Propelled by thorny issues facing the industry, Toronto commercial producers and their suppliers have reformed the Commercial Production Association of Toronto. The association has been revived to tackle these issues and bring the industry a unified voice.

Dormant for the last several years due to a heavy influx of u.s. business and continuing high production volume, the association is reforming to deal ‘proactively’ with present and future concerns.

Newly elected co-chair Paul Kenyon of Absolute Location explains the reason for the revival: ‘It occurred to me some time ago that even though commercials represent probably close to 10% – maybe as much as 15% – of the production in this area, commercial producers have virtually no voice when it comes to any matter that affects them. That’s anything from withholding tax legislation [i.e., actra and/or sag] right down to something as simple as permit fees and dealing with the City of Toronto.’

Meetings in November and January laid the groundwork for the organization, and an executive is in place: Kenyon and Geoff Cornish (Radke), co-chairs; Scott MacKenzie (Radke), treasurer; and Humphrey Carter (Navigator), Andy Crosbie (Sparks) and Paul Moyer (Optix), directors.

cpat is interviewing for a point-person to handle communications and clerical activities.

With the executive in place, cpat’s next challenge is finding a mandate that suits the whole industry. Competitive factors and a fiercely independent community may make that difficult.

‘Although there is a lot of grumbling that there is a need for cpat, we as an organization have not identified precisely what areas we’re going to target, or what areas are of concern to us,’ Kenyon explains.

And there certainly are concerns. Says Angel Films’ Sarah Ker-Hornell: ‘I don’t think it should be specific to Toronto, I think it should be a national voice. I think this is a great opportunity to set our own guidelines similar to the aicp [the u.s. commercial production association].’

Kenyon says if it is the will of the membership, ‘it could well become a national organization’ – in time.

‘From my perspective, we have enough work to do at home. It would be premature for us to set our sights on being a national organization,’ says Kenyon.

Early reaction to the notion of a national organization is mixed.

Chris Bowell of Vancouver’s Circle Productions says the revival of cpat is news to him.

‘Put it this way, the dialogue hasn’t even begun in the sense that it sounds unlikely that anyone from the east has called any production companies from the west. We also have an office in Toronto, [and they] haven’t even mentioned it to us,’ says Bowell.

But he admits he may be receptive to a national commercial production association. ‘It would obviously have to recognize that there are quite a few major differences in the style of doing business between the east and west. So there are probably certain matters that could be co-operatively dealt with and other matters that would be best left to the regions.’

Michael Hamm at Frame 30 Productions in Edmonton is less enthusiastic. ‘I can’t see any need for it nationally,’ he says. ‘Our needs and wants are so different here on the commercial side.’

Hamm is also concerned about association guidelines. He fears a similar situation to what has developed in the u.s.

‘I know [with aicp], if you sign up you have to use their bid form and their disclosure, which I’ve always been against. I don’t think it’s really necessary in Canada,’ says Hamm. ‘Even in the States, a lot of the guys in the regions have opted out because New York and l.a. were telling them how to run their business.’

There are other issues on the table for meetings over the next few months that will serve to clarify cpat’s role and mandate. Ker-Hornell would like to see the membership open up to the agencies.

‘Agency producers do a great deal of work that we don’t ever have to address regarding talent unions and dealing with approval boards,’ says Ker-Hornell. ‘We are partners together and,’ she fears, ‘it would naturally end up being us versus them [if they are not included].’