The wheels are in motion for an industry-wide debate in the wake of Heritage Minister Sheila Copps’ freshly unveiled feature film discussion paper which lays bare the defects of the financing, distribution and exhibition infrastructure, raises potential options, and places a tight March 20 submission deadline on the talks.

With a day or two to digest the issues set out in the discussion paper, released at the Telefilm Canada 30th anniversary dinner Feb. 4, the process is being widely heralded as progressive by industry executives.

‘The government is saying everybody wants the industry to do something for Canadian cinema,’ says Richard Paradis, president of the Canadian Association of Film Distributors and Exporters.

‘It’s raising provocative questions and looking for imaginative answers.’

Out in Vancouver, Red Sky principal Mary-Pat Gleeson says what’s needed in the Canadian film industry is cooperation between producer, distributor and exhibitor, and points out that the traditional relationship has been adversarial between the three camps.

‘Those days [of tension] are over with a document like this. It’s exciting that the minister has recognized film as a major priority.’

Questions raised in the discussion paper about distribution, she adds, will be responded to by Red Sky, which Gleeson says will call on its unique experience from both Central and Western Canada selling both foreign and domestic films to draft a submission.

The initial honeymoon reaction is only a precursor to what are guaranteed to be passionate debates on several contentious ideas in play. Among them is whether any new funding mechanism should be managed by Telefilm Canada or another organization. cftpa chair Tom Berry calls it ‘an explosive issue.’

Along that line, Chum Television vp programming Jay Switzer says he supports a fund similar to the ctcpf Licence Fee Program, whereby projects with a broadcast licence and adequate financing can access money on a first-come, first-served basis.

‘This is a much better approach than the Telefilm model of creative meddling,’ he says.

‘A funding agency should not be able to say I don’t like the script… Financing should not be a political process and that’s the reality of financing features currently. Too many small filmakers with presales in place are being turned down for funding.’

Berry says that a recent nationwide cftpa industry consultation on film policy unanimously made clear that whether the new fund is managed by Telefilm or a seperate agency, the industry expects to be effectively represented on the fund’s board.

‘When the producers and distributors and exhibitors participate in the operation of a program you get a much more responsive and realistic program.’

As to how new funding should be spread among filmmakers, Berry advocates greater access for more players.

‘Clearly higher budgets and more marketing support are likely to produce films which attract a wider audience. But at the same time an increased production volume produces more gems, so I think there is a place for lower-budget production.’

If a feature film fund is created, Paradis would like to see distributors receive a large chunk of the revenues for marketing and promotion.

‘Take an American film that costs between $125 million and $150 million. They turn around and spend $40 million to $60 million on marketing, so maybe we could make the same equation in Canada,’ he says.

‘Distributors have been expected to invest in Canadian film for a long time. If in discussions we realize that they should play an even more important role in terms of marketing, they’re the ones who know best how to do that and it’s always a question of budgets.’

Broadcasters on the spot

Whether broadcasters should be regulated into airing features or enticed through incentives is another key policy issue.

The question facing the industry is whether all the broadcasters should have a standard feature film visibility or if this role should be relegated to the public broadcaster, says Berry.

He endorses the creation of a Channel 4 model for Canada, and says the cbc should play a strong role.

But the industry also has to find ways to interest free tv broadcasters in features, he says.

‘And will they need to be encouraged with incentives and regulations? Quite possibly.’

Although advocating incentives, Swtizer says broadcasters should not be regulated into licensing Canadian films.

Paradis expects to work in conjunction with the ctcpf and apftq to recommend ways to improve the public profile of Canadian films, and the role of television broadcasters will be part of that discussion. ‘There are examples in Britain and France where the broadcasters are quite involved with investing in and promoting films that they will eventually broadcast,’ says Paradis.

‘I don’t think that we should be shy in asking the broadcasters to come up with ideas as to what they should be doing to help the Canadian film industry.’

Other issues Paradis hopes will be examined are the creation of a fund for marketing films, broadcasters taking on an increased role in Canadian feature film, and more money for the production and export of films. Paradis says any one of these initiatives could be passed without government legislation. Legislation would be needed only for issues dealing with foreign ownership and Industry Canada, he says.

SODEC leading surcharge example

Also up for debate is a tax or surcharge on movie tickets and video rental and purchases. The federal goverment may be a step behind Quebec as sodec (the provincial funding agency) is already in discussions with the Quebec government on the posibility of levying a 20-cent surcharge on movie tickets, a 75-cent tax on video purchases and an eight-cent tax on video rentals in the province. The revenue from the taxes would go to local film production.

This model is used in Germany, France and Great Britain where these taxes generate revenue for film development.

Though he would welcome it, Paradis is quick to dismiss the likelihood of theater quotas becoming a reality in Canada. ‘Theater owners put films on screens that people are willing to come and see. Les Boys (Les Films Lions Gate) is a commerical film and it’s staying on the screens because people are going to see it,’ comments Paradis. ‘The biggest problem we have is that Canadians aren’t aware of Canadian films.’

Among the other proposals that will debated are:

– a new funding body for feature film that could be based more on marketability than on Canadian content and regional concerns;

– a specific fund for marketing Canadian films, presumably to be used by distributors;

– a quota for film exhibitors to show a certain amount of Canadian films;

– a program to convince broadcasters to become more involved in feature film; and,

– a dedicated tax on movie tickets and video rentals and purchases that would be put toward the film fund.

Copps will release public and industry comments April 17.

With files from Ian Edwards in B.C.