, because we see the quality and excellence. When we invest and provide resources, we see what we are capable of. That’s what motivates us.
Senator Gerba: Thank you.
The Chair: Ms. Pilon, Mr. Boëz, Mr. Forgues, thank you very much for joining us this evening.
We now welcome, for our second group, from the Alliance nationale de l’industrie musicale, Ms. Julie Gabrielle Frigault, President, and Ms. Clotilde Heibing, Executive Director. I welcome you and thank you for accepting our invitation.
You will have five minutes to make your opening remarks, after which we will move on to the question period.
Clotilde Heibing, Chief Executive Officer, Alliance nationale de l’industrie musicale: Honourable senators, thank you for this opportunity to share with you the expectations of our community. Over the past two years, we have conducted a series of studies on the industry that support our remarks today.
The Alliance nationale de l’industrie musicale, or ANIM, supports the music industry in minority communities: It is made up of 71 members in nine provinces and three territories outside Quebec — we have members everywhere — 25 provincial associations, five distribution networks and 40 private companies. Our members are not artists and do not currently have pan-Canadian representation in OLMCs.
The francophone and Acadian music industry has experienced significant growth over the past 15 years thanks to you, with the creation of specific funding programs linked to the Action Plan for Official Languages and administered by Musicaction.
My name is Clotilde Heibing and I joined ANIM as executive director with a background in the economic sector, particularly in forecasting. Anticipating trends is my job. I live and work in Bouctouche, New Brunswick.
In five years, ANIM’s budget has tripled and the team has grown from one to five people, including four permanent positions. At the same time, membership has grown from 30 to 71, celebrating the arrival of a new generation of entrepreneurs. ANIM’s funding remains exclusively public, with significant diversification of donors, including 13 different programs in 2024-25 and 23 grant applications. Only 20% of our funding comes from multi-year programs, which means we have to spend more than 50% of our time on administrative tasks.
Julie Gabrielle Frigault, President, Alliance nationale de l’industrie musicale: My name is Julie Gabrielle Frigault and I am the new president of ANIM. I have been a music entrepreneur for five years and manage four Acadian artists. I live between Kedgwick and Moncton, New Brunswick.
The vast majority of our association members are members of the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française, the FCCF. That is why ANIM will be highlighting its entrepreneur members today. These are 40 business owners, most of whom work full-time in the following professions: management, publishing, venue booking, tour organization, production, sound recording, album mixing, artistic direction, distribution, record labels, communications, consulting, coaching and strategic planning.
These professions, which are essential to the development of artists’ careers, do not generate enough personal income for entrepreneurs. Since its inception, the minority music industry has operated on a “pay to work” basis.
Their week takes up at least 70 hours of their lives and their personal lives are often affected. Public funding accounts for up to 40% of companies’ turnover, with no ongoing core funding program. Administration absorbs 50% of entrepreneurs’ resources.
Our business structures often copy the Quebec model, based on a traditional economic model. However, we are creating extremely interesting and replicable alternative entrepreneurial models based on mutual aid, exchange and collaboration. We are seeing à la carte services, service exchanges, communities of practice and careers in schools.
Let us explore these entrepreneurial models with digital technology and artificial intelligence at the heart of our practices. ANIM would like to launch a pilot project in collaboration with Musicaction, at an estimated cost of approximately $350,000.
Businesses also need to reduce the time spent on administrative tasks. We want to automate them with the support of AI, thanks to funding from the 2026-27 Official Languages Action Plan.
Ms. Heibing: The small size of our markets makes exporting essential, and rising costs make our projects impossible to balance. We need to see our multi-year funding increase, and emphasis must be placed on salaries and travel.
ANIM is developing an innovative international strategy with its English-speaking counterparts, particularly in Germany and the United Kingdom, in addition to the usual French-speaking circuits. This has been a great success and several artistic and commercial collaborations have already been established.
