CHPC Committee Report
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
CHAPTER 3: SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO THE
INTERIM REPORT
In the first round of its work on the evolving role of the federal government in support of Canada’s feature film industry, the Committee heard from more than 180 witnesses and travelled to numerous cities to hold hearings as well as to conduct site visits. This process was quite productive as it enabled the Committee to identify many of the core issues facing the Canadian feature film industry. Consequently, the Committee decided to invite a second round of submissions that would provide industry input on specific questions gathered from these core issues.
In this second round, a detailed questionnaire was sent out to industry stakeholders. This questionnaire, consisting of 43 questions, asked respondents for their views on issues relating to creation and production, marketing, existing government support mechanisms, distribution and exhibition, governance of key federal film agencies, performance measures and targets, as well as a number of other general policy issues. The Committee received responses from 33 interested parties. The following chapter presents a summary of their comments.
Film creation is a complex process yet it is argued that the most important element for a successful film is a good script. With this in mind, the 2000 policy From Script to Screen provided more resources for script development with the intention that greater funds would result in a greater number of successful Canadian films. The Committee invited organizations and individuals to share their views on the 2000 feature film policy’s “emphasis on support for the front-end phases of filmmaking such as scriptwriting and project development,” with specific interest in three areas.
Stakeholders were first asked for their views regarding “What can be done to reallocate resources for scriptwriting?” Although the respondents agreed that more money for film development is required, there was no consensus as to where this money should come from. A number of respondents suggested reallocating the funds from the Screenwriters Assistance Program (SAP) toward development for future projects, because it was their view that the SAP has not been successful. The Writers Guild of Canada, however, argued that the success of the SAP cannot yet be gauged since it “is still in its infancy”11 and that it should not only continue but should receive more funds. Other submissions made it clear that money should not be reallocated, since it was needed at all stages, and that scriptwriting required new money. As sources of new money, the Writers Guild of Canada suggested that private investment should be encouraged, and the Directors Guild of Canada suggested equitable sharing of Telefilm performance bonuses among producers, directors and screenwriters.
Stakeholders were then asked to share their views on “What can be done to increase resources for project development?” There was a consensus among respondents that more money was needed for project development and that the money provided must not simply be reallocated from other areas. As a means of finding new money, the National Film Board submitted that:
As part of a regulatory demand, Canadian broadcasters should be enlisted to provide financial support to Canadian films, even at the development stage. Every major country with a thriving film industry achieves its success in part through financial support from broadcasters. In France, every film that is produced receives investment by one of the country’s broadcasters be they public or private.12
No matter where the money comes from, however, it was submitted by the Producers Roundtable of Ontario that the Committee should “consider reviewing the allocation of Telefilm’s resources on an annual basis”13 as a means of maximizing the use of distributed funds.
Finally, stakeholders were asked if “support for script development and marketing [should] be offset by a reduction in the number of films that receive support?” Just over half of the respondents were of the opinion that such an approach would encourage Canadian films to be of a greater quality, rather than simply producing a greater number of films. However, the Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinema, as well as the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists submitted that “Starving the system will not produce better films, it will only result in fewer films.”14 Moreover, the Writers Guild of Canada submitted that “increased volume is also key to competing with Hollywood films that easily outnumber Canadian films.”15
According to the Motion Picture Theatres Association of Canada,
Our members are retailers and they have to have people coming into the store, so to speak, so they are looking for product that will be attractive. It’s not country-based at all, there is no shortage of screens for films that are well-marketed, and with subject matter that interests the audience.16
Marketing and promotion, therefore, play a crucial role in determining whether a Canadian feature film reaches its intended audience. The importance of having a comprehensive marketing and promotion plan in place well in advance of a film’s release cannot be over-emphasized. However, evidence received by the Committee during its examination of the Canadian feature film industry clearly shows that Canadian films are not being marketed effectively.
Commercially successful filmmakers often spend as much or more money marketing a film as they do making the film. Canada’s feature film policy suggests that the average marketing budget for a $5 million film should be approximately $500,000. The Committee asked organizations and individuals if this sum is sufficient.
Respondents noted that although the 2000 From Script to Screen policy successfully increased the funds available for the marketing of Canadian films, they were almost unanimous in saying that those marketing funds remain too low to give English Canadian films the best opportunity to attract audiences when competing with well-financed foreign (mostly Hollywood) fare.
Some called for a marketing budget that is in some way proportional to a film’s production budget. For example, the National Film Board and the Directors Guild of Canada both suggested that the average marketing budget for a feature film be between 33% to 50% of the production budget.
Others took a different tack. The Canadian Association of Film Distributors and Exporters stated that the marketing budget is more logically tied to the quality and market potential of the finished film than its production budget. This was echoed by the Canadian Film and Television Production Association (CFPTA), which said it was not convinced that there is a discernable link between the cost of production and the cost of marketing, except in very rare instances; however, there is a direct correlation between the cost of marketing and the size of the public being targeted. The CFTPA therefore suggested that the marketing budget be based not on a percentage of the production budget but rather relative to the size of the population in each linguistic market and the cost of reaching that population.
Knowing to whom a particular film is targeted is also crucial. For example, in reference to the national and international success of The Corporation, the National Film Board pointed out the importance of specialized targeted marketing campaigns specific to themes treated in a documentary.
In addition to a call for overall increased funding for marketing, respondents offered different views on how marketing funds should be directed. British Columbia Film and the Canadian Film and Television Production Association suggested a variety of different approaches to raising awareness of Canadian films and building audiences be used, including grassroots initiatives such as the First Weekend Club and Moving Pictures Festival.
Similarly, to the Producers Roundtable of Ontario, television advertising is the missing component in the marketing practices of Canadian distributors. Rather than focusing on the marketing budget, ways to enhance the marketing of feature films by Canadian broadcasters should be examined.
Asked if new financial instruments are required to support the marketing of Canadian films, respondents were in agreement that these should be explored.
The CFTPA and the Nova Scotia Film Development Corporation recommended that the Government of Canada work with private sector interests such as distributors, exhibitors and broadcasters to establish a new private-public sector marketing and advertising fund that is specifically designed to raise audience awareness in the lead-up to the release of a Canadian feature film in theatres and in the pay-per-view and video-on-demand broadcast windows. The Ontario Media Development Corporation suggested financial incentives for exhibitors showing Canadian film and the possibility of government-owned and run screens.
The National Film Board recommended that “resources be made available for the creation of the Canadian FILM promo site, requiring an investment of $500,000 per year for four years. The web site would promote Canadian features and animated shorts. It would contain information, excerpts and biographical notes on Canadian films.”
The Nova Scotia Film Development Corporation and Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association recommended that non-Canadian distributors be allowed to distribute Canadian films. These organizations suggested that “distribution is a competitive industry and if an American or other international distributor is willing to commit resources to market a Canadian film then this should be permitted under the current funding system.”
Greater involvement of Canadian broadcasters in promoting and exhibiting Canadian films was also suggested. For example, broadcasters could allocate a share of their budgets for this purpose.
The Writers Guild of Canada proposed that a 5% federal tax be charged on the revenues of all film and video distribution, with the proceeds used to support the production and distribution of Canadian feature films. This tax would apply to both Canadian and foreign distributors.
Differences Between the English and French-language Markets
Respondents were also asked to consider to what extent the difference between the levels of success in Canadian French-language and English-language feature films is due to differences in marketing budgets. Many observed that while it may be true that some Quebec films may have larger marketing budgets than English Canadian films, the greater difference lies in the market itself.
The Alberta Motion Picture Industries Association pointed to Quebec’s “years of consistent production of films from every category and genre — in a province where a star system exists and there is strong support for culture generally and for Quebec culture specifically” as an explanation for why Quebecois are so enthusiastic about their indigenous films.
Very many observers (including the Canadian Association of Film Distributors and Exporters, Cineplex, Directors Guild of Canada, National Film Board, Nova Scotia Film Development Corporation and Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinéma) further noted the fact that Quebec’s linguistic and cultural market is not as dominated by American culture and media in the same way as is English Canada. Moreover, Quebec films are heavily cross promoted within all French-language media, including television, magazines, feature films and radio. Together this has resulted in a star system that so far does not exist to any significant degree in English Canada.
The Quebec star system was also lauded by many observers as a key to the thriving Quebec film industry. The Directors Guild of Canada recommended that the CRTC introduce regulatory requirements that ensure broadcasters support the creation of a star system in English Canada.
Encouraging the Production and Exhibition of Trailers
Focusing on the subject of movie trailers shown in cinemas, respondents were asked what specific public and private incentives could be put in place to encourage the exhibition of trailers for Canadian films.
Several observers noted that exhibitors are not at all averse to showing trailers for Canadian films as long as those trailers are part of a coherent, comprehensive and well-conceived marketing plan (Cineplex, CFTPA, Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association, Directors Guild of Canada, Motion Picture Theatre Association of Canada). This points once again to the importance of an appropriate marketing and promotional plan well in advance of a film’s release. Several respondents recommended increased funding to ensure the creation of trailers and other crucial marketing materials.
The idea of some form of tax incentive or deduction for every screening of a Canadian film’s theatrical trailer was proposed by some observers (The Alberta Motion Picture Industries Association, Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists, Film Ontario, National Film Board).
The National Film Board suggested that trailers could be shown on the proposed Canadian film promotional website or other Government of Canada cultural websites.
Because the distribution and exhibition of films in Canada falls within provincial jurisdiction and thus Canadian content quotas cannot be mandated by the federal government, it was recommended by the CFTPA that the Minister of Canadian Heritage investigate with her provincial counterparts the possibility of introducing minimum quotas for film trailers in Canadian cinemas.
Several observers noted that television is an important source for viewing film trailers and suggested that television broadcasters be obliged to show Canadian films and trailers as a condition of their broadcasting licence, and that they should be able to use the broadcast of those films and trailers toward their Canadian content requirements (Alberta Motion Picture Industries Association, Film Ontario, National Film Board, Producers Roundtable of Ontario and the Writers Guild of Canada).
D. EXISTING SUPPORT MECHANISMS
There are currently several different agencies whose operations affect the character of feature film in Canada — Telefilm, Canadian Television Fund, National Film Board and the Canada Council for the Arts. Respondents were asked for their views on whether “all of these agencies are required” and “to what extent is there a duplication of service?”
Many respondents felt that each agency had an important role to play in furthering the goals of Canada’s feature film policy, and that their respective functions and mandates were quite different. According to the Producers Roundtable of Ontario, Telefilm administers the CTF’s feature film funds as well as the Canada Feature Film Fund, the NFB specializes in producing documentaries and Canada Council is focused on more experimental work. The Canadian Independent Film and Video Fund commented:
It is important that there are different sources of funding as well as different types of professional development available to producers as the concept of ‘one-stop shopping’ does not work in the cultural/creative sector.17
Some, such as the Canadian Film and Television Production Association, and the Ontario Media Development Corporation seemed to agree that all of the agencies may be needed, but that the existence of numerous feature film agencies is quite complex nonetheless, and that a clarification of their roles and some measure of streamlining is desirable. The Canadian Film and Television Production Association, British Columbia Film, and the Nova Scotia Film Development Corporation, however, argued that all of the existing agencies are not required.
