Tke/ Tax—Skeitex Yea,s.

By Wyndham Wise

"I think they squandered a grand opportunity and it's largely the fault of producers who were shameless and greedy, people of dismal taste, who were more interested in making deals than films and who made a lot of money for themselves. And so Canadian films do not enjoy a larger reputation anywhere and it's a pity...a lot of damage has been done." — Mordecai Richter, Cinema Canada, May 1985

More feature films were made in a hectic 30—month period from the fall of 1978 to the spring of 1981 than at any other time in our short cinematic history. This essay, originally written as part of a master's degree program at York University, attempts to provide some insight into what happened when Canadian feature—film policy was made up by greedy producers, clueless politicians, bottom—line consultants and inventive lawyers and accountants. Its not apretty We. I TAKE ONE 17 CANADIAN CINEMA (A tout prendre, 1964) from certifiably Canadian and therefore Quebec and Don Owen (Nobody Waved qualified for the benefits of the CCA. Good-bye, 1964) from Ontario gained international recognition for their original The fledgling corporation had some early work, while (Warrendale, 1967) successes under the directorship of Michael pioneered the techniques of direct cinema. Spencer. Don Shebib's Goin' Down The In response to this growing movement, Road, 1970, Bill Fruet's Wedding In White, the federal government of the day 1972, 's Paperback Hero, 1973, initiated certain policy changes. In 1964, and Ted Kotcheff's The Apprenticeship of the cabinet approved, in principle, the Duddy Kravitz, 1974, among others, drew establishment of a loan fund to foster and critical acclaim, if only modest returns at promote the development of a the box office. There was a growing sense Kate Jackson and Elliott Gould in feature-film industry. The cabinet, in of real excitement about the future Alvin Rakoff's Dirty Tricks. accepting the recommendations made by possibilities of the industry; however, it an interdepartmental committee under the soon became apparent that the CFDC, with direction of Guy Robage, the film its small, rotating budget, was proving The year 1978 was a watershed for the commissioner, charged the committee inadequate to the challenge of stimulating Canadian film industry. Several factors fell with the responsibility of preparing growth in production. There was a call into place that year, which created an specific proposals. These proposals were from an ad hoc industry lobby group, the unprecedented growth followed very made a year later by O.J. Firestone, a Council of Canadian Filmmakers (CCFM) quickly by an equally unprecedented professor of economics at the University and others, for an enforceable quota system decline. Tax-shelter financing for of Ottawa, in his Report of Film placed on the major exhibition chains. The feature-length films had existed prior to Distribution: Practices, Problems and CCFM's "Winnipeg Manifesto," issued in 1978. A 60 per cent tax write-off for Prospects. Firestone recommended an October 1973, called for "the development investment in Canadian films was available accelerated capital cost allowance (CCA) of practical methods for the distribution of as early as 1954. As the pre-1978 tax for producers, joint international film Canadian films to the Canadian public legislation did not distinguish between agreements, the establishment of a film including an immediate quota system with films with a significant degree of Canadian development corporation and a film a minimum objective of approximately 20 content and those without, there was no industry advisory committee. Most of his per cent screen time being given to incentive to invest in Canadian productions recommendations were eventually Canadian films." In a related brief as opposed to films made elsewhere. The adopted in one form or another, but never presented to the CRTC by the CCFM idea of actually making features in Canada as a comprehensive package. during the 1974 licence-renewal hearings was simply not considered viable. There for the CBC, Peter Pearson, then the was little history and no feature-film The first step was outlined in the speech chairman of the CCFM, made the point industry to speak of in 1954. Certainly there from the throne in 1965 and proposed that that, "of the 101 completed feature films was the talent and artistic energy to create a Crown corporation be established with the CFDC has invested in over the past five the films, but without a financial base or the responsibly of administering a years, only two have been screened by the production infrastructure in place, this $10-million revolving fund. Legislation to English network." Despite the best efforts talent was forced to work abroad. Directors establish such a corporation was of the CFDC, between the dominance of such as Norman Jewison, Arthur Hiller and introduced in June of 1966 and the the American distributors in the Canadian , nurtured by the CBC in its Canadian Film Development Corp. marketplace and the indifference of the television infancy, left for Hollywood. (CFDC) was brought into being in CBC, very few Canadian feature films were Sidney J. Furie went to work in England February 1968, thus marking a significant being seen by Canadians. and Ted Kotcheff (who became known as change in government policy and the first Commonwealth director) made providing much needed support for an The federal government was not films in the United Kingdom and Australia. underdeveloped private sector. insensitive to the issue of quotas as Gerard They became the lost generation of Coproduction treaties were signed with Pelletier, then secretary of state, indicated Canadian filmmakers. Italy in 1970, the United Kingdom in 1975, in the First Phase of a Federal Film Policy, and the one with France (which had issued in July 1972: "We are aware of the In the early 1960s, a new generation grew originally been signed in 1963) was problem and we have begun studying up through the NFB to replace them. renegotiated in 1974. The CFDC was closely the system of distribution in These young filmmakers were determined charged with the responsibility of Canada and abroad. I can only say that we to remain in Canada and create films administering the coproductions and are...looking into quota systems...and the necessary to build a national cinema. determining which films would be problem of foreign ownership of our

