Cinema Canada (Oct 1976)

FILIYI NEWS THE ‘TOMPKINS’ REPORT: CONCLUSIONS Hugh Faulkner, while still Secretary of State, commissioned an independent study of the Canadian film industry. This study was undertaken from July, 1975, to March, 1976, and has become known as the ‘Tompkins Report,’ because Tompkins was the project manager for the Bureau of Management Consulting which was responsible for the study. As the: entire report will soon be made public, Cinema Canada offers its readers the conclusions of the study. One of the assumptions made by the BMC in its introduction to the report was that the “government is entertaining a possible change in direction on film matters and seeks a third party input before reaching specific positions.” It was well known that Faulkner had started to reevaluate the functions of the different government agencies — The National Film Board, the Canadian Film Development Corp., The CBC — which deal in film matters, and it was expected that the publication of the Tompkins Report would be followed by a major reorganization of the coordination between the agencies, and by a change in emphasis in the relationship between the public and private sectors concerned with filming. What effect the removal of Faulkner from the post of Secretary of State and his replacement by John Roberts will have on this presumed reorganization in now anyone’s guess. Below, the recommendations: Conclusions The purpose of this study was to identify and analyze the composition of the labor force working in the film production industry. Some lack of precision in the results was inevitable, Due to the changing of the cinematographic guards at the Secretary of State Dept., and the importance of the Tompkins Report, we have foregone the usual Film News section. Film News will be back, in a new, more readable format, in issue no. 32. for film production, as an industry, cannot be isolated from a number of parallel industries and activities, notably television, that use similar facilities and require the same categories of labor. Moreover, these categories are not in all respects self-contained, since individuals may work in one capacity or another from time to time, or from one type of film product to another. Statistical data, which are hard to come by, may therefore be misleading if heads are counted under more than one category or subcategory. Entry to the professional associations or unions does not, in most cases, require highly specialized qualifications. Thus the unfortunate fact has to be faced that, since the film industry is amorphous and far from self-contained, it is not possible to arrive at reliable estimates of the number of people in each category and sub-category, or of what they earn. It is believed, nonetheless, that the information presented in this report will serve to bring fresh insights to bear on the complex problems of the labor force in the Canadian film production industry. These are the principal findings: (1) Film, like broadcasting, is an important element in the preservation and development of social and cultural values. The market for Canadian films is restricted by the distribution system, with the result that output and work opportunities are lower than they should be. (2) In broadcasting, there is a growing public belief that there is too much American programming. In a recent Gallup Poll conducted by the Canadian Institute of Public Opinion, 59% of the responders (65% of those under 30) said that Canadian culture is being influenced too much by American television, as against 49% in 1970. (3) The Canadian film industry is still in an adolescent stage, and cannot be compared to or modeled on its counterpart in the United States, with its very different demography, wider and larger markets, and greater capacity to absorb film products. (4) Broadcasting in Canada cannot be fairly compared with broadcasting in the United States, because it is dominated by the CBC which provides, by definition, a national service. American broadcasting is basically a community system only partially hooked up nationally by the three major networks. The need for more locally produced programs has led to the establishment of a flourishing subindustry of ‘program packagers’, which has no counterpart in Canada. (5) Work opportunities for the labor force are directly influenced by the budgets and activities of: o the NFB and the CFDC; e the CBC, the provincial educational television authorities, and the television networks and stations in the private sector; e film production firms in the private sector; and @ advertising agencies; and by the multiplicity of labor agreements between the employers or engagers and the professional associations and unions. (6) The Canadian Radio-Television Commission (CRTC) exercises a direct influence on the volume of film and videotape production in Canada through its rules and regulations governing: e Canadian content in television programming; @ the length and frequency of com mercials; e@ Canadian content of commercials; and o the balance in programming with in and between the public and private sectors. (7) The CBC is by far the largest employer and engager of creative talents, but spends only 11% of its operating budget for that purpose, as compared with, for instance, 35% by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). Only about 6% of CBC programming is commissioned from the private sector. (8) Film production firms in the private sector mostly have very small permanent staffs, which they supplement, as required, by engaging freelance creative and technical talents of all kinds. (9) The private television networks and stations provide only a small October 1976/9