With several different agencies involved in feature film, each administering funding programs or in the case of the National Film Board, undertaking in-house film production, the Committee asked respondents, “To what extent is there a duplication of service?”
Some respondents saw very little duplication and recognized that while there is some duplication that exists between the Telefilm and CTF roles in funding feature film (Telefilm currently administers $15 million in feature film funding that has been allocated to the CTF) they pointed out that the Department of Canadian Heritage is currently addressing this issue. The Société des auteurs de radio télévision et cinéma also remarked that, “what some regard as duplication represents for others an additional source of funding, which contributes to completing the financial structure of a film.”18
The Nova Scotia Film Development Corporation and the Producer’s Roundtable of Ontario in particular, however, saw the objectives, policy, analysis and funding of the film agencies as frequently overlapping.
Recognizing the importance of Canada’s funding support agencies to an effective feature film policy, the Committee asked respondents for their general views on how these agencies could be improved.
Some of their suggestions have been identified in other sections of this summary of the submissions received. For instance, respondents pointed to industry representation on agency boards, and clarification of agency mandates as possible improvements.
A number of organizations saw increased funding as a way to improve the performance of government support agencies. The National Film Board was particularly insistent that it was not being provided with adequate funding to support its mandate:
While the CBC/SRC’s parliamentary allocation is today 18% lower than it was in 1995, Telefilm’s 6% lower, the NFB’s allocation is 32% lower. The NFB needs fair and adequate resources to do the job and to ensure long-term sustainability.19
The Ontario Media Development Corporation stressed a need for more flexibility built into the policies of the funding agencies, as “It is only natural that the policies fall behind the realities of a rapidly evolving production environment and the needs of creators.”20 Similarly, British Columbia Film pointed out that the funding system has to be more flexible so as to allow producers and filmmakers to make more commercially viable projects that are worthy of investment. The Alberta Motion Picture Industries Association mentioned that streamlining the decision-making process in the funding agencies and increasing regional decision-making authority would be advantageous. Finally, the Nova Scotia Film Development Corporation stressed that Telefilm and the Canadian Television Fund must be made more accountable for the decisions they make. The Corporation also suggested that the distribution arm of the National Film Board be exploited more fully to provide distribution support for Canadian filmmakers.
In addition, a number of respondents showed support for the idea of integrating or harmonizing the work of the existing government agencies where opportunities for such an approach arise. For example, the National Film Board pointed out that, “There are many instances that suggest we are locked in or constrained by the way we view our mandates. Why not work together to develop common goals.”21
Effective government support for feature film is, to a significant extent, about providing financing to filmmakers in an efficient manner. Recognizing the crucial role that efficient financing structures play in a feature film policy, the Committee asked respondents, “what should be done about specific film financing issues (e.g., the application process, the control of a film’s copyright, the grind, clawbacks, the Telefilm’s decision making process, performance envelopes).”
As a common theme, respondents mentioned that Telefilm’s requirement that the full Canadian Film or Video Production Tax Credit (CPTC) (discussed later on in this Chapter) go into the project financing structures is problematic for production companies. As the Nova Scotia Film Development Corporation said:
The original policy objective of the federal tax credit was to allow companies to build their infrastructure. Telefilm mandates that producers include the full amount of the tax credit in production financing plans, which is contrary to the original objective of the tax credit program.22
A considerable number of respondents drew attention to the fact that under current rules, Telefilm investment in a feature film is deducted from the amount of the federal tax credit a producer is able to access. This practice is known as “the grind” and as the Canadian Film and Television Production Association explained, it “effectively reduces the end benefit of the tax credit. Removing these rules would be beneficial in terms of better financing a project and allowing a company to build corporate capacity.”23
Some respondents also pointed out that Telefilm’s recoupment practices for its financing of English-language productions are putting it in a position ahead of the producers. It was pointed out that French-language producers enjoy a better recoupment position because of certain requirements imposed by the Société de développement des enterprises culturelles.
As will be explained in Chapter 4, Telefilm financing can be accessed through two different envelopes, or streams: a selective one and a performance one. The selective assesses projects on qualitative grounds in a highly competitive environment, whereas the performance envelope awards funds automatically to those filmmakers whose previous films have experienced a certain level of box-office success. The Canadian Film and Television Production Association endorsed the use of performance envelopes as this mechanism “allows for greater predictability transparency and objectivity in the direct assistance support system. It also provides greater flexibility for more experienced producers who have a proven track record.”24 There was, however, some concern on the part of the CFTPA that the performance envelopes were not structured as effectively as they could be. Consequently, the organization suggested that the methodology that is currently used to calculate the envelopes be reviewed with an aim to expanding the performance measures. It was further suggested that the resources allocated to the performance envelopes be expanded. The Association des réalisateurs et réalisatrices de Québec, however, strongly disagreed with performance envelopes, maintaining that they only serve to privilege a small number of directors and producers.
Some respondents also mentioned that the application process to secure financing is overly complex and that it would be advantageous to have a simplified, harmonized application process.
In addition, British Columbia Film, and the Nova Scotia Film Development Corporation raised some issues about the regional dimensions of film finance. British Columbia Film was concerned that Telefilm’s Canada Feature Film Fund was not taking into consideration the different levels of development of the film industry across Canada, and that, “Funds are allocated to regions of the country where the film industry is more established and as a result there is a lack of cultural representation.”25 The Nova Scotia Film Development Corporation took issue with the Canadian Television Fund’s decision to eliminate regional bonuses and implement an envelope funding system, claiming that this has had a negative effect on the Atlantic and Prairie Provinces. Finally, Film Ontario suggested that there are a number of explicit and implicit regional disincentives to shoot films in Toronto (English Canada’s leading production centre) and that any such disincentives should be removed.
While existing support mechanisms (direct support from government agencies such as Telefilm and indirect support in the form of tax credits) assist filmmakers for the production of specific film projects, little or no funding is available to help sustain production companies (i.e., film production infrastructure). The Committee therefore asked respondents if “… a separate mechanism to support production companies should be developed.” And, “If yes, who should manage such a program?”
Respondents had mixed views on this matter. The Ontario Media Development Corporation supported a slate funding program similar to that which is available in the United Kingdom:
The U.K. program allows eligible companies to use a portion of their slate fund as working capital, as well as applying the funding toward individual projects. Making this type of funding available for Canadian producers would enhance their long-term stability.26
In addition, the Canadian Film and Television Production Association suggested a new tax based fiscal incentive administered by the Canada Revenue Agency.
Several respondents, such as the Producers Roundtable of Ontario, and the Alberta Motion Picture Industries Association, made it apparent that a new mechanism is unnecessary and that correcting some of the problems with the existing film finance mechanisms (referred to above) would strengthen production companies. A number of respondents such as the Writers Guild of Canada, and the Société des auteurs de radio, television et cinéma thought that the current focus on the funding of film projects is entirely appropriate for a creative industry:
Why should we be concerned about the fact that companies work on a project by project basis, when that is the norm for creators and artists. Despite the gaps in current funding, there is no lack of production companies. And the success of our cinema is not necessarily based on the longevity of production houses.27
The federal government’s existing film tax credits — the Canadian Film or Video Production Tax Credit (CPTC) and the Production Services Tax Credit (PSTC) — have become important measures for encouraging film production in Canada. Yet it is also important that these tax credits be thoughtfully designed to ensure their benefits will flow to Canadians while not being overly restrictive or inaccessible so that they remain attractive to investors. The Committee, therefore, asked respondents whether these tax credits were sufficiently flexible.
Numerous respondents were concerned that the system of tax credits did not allow producers access to funds in a timely manner. According to the Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association:
Federal tax incentives do not create cash flow for film producers until up to 18 months after a production shoot is completed. Thus, the amount actually available to fund production is reduced by the cost of the bridge financing required until the tax credits are received. The Government should accelerate the payout of tax credits by a system of advances.28
In addition, the Producer’s Roundtable of Ontario felt that the administration of tax credits from application to audit to payment should be streamlined, “to minimize the amount of money that is being diverted to pay for interest (producers borrow against the tax credits to complete their production financing).”29
Some singled out the Canadian Film or Video Production Tax Credit as being insufficiently flexible. The Ontario Media Development Corporation thought it was problematic that if a producer receives a provincial tax credit it is considered government assistance and deducted from the amount of the federal CPTC tax credit. The Canadian Film and Television Production Association and the Nova Scotia Film Development Corporation both felt that there was a need to recognize non-Canadian participation in projects:
Non-Canadian participation in the development or production of projects is a common practice which should not disqualify a production from accessing the CPTC.30
The Writers Guild of Canada, however, maintained that the federal tax credit schemes are sufficiently flexible, and that the criteria for the CPTC in particular must be maintained to ensure that the credit benefits Canadian content productions created by Canadians.
Zoë Druick and Catherine Murray of the School of Communication, Simon Fraser University viewed the tax credits as being too flexible, and felt that their effect on the industry should be studied further. Both the National Film Board and David Newman of the School of Communication, Simon Fraser University thought that the federal tax credits should be reviewed, as tax credits are also offered by the provinces.
Recognizing that the purpose of the Canadian Film or Video Production Tax Credit (CPTC) is to encourage the production of Canadian content films that use Canadian talent, the Committee also canvassed opinion on whether the incentive “should be increased to reward the use of a greater number of Canadians.” There was widespread support for this idea among respondents, many recommending the credit be increased to 30%. Some recommended a scaling system of tax credits where productions that achieve more Canadian content points would be eligible for higher tax credits. Only the National Film Board dissented, arguing that the CPTC is already generous enough.
Encouraging Private Investment
As noted in the Committee’s Interim Report, in 2003-04 CAVCO certified Canadian films received financial support of 60% of their production budgets from direct and indirect government sources.31 This statistic highlights the extent to which Canadian filmmakers have become dependent on government financial support. With this in mind, respondents were asked for their opinions on “What can be done to encourage greater private investment in Canadian feature films?”
Respondents had a number of ideas as to how greater private investment in Canadian feature film could be achieved. Most respondents agreed that some sort of new financial incentive was required. The Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists as well as the Motion Picture Theatre Associations of Canada argued for a return of capital cost allowance provisions.
The Ontario Media Development Corporation suggested changes to the existing tax credit legislation that would “allow more private investment in productions, including investment from Canadian and foreign distributors and broadcasters.”32 Similarly, for Film Ontario, “Private investment needs incentive: tax incentives are the only sure way to create a climate of acceptable risk.”33
The Alberta Motion Picture Industries Association proposed that private investors be given preferential recoupment on their investments. The Directors Guild of Canada and the Writers Guild of Canada both felt that greater private investment could be harnessed if the CRTC required private conventional broadcasters to increase their support for Canadian features.
