CHPC Committee Report

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION

When the Committee embarked on its study of Canada’s feature film policy, From Script to Screen, it was to address two main concerns:

•

the weak box-office performance of Canadian films in the English-language market; and

•

the sustainability of some remarkable increases in audiences for films in Canada’s French-language market.

It is very rare for a well-designed policy to produce extraordinary results in one part of the country and to make virtually no difference in the other two-thirds. The Committee is well aware that the challenges faced by English-language feature films are considerable. It notes, however, that federal support programs for Canadian books and sound recording have, over time, found some ways to overcome similar challenges, with promising results.

While wishing to applaud the successes with French-language feature films and determined to ensure the continuation of these accomplishments, the Committee is convinced that serious changes are required if any improvement in audience shares for English-language feature films is to occur.

The challenge is to propose a set of changes that will in no way interfere with the achievements in the French-language market, yet encourage the possibility of similar results for English-language films. The Committee has chosen to do this by proposing some fundamental changes to the policy itself and significant changes to the way the policy and supporting programs are implemented.

From Script to Screen was a significant achievement. Most importantly, it recognized the necessity to “develop and retain talented creators” and “build larger audiences … for Canadian film.” The Committee fully endorses these two objectives and remains convinced that they should be the cornerstones of the policy.

To meet these two objectives, however, a related series of changes is required.

The most obvious change is to recognize the existence of two different language markets for film and to set realistic and incremental box-office targets for each market.

In addition to theatrical targets, the Committee believes that far more attention needs to be paid to other contexts in which Canadians see films. As this report notes, Canadians are many times more likely to view films on television or on DVD than in the cinema. For this reason, a revised policy needs to recognize the importance of measuring the viewing of Canadian films in the many non-theatrical contexts where films may be watched.

In our examination of the policy and its implementation several other important factors were brought to our attention by witnesses. First, it was seen that the rigid definition of Canadian content largely inhibits the creation of films with box-office potential in the English-language market. Our recommendation here is to try a different approach, an approach similar to the one used for book publishing and sound recording. We are convinced that such a strategy would provide some needed flexibility for the English-language market, and would in no way inhibit the production of quality movies for the French-language market.

This committee’s study has also revealed problems in the implementation of the policy via the various organizations responsible for its discharge. In short, the existing governance and accountability mechanisms are not working. The range of instruments available to support the policy is unduly complicated and bureaucratic; moreover, no one seems to be in charge.

Recommendations to deal with these problems involve recognizing the important role of the Department of Canadian Heritage and expanding the policy support measures offered by the Department.

For example, a clear gap in the range of program instruments is the absence of ongoing support for producers, distributors and exhibitors. To deal with this, the Committee is recommending the development of new support measures directly managed by the Department of Canadian Heritage. These initiatives, which could function much like Canada’s support for book publishing, could provide ongoing support to eligible production companies, distributors and exhibitors, based on overall box-office receipts for Canadian films. In doing so, they would not intrude on the provinces’ jurisdiction over distribution and exhibition. Moreover, they could be used to provide support for the transition to digital and e-cinema. 

Canada’s broadcasters also need to be more involved in support of Canada’s feature film industry. This is why we recommend that the government direct the CRTC to develop a policy for the promotion of feature films.

As for Telefilm Canada — too much and too little is expected of this Crown Corporation. The Committee found Telefilm to be less than candid when discussing the results of the policy and unwilling to admit the failings in the English-language market. This reluctance highlights the need to have the Department of Canadian Heritage improve its reporting on the results of the policy and programs related to the policy.

A number of changes need to be made to the internal workings of Telefilm. The Committee wants the selection of projects to be done by those qualified to select them and wants this selection process to be similar to that used by other cultural agencies (e.g., the Canada Council for the Arts). In a word, officials should not be deciding what projects to support. They should decide the type of projects eligible for support, but the choice of individual projects should be made by peers and experts from outside Telefilm.¹⁷⁶

This report also observes that improvements need to be made to the reporting and assessment of progress in reaching the objectives and targets established by the policy.  This is why the Committee is calling on the Department of Canadian Heritage to take responsibility for the coordination, collection and publication of relevant performance measures related to the objectives of Canada’s feature film policy.

The short time available for the Committee’s work has meant that not enough attention could be paid to certain important matters. The report concludes with a number of recommendations on these topics. Perhaps the most important one is that the film policy should include long-form documentaries.

The suite of changes suggested by the Committee will not be difficult to implement. They will require additional effort by some, changes in regulations for others and a different approach to the governance of the system.

Canada is blessed with creative and innovative people. Nowhere is this creativity more evident than in the country’s arts and culture. We have world class poets, novelists, singer-songwriters, dancers and dance companies, figure skaters, opera companies and theatre companies. Many Canadians have made films that will be enjoyed for as long as films are watched. This is no small achievement.

The Committee is convinced that the changes recommended in this report will allow creators the opportunity and freedom to make films that can and will attract audiences.  

In closing, the Committee wishes to stress that it strongly supports the role of the federal government in support of Canadian feature filmmaking. This support should include long-term stable funding at levels equal to, or greater than, those currently available to Canada’s feature filmmakers.

---

176	As the Office of the Auditor General of Canada notes in its November 2005 Report on Support to Cultural Industries, appropriate measures, “including provisions addressing conflicts of interest” need to be in place (p. 46).