Finally, ANIM is committed to a learning process to better welcome audiences, professionals and artists from diasporas of African descent who contribute to the development of our communities. Various ongoing projects confirm our anti-colonial focus, including large-scale public theatre production cohorts and professional delegations to Morocco, Côte d’Ivoire, Togo and Benin.
Ms. Frigault: As you can see, ANIM is proactive. It has the trust of its community.
In summary, we need to support ANIM’s development through appropriate funding, recognition of alternative business models and funding tailored to them, reduction of administrative burdens through automation, and ongoing support for the development of international markets for cohabitation in our communities.
Thank you very much for your attention. We look forward to continuing this conversation with you and answering your questions to the best of our knowledge.
The Chair: Thank you for your statements. We will now move on to the question period; questions and answers should not exceed five minutes for the first round, after which we will move on to the second round.
Senator Poirier: Welcome. It’s always nice to see people from our community. In your opinion, do current federal programs provide adequate support for young musicians who wish to pursue a career within the Canadian francophonie?
Ms. Heibing: There is no pan-Canadian association of artists today. That is already a concern. It does not exist; no one represents artists. Our mandate is to represent the professionals who support artists. Everything we do, of course, is aimed at making our artists happy. That’s what the study shows. In fact, the music industry’s goal is to make artists happy, but in reality, there is no organization that represents and defends artists. That’s the first shortcoming. To answer your question, there is no one at the federal level who is responsible for addressing this issue. We ourselves are responsible for meeting the expectations of associations, distribution networks and companies.
Senator Poirier: You are doing this to better protect and promote French-language music produced in minority communities.
Ms. Heibing: Many things need to be improved. We are currently in a period of real upheaval, where the music industry no longer has a business model and is no longer able to support itself solely through private means. It no longer works. Previously, we produced records, sold records and went on tour. In minority French-speaking communities, this was never enough to make a living, but we managed to get by, more or less. There were radio stations and SiriusXM, an American satellite radio system that greatly helped the development of music in minority French-speaking communities, because they have French-language stations with regulations that require them to have minimum quotas, as in commercial and community radio stations.
Today, the advent of streaming means that artists can no longer make a living from their copyright royalties. Royalties are far too low for streaming. You mentioned this earlier with Ms. Pilon, with regard to the CRTC and this law that will require platforms to help us financially on a collective basis. It’s the only way. Individually, artists will never have access to this funding. We have to go through collective collection and redistribution organizations. This is done through the Canada Music Fund and Musicaction. Better funding for our fund distribution institutions gives us fairer access to funding.
Senator Poirier: Is funding the only obstacle you face, and the main one?
Ms. Heibing: Yes.
Senator Poirier: Agreed.
Ms. Frigault: I would like to come back to the first question regarding the artists with whom I have more direct ties. It comes down to each province, because you have to be at a professional level to have access to federal funds. For new emerging artists, it’s a little more difficult from the outset, in addition to the fact that there aren’t many people like me, members of the music industry. Artists who have a team to help them are rare. That’s part of the reality.
Senator Poirier: Are we talking about federal funding?
Ms. Frigault: Through Musicaction, there is a new program called S.O.S., which aims to support French-Canadian businesses. We have a small fund that helps us build our industry so that our businesses become a little more sustainable over time. This is something new that we are really happy about, and we hope that it will bear fruit in the French-Canadian landscape.
Senator Poirier: Are you still in discussions at the federal level with various institutions to resolve certain issues you are facing?
Ms. Heibing: Dialogue takes place either through multiparty agreements or directly. We have fairly easy access to people, but decisions are always made elsewhere. In fact, we advocate for many ideas, but it is difficult to know who will make the decision and how it will all come back down to us. The channels are extremely complex to understand, and intergovernmental matters are even more complex for us to understand.
It is important to understand that we are small organizations with very few highly specialized people. For example, in all organizations representing arts and culture, no one is dedicated to politics. So, in fact, defending our disciplines means taking time out of our busy schedules, because it is not funded, to meet with decision-makers and defend our point of view. This is something we are not trained to do and that is evolving very, very quickly. Given the evolution of legislation, we have asked to be consulted. It’s a very good idea to be consulted.