The Writers Guild proposed that broadcasters be required to spend a minimum of 7% of their gross advertising revenue on Canadian drama and that each private station be required to commission at least two hours of original 10-point Canadian drama per week.
E. DISTRIBUTION AND EXHIBITION
Ownership Rules for Film Distributors
Current policies require that Canadian feature films be distributed in Canada by Canadian-owned and controlled distribution companies. This policy is enforced by all major public funding sources for the production of Canadian feature films, which make it a condition of obtaining funds.
This policy has been the subject of considerable attention and debate during the Committee’s examination of the Canadian feature film industry. Organizations and individuals were asked if current ownership rules for film distributors inhibit access to Canadian feature films, and so, what could be done.
Respondents were divided on whether these ownership rules in fact restrict access to Canadian films. Stating that “good, commercially profitable, appealing films can come from any source and be distributed based on those characteristics,” Cineplex is of the view that ownership rules do not inhibit access to Canadian funds.34
This view was seconded by the National Film Board and the Canadian Film and Television Production Association. The CFTPA, although content with the current ownership rules, argued that Canadian-owned and controlled distribution companies could put significantly more effort into properly marketing and releasing Canadian feature films, particularly in English Canada. It recommended that:
Canadian-owned and controlled distribution companies be incited to develop and implement more effective marketing and releasing strategies for Canadian feature films, particularly in English Canada where the market is so large and the foreign competition extremely fierce.
The idea of greater encouragement and incentives to distribute Canadian films was also put forward by the Producers Roundtable of Ontario, which stated that while the rules don’t seem to inhibit access, they don’t appear to protect access.
On the other hand, the Alberta Motion Picture Industries Association, Film Ontario, and the Nova Scotia Film Development Corporation claimed that the current rules do inhibit access and suggested allowing foreign distributors, which sometimes have greater financial assets, to distribute Canadian films in Canada.
Ownership Structure of Film Exhibitors
With respect to whether the ownership of film exhibitors inhibits access to Canadian feature films, again responses were mixed.
Several respondents felt that the nationality of the ownership has no bearing on the ability to access screens for Canadian films (Canadian Association of Film Distributors and Exports, Canadian Film and Television Production Association, Cineplex). Some observed that the purchase of the Famous Players chain by Cineplex Galaxy and the recent acquisition of Empire Theatres places a majority (96%) of theatrical screens in Canadian hands. Some concern was expressed that this situation gives Cineplex Galaxy a “virtual monopoly” in the marketplace. It is worth noting that in Quebec, the majority of cinemas are independently owned and thus there were no concerns regarding monopolies.
Other respondents, including the National Film Board, Nova Scotia Film Development Corporation and Alberta Motion Picture Industries Association, were of the opinion that ownership rules do in fact inhibit access. Several observers urged supporting the initiatives of independent art house exhibitors and smaller chains, investment in alternative forms of exhibition including digital cinema, the development of a strong film promotion agency and the imposition of screen quotas or levies to encourage the exhibition of Canadian films.
The Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists suggested that the separation of distribution rights for the Canadian and U.S. markets for independently produced foreign movies would provide additional resources to Canadian companies that could be invested in Canadian movies. These companies provide important support for Canadian productions through the payment of licence fees and royalty costs to Canadian producers. In the view of ACTRA, it is crucial, therefore, that these Canadian companies be strengthened in ways that will enable them to both compete on a level playing field with foreign distributors and enhance the exposure of Canadian feature films in Canada. They further noted that to have a strong and healthy film distribution sector, it should not be dominated by two or three players.
Asked to consider whether new financial instruments are required to support the distribution and exhibition of Canadian films, some respondents felt that increasing funding for the marketing and promotion of Canadian films and minimum commitments for marketing and promotion would greatly assist their distribution (Canadian Association of Film Distributors and Exporters, Cineplex, Directors Guild of Canada and Motion Picture Theatre Associations of Canada). Others suggested that opening distribution to foreign companies would be of assistance.
Noting the greater emphasis now placed by the government film policy on building audiences in Canada, the Canadian Film and Television Production Association recommended that the Government of Canada initiate a specific review of the Canadian distribution sector with a view to implementing more effective measures to help ensure greater access to Canadian feature films by audiences at home and abroad.
Respondents offered various options to enhance the distribution and exhibition of Canadian films. The Directors Guild of Canada suggested that a 5% tax on the theatrical and video distribution revenues of all films distributed in Canada could be used to subsidize the production and exhibition of Canadian feature films. The Producers Roundtable of Ontario said that the obligations of Canadian broadcasters should be expanded to encourage the airing of Canadian trailers. In addition, Canadian airlines could be encouraged to show Canadian films among their in-flight movies.
A slightly broader perspective was taken by the National Film Board, which again stressed the value of funding to establish new distribution systems such as digital cinema. Noting that exposure to Canadian films is not limited to cinemas but can occur in very many different venues from home theatres to educational institutions and libraries, the Canadian Independent Film and Video Fund recommended that greater financial assistance be given to non-theatrical distributors.
The licensing of films for distribution and exhibition in Canada is a matter of property and civil rights and as such falls wholly within provincial jurisdiction under section 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867. With this in mind, respondents were asked to propose ways in which the federal government could work with the provinces to encourage the distribution and exhibition of Canadian feature films.
In general respondents supported the idea that federal, provincial and municipal governments work together to improve the performance of Canadian feature films. Suggestions included the development of a cohesive national initiative or strategy, complementary policies and programs for distribution and exhibition, and joint ventures on marketing and distribution.
Acknowledging the current constitutional reality, the Nova Scotia Film Development Corporation suggested the provinces cede legislative responsibility for distribution and exhibition to the federal government. In this same spirit, Cineplex suggested the possibility of a single Film Classification Board for the entire country. This would reduce the costs incurred by film distributors who are currently required to have their film “rated” in each province separately. The time and money saved by the distributors in this process would be better used in support of marketing the film. The same can be said for government. One rating process across the country would save substantial dollars for each provincial government and those monies could be better invested in supporting filmmaking and marketing in their respective communities.
The idea of tax incentives was raised, such as permitting the ticket sales of Canadian films be GST or provincial sales tax-free or eliminating entertainment taxes to reduce overall ticket prices and encourage movie-going generally.
The Motion Picture Theatre Associations of Canada cautioned against screen quotas and noted that exhibition and cinema-going is a free market phenomenon and consumer behaviour cannot be easily mandated by legislation.
Proposed Exhibition Strategies
Finally, respondents were asked to consider other exhibition strategies that could be used to develop audiences for Canadian films and the role the federal government could play in this regard.
Observers responded enthusiastically with a range of suggestions and options.
The success of the First Weekend Club, The Film Circuit and Moving Pictures had many observers calling for more robust funding of those ventures as well as purely local festivals and independent theatres that have similar initiatives. The Canadian Association of Film Distributors and Exporters said that these can nicely supplement the work being done by private sector distribution companies in supporting Canadian cinema. At the same time, it cautioned against spending valuable government money supporting initiatives that do not have support of the distribution sector.
Indeed, the Nova Scotia Film Development Corporation noted that some First Weekend Club initiatives have attained success in the past only to have exhibitors pull the Canadian films in favour of distributors with heavily promoted and financed foreign films. This makes it essential that the government work directly with distributors and exhibitors.
There was considerable attention paid to the exhibition of Canadian features films outside of the mainstream cinemas. The Canadian Independent Film and Video Fund, among others, enthusiastically supported the non-theatrical viewing of films in such wide-ranging venues as primary schools, secondary schools, colleges, universities, public libraries, special libraries, museums, art galleries, festival screenings, community groups, women’s, gay and lesbian organizations, Aboriginal organizations, social services and hospitals, business and industry, health institutions, airlines, cruise ships and the retail market.
With respect to the educational sector as a potential venue for non-theatrical exposure to Canadian films, many respondents suggested further support for and enhancement of the REEL Canada project that brings Canadian films to Ontario schools. Adding the study of Canadian media, including films, to secondary school curriculum was also suggested by some.35 Respondents argued that these strategies could help grow young Canadians’ interest in Canadian film, and would, in the longer term, help build audiences for these films. It is for these reasons (and others) that the Canadian Film and Television Production Association and the Canadian Independent Film and Video Fund recommended that the feature film policy be expanded to recognize audience and exhibition strategies beyond commercial cinemas.
Other commentators suggested working to enhance the international visibility of Canadian feature films. The Directors Guild of Canada and the Documentary Network suggested asking Canadian embassies and agencies to arrange screenings or other activities to promote Canadian films.
The National Film Board again raised the idea of a national film promotion agency as a way to help develop a film culture in Canada.
Other suggestions included distributors offering discounted tickets or coupons toward ticket purchases of theatrical releases, and some form of lottery revenue-sharing scheme.
Alternate Distribution and Exhibition Methods
During the course of the Committee’s study witnesses frequently mentioned the potential advantages of d-cinema and e-cinema.
D-cinema (digital cinema) is a form of technology for showing movies in theatres. Movies are produced in digital format, which allows for much easier and wider distribution than is currently possible with analog film. The exhibition of a digital film requires specialized equipment including computers for the storage of the film and digital projectors and special screens for their display. There is a significant amount of international activity on the digital cinema front, particularly in the United Kingdom.36
E-cinema (electronic cinema) is a term that refers to a variety of presentations of digital material from independent movie projection to live event broadcasting.
It has been suggested that the development of an alternative distribution system using new exhibition methods such as e-cinema and d-cinema be explored. Respondents were asked whether such a system is feasible, the likely costs of such a system and how these systems might be developed.
Responses on the feasibility and cost of e-and d-cinema were mixed.
Digital cinema is enthusiastically supported by the National Film Board, which suggests it is feasible at a cost of approximately $50,000 per venue of 150-200 seats. David Newman of the School of Communications, Simon Fraser University, is equally supportive of digital cinema and puts the cost of implementing it “in the region of US$100,000 per cinema.”37
The National Film Board suggests that the Government of Canada invest in the deployment of digital cinema. Similarly, the Documentary Network proposed that the Department of Canadian Heritage contribute towards this end and that one part of digital cinema project be reserved for the exhibition of documentaries.
The Association des propriétaires de cinémas et ciné-parcs suggested that the cost of transitioning to digital cinema be borne by those who will most profit: the distributors.