18 WINTER 1999 111 FROM

Donald Sutherland and Suzanne Somers in George Bloomfield's Nothing Personal.

abroad." The report also confirmed what made any money, the investor never had the CCFM had been saying all along: "93 to come up with the total cash investment per cent of total distribution rentals from while profiting from a significant tax the Canadian box office were being paid to saving. Of course, it was in the investors the Hollywood majors." best interest if the film never got released. This tax loophole brought into play a new In 1975, Faulkner negotiated a voluntary type of film entrepreneur—the tax lawyers agreement with the two major theatre and accountants—who could make their chains, Famous Players and Odeon, where way through the complicated tax laws and the chains were to guarantee a minimum "lever" such investments on the basis of four weeks per theatre per year to the original down payment. This new Canadian films, and invest a minimum of breed of "producer" was not concerned $1.7 million in their production. This policy with the priorities of the CCFM and its initiative was accompanied with an "Winnipeg Manifesto." They were deal announcement by John Turner, minister of makers and representatives of large finance, in his budget speech that a new investment groups. They were adept at income tax regulation would allow legally exploiting a grey area over which investors to deduct in one year, against there was very little regulation and no income from all sources, 100 per cent of substantive government policy directive. their investment in certified feature films. By 1974, the abused CCA scheme had This provision was retroactive to include already established the widespread notion film productions begun after Nov. 18, 1974. that Canadian films were made to lose The Faulkner/Turner "two step" is a money and were box-office poison. classic example of the federal government's compromise on arts policy. In response to With the new 100 per cent write-off, four the cultural nationalists, the secretary of films were made at the end of 1975 that, state introduced a watered-down system for the first time, had budgets in excess of of voluntary agreements which were the $1-million mark. This represented the ultimately unenforceable, while the beginning of a trend that would have minister of finance offered tax subsidies significant impact on the growth of the distribution companies and film theatres." which help to create an artificial industry industry. Interestingly, just as Canada was When Hugh Faulkner replaced Pelletier, based on dubious "international" (i.e. making tax-shelter investment in film he promptly commissioned the Bureau of American) standards. more attractive, the U.S. government Management Consulting to do a study of enacted the 1976 Tax Reform Act which the industry in Canada for the arts and The 60 per cent write-off had become a effectively closed the tax-shelter loophole cultural branch of the secretary of state. farce, not unlike Zero Mostel's wheelings for film production. In Canada, the The Tompkins Report, as it became and dealings in Mel Brooks's classic, The tax-shelter game continued to be played, known, reaffirmed Pelletier's earlier view: Producers. Investors were assured of a albeit with slightly tighter rules. As in the "The production of Canadian feature films profit even if the film was a total failure. In United States, the Canadian Department will continue to be constrained until one such dubious financial arrangement, of Revenue was investigating a number of something is done to break the hold of the an investor would put up a small amount film deals and there were a couple of cases foreign-owned distribution chains that of money against an obligation to invest a pending before the courts. In the spring of prevents Canadian films from being seen much larger sum later, but only out of the 1976, the tax laws were once again by larger audiences both in Canada and profits (if any) of the film. If the film never amended in response to industry criticism

TAKE ONE 19 The girls in 's Porky's.