For example, we could write a brief to the CRTC every month, but that’s not possible. I can’t write a brief every month. Similarly, we are sometimes consulted on matters that are extremely specialized. With the CRTC, we are dealing with specialized lawyers who have been working for years on a very specific subject. We are asked for our position, and most of the time, we are a little. . . There is a real need for consultation between the francophone minority community and those we call our strategic partners. We share the territory with the anglophone community and we share the language with Quebec. We feel entitled to work with each other, because it is. . . You were talking about it earlier. In fact, there is a real need to foster relationships and contacts so that not everyone does everything and so that we can divide up the tasks according to what is specific to us.
For example, when it comes to artificial intelligence, ANIM places a great deal of trust in CDEC, the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, of which we are members. I know that there is a group of politicians and people in highly specialized bodies who meet every week. ANIM attends from time to time — I go every two months — to listen to what is being said, but we have developed relationships, and these people call on us when there are things that need to be done.
That’s wonderful. It means I don’t have to keep an eye on things. The biggest institutions do it for us. We need to encourage that. It’s not about money, it’s about cooperation, but at the same time, it is about money, because in order to cooperate, we have to travel, because we’re both in New Brunswick, so we’re the only national organization in our field that’s not in Ottawa or Ontario. Often, for example, we’re invited to a happy hour and we’re told, “There’s a cocktail party tomorrow, would you like to come?” I’m in Bouctouche.
Senator Cormier: I would like to bring you back to the concept of entrepreneurship. I believe my colleagues have understood that when we look at all the tasks associated with entrepreneurs — we could call them artists’ agents — there are a multitude of tasks that you have to do. Coming from a cultural background, I know that when emerging or more experienced artists leave their regions, it is because they have dedicated people behind them.
I would like to better understand, grasp and identify the sources of funding that would enable you to better support artists. Perhaps you could explain, for the benefit of everyone, the role of Musicaction, which you talk about a lot. What is Musicaction, and what are the other sources of funding for entrepreneurs who manage and mentor artists?
Ms. Heibing: In fact, each discipline works completely differently from the discipline next to it. Audiovisual media does not work at all like music. It is very complicated to transfer responsibilities and make general laws, because they do not apply to anyone.
Senator Cormier: This is more about funding.
Ms. Heibing: In fact, there are two main sources of funding for music. One is through Canadian Heritage, through the Canada Music Fund, with 40% of the funding going to the French-speaking community and 60% to the English-speaking community. The French-speaking portion is administered by Musicaction, while the English-speaking portion is administered by FACTOR.
We have been very fortunate compared to other sectors, because the francophone community has managed to secure 40%. Then, within that 40%, there is Quebec and the francophone minority. Fifteen years ago, we realized that there was a real inequity in the treatment of artists from Quebec and those from outside Quebec. This meant that even for a promoter in Winnipeg, it was cheaper to bring someone from Quebec to tour their venues than to bring someone from the neighbouring province, because Quebec had organized itself, notably through SODEC, which provides incredible support to businesses and artists. So, funding was developed; it’s called Vitrines musicales. We managed to get at least 15% to 18% of the funding reserved for the francophonie, hence the 40%.
Senator Cormier: Are you talking about the 40%?
Ms. Heibing: Exactly.
Senator Cormier: So, 18%?
Ms. Heibing: Eighteen per cent is the minimum required to serve the French-speaking community. Again, we did not do it, but our predecessors did. We are extremely grateful to them, because we need special treatment due to our minority status. The funds must be greater than our demographic representation. Musicaction tells us every year that we spend more than what is allocated for the francophonie. So, on average, about 20% or 21% goes to the francophone minority, because the artists and businesses are there and because what we do is good; it is therefore in their interest to fund us.
Senator Cormier: Does this funding go directly to entrepreneurs?