Other observers were more cautious. While noting the potential for digital cinema to transform the distribution of Canadian films, the Alliance of Canadian Cinema Television and Radio Artists stated:
It is perhaps too early to comment on costs in Canada; however the UK government-funded initiative is important to watch as the goal of the implementation is to support British film and specialty programming. An initiative such as this in Canada would have the potential to positively change the landscape of Canadian cinema.38
The Canadian Association of Film Distributors and Exporters placed the burden for carrying the costs of the digital transition on the private sector:
Any alternate distribution system should be initiated and financed from the private sector. Changing technology and delivery systems have produced much speculation about potential new distribution systems and business methods. While change is certain, there is no clear business and technology model that has been embraced by the exhibition sector. In an era when current government feature film funding is oversubscribed we do not feel that new government resources should be invested in untried exhibition experiments.39
The need to be cautious in light of different evolving technologies was noted by the Canadian Film and Television Production Association, observing that digital cinema is but one distribution option among several, including high speed Internet, mobile communications and broadband broadcasting.40
The Canadian Association of Film Distributors and Exporters, Cineplex Galaxy and the Motion Picture Theatre Association of Canada suggest there is no need for federal funding for digital cinema. Citing the substantive costs involved in the digital revolution and uncertainty in standards in the hardware and software necessary for exhibition as well as the lack of a clear business model that has been embraced by the exhibition sector, these organizations state that the money would be better spent on film production and marketing.
As for how digital cinema might be developed in Canada, some observers (like ACTRA) pointed to the work being done by the U.K. Film Council in implementing its digital cinema program across some 250 screens in the UK and suggested Canada emulate this model. The National Film Board took particular notice of the UK Film Council program where commercial cinemas that receive Council-funded digital cinema equipment undertake to carve out prime screen time to exhibit non-Hollywood films. That said, the NFB is of the view that a strategy to fit Canadian needs and circumstances would need to be developed, a point echoed by the Alliance of Canadian Cinema Television and Radio Artists.
An effective federal feature film policy requires the support of government agencies that are well designed for their respective tasks. These agencies must have clearly defined roles, as well as responsive and accountable governance structures.
Respondents were asked for their views on whether the “… current organization and governance of the institutions directly and indirectly involved in the support of Canadian feature film are appropriate?” and “What specific changes in governance are required?”
With respect to Telefilm, several respondents thought it was very problematic that industry representatives are not included on the agency’s Board of Directors. The Producers Roundtable of Ontario, for instance, described the lack of representation as “shocking.”41 Moreover, those who sit on the Board have little experience in the filmmaking industry. The result of these facts, according to the Canadian Association of Film Distributors and Exporters, is that:
… there is currently no practical and effective way for the industry to shape Telefilm policies and practices to better serve its needs and achieve the goals of the federal government’s feature film policy. … Policy changes are routinely made with little if any industry consultation and often without clear understanding of their consequences.42
Respondents, therefore, held that Telefilm’s decision making boards should include either industry representatives or those with significant prior film industry experience.
In addition, the Canadian Film and Television Production Association suggested that given the drastically different challenges that exist in the English-language and French-language markets, Telefilm should be reorganized into two separate administrative authorities.
A number of respondents also viewed the composition of the Canadian Television Fund’s board as flawed. The Directors Guild of Canada, the Producer’s Roundtable of Ontario and the Writers Guild of Canada all felt that the CTF’s board lacked adequate representation from the creative sector.
The National Film Board noted that there are a number of film activities that fall outside the direct purview of all of the agencies and a range of activities that may benefit from a more coordinated approach (such as research in film technology, qualitative research on film audiences, training, and promotion). The NFB felt that the position of Government Film Commissioner is well suited to undertake these activities and should be given the necessary resources to do so.
The Canadian Content Certification Process
The Canadian Audio-visual Certification Office (CAVCO) and the CRTC are responsible for certifying as “Canadian content” those film and video productions that meet certain requirements. To qualify for support from Telefilm, productions must meet the requirements set out by either of these bodies. Respondents were asked whether the Canadian content certification system serves to “foster or hinder the creative process that underlies the production of Canadian feature films.”
Nothing approaching a consensus was forthcoming. Several respondents believed that CAVCO in no way hinders the creative process and that the system, as currently operating, is essential for fostering Canadian content projects made using Canadian talent, which in the opinion of the Ontario Media Development Corporation, for instance, “can only serve to strengthen the industry as a whole, laying the groundwork for future generations of Canadian filmmakers.”43 For the Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinéma, “the requirements with regard to Canadian content are central to our entire cultural policy.”44
Others, such as the Canadian Film and Television Production Association felt that the current Canadian content certification system can be a hindrance:
Canadian big-budget films have rarely been produced because not only is it difficult to raise the financing from the private sector, but public sector sources such as Telefilm Canada place such high restrictions on the use of creative talent. … If the Government of Canada expects feature film producers to reach larger audiences, particularly in the English-language theatrical market, it must equip producers with the proper tools and flexibility in its program regulations to negotiate the best possible mix of cast and crew to satisfy private sector investors.45
Likewise, the Nova Scotia Film Development Corporation felt that the current system used for Canadian content certification is onerous and confusing for producers, and that the process should be streamlined.
On a related matter, respondents were reminded that the CRTC and CAVCO do not use the same criteria to certify Canadian content. They were asked for their views on whether it would be helpful to create a single arm’s-length organization with the responsibility for certifying Canadian content. Again, views were mixed. Some respondents (L’Union des artistes, the National Film Board, and the Alberta Motion Picture Industries Association) favoured the idea of creating such an agency. The majority, however, maintained that such a measure is unnecessary, particularly because as far as feature films are concerned, there is very little difference between the CRTC and CAVCO criteria.
Telefilm’s Equity Recoupment Process
Effective feature film support programs require investment policies that operate efficiently and do not create unnecessary administrative burdens for the investors or recipients. Telefilm’s chief method of support for Canadian feature films is financing through an equity investment with the intention of recoupment. This recoupment process involves ongoing costs for producers. With this in mind, respondents were asked whether “equity recoupment should be limited to a fixed period after a film is released (e.g., for three years)?”
Most of the respondents agreed that equity recoupment that continues for an indefinite period of time involves ongoing administrative costs both for producers and for Telefilm, and felt that limiting recoupment to a fixed period after a film is released would, according to the Producers Roundtable of Ontario, “alleviate onerous reporting requirements on films that are no longer being sold.”46
Several of those who were in favour of a fixed recoupment period also urged the Committee to reconsider whether providing assistance in the form of equity investment is the most cost-effective means of supporting feature films. For instance, according to the Canadian Film and Television Production Association:
Telefilm staff and producers spend considerable time and effort negotiating, monitoring and reporting on equity agreements, and this for years after a project is completed. In short, equity is a very expensive form of public support to administer. Yet the majority of these agreements yield a very modest return on investment for Telefilm.47
However, the National Film Board and the Nova Scotia Film Development Corporation were against recoupment being limited to a fixed period. The National Film Board argued that Telefilm’s recoupment position should not be any less favourable than that of any other financial participant, while the Nova Scotia Film Development Corporation pointed out that recoupment opportunities can occur well after a film is released, through DVD sales and rentals.
The Canadian Feature Film Advisory Group
As noted earlier, several respondents felt strongly that the views of the industry were not being represented in key government film agencies. In fact, the 2000 Canadian Feature Film Policy made permanent a panel comprised of industry representatives, known as the Canadian Feature Film Advisory Group. The purpose of this panel was to provide advice to Telefilm Canada on how best to achieve the objectives of the policy. In April 2005, however, the Minister of Canadian Heritage dissolved the Advisory Group. Respondents were asked for their views on whether the Feature Film Advisory Group was “an effective policy oversight instrument” and were further asked to point out any of its strengths and weaknesses. Respondents also shared their views on whether an advisory group is still needed.
Most pointed to a number of significant problems with the group that hampered its effectiveness. According to the Canadian Association of Film Distributors and Exporters:
It had little if any power setting the agenda. It had no power in vetoing policy changes. The results of each meeting were not circulated by Telefilm to the industry at large … members who were part of the Advisory Group felt that Telefilm controlled the agenda and used the process to approve policy decisions that were already made.48
For the Union des artistes, “the former group was not truly representative of the film community because creators were in the minority and represented themselves, not their association.”49 The National Film Board commented that “Its mandate was unclear, and its advisory role was superseded by partisan interests.”50 Nevertheless, even those who were critical of the Advisory Group’s effectiveness felt that it was a worthy initiative.
Nearly all respondents agreed that an advisory group is still needed as, in the words of the Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinéma, “it is important that there be a constant link between government policies in the cultural sector and the people working in it.”51
The respondents suggested that the group be comprised of representatives of the national industry associations working in the film sector. Those respondents from creative organizations such as the Directors Guild of Canada and the Writer’s Guild were particularly concerned that those serving on the advisory group be representatives of organizations rather than as individuals. Respondents from Nova Scotia and Alberta emphasized that any advisory group have appropriate regional representation.
With respect to mandate, there was less agreement. Some respondents felt that the advisory group should review ongoing Telefilm policies related to feature film and provide advice on their future direction. Others maintained that the group should take a more proactive role, issuing specific policy recommendations rather than reacting to policy initiatives from Telefilm, and even reporting directly to the Minister.
G. PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND TARGETS
Appropriate Performance Measures
Data on Canadian film audiences, such as age, sex and language, and their viewing preferences, such as theatrical, television, DVD and others, are difficult to obtain and interpret. Accordingly, a number of organizations and individuals were asked to comment on, “Whether a revised policy should place a stronger emphasis on measurement?”
Overall, the respondents agreed that it was important that a revised policy place a stronger emphasis on measurement, particularly if Canada’s feature film policy expands its focus beyond the theatrical market to include non-theatrical distribution. As expressed by the Ontario Media Development Corporation:
A revised policy should place more emphasis on film audience measurement in all its forms, from theatrical release through to television broadcasts. It is only by taking all these measures into account that an accurate picture of the number of Canadians seeing Canadian films can be drawn.52
Given that there is a lack of data on the performance of Canadian feature films in non-theatrical markets, several respondents argued that gathering such data would help the Canadian film industry overall by enabling stakeholders to better understand their audience for such markets, analyze market trends and use marketing dollars strategically when making production and distribution decisions. As pointed out by Cineplex Galaxy, these data can also help filmmakers, “identify if a film should be made initially or not. Alternatively, it could also identify options for films to be considered for a direct to video distribution rather than giant screen.”53
However, Radio-Canada’s French television representative noted that while:
it is important that the government place more emphasis on measurement … The Government should oversee the establishment of simple, reliable and objective measurement methods accepted by all industry stakeholders before it can be determined whether or not Canadian policy must take all distribution methods into account.54
Several respondents suggested that the Canadian government should put a data collection system in place to monitor audience viewing across all markets. Jean Seguin described the data collection system in Quebec where there are two organizations that gather box-office data:
CINEAC, a private company which provides B.O. results twice a week for subscribers, and [L’Institut de la statistique du Québec], an intergovernmental organization that releases monthly B.O. statistics (number of viewers and number of screenings). In both cases, the theatre owners collaborate to gather the figures, without charge. The Motion Picture Theatre Associations of Canada already collaborates with the Canadian Heritage to gather those statistics.55
Mr. Seguin suggested that perhaps the Canadian government should consider extending this partnership.
Finally, a number of respondents emphasized that if and when data on the performance of Canadian feature films across all markets is collected, the information should be made available to all stakeholders and the public.
