What does ‘Canadian’ mean when we’re talking film?

The International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE) is the largest union in the entertainment industry, and we support the federal government’s efforts to modernize the Broadcasting Act through Bill C-11. We are also pleased that Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez has indicated a desire to re-examine what should qualify as a Canadian production. So… what makes a film Canadian? Despite what you regularly hear, CanCon is not necessarily about telling Canadian stories. What’s happening is that major streaming platforms are becoming more successful and traditional Canadian media companies would like to share in that success. Understandable. Their business models were structured around government policies that required contributions from broadcasters and cable companies and they are now trying to pivot to make streaming fit into that model. Money that Canadian media companies receive from domestic broadcasters is declining, so they’d like to create more funding by requiring global studios and streamers to “stop the free ride” and kick in their “fair share” to fund CanCon productions. The fact is that international streaming companies and the major studios already do support the Canadian industry. They are far from being freeloaders or “free riders.” Following Netflix’s pledge to spend at least $500-million dollars over five years to fund original Canadian production, CRTC chair Ian Scott stated in January 2020 that Netflix was “probably the single largest contributor to the production sector.” Global studios and streamers (think Warner Bros. Discovery, CBS-Paramount Global, Netflix, etc.) are the second-largest source of financing for Canadian-owned content production, with foreign pre-sales and advances accounting for 15 per cent of total financing. By comparison, the Canada Media Fund accounts for 10 per cent, and Telefilm accounts for one per cent. Financing isn’t the only contribution these entities bring to Canada. Rodriguez referenced “creating good middle-class jobs” as an important part of the policy objective when Bill C-11 was introduced. Global studios and streamers are now the largest employers of Canadians working in film production and are a major financial contributor to the Canadian Media Producers Association. According to CMPA’s Profile 2021, global studios and streamers account for more than half (58 per cent) of total production investments in Canada, with their productions providing the majority of jobs (60 per cent, or 129,180 jobs) for Canadian workers. This employment boon on big budget, global productions has also meant that Canadians have been able to stay in Canada, learn and work with the latest technology, and that Canada’s highly skilled crews are now recognized as world-class film technicians. Infrastructure such as studios and equipment further benefit the Canadian sector and provide opportunities that would not be possible without significant foreign investment. We should encourage this investment from global players to help promote Canadian stories to audiences around the world. Cultural policy should support investment in all Canadian creative workers and not exclusively benefit Canadian production companies. It is important to celebrate, protect, and promote our culture, but the current system wrongly relies on a few conditions that must be met (like IP ownership or control) first, and then adds a 10-point ranking system, in which films must score at least six to be considered “Canadian.” Under the current system, The Handmaid’s Tale does not qualify as Canadian. It’s a story based on the novel by award-winning Canadian author Margaret Atwood, who served as a consulting producer. It features Canada-centric plotlines, it was filmed in Canada—employing hundreds of Canadian creatives— and it has garnered 75 Emmy nominations and 15 awards. Canadian creatives were recognized internationally for their skills in art direction, production design, hair styling, makeup artistry, costume design, visual effects, and editing. The story is similar for Jusqu’au Déclin. This was Netflix’s first original feature film in Canada. It’s a Canadian storyline, created by Canadians, filmed by Canadians, and starring Canadians. It’s also a French-language story, written by French Canadians and featuring Québécois actors. Netflix had the production dubbed into 31 different languages, and it has been watched by audiences around the world—with 95 per cent of viewers located outside of Canada. It’s a huge success story in promoting Canada to the world. Like The Handmaid’s Tale, the work on this production also garnered awards. And also like The Handmaid’s Tale, it doesn’t qualify as Canadian. The only thing not “Canadian” about this production is that Netflix funded it. We need a fair system to determine which productions should be considered Canadian. Many countries have point systems. But the Canadian 10-point system isn’t only flawed, it’s exclusionary. The voices of the majority of Canadian film industry workers are not being heard, and they certainly aren’t being factored in. Under the current system, these Canadian voices simply don’t count. The point system is meant to prioritize the hiring of Canadian creatives. As it should. Having a Canadian director will get you two points. A Canadian screenwriter will get you two points as well. The costume designer? Zero points. Head of Makeup? Zero. Head of Hairstyling? Also zero. We’re talking about creative positions that are recognized with awards like the Oscars, Emmys, BAFTAs, and the Canadian Screen Awards, but Canadians working in these creative positions and more don’t count for a single point. It’s exclusionary, and it needs to change. So, what should a new system look like? First off, the four conditions that are currently mandatory (such as IP ownership) should be considered, but not determinative. Secondly, the 10-point system must be expanded. We can look elsewhere for good examples of how to accomplish this. In the U.K., the British Film Institute uses a 35-point “cultural test,” and productions must score at least 18 to qualify as British. The higher point system means more factors are taken into consideration, such as whether the film is based on British subject matter, where the story is set, where the filming takes place, if it’s a majority British cast, a majority British crew, and whether the film demonstrates British creativity and British heritage and/or diversity. With its 200-point system, the Netherlands includes these considerations and more, with a far more reasonable cultural content target. Though that target can change, the minimum number of required points to be considered “Dutch” is set each year by the Netherlands Film Fund Foundation but will never be set higher than 75 of the possible 200. These countries, and many others, demonstrate that a stronger, fairer system is possible. And we are confident that’s the intention behind Bill C-11. The IATSE fully supports the passage of Bill C-11, but we must modernize the legislation to ensure we have a system that best serves and promotes Canada, its workers, and its stories. John M. Lewis is an international vice-president and the director of Canadian Affairs of the IATSE, representing 32,000 Canadian creatives and technicians across film, television, and live performance. The Hill Times