Ms. Heibing: It goes to the artists, for the most part. In fact, we believe that entrepreneurs should be paid a percentage of what the artist earns. On average, we’re talking about 15%, but there are variations. In fact, before the program Julie mentioned earlier, there was no specific program for entrepreneurs.
It’s very new, and we went to defend it to the Music Fund. Three years ago, we sought $5 million from Canadian Heritage to create a specific program for businesses, because we realized that, in the same way, Quebecers were receiving much more support than francophones. It was difficult to start businesses because it was difficult to make a living as an entrepreneur. This program exists, which is why we were talking earlier about additional funding for it. The program is very successful, but Musicaction has a commercial mandate, which essentially means that all results must be measured quantitatively.
We are asked to achieve results that are lower than the results we would ask of anglophones or Quebec, because they have a larger territory, but the fact remains that it is still very quantitative. What we want to do with these new entrepreneurial models is to show how effective our models are, even if we cannot measure them using solely economic and quantitative criteria.
Senator Cormier: From whom do you want this recognition of alternative business models?
Ms. Heibing: Generally speaking, we want this to enable us to finance our businesses according to their needs and not force them to copy Quebec models that are not suited to them.
Senator Cormier: So, it is Canadian Heritage that should recognize these models?
Ms. Heibing: Exactly.
Senator Cormier: I see.
Ms. Heibing: Through the Music Fund.
Senator Cormier: Agreed.
Ms. Heibing: For the other funding. . . We have funding from Canadian Heritage and another source from the Canada Council for the Arts, but it does not favour music at all. The Canada Council for the Arts knows that music is funded by Musicaction. So there are many artists and entrepreneurs who do not go to the Canada Council, unless they are part of a minority that has been targeted.
Otherwise, it is very difficult to obtain funding from the Canada Council. The rest of the funding comes from the provincial government, through the Ontario Arts Council, which is fairly well endowed, and the New Brunswick Arts Council, which is a little less so; elsewhere, it’s a pittance.
One day, I went to meet with the Minister of Culture of Newfoundland and Labrador with a member of our association who works with francophones in music in Newfoundland. I said: “This person can’t even afford one plane ticket a year. Can we try to increase the budget?” The professional called me back a few months later and said, “We got a $2,000 increase per year”. You see? Anyway, it’s complicated.
Senator Gerba: Welcome to our witnesses. I would like to return to the issue of access to foreign markets. It seems easier for you, if I understand correctly, because you mentioned that you are in French-speaking Africa. Is access to markets better funded for musicians?
Ms. Heibing: We had to insist a lot to get out of export that was focused solely on French-speaking European countries, because initially, the programs had been created for Quebecers, and naturally, Quebecers love to visit France, Belgium and Switzerland. There is a Maison du Québec in Paris, where the number of employees is almost greater than at the Canadian embassy in Paris. So Quebec’s presence is very important in these European countries. We went to defend the fact that we had two areas of focus that were very important to us, namely that we wanted to develop francophone music, not the francophone audience. My mandate is not to develop the francophone audience; I am not the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie.
The OIF’s mission is to have a large number of people speaking French. My mandate is to ensure that the association’s members earn a living doing their work. It’s a completely different mandate. Both are important, but different. For several years now, we have had a development strategy in non-French-speaking European countries, and we go there with our English-speaking counterparts who open doors for us. We go to festivals where people are extremely curious. I am thinking in particular of Germany, the second-largest consumer of French-language music after France, where there is a real appetite for French culture and language, where we are considered exotic, but nothing more. People never ask you if you come from Quebec, because you come from Canada. This is the first international development project we have pursued.
The second is related to immigration. Our minority francophone community is growing mainly thanks to immigration. In Quebec, immigration is mainly from North Africa, but in the minority francophone community, immigration comes mainly from French-speaking sub-Saharan Africa.