Non-Theatrical Viewing of Canadian Films
The 2000 feature film policy does not take into account other ways that Canadian feature films may reach audiences, such as conventional broadcasting, pay-per-view, specialty and digital services, PVRs, DVDs and videos, video-on-demand, peer-to-peer file sharing, and film festivals. Organizations and individuals were asked to share their views about performance measures that should be included in a national film policy. First, respondents were asked to consider, “What are the most appropriate performance measures for Canada’s feature film policy?”
There was general agreement among the respondents that performance should no longer be based solely on box-office results, but should be expanded to include other non-theatrical markets including, but not limited to DVD and video rentals, video-on-demand, pay-per-view, and television broadcasts. The Canadian Independent Film and Video Fund summarized the general view of the respondents:
The world of film has changed since the Feature Film Policy was conceived. The way consumers view films; how films reach audiences and the importance of cultivating viewers in other markets have evolved substantially since 2000. Box-office success is no longer the only valid way to assess performance. … Consideration should be given to attracting the viewers in these other areas to build audiences for Canadian films.56
Others, such as CBC Radio-Canada (French Television) argued that although they believe that all distribution methods should be evaluated in order to accurately measure the success of a film, “Reliable mechanisms for measuring distribution and exhibition methods must be implemented before it can be determined whether or not Canadian policy must take them into account.”57
David Newman of the School of Communication at Simon Fraser University, however, recommended that performance measures for Canada’s feature film policy should be conducted in the areas of theatrical release, television and DVD/video in order to provide a reasonably wide coverage of Canadian film audiences, while “drawing a balance between complexity and comprehensiveness.”58
Respondents were also asked, “Whether a revised policy should recognize non-theatrical distribution and exhibition methods?” Again, all respondents were in agreement that the Canadian Feature Film Policy should be revised to recognize non-theatrical distribution and exhibition methods, and include audiences in markets other than theatres. The Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinéma noted, however, that in the case of French-language films, access to DVDs can be difficult and their availability at video stores is often limited, therefore, theatrical releases remains the primary market for French-language films.
The respondents were then asked to consider, “Whether a revised policy should place a stronger emphasis on support for non-theatrical distribution and exhibition methods?” The majority endorsed a revised feature film policy that placed more emphasis on support for non-theatrical distribution and exhibition methods, noting the continuing growth of non-theatrical markets. Others such as the Director’s Guild of Canada argued that, “Until new viewing measurements reveal the extent and influence of non-theatrical distribution and exhibition methods, it would be premature to recommend that the feature film policy place a stronger emphasis on support for these.”59
Finally, respondents were asked, “Whether performance measures should include the viewing of feature films on television and through video sales and rentals?” There was overwhelming consensus among the respondents that television and video sales and rentals should be included as performance measures. However, as noted by the Director’s Guild of Canada, if performance measures are revised to include television and video sales and rentals, targets should be increased to take this additional viewing into account.
Baseline Measures: Hollywood or Foreign Films?
Since 1967, Canadian Feature Film Policy, and the programs designed to support it, has assumed that Canadian feature films should be promoted and distributed within the existing framework designed for Hollywood films.60 Given the limited levels of success in reaching audiences in this manner in the English-language market (and the costs involved), agencies and individuals were asked, “Should this assumption be reconsidered?”
In general, the respondents agreed that promoting and distributing Canadian films within the Hollywood framework is unrealistic and places Canadian feature films at a disadvantage. In the words of the National Film Board of Canada:
A policy that focuses too much attention on trying to achieve success under the Hollywood model is unrealistic. It is perhaps a case of the generals once again trying to fight the last war. New technologies, realities and needs may require new methods and new standards upon which to judge success. Canada is not Hollywood.61
The respondents suggested that alternate means of promoting and distributing Canadian films should be considered, and recommended that the Canadian government consider other ways for Canadian films to reach audiences, such as DVDs and videos, PVRs, video-on-demand, pay-per-view, television broadcasting and film festivals. In addition, some respondents recommended that serious consideration be given to supporting the distribution and exhibition of Canadian films through new networks such as e-cinema.
On the other hand, certain respondents, such as the Director’s Guild of Canada argued that:
increasing theatrical exhibition of Canadian feature films should remain a goal of the feature film policy. … It is not realistic to contemplate … a separate and parallel system for Canada. Rather, the existing system must make room for Canadian films.62
Respondents were also asked to consider the following question: “Rather than measuring Canadian films against Hollywood blockbusters, should performance measures focus on how well Canadian films compete with films made by foreign independent filmmakers?”
In general, respondents agreed that measuring Canadian films against foreign independent films would be a more realistic basis for comparison than Hollywood blockbusters. Not all respondents, however, agreed that measuring Canadian films solely against foreign independent films was necessarily the best answer.
The Canadian Film and Television Production Association recommended that the Canadian government develop performance indicators to reflect the two official language markets, and that:
the performance of Canadian films in each linguistic market be measured relative to that of the foreign (including US) independent films released in each of those markets … the performance of English-language films should be compared to that of the foreign independent films … released in the English-language market.63
The Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association suggested that Canadian films should first be measured against their past success levels to determine if their market is growing, and secondly, against comparable foreign films. Cineplex Galaxy recommended that consideration be given to the various genres and prospective genre audiences before comparing Canadian films with other foreign independent filmmakers.
A number of respondents suggested that it would be useful if performance measures for Canadian films focused on comparisons with both the Hollywood blockbusters and foreign independent films.
Finally, the Ontario Media Development Corporation, in reference to the Committee’s Interim Report, expressed concern about the challenge that the classification of independent films presents when developing performance measures, making comparisons very difficult.
Measuring Quality and Diversity
Canada’s national policy framework recognizes and promotes Canadian diversity. Indeed, one of the objectives of the current feature film policy is to foster the quality and diversity of Canadian feature films. As such, several organisations and individuals were asked, “How should diversity be defined and measured?”
A few respondents expressed concern about trying to define diversity. The Alberta Motion Picture Industries Association felt that, “by defining ‘diversity’ every inclusion will identify an exclusion.”64 Other respondents offered a broad range of suggestions for criteria that should be used to define and measure diversity, including: race and ethnicity; language; rural vs. urban; island vs. mainland; north vs. south; film genres; budget sizes; production size; producer; filmmaker; number and types of funding sources.
The number and variety of suggestions illustrate the potential magnitude and scope of defining and measuring such a complex concept as diversity.
A number of respondents recommended that regional and ethnic differences should be considered, in order to enhance diversity. British Columbia Film noted that currently national policies do not recognize regional differences, and emphasized the need to recognize ethnic differences in Canada and the importance of ensuring regional fairness. In addition, respondents noted the importance of promoting films from minority language communities.
Some respondents voiced their support for the Telefilm guidelines, which encourage diversity by supporting a range of film genres, filmmakers, budgets and companies. These guidelines help ensure a broad range of films from a broad range of producers.
In terms of measurement, several respondents cautioned against measuring diversity solely on the basis of box-office success. The NFB suggested that:
one way to enhance diversity among the projects selected for public support would be to apply selection criteria that does not overly favour box-office performance compared to relevance of content.65
The Canadian Film and Television Production Association further recommended that Canada report each year on diversity in the Canadian film industry, “by tracking i) where a film is produced, ii) by who it is produced, iii) who the key creators are, and iv) the different genres.”66
Canada’s Feature Film Policy sets an annual target of 5% for the viewing of Canadian films in theatrical release. Measurement of the 5% target does not consider alternative viewing by audiences, such as DVD and VHS rentals, pay-per-view, television broadcast and film festival showings. In addition, the target does discriminate between the French and English Canadian language markets. To address the issues associated with the setting of targets, a number of organizations and individuals were posed a series of related questions and asked to share their views and to make recommendations.
The responses to the question, “Should different objectives, targets and measures be developed for the French- and English-language markets?” indicated an overwhelming consensus that the distinctions between the two markets need to be considered and reflected in a revised policy. The majority of the respondents pointed out that the French and English film industries in Canada exist in completely different markets. The English-language market is heavily influenced by the American film industry and competes directly with it for audiences, as well as distribution and exhibition opportunities. As expressed by the Canadian Association of Film Distributors and Exporters:
The American media and the marketing campaigns for American films do not overwhelm in Québec the way it does in English Canada. Québec audiences prefer to see films and television shows originally made in French. … The talent drain to Hollywood is significant in English Canada. In Québec the best actors, directors, writers and producers spend their whole career at home refining their craft and have produced an increasingly impressive, varied and entertaining body of work.67
As such, respondents recommended the development of a more comprehensive policy that appreciates and reflects the distinctions between the English and French linguistic markets in Canada, as well as strives to address the unique realities in each.
Several respondents encouraged a complete separation, between the English and French markets, of all policies and procedures, practices, objectives, targets and measures. Others, such as Cineplex Galaxy, expressed that while, “it seems appropriate that objectives and targets be set differently for English Canada versus French Canada … the criteria for measurement should be the same for both groups.”68
A number of respondents noted that the success of Canadian films at the box-office has been dominated by French-language and recommended, therefore, that the Canadian film policy should focus on strengthening the English Canadian film industry by increasing the production volumes and budgets for Canadian English-language films. However, many respondents stressed the importance of sustaining the momentum and success of the French film industry in Canada and recommended that the Canadian government increase funding for the development, production and promotion of French-language films.
The NFB made an additional suggestion that, while each of the English and French markets has different needs and is at a different stage of development, the government of Canada should set up a “joint fund” to support English and French producers working together to produce international, highly exportable films.
Stakeholders were also asked to “look ahead five years” and make specific recommendations with respect to, “What targets should a revised policy set for the Canadian feature film industry?” and “What would be required to bring these about?”
A few respondents cautioned against the use of statistical targets, particularly where such targets do not clearly distinguish between French- and English-language Canadian films. However, a number of respondents were of the view that an increase of 3 to 5% would be a reasonable target for English-language films; several recommendations were put forth suggesting what would be necessary to accomplish such this target.
The Canadian Film and Television Production Association suggested that additional resources in the amount of $37.6 million for development and production, and an additional $5.5 million for marketing, would be necessary to achieve a box-office goal of 3%. Others such as Cineplex Galaxy, the Director’s Guild of Canada, and the Writer’s Guild of Canada (WGC) suggested that the best way to meet increased box-office targets would be to commit more resources to scriptwriting and development. There was general agreement among the respondents that there needs to be increased investment for production budgets, marketing, and increased volumes of English-language films in order to meet a 3 to 5% box-office target.
In terms of measurement, respondents were asked to consider Canada’s feature film policy annual target of 5% for the viewing of Canadian films in theatrical release, and respond to the questions, “Is this a reasonable target?” and “Is this a useful way to measure the extent to which Canadian films are reaching audiences?”
A number of the respondents found the 5% target unreasonable. Several respondents were of the opinion that such a target was unrealistic for English Canadian films because it ignored the disparity between French- and English-language films in Canada. As mentioned above, French-language films currently account for the bulk of the box-office success for Canadian films. Other respondents found the target unreasonable because it does not take into account non-theatrical releases and alternative viewing options for audiences.
