Long without a definitive gauge of the impact of the film and television production business on the economy, a new report issued by the cftpa contends the Canadian industry generates more than $2.7 billion in production activity annually.

In Contributing to Canadian Culture, Trade and Jobs, an analysis released at the cftpa’s Policy Conference this month, statistics provided by Heritage Canada, cavco, Statistics Canada, the crtc, cbc and the Ontario Film Development Corporation, crunched in cooperation with Nordicity Group, show Canadian production levels almost doubled between 1991 and 1995, rising to $2.7 billion in 1995 from $1.4 billion in 1991, despite a 7% decline in public funding.

The amount includes all certified and non-certified productions, private, specialty and pay broadcasters’ in-house productions, and location filming by foreign producers. The years analyzed stretch from 1991 to fiscal 1995, the latest statistics available.

The prospectus yields interesting tidbits reflecting the size, scope and contribution from different sectors – Canadian specialty and pay-tv spending $104.4 million on licence fees in 1995/96; the feature film sector accounting for about 20% of the total certified and funding agency-supported production; 30,000 full-time jobs or their equivalent created, a total of 72,000 direct and indirect jobs – but what may be more interesting is not the what, but the why behind the report and its release.

Although the theme of the conference was ‘Celebrating our Success,’ the some 230 producers and broadcasters who flocked to Parliament Hill Feb. 14 spent more energy on damage control than on toasting the status quo. The Eggleton kerfuffle, Copps’ call-to-arms against the Americans, and a lack of clarity at any level on what Canadian content regulations are subject to recalibration is leaving everybody twitchy, producers included.

Enough so as to spur a blitz of meetings with Industry Canada the day before the conference, where, as Paragon Entertainment ceo Jon Slan says, producers voiced concern that there seems to be a ‘crack in the door’ in allowing the Americans access to the market, and with it, a predisposition to relaxing Canadian content restrictions.

Speaking alongside Heritage Canada’s Victor Rabinovitch, Industry’s Shirley Serafini, cbc’s Jim Byrd, Corel Corporation president Michael Cowpland, and Ark Films’ Alan Morinis on the blue-chip panel ‘Towards 2000: The Business of the New Millennium,’ Slan shared some of his thoughts on the meeting.

‘John Manley kept saying, `Tell me what tools I have in my toolbox.’ I said to myself, well dammit, he’s got a hammer in his tool box. Maybe he could think about using it.’

When moderator Laurier LaPierre inquired, ‘On whose head?’ Slan replied, ‘Well, Jack Valenti for one.’ So much for the kinder, gentler nation.

Given the events of the past two months, it’s not surprising producers are unsettled, says cftpa chair Tom Berry.

‘We’re seeing our industry being selected in some ways, perhaps symbolically, as a target by the u.s.’

Strategy

But while the Slan/LaPierre exchange was well received by the attending crowd, the industry strategy in process to combat the attack on cultural protection mechanisms (both from within and without) seems more a typically Canadian approach which is grounded largely in education.

On the other side of the conference events, the idea seems to be to get the word out, over the next few months, to both the politicians and the masses on at least three fronts: to illustrate that the film and television industry is contributing to the fiscal infrastructure through production activity and export; to show the production industry is relying less and less on the public trough; and to emphasize that Canada is one of the most open communications environments in the world, coupled with a clear presentation of exactly how much American-made entertainment product is already part of the landscape.

Timely

Although Berry won’t say the cftpa report is part of the education agenda, he will say it’s timely and that it takes a step towards correcting more than one misinterpretation peddled through the mainstream statistical mechanisms.

‘I think we all anticipate an election coming. We’d like people to reflect on who we are as they think about goals for their second or first term in government, whatever the case may be. And when they do this, they should have accurate information at their disposal.

‘When StatsCan measures exports, you’re not going to find much from us because the product is presold to Germany and they’re part of the financing. That’s an export which won’t get caught. In this report, I think we’ve managed to put together a good portrait of the business for the first time.’

But while the pre-election lobby effort is up and running, it’s doing little so far to waylay anxiety amongst producers that key support mechanisms may be in jeopardy.

Among the speakers advocating a strong stand to protect cultural policies, Vancouver-based Ark Films president Morinis, representing the smaller, regional, privately- owned prodcos, asked the government and the industry to ‘go out and man the barricades’ on Canadian content. ‘Our policies aren’t anti-American. They’re enabling us to do what we do.’

Underlying the day-long cultural pep rally was a fundamental skepticism that the political will is there to protect culture, although Rabinovitch went to the ends of the earth to confirm that it is when asked a direct question from the floor mid blue-chip panel.

But in this particular political climate of closed summits, internal crtc reviews, and the volatility factor from the u.s., all are having difficulty deciphering which elements of Canadian content regs are in play.

For her part, Minister Copps, after lobbing the ideas of a price cap on u.s. program purchases and news and sports outside the Cancon quota, refused to elaborate on whether policies like tiering and linkage rules or gateways to foreign specialties may be on the table.

‘I don’t want to presuppose what kind of work [the Heritage committee] will do or how that discourse will unfold.’

In terms of how a cap on foreign programming expenditures would work, Copps says the expenditure caps could be built into licence renewals. She also points out that there is a provision for Canadian content in primetime, and a provision for some Canadian cultural expenditure, ‘but there’s no balance between the two. We could look at having the crtc regulate that.’

Already ballyhooed by much of the mainstream press, the American cap concept, touted as a product of the industry summit, and, since CTV Television Network ceo John Cassaday was the only private broadcast executive in attendance, an idea widely attributed to him, drew a predictable response from Canadian Association of Broadcasters president Michael McCabe.

‘First, I would suggest, and most lawyers are going to suggest, that it would never stand up under either nafta or wto. But the real risk is that a cap could make it in the economic interest of the Americans to sell their product only to the American networks. If we can’t buy the rights to these lucrative shows, our ability to finance our Canadian programming is severely hampered. The American nets’ audience goes up, and our cross-subsidizing capability goes down.’

Onside with changes

Although the cab isn’t onside with Copps’ luncheon musings, it is advocating changes to the rules and on the record in agreement with Eggleton last month that content regulations need to be dissected.

On the news and sports outside the Cancon quota theory, McCabe says it’s workable, although he adds that since reduced Canadian percentages are apolitical and slapping a 60% Canadian drama requirement into regulation unworkable, the concept is difficult.

What the cab is advocating is what McCabe calls ‘more flexibility’ within the allocation system, perhaps jigged through the cavco debits.

‘We have to drive more money into Canadian production and if we have to drive them around the world, then we have to make sure the rules enable us to have a product that can have wide appeal. I don’t think that product has to be only generic in nature. I doesn’t all have to be Poltergeist; it can, in fact, be shows like Traders.

‘I think Atlantis would tell you that if the rules on expenditure requirements were a little bit more flexible, they’d be able to keep it focused in Toronto, shoot in Toronto, but shoot a Hong Kong episode, for example, which under the expenditure rules they have a problem with now.’