You see, we are both white, and our association is still extremely white. In a French-speaking minority community, it is better to do nothing than to do something wrong. As people are very afraid of doing wrong, we have set ourselves a threefold learning mandate: to better welcome the general public from the African diaspora, professionals from the African diaspora, and artists from the African diaspora.
That is why, for the past three years, we have been organizing delegations to attend various festivals, where they meet professionals, artists and the public to understand how to do things “by and for”, because this is very important in minority French-speaking communities. When it comes to welcoming diasporas, we suddenly have to sit down and mix things up. In our opinion, this comes second, i.e., we must first value the cultures of origin, then open up to other cultures. This is what we are learning, and it is yielding good results.
Tomorrow and the day after tomorrow, a forum will be held by one of our members, Réseau Ontario, which represents 39 broadcasters and is currently conducting a study. They have found data to share with their members about the demographics of the diasporas in their territory, with the aim of organizing shows for the right diaspora. In fact, there is no point in organizing a show for people from Haiti if your community includes people from Cameroon. It’s very interesting and it touches on international data and market development. Forgive me, I’m very talkative.
Senator Gerba: It’s more about funding.
Ms. Heibing: For funding, we only obtained transfers. Normally, Musicaction does not cover delegations if Musicaction has no activity in the country. We were told that we had to explore the country first before bringing artists there, and Musicaction granted us funding to go there. So we are going, but the funding is insufficient. We are not 100% funded, which means that every year, we have to find 20%, 30% or 50% of the funding elsewhere. This prevents us from doing what we want to do. We don’t do what we want, we do what we can with what we are given.
Every time, we are asked to fit square pegs into round holes. The program and guidelines are very rigid, and we have to squeeze through. Our program officers are very understanding towards us in this regard. Does that answer your question?
Senator Gerba: Is this to simplify matters?
Ms. Heibing: Absolutely.
Senator Gerba: Thank you.
Senator Moncion: May I ask where the 30% of funding that you need to find elsewhere will come from?
Ms. Heibing: In fact, this year, for example, we had funding from Ontario Creates that only covered 50%. We received 30% from another federal or provincial funding source, and the rest had to come from private funds. It’s the same when we participate in a delegation: We have to have private funds, except that we don’t have any. In fact, we create private funds, we subcontract studies that we do, in addition to our work to generate contracts.
Senator Moncion: When you receive this funding, are you penalized? Are you cut off on the other side?
Ms. Heibing: No.
Senator Moncion: No? All right, thank you.
Ms. Heibing: However, this only applies to Ontario.
The Chair: Before moving on to the second round of questions, I would be curious to know what your main projects are. You’ve mentioned a few, but what are your priorities for the future? I’m trying to understand whether your organization is more focused on promotion and awareness, or whether it’s a service you provide to your customers. I imagine you do both?
Ms. Heibing: Yes. We have four mandates: a mandate for political representation at the federal level, a mandate for consultation between our members and our English-speaking partners in Quebec, a mandate for development and a mandate for skills. We were talking about training and costs during the pandemic, but today, when you say the word “training”, people run away. It feels like we’re going to be stuck watching a PowerPoint presentation for an hour on Zoom.
In fact, we are truly immersed in the “experiential” aspect. Julie, can you talk about the fact that you were in entrepreneurial residency for the last three days with ANIM?
Ms. Frigault: Yes. Of course, we will more often travel to meet people who are on site during the festivals. I was at M for Montreal, a market made up of people from all over the world. I was with some television music sync people. We need concrete action to improve the way we get money, and we need to take more action rather than always doing training.
Ms. Heibing: We travel with a delegation of members to events, where we can make presentations to explain what to expect and how people should present themselves. We can pair people with professionals on site, meaning that Julie will be with someone similar to her in a given market, and they will stick with each other throughout the festival. We also organize a lot of meetings. For example, we do speed meetings. I don’t know if you’re familiar with that. Every three minutes over an hour or two, you switch up the person you’re talking to. You’ll meet 20 or 30 people, you’ll exchange cards and ideas, and you can have a conversation elsewhere with the people you want to talk to for longer. It’s very broad.