Nonetheless, a number of respondents argued that a target of five percent or higher would be within reach for Canadian English-language films if the film policy criteria for measuring success were expanded to include all formats available for audience viewing, such as DVD and VHS, pay-per-view, television broadcasts, and film festivals. As expressed by the Producers’ Roundtable of Ontario, “If someone opts to rent a movie at a store or uses a video on demand service, is his or her experience watching the movie less valid than that of someone in a cinema? It is not.”69 Zoë Druick and Catherine Murray of the School of Communication at Simon Fraser University suggested that biannual reach and awareness surveys conducted among Canadians might be a good way to measure Canadian viewership of Canadian films, including non-theatrical releases and alternative viewing options.
In the context of measurement, the respondents were asked once again to consider the question, “Should there be separate targets for the English and French-language markets?” The respondents unanimously expressed that separate targets for English and French markets are necessary, as a result of the unique challenges and different levels of success experienced by each.
Responsibility for Gathering and Reporting on Performance Measures
There is a general interest in obtaining comprehensive data associated with the monitoring of Canadian film viewing audiences. Accordingly, associations and individuals were asked to share their views and make recommendations in response to the question, “Who should be responsible for gathering and reporting on performance measures?”
Several respondents recommended that the Department of Canadian Heritage (“the Department”) be assigned the responsibility for the gathering and reporting on performance measures, particularly as the Minister has jurisdiction over film and video and is responsible for the Canadian Feature Film Policy. However, most of the respondents who recommended that responsibility be given to the Department argued that it would be most appropriate if the Department had joint responsibility in partnership with another agency or combination of agencies such as Telefilm Canada, Statistics Canada, cultural agencies, broadcasters and exhibitors.
Several respondents suggested that exhibitors and broadcasters be required to gather data and report it to the government body assigned to collect and report on performance measures. For example, David Newman of the School of Communication at Simon Fraser University recommended that the responsibility be given to Statistics Canada in collaboration and consultation with suitable industry agencies and organizations. Nova Scotia Film Development Corporation, however, felt that the responsibility for reporting on performance measures should be assigned to distributors.
The Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association (CMPDA), on the other hand suggested that enlisting private data collection and analysis agencies would be an effective way to measure performance of Canadian films at the box-office as well as alternative viewing. CMPDA offered the examples of Zoom Services Inc., a group that works in collaboration with the Motion Picture Associations of Canada to collect Canadian box-office statistics, and BBM and Nielsen who collect television viewing statistics.
Respondents expressed the view that the Canadian government should have the responsibility for overseeing the process of reporting on performance measures. Furthermore, it should be noted that a number of respondents stressed the importance of making the information collected readily available to all stakeholders and the general public.
Finally, the Producers’ Roundtable of Ontario stressed that, as the question of responsibility for gathering and reporting on performance measures is a difficult issue, it requires further study.
In comments on the 2000 Canadian Feature Film Policy, several organizations and individuals raised questions about the policy’s definition of feature films with respect to the required length of films, theatrical release requirements, and film genre requirements, in particular documentary films. As a result, the Committee asked stakeholders to provide suggestions about how the policy should define feature films.
There was general agreement among the respondents that a definition of feature films should include long-form, feature length films. It should be noted, however, that the Alliance of Canadian Cinema Television and Radio Artists also supported the inclusion of short films in order to increase the opportunities for creating and sharing Canadian stories.
The responses from organizations and individuals varied with respect to whether the definition should include a requirement of theatrical release. However, several respondents drew attention to the fact that in the present Canadian film environment, new technologies such as DVDs, video-on-demand, pay-per-view, and the Internet, have increased the range of distribution and exhibition options. As a result, they recommended that the definition be broadened to include non-theatrical distribution. Other respondents, such as British Columbia Film, while acknowledging the importance of non-theatrical opportunities for increased revenue, argued nonetheless, “that theatrical release is an important part of the overall marketing strategy to create awareness for the long-form production that may go on to generate revenues from other sources.”70
In addition, several respondents supported broadening the definition of feature films to include all long-form, feature length films regardless of genre. As stated by Cineplex Galaxy, “Compelling films are compelling films no matter what the genre.”71 Several respondents supported the inclusion of feature length animation films. The majority, however, were concerned about the focus of the 2000 policy on feature films to the exclusion of long-form documentaries.
How Canadian content is defined determines which Canadian film projects receive public funding and, as a result, influences how Canadian culture is expressed by Canadian film-makers. Moreover, as stated by the Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinéma, “the definition of Canadian content lies at the heart of our system of support and financing of our productions.”72 With this in mind, organizations and individuals were asked “How should ‘Canadian content’ be defined for the purposes of the feature film industry?”
There was general agreement among the respondents that the definition of Canadian content must include a minimum requirement that the producer be Canadian. Several respondents agreed that the CAVCO criteria provide sufficient guidelines, and emphasized that the key creative roles in production (the writer, director and performers) should be filled by Canadians. The NFB suggested that, “Canadians should also be involved in the distribution and/or theatrical exhibition of the film.”73 Two respondents argued that defining Canadian content on the basis of the citizenship of the producer and copyright ownership was inadequate.
In addition, many respondents stressed that the policy must be flexible to allow for artistic freedom. For example, as stated by the Nova Scotia Film Development Corporation, “the story should not need to be a ‘Canadian’ one as long as the people behind it are Canadian.”74 The Canadian Film and Television Production Association went further and stated that, “Given the extremely harsh financing environment, it is imperative that producers be given as much flexibility as possible with regard to Canadian content requirements in order to be able to bring together the right mix of financing, cast and crew to complete a project.”75
Several respondents suggested that there should be a mandatory requirement that the screenwriter be Canadian. In the words of the Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinéma:
In view of the fact that the cultural identity of a work is based on the stories it tells, its viewpoint, the definition of a Canadian production should be based more on the citizenship of the scriptwriter and the presence of a Canadian scriptwriter should be incorporated into any definition of a Canadian work.76
The Writer’s Guild of Canada also suggested that a score of 8 out of 10 should be a minimum requirement to be certified as “Canadian content” in addition to a mandatory requirement of a Canadian screenwriter. Others suggested that a Canadian director should be attached to a production for it to receive Canadian content certification.
Organizations and individuals were then asked, “What could be done to harmonize, modernize or simplify existing definitions of Canadian content?” Several respondents emphasized the need for harmonization of the definition of Canadian content and recommended that Canada adopt a national standard for qualification as a Canadian content production. It should be noted that the respondents once again stressed the importance of not being overly rigid and allowing for flexibility.
The respondents expressed varying opinions with respect to whether the CAVCO rules provided sufficient guidelines. The Union des artistes were of the opinion that the current point rating system was straightforward, while others such as the Writer’s Guild of Canada felt that the “Canadian industry has matured since the time that the CAVCO rules were first implemented.”77 They suggested that perhaps it was time to:
raise the bar for Canadian content productions to include maximum Canadian creative input in Canadian certified projects. By … revising CAVCO rules to ensure that only projects earning a minimum of 8 out of 10 points on the CAVCO scale be designation as Canadian content productions.”78
Furthermore, the Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinéma suggested that the required score be increased and that the highest Canadian scores be rewarded.
Canadian documentary films have achieved a high level of success both within Canada and internationally, and have long been a strength of the Canadian film industry. However, as pointed out by the National Film Board of Canada, “Telefilm Canada has chosen to interpret its mandate in a manner that eliminates documentaries from having access to the fund.”79 The need to include long-form documentaries in the feature film policy was stressed by many respondents, and when asked “Should the feature film policy support the production of long form documentaries,” the responses from organizations and individuals were overwhelmingly positive.
Respondents noted the increasing popularity of documentary films and emphasized the importance of documentaries as another means of expression of Canadian culture. As described by the Director’s Guild of Canada, “the documentary format opens up new ways for creators to approach a subject, which adds to the diversity of Canadian feature films, a goal of the feature film policy.”80
Despite the overwhelming support for the inclusion of documentary feature films in the feature film policy, several respondents expressed concern about the already oversubscribed financing for fictional feature films. They stated that the feature film policy should only support long-form documentaries if additional, separate funds are made available.
In addition, there were suggestions by those supporting the inclusion of long-form documentaries in the feature film policy that a separate fund be established to support documentary features. The National Film Board of Canada, “recommends the creation of a $10 million fund for feature (theatrical) documentary films that would be administered by a Government Commissioner and a board, separately from NFB’s regular budget.”81 Moreover, the Canadian Independent Film and Video Fund recommended that the Department of Canadian Heritage support the creation of a Canadian Documentary Policy that would support short and long-form, feature length documentaries.82
Foreign location shooting in Canada creates job opportunities and provides training for Canadians participating in the Canadian film industry. The feature film policy, however, does not mention the creation or preservation of jobs made possible by foreign location shooting. With this in mind, respondents were asked to share their views on “whether industrial objectives should be an element of the feature film policy?”
There was general recognition by respondents of the important contribution of foreign location filming in Canada to the overall economic well-being of the Canadian film industry. While some respondents supported including industrial objectives as one element of feature film policy, most supported the view expressed by the Director’s Guild of Canada that, “increasing production and success of Canadian feature films should remain the sole focus of the feature film policy.”83 Moreover, tax incentives such as the federal Production Services Sales Tax Credit and similar provincial credits were seen by most of the respondents to provide sufficient encouragement and support for industrial productions.
Several respondents were of the opinion that a Canadian feature film policy should focus solely on the development and support of domestic productions and stressed that industrial objectives should never be incorporated into a national film policy. As stated by the Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinéma, “The feature film policy is a cultural policy and must remain so. Attracting foreign location shooting to create jobs addresses an entirely different set of issues and should not be incorporated into a cultural policy.”84 The NFB suggested that industrial objectives should be considered under a separate policy that focuses on industrial objectives.
Overall, there was a general consensus that the feature film policy should focus on the indigenous production sector. In the words of the Writer’s Guild of Canada, “Canadians can only count on what they build themselves. Only a robust and active indigenous production sector can provide sustainable work opportunities for our creators and other talents.”85
Among its many responsibilities, the Canadian-Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) issues licences and imposes regulations that determine the content limitations of the programs aired by Canadian broadcasters. In 1999, the CRTC released a Television Policy which minimized the obligations imposed on broadcasters to air, finance and develop Canadian dramatic programs, including Canadian feature films. As well, the CRTC has implemented a licence fee top-up policy which permits certain spending deductions relating to the programming of Canadian content that would otherwise be required through licensing conditions.
