Cinema Canada (Mar-Apr 1975)

Lunchtime, November 22nd, 1974. I get a call from Jacques Leduc. Speaking for the executive of the Association des Réalisateurs de Film du Québec, the A.R.F.Q., Jacques invites me to join the executive in some mysterious action. No, he can’t tell me what it is over the telephone, — the lines may be tapped. Yes, it will take time — day, months maybe. No, once it starts that’s it — you stay. I’m curious, nervous ambivalent. As the only anglophone member of the A.R.F.Q. at that time I’m flattered to be invited, I want to help, but, but... I’m trying to push one film, finish another, start another, I’ve got things I have to do, important things, plans for the evening... the kid ... all the usual cop-out reasons. Maybe I should, maybe I could ... but I don’t, not right away. I tell Jacques I’ll be there the next morning . ... Jail does not hold much appeal... . And anyway I don’t even know what they plan to do. And so on and so on. But I do know from Jacques’ tone of voice that whatever is happening is something which will not pass unnoticed and I also know about the twelve years of polite struggle which have driven the A.R.F.Q. to take action. It goes back to 1962 when Jean Lesage, the liberal premier of Québec, the man who led the province out of the extreme right wing Duplessis era, promised to table a film law that fall which would be ‘‘as important a law as the one which gave birth to the ministry of education.” This was at the height of Québec’s ‘quiet revolution’ when reforms in education were transforming Québec. It was no ordinary promise. At the request of the government Guy Coté and Arthur Lamothe hurriedly drew up the details of a film law needed urgently so that it could be tabled right away. That was twelve years ago, and in those days the government was dealing with the Association Professionelle des Cinéastes, the forerunner of the present A.R.F.Q. Since 1962 there have been sixteen reports, one white paper, four draft laws, one law, Bill 52 dealing primarily with censorship, research trips to study foreign film industries, several provincial governments, even more Ministers of Cultural Affairs and numerous interventions, meetings, lunches, telegrams, and articles. Throughout, reassuring promises of action have been squeezed from who ever happened to be in a postion to do anything about film in Québec at any given moment. Many figures, including Marc Lalonde and Pierre Laporte, worked on the problem of the creation of a film industry in Québec — to say nothing of the legions of Québec film makers who spent days and weeks and months of their own time trying to educate the various governments about film, trying to get a film law tabled, trying to make it clear why a film industry was important to Québec. And twelve years have slipped by, turning the young hopefuls of the early sixties into exhausted middle aged men who nonetheless keep trying. Out of all this came a number of possible measures which could be implemented whenever the basic law, la loi cadre, was tabled: 1.A film centre to administer the Québec film industry and to act as the focus of all film activities in Québec. Film makers see this centre as being independent or, at least, run by film makers and government together to avoid undue political interference. Needless to say, debate about how to run the envisaged centre continues even though there are already many other industries in Québec which have achieved co-management with government. 2. Quotas. 3. A tax on the box office receipts which would put between three and four million dollars per year into film in Québec. 36 Cinema Canada Robin Spry 4. A system to ensure that all films shown in Québec would be available in French. 5. Prizes for successful films, culturally important films, and money for some of the losses incurred by films which fail at the box office. 6. Taxes on profits leaving Québec. 7. A percentage of the box office returns to go directly to the Québec producers. 8. Money for the distribution, promotion and exhibition of Québec films. 9. Money for research, technical innovation, training, first works, archives, documentation, photographs etc. In other words, what has been asked over the years is more or less what every other developed country in the world has: legislation to protect and promote a crucial aspect of the cultural and economic life of the society: film. The problems stemming from lack of this type of legislation are of course all too familiar to the film makers of English Canada who live and work in the oppressive shadow of American cultural and economic domination. This shadow falls heavily on Québec too, butin addition the Québec film makers view the growing federal presence in film with unease. It helps to have the money of course, but they feel that more than ever, at a time when the last provincial election was won on a promise of ‘cultural sovereignty’’, there should be provincial funds as well going into every aspect of film in Québec. As it is now, if a Québec film maker wants to express himself on film he has to go to the NFB, the CFDC or the Canada Council, all federal agencies with federal sensibilities. Or he can try to submit himself to the inflexible information needs of the Office du Film du Québec. The importance of the Québec government’s participation in cinema has been stressed time and again over the years. For instance, Pierre Laporte in a Memorandum to