We also host slow meetings, where we rent a nice place and invite only a few people, but for a long time to create lasting ties.
We really support our members in an extremely innovative and different way, because everyone has seen it all. Every time, we have to create something exceptional to attract our counterparts from all over. At the moment, delegations are extremely useful, we get a lot of requests and it’s really great. Will it still be like this in five years? Maybe not, but then we’ll do something else.
We really adapt to the needs of our members and we are very careful to always be aware of what is being done. Our organization has a person who specializes in digital technology and artificial intelligence and another person who specializes in data and research. In fact, we realized that we had to specialize in cross-cutting issues or we would lag behind our members.
The Chair: Going back to the entrepreneurial model, is that a service you can offer your artists?
Ms. Heibing: Yes, but roughly —
The Chair: It’s a service that you manage, right? If I were a musician or an artist, I could access it?
Ms. Heibing: No, you can’t become a member of ANIM. If you are truly a professional artist and live in Nova Scotia, you will have to join the association, FéCANE, that will help you turn professional.
There is one association per province for becoming a professional artist, and FéCANE is a member of ANIM. If you become a better-known artist, you have a chance to attract a professional who wants to manage your career and help you find tour dates. That’s an extreme simplification of two professions. However, 90% of artists don’t have any guidance, because there aren’t enough companies.
Senator Cormier: Not to exaggerate, but isn’t it in fact an association of artists’ agents? It’s not actually an artists’ association; it’s an agents’ association. They, in fact, support artists by overseeing them.
Could you give us an example of the concrete work you do — I’m looking at you, Ms. Frigault — to help an artist turn professional? Maybe that’s my first question, getting a concrete example of how that happens.
You talked about AI and how you could use it more often. What would you recommend to us for supporting your work in this area?
Ms. Frigault: You’d like concrete examples? There’s no doubt that a number of completely different models exist across the country.
Personally, I manage artists. Most of them are from New Brunswick, and one is from Nova Scotia. Everything takes time, whether it’s applying for funding to provincial organizations, so Music NB in New Brunswick, FéCANE, or Music Nova Scotia in Nova Scotia. That means efforts are fragmented and the funding amounts available from these organizations, to then help artists do it all, are smaller.
Depending on the role you play in the list of industry people, you are there to support every aspect of their career, whether it’s writing, administration, Musicaction funding applications, tours or albums. Some degree of funding is available for all those things; otherwise, the artist pays for it themselves if they don’t have the backing of a record label or some other major player in the industry in Quebec.
My artists have their own record labels. They fill out the applications for their albums themselves. We do the all the necessary work to market and promote those albums, to get them radio play, to do more, more, more.
Senator Cormier: I would think it’s different for the different steps of the process.
Ms. Frigault: Yes, for each step, and each province also has different levels of funding, in addition to different organizations —
Senator Cormier: At the federal level, who do you work with?
Ms. Frigault: It would be Musicaction or the Canada Council for the Arts for creation, and that is done. The Canada Council for the Arts rarely supports travel and touring. As Ms. Heibing was saying, they know that Musicaction has funding, so it’s a bit harder to find funding to support artists when they tour the country. For the creative dimension, though, the process works well. On the audio recording side, going through the Canada Council for the Arts is quite complicated, and support for production is also rare.
Federal and provincial arts councils tend to provide support for creation, and we try to get money from provincial and federal authorities, and Musicaction to produce albums. Then there’s promotion, marketing and distribution, three different areas where coverage is needed and funding has to be sought.
Senator Cormier: How can AI be implemented?
Ms. Heibing: There are two types of AI. Our preference is the type that helps us get daily tasks done. Something that’s been launched — and we are starting to see it roll out — is an AI‑assisted program to draw up contracts; funding was provided to support its development.
Our members have to administer a very large number of contracts, and they can vary depending on whether you are in Quebec, in French or in English. There are small differences from province to province. Most of the time, it’s actually copying, or borrowing from, other contracts, which is an extremely bad and risky thing to do.