The Committee invited organizations and individuals to share their views on “What specific changes, if any, need to be made to CRTC policies?” A number of submissions showed strong support for the implementation of incentives to Canadian broadcasters for greater investment in Canadian feature films. The majority, however, agreed that the CRTC must not only impose licensing conditions that require broadcasters to air trailers and invest in Canadian films, but that these conditions must be enforced effectively. Recognizing the importance of both approaches, the Director’s Guild of Canada submitted that “In order to ensure a strong presence of Canadian drama on television, both incentives and requirements must be put in place.”86
With specific reference to the 1999 Television Policy, respondents urged that the policy be reversed. The Director’s Guild of Canada argued that more results would be seen if the CRTC reinstated a requirement to fund and air Canadian drama programming:
Spending and scheduling commitments for Canadian drama, including feature films, should be imposed on Canadian private conventional television broadcasters … [and] additional quota bonuses for broadcasters should be considered for airing Canadian feature films that have had theatrical release.87
Furthermore, the Ontario Media Development Corporation submitted that such an approach could minimize the “devastating impact”88 of the policy.
Finally, it was submitted that the licence fee top-up policy of the CRTC be reversed. In their brief, the Writer’s Guild of Canada submitted that:
The practice of allowing pay and specialty broadcasters to claim CTF funding received by the producer as broadcaster expenditures not only undermines the integrity of the reporting system … it reduce[es] the overall dollar support for Canadian dramatic documentary programming.89
Moreover, the Director’s Guild of Canada argued that such a policy effectively “rewards broadcasters for not supporting the Canadian industry.”90
Role of the CBC and Radio-Canada.
When the CBC’s English television representatives appeared befoe the Committee, it was suggested that the distribution and marketing methods used in Canada have contributed to the failure of any notable growth in the size of audiences for English-language Canadian feature films. It is CBC policy to not air a Canadian feature film until it has moved through the theatrical market, rental and sales, pay-TV, pay-per-view and video-on-demand (VOD).91 According to the CBC, this approach hurts Canadian films (and their potential for success) as there is often a gap of as many as four years between the initial investment and the date the film is broadcast by the Corporation. With this in mind, the Committee invited organizations and individuals to share their views on “What specific policies or practices do the CBC and Radio-Canada need to put in place to enhance the viewing of Canadian feature films?”
The majority of respondents agreed that the CBC should be required to broadcast more Canadian films during prime time television hours. On this point, some respondents demonstrated even greater frustration when:
This past winter, the CBC aired Movie Night in Canada on Saturday nights to replace hockey. Unfortunately, very few of the movies shown were Canadian. This would have been an excellent opportunity to showcase Canadian films.92
The National Film Board of Canada proposed the idea of a ‘cinema fund’ for the purpose of investing in development and production of Canadian feature films. Moreover, nearly half of the respondents recommended that the CBC should be required to invest in the development and production of Canadian films, and to promote these films prior to their theatrical release. These recommendations were taken one step further, however, in the submissions of the Canadian Film and Television Production Association where it was suggested that these recommendations should be a condition of licence for the CBC.
In their brief to the Committee, CBC English Television submitted that they plan to respond to the poor marketing and distribution problems by offering a single airing of Canadian films shortly after their theatrical release, and prior to their passage through other methods of distribution. As a result, the CBC hopes to ensure a greater success rate of Canadian films at all levels, including better promotion, greater awareness, higher levels of success in the other distribution methods, and ultimately generate greater revenues for filmmakers.
Contribution of Treaty Co-Productions
Treaty co-productions have great potential for the Canadian film industry. Not only can they provide a pool of resources for the creation and production of a film including talent, directors, and increased funding, but they can create larger, international markets. Canada has more than fifty co-production treaties with foreign countries; however, over the last few years the use of these treaties has declined considerably.93 The Committee invited organizations and individuals to share whether they believe “treaty co-productions have a positive or negative impact on the creation of feature films?” In short, all of the respondents agreed that treaty co-productions serve as a “positive vehicle for encouraging the creation of Canadian feature films.”94 However, many respondents pointed out that the process does have some flaws which need to be addressed.
With regard to the management of co-production treaties, the National Film Board of Canada told the Committee that the United Kingdom believes there is an imbalance in the relationship and flow of treaty benefits and that European Union regulation policies constrain the ability of producers in France to work with Canadians under co-production treaties. The National Film Board of Canada feels strongly that these management issues must be addressed to ensure a more positive impact of co-production treaties.
As a means of re-stimulating Canada’s co-production activity, the Canadian Film and Television Production Association submitted that the government should adopt new measures to increase opportunities for creators and build a stronger corporate infrastructure. Furthermore, it was suggested by the Ontario Media Development Corporation that funding for treaty co-productions should be guaranteed in order to show financial certainty when attempting to pitch new ideas to possible co-production partners.
The majority of the respondents also agreed that there should be absolutely no third party participation in co-productions. The Alliance of Canadian Cinema Television and Radio Artists further suggested that Telefilm guidelines must provide the same rights to performers as they do to ensure “that producers, directors and screenwriters are exercising control over the Canadian share of the production.”95
Finally, nearly half of the respondents agreed that Canada is in need of a new treaty co-production policy that reflects Canadian culture and diversity and guarantees a minimum level of Canadian participation in these productions. On this topic, the National Film Board of Canada submitted that:
certain countries, such as Korea, China, the Philippines, India, Ireland, and Italy, where many Canadians have roots and origins are more strategically important to the goal of creating cinema that reflects our diversity.96
It was further submitted by the National Film Board of Canada that such a policy should entail a minimum requirement that at least one of the key creative positions, that is the screenwriter or the director, must be held by a Canadian.
The creation of first-rate Canadian films requires highly trained professionals. The availability of such film professionals can only be ensured if there are accessible, quality training opportunities available to them from early education for aspiring filmmakers to professional development for those further into their careers. Under the current federal film policy, four recognized national training institutions receive core funding. In addition, some grants are provided to organizations to deliver film training programs through Telefilm’s Industrial Professional Development Fund. Respondents were asked to give their views on, “what specific improvement need to be made to the education and training programs for those aspiring to work in the feature film industry?”
Several respondents felt that the level of education and training available is adequate but that there is a need for greater assistance for mentorship, apprenticeship and internship programs to successfully integrate graduates of film schools and institutes into the industry. The National Film Board maintained that “We need to create more opportunities for people to make the jump from formal training to on-the-job experience.”97 Similarly, according to the Directors Guild of Canada:
Canada has an abundance of film and television programs that provide a good education to those aspiring to work in the industry — there is no need to expand these. However, students would benefit from getting more practical experience as part of, or subsequent to, these programs.98
The Association des professionnels en audio, however, pointed to the lack of a long-term recognized training program for audio trades. As a result, there is a dearth of specialized professionals available and standards can vary widely.99
The Film Centre and British Columbia Film stressed the need for more coordination among the various organizations and institutions that provide film education and training, as well as increased, multi-year funding to support them. The Film Centre suggested the establishment of a national training liaison committee and the creation of dedicated funding envelopes for the national training schools and recognized organizations. British Columbia Film proposed a levy of 0.2% of production budgets of all films receiving federal funding or tax credits to be applied to a national training fund.
The Nova Scotia College of Art and Design (NSCAD) and the Nova Scotia Film Development Corporation expressed some concern that federal funds being directed to the four recognized national training programs precludes new and innovative training programs from receiving assistance. NSCAD further suggested that Canada’s feature film policy recognize that support for existing media arts programs in post-secondary institutions is an effective way to deliver education and training to filmmakers.
The Committee also invited input on “any ongoing training needs required for those who are currently working in the feature film industry.” A broad range of respondents identified a lack of professional development and training programs available for those already working in the film industry. According to the Canadian Film and Television Production Association:
The Cultural Human Resources Council hosted a film and television summit in April of 2004. This summit brought together representatives from all areas of the sector. There was a general consensus from all the participants, both government and private sector, that there was a dearth of professional development and training opportunities.100
In particular, respondents pointed to a need for more programs in scriptwriting, experimental media, audio, and business management. Additionally, the Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinema suggested a tax credit to ease the financial burden on self-employed workers seeking training.
Films have become a central part of our collective memory. However, these works are often quite fragile in nature, and are prone to technological obsolescence and physical deterioration over time. Canadian films of enduring cultural value must, therefore, be identified, serviced, copied and stored under proper conditions, so that they can be accessed in the future. The collections developed and maintained by the National Film Board, the CBC, as well as Library and Archives Canada play an integral role in this process. In addition, each year, the Audiovisual Preservation Trust (a national charitable organization) chooses 12 audiovisual works of national cultural significance to receive preservation assistance. The Trust also provides other organizations with funding to undertake projects that educate the public about preservation issues and improve their access to audiovisual works from the past. Recognizing the vital importance of preservation, the Committee invited organizations and individuals to share their views on “what measures are required to ensure the preservation of Canada’s film heritage.”
Respondents were in agreement that Canada’s film heritage must be preserved for future generations to enjoy. A number of submissions showed enthusiastic support for the Audiovisual Preservation Trust initiative as well as the preservation efforts of Library and Archives Canada and suggested that they be provided with more funding. The Nova Scotia Film Development Corporation even suggested that support for the Trust be broadened beyond feature film preservation. Zoë Druick and Catherine Murray of the School of Communication, Simon Fraser University maintained that, “The Audiovisual Heritage Trust is a superb initiative, which is currently inadequately and inconsistently funded. More stable and long term funding is an urgent priority.”
The Canadian Film and Television Production Association urged that the government do more to provide easy access to the films that have been preserved. They also emphasized that importance or preserving feature film press and product materials in addition to the films themselves.
The submission from the National Film Board stressed the importance of government support for organizations to make the transition to digital by transferring existing media to digital formats. In their view:
An immediate effect of this would be a considerable reduction in the physical space needed to house the collection and in the amount of time spent handling it. … Ultimately, having a digital vault of the NFB’s collection would make it possible to improve access to the titles and ensure long-term conservation of Canada’s audiovisual heritage, since any title available in digital format, regardless of whether the original was magnetic videotape or conventional films, could be retransferred to film (the most reliable conservation format).103
The National Film Board also suggested that the government bolster the preservation efforts of the Audiovisual Preservation Trust and Library and Archives Canada by creating incentives for organizations and individuals to preserve their collections, and require a legal deposit with National Library and Archives for any feature film produced in Canada whether through the Canada Feature Film Fund or not.
In addition, the Producers Roundtable of Ontario suggested setting up a national system for the storage of original negatives and related material to relieve the financial burden that producers currently face.
During the course of the study certain issues arose with respect to copyright.
Several witnesses and observers noted that protection against video piracy is inadequate and urged reform of the Criminal Code and the Copyright Act to address this. For example, the Motion Picture Theatre Associations of Canada, Jean Seguin and the Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association recommended action be taken to provide adequate legal remedies against the “camcording” of films in cinemas and the trading of copyrighted and counterfeit material via peer-to-peer file sharing programs. Suggesting the proposed amendments to the Copyright Act in Bill C-60 currently before the House of Commons do not go far enough in addressing these concerns, the Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association recommended greater sanctions against the circumvention of technological protection measures designed to protect copyright material.