A platform is being developed to draw up and store those contracts, and AI is being used to tailor it to francophone minority communities, so the tool being developed is absolutely incredible.
We just applied for funding from the Department of Canadian Heritage, through official languages support programming, so if you know anyone who can help, please let them know. We are looking for funding to automate reporting. I heard the discussion during the previous panel, and it’s a nightmare. It’s also a nightmare for the organizations we get money from. Musicaction suffers terribly because of what they have to ask us for. The fact is they have to require what they would provide if they had auditing capacity. That means they are constantly auditing. We are asked to provide everything. You saw how many applications we submitted last year, 23. Last year, we were asked to submit 200 invoices in an Excel document, manually entering the name of the invoice and so forth. That takes forever.
Generally speaking, people spend January, February and March on reporting requirements and September, October, November and December filling out funding applications. The actual work happens before and after. We actually spend just as much time asking for money as we do spending it, which is an odd use of our time. That’s why we want to automate reporting work, so if there’s any way you could help us make the people at Canadian Heritage understand that . . . I quite appreciated the earlier comparison with the private sector. No need to look to the health care or education sector; private companies can access public funding no strings attached, because they are trusted, because they are voters, because they are big. That’s how I imagine the public sees it anyway. It’s something I have to do more and more often.
Senator Cormier: I have a different question.
Since you are businesses, have you looked into applying for funding from economic development agencies, for instance? In our region, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, or ACOA, comes to mind. How can you take better advantage of your standing as a business, because that’s what we are talking about? Who can fund everything you need, besides the Canada Council for the Arts and Musicaction?
Ms. Heibing: We are in contact with the Réseau de développement économique, or RDEE, which serves the francophone community. The people there are very interested in those new economic models. We manage the opposite of growth, do-it-yourself, mutual assistance, things we’ve been doing for a long time. Those things have really been updated, though, and there is a lot of interest in that.
We want to ask the RDEE for funding, to explore that and see how it’s possible in the music sector, which is very small. We’re talking 1,300 professionals. As you can imagine, we don’t have much clout in the political world. However, the number of people who use and access music is phenomenal, way more than in the other arts. We have a lot of weight, but we aren’t able to illustrate that, largely for economic reasons, because we are so small.
Back when I was with Société de promotion des artistes acadiens sur la scène internationale, I had discussions with the organization, and I know that ACOA had absolutely no interest in broadening its scope in that way. In fact, the agency was closed to the idea, saying that arts and culture organizations needed to turn elsewhere.
That said, I think going through the RDEE would be a way to show, from the inside, that we can access that support.
We turn to other sources for funding. For example, we are submitting an application to Justice Canada. We would like to educate professionals, the people who will work at the CRTC and in administrative organizations, insiders who know the music industry and can advocate for us. We’d like to work with groups of students. It’s money, but not necessarily in a direct way; we are working on a number of different fronts.
From a financial standpoint, something very important to take into account is the fact that people have to work two full-time jobs. Take Ms. Frigault, for example. She can’t earn a living in her field, so she has to have a job on the side, which is why she works crazy hours every week. It is paramount for the federal government to understand that, while there aren’t many people in the sector, they still need a minimum level of pay that isn’t project-based, so they can have time. They need time, so they don’t always have to be looking elsewhere to support themselves. These are people worthy of confidence; Ms. Frigault has been funding her music career out of her own pocket for five years. If that isn’t proof of confidence, what is?
Senator Moncion: In closing, I’d like to quote Victor Hugo: Music is the sound thoughts make. Hear, hear.
Ms. Heibing: Thank you.
The Chair: Honourable senators, do you have any other questions?
Thank you to our witnesses for being with us this evening.
Ms. Heibing: It was an honour. Thank you for the opportunity. We seldom get the chance to explain our work.
The Chair: That concludes our second panel. We will now suspend briefly, before proceeding in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)