On other fronts, several observers took the opportunity to point out gaps in the Copyright Act and urge remedial action. For example, the Alliance of Canadian Cinema Television and Radio Artists, and Union des Artistes was noted that performers currently do not benefit from any kind of protection under the Copyright Act and, as such, would like to see the Act amended to provide performers with a copyright in an audiovisual work (film, television program or other audiovisual medium).
Similarly, the Copyright Act is silent on the definition of author of an audiovisual work, and opinions varied somewhat on how best to define “author.” The Canadian Film and Television Production Association would like to see the Act amended to recognize the producer as the author and first owner of a completed visual work. The Writers Guild of Canada suggests that screenwriters be recognized as authors in order to gain moral rights in their work and secure their claim to authors’ levies at home and abroad; the Directors Guild of Canada suggests that authorship could be shared between directors and screenwriters.
Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinéma, Union des artistes and the Writers Guild of Canada suggested that the inclusion of a private copy system for audiovisual products could prove a worthwhile source of income for copyright holders, while furthering increasing use of the works themselves. Such a private copying regime for audiovisual products could be similar to the current private copying regime for musical works.
Finally, the Ontario Media Development Corporation noted changes being made to the Canadian content tax credit regarding copyright ownership, acceptable share of revenues from exploitation, and producer control and suggested changes to the feature film policy be considered in conjunction with these changes in order to ensure that the two programs are complementary and help achieve the policy’s goals.
Telefilm’s current international co-production guidelines require that each co-producer’s relative percentage of copyright ownership, financing, expenses, revenues and key creative and technical personnel be similar. For example, if a project is 60% financed by a Canadian producer, that producer should retain 60% of the copyright ownership, provide 60% of the financing, receive 60% of world revenues, and provide 60% of the key creative and technical personnel.104
| 11 | Brief submitted by the Writers Guild of Canada, 29 September 2005, p. 2. |
| 12 | Brief submitted by the National Film Board, June 2005, p. 1. |
| 13 | Brief submitted by the Producers Roundtable of Ontario, 9 September 2005, p. 1. |
| 14 | Brief submitted by the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists, 23 August 2005, p. 2. |
| 15 | Brief submitted by the Writers Guild of Canada, 29 September 2005, p. 3. |
| 16 | Brief submitted by the Motion Picture Theatres Association of Canada, September 2005. |
| 17 | Brief submitted by the Canadian Independent Film and Video Fund, 9 September 2005, p. 2. |
| 18 | Brief submitted by the Société des auteurs de radio télévision et cinéma, September 2005, p. 4. |
| 19 | Brief submitted by the National Film Board, June 2005, p. 6. |
| 20 | Brief submitted by the Ontario Media Development Corporation, 15 September 2005, p. 2. |
| 21 | Brief submitted by the National Film Board, June 2005, p. 7. |
| 22 | Brief submitted by the Nova Scotia Film Development Corporation, 30 August 2005, p. 2. |
| 23 | Brief submitted by the Canadian Film and Television Production Association, 15 September 2005, p. 8. |
| 24 | Ibid., p. 9. |
| 25 | Brief submitted by British Columbia Film, 14 September 2005, p. 5. |
| 26 | Brief submitted by the Ontario Media Development Corporation, 15 September 2005, p. 3. |
| 27 | Brief submitted by the Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinéma, September 2005, p. 4. |
| 28 | Brief submitted by the Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association, 15 September 2005, p. 5. |
| 29 | Brief submitted by the Producers Roundtable of Ontario, 9 September 2005, p. 3. |
| 30 | Brief submitted by the Canadian Film and Television Production Association, 15 September 2005, p. 12. |
| 31 | Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, Interim Report on the Canadian Feature Film Industry, June 2005, p. 15. |
| 32 | Brief submitted by the Ontario Media Development Corporation, 15 September 2005, p. 3. |
| 33 | Brief submitted by Film Ontario, September 2005, p. 4. |
| 34 | Brief submitted by Cineplex Galaxy, 15 September 2005, p. 4. |
| 35 | As education is a matter of provincial legislative jurisdiction, this would require provincial agreement. |
| 36 | See Chapter 4. |
| 37 | Brief submitted by David Newman, Simon Fraser University School of Communication, September 2005, p. 4. |
| 38 | Brief submitted by the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists, 23 August 2005, p. 16. |
| 39 | Brief submitted by the Canadian Association of Film Distributors and Exporters, 15 September 2005, p. 7. |
| 40 | Ibid. |
| 41 | Brief submitted by the Producer’s Roundtable of Ontario, 9 September 2005, p. 5. |
| 42 | Brief submitted by the Canadian Association of Film Distributors and Exporters, 15 September 2005, p. 5. |
| 43 | Brief submitted by the Ontario Media Development Corporation, 15 September 2005, p. 5. |
| 44 | Brief submitted by the Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinéma, September 2005, p. 7. |
| 45 | Brief submitted by the Canadian Film and Television Production Association, 15 September 2005. |
| 46 | Brief submitted by the Producers Roundtable of Ontario, 9 September 2005, p. 5. |
| 47 | Brief submitted by the Canadian Film and Television Production Association, 15 September 2005, p. 23. |
| 48 | Brief submitted by the Canadian Association of Film Distributors and Exporters, 15 September 2005, p. 5. |
| 49 | Brief submitted by the Union des artistes, 15 September 2005, p. 2. |
| 50 | Brief submitted by the National Film Board, June 2005, p. 15. |
| 51 | Brief submitted by the Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinéma, September 2005, p. 7. |
| 52 | Brief submitted by the Ontario Media Development Corporation, 15 September 2005, p. 7. |
| 53 | Brief submitted by Cineplex Galaxy, 15 September 2005, p. 8. |
| 54 | Brief submitted by CBC Radio-Canada (French Television), 14 September 2005, p. 3. [Emphasis added] |
| 55 | Brief submitted by the Association des propriétaires de cinémas et ciné-parcs, 15 September, p. 7. |
| 56 | Brief submitted by the Canadian Independent Film and Video Fund, 9 September 2005, p. 12. |
| 57 | Brief submitted by the CBC Radio-Canada (French Television), 14 September 2005, p. 2. |
| 58 | Brief submitted by David Newman, Simon Fraser University School of Communciation, September 2005, p. 4. |
| 59 | Brief submitted by the Director’s Guild of Canada, 26 September 2005, p. 17. |
| 60 | It should be noted that not all respondents agreed that the Canadian Feature Film Policy has assumed that Canadian feature films should be promoted and distributed within the existing framework for Hollywood films. The Canadian Film and Television Production Association (CFTPA) stated that, “Canada’s feature film policy has always been focused on ensuring that Canadian voices in cinema can be heard above the roar of the Hollywood filmmaking machine.” Rather than diverging from this policy objective, the CFTPA argued that, “Canadian distributors need to develop marketing and promotion strategies that are specific to Canadian films and the Canadian market place.” Brief submitted by the Canadian Film and Television Production Association, 15 September 2005, p. 27. |
| 61 | Brief submitted by the National Film Board of Canada, June 2005, p. 17. |
| 62 | Brief submitted by the Director’s Guild of Canada, 26 September 2005, p. 12. |
| 63 | Brief submitted by the Canadian Film and Television Production Association, 15 September 2005, p. 33. |
| 64 | Brief submitted by the Alberta Motion Picture Industries Association, p. 9. |
| 65 | Brief submitted by the National Film Board of Canada, June 2005, p. 16. |
| 66 | Canadian Film and Television Production Association, 15 September 2005, p. 24. |
| 67 | Brief submitted by Canadian Association of Film Distributors and Exporters, 15 September 2005, p. 6. |
| 68 | Brief submitted by Cineplex Galaxy, 15 September 2005, p. 8. [Emphasis added] |
| 69 | Brief submitted by the Producers’ Roundtable of Ontario, 9 September 2005, p. 8. |
| 70 | Brief submitted by British Columbia Film, 14 September 2005, p. 11. |
| 71 | Brief submitted by Cineplex Galaxy, 15 September 2005, p. 8. |
| 72 | Brief submitted by the Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinéma, September 2005, p. 8. |
| 73 | Brief submitted by the National Film Board of Canada, June 2005, p. 15. |
| 74 | Brief submitted by the Nova Scotia Film Development Corporation, 30 August 2005, p. 6. |
| 75 | Brief submitted by the Canadian Film and Television Production Association, 15 September 2005, p. 23. |
| 76 | Ibid, p. 8. |
| 77 | Brief submitted by the Writer’s Guild of Canada, June 2005, p. 19. |
| 78 | Ibid. |
| 79 | Brief submitted by the National Film Board of Canada, June 2005, p. 16. |
| 80 | Brief submitted by the Director’s Guild of Canada, 26 September 2005, p. 11. |
| 81 | NFB, see note 79 |
| 82 | Brief submitted by the Canadian Independent Film and Video Fund, 9 September 2005, p. 11. |
| 83 | Brief submitted by the Director’s Guild of Canada, 26 September 2005, p. 11. |
| 84 | Brief submitted by the Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinéma, September 2005, p. 9. |
| 85 | Brief submitted by the Writer’s Guild of Canada, June 2005, p. 20. |
| 86 | Responses submitted by the Director’s Guild of Canada, 26 September 2005, p. 14. |
| 87 | Ibid., p. 13. |
| 88 | Responses submitted by the Ontario Media Development Corporation, 15 September 2005, p. 8. |
| 89 | Responses submitted by the Writer’s Guild of Canada, 23 September 2005, p. 23. |
| 90 | Responses submitted by the Director’s Guild of Canada, 26 September 2005, p. 14. |
| 91 | Responses submitted by CBC Radio-Canada (English Television), 13 September 2005, p. 3. |
| 92 | Responses submitted by the Ontario Media Development Corporation, 15 September 2005, p. 8. |
| 93 | Brief submitted by the Alliance of Canadian Cinema Television and Radio Artists, 23 August 2005, p. 18; brief submitted by the Canadian Film and Television Production, 15 September 2005, p. 30. |
| 94 | Brief submitted by the Canadian Film and Television Production Association, 15 September 2005, p. 30. |
| 95 | Brief submitted by the Alliance of Canadian Cinema Television and Radio Artists, 23 August 2005, p. 18. |
| 96 | Brief submitted by the National Film Board of Canada, June 2005, p. 20. |
| 97 | Ibid, p. 9. |
| 98 | Brief submitted by the Directors Guild of Canada, 26 September 2005, p. 9. |
| 99 | Brief submitted by the Association des professionnels en audio, September 2005, p. 4. |
| 100 | Brief submitted by the Canadian Film and Television Production Association, 15 September 2005, p. 17. |
| 101 | Brief submitted by Zoë Druick and Catherine Murray, School of Communication, Simon Fraser University, June 2005, p. 3. |
| 102 | Brief submitted by the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists, 23 August 2005, p. 7. |
| 103 | Brief submitted by the National Film Board of Canada, June 2005, p. 12. |
| 104 | http://www.telefilm.gc.ca/document/en/04/minimum-required.pdf. |