Association, and the indifference of the minister of finance, Jean Chretien, Roberts watered down his proposals in 1978. Despite its lack of success, he recommended that the system of voluntary quotas should be continued and that the CFDC was yet again to receive a broader mandate and a greater infusion of capital. Roberts and Chretien essentially repeated the policy (or lack of same) initiated by Faulkner and Turner in 1975. Roberts couldn't break the dominance of foreign-controlled distribution nor the logjam created by the fact that theatrical exhibition and distribution are within provincial jurisdiction.

Chretien's 1978 spring budget did tackle that the definition of what made a Loans or loan guarantees for filmmakers the problem of revenue guarantees, and Canadian film was too loose. A point ought to be the business of the chartered with legislation enacted in December of system was established by the banks (and not the CFDC)." that year, the regulations were amended Certification Office and the 60 per cent to deny the taxpayer full CCA on that write-off on foreign film investment was The 100 per cent tax shelter stimulated portion of his investment in a certified dropped to 30 per cent. At 60 per cent, it production and the following two years film that was effectively covered by a was still more advantageous in the long saw a resurgence of feature filmmaking. "guarantee." However, much was still left run to invest in foreign efforts than There was renewed confidence in the to the discretion of the Department of Canadian films allowing 100 per cent. The industry with the critical success of films Revenue, and this issue (which translated 1976 federal budget also removed tax like Silvio Narizzano's Why Shoot the to mean that if a film had a distribution incentives from traditional shelters such Teacher?, produced by Fil Fraser, and Who guarantee, then it would be disqualified as airplanes, boxcars and livestock, Has Seen The Wind produced and directed for any CCA benefits) more than any thereby leaving only three shelters- by Allan King (both released in 1977). other became the backbone upon which multiple-unit residential buildings, oil Simultaneously, the new style the artifical tax-shelter "boom" in feature wells and film production. producer/entrepreneurs were making production was created. In a separate but their presence felt and losing, to a certain related move, the Ontario Securities Secretary of State Faulkner reaffirmed extent, the earlier disrepute associated Commission, in a landmark decision, that "the principle focus (for feature-film with the abuses of the 60 per cent ruled that investments in film were production) would be a new mandate for write-off. They developed ambitious securities under the meaning of the the CFDC" and for the first time short financial packages for more than one film province's Securities Act thereby films could be certified for the CCA. The and probed the outer limits of what the requiring film producers to comply with 1976-77 Annual Report from the CFDC, Department of Revenue would allow. provincial securities laws. The active however, makes it clear that his voluntary involvement by two federal government quota system was proving to be a failure: By the beginning of 1977, the feature-film departments (the Certification Office and "Tabulations for the first year's industry was finally struggling to its feet the Department of Revenue), a federal performance of Famous Players under the and there was a new secretary of state in Crown corporation (the CFDC) quota system show that, if the Ottawa. In November of that year, John and provincial securities commissions programme is to be literally interpreted, Roberts presented his Memorandum on emphasized the fact that feature-film this company has not met its Film Policy to the cabinet. It confronted policy was unduly complex and confused. commitment.... As for Odeon...the directly the problem of foreign control of Despite the repeated pronouncements that programme was not a success." In distribution in the Canadian marketplace. the feature-film industry should be addition, the Tompkins Report alerted the It proposed a 10 per cent tax on culturally relevant, the thrust of the 100 government to the dangers "of distribution revenues, with a rebate that per cent CCA and the CFDC was toward committing the CFDC to a role which would have functioned as a quota for more costly "Hollywood-style" films. As duplicates the functions of other Canadian films. Sandra Gathercole, in her the executive committee of the Association institutions," a notion that Faulkner insightful article for Cinema Canada in des Realisateures de Films du Quebec reaffirmed in a Draft Film Policy which he June of 1978 ("The Best Film Policy This noted in a letter to Cinema Canada in May had prepared: "The role of lender or Country Never Had") outlines in great 1978, "This strictly commercial orientation guarantor of loans would be detail what happened to Roberts's which Ottawa proposes for its film policy inappropriate for the CFDC since this Memorandum. Without going into detail is, in fact, confirmed by the permissive would duplicate the function of existing here, as the result of intense lobbying by and quasi-fraudulent 'tax shelter' which is government and private institutions. the American Motion Picture Export just as American as it is Canadian."

20 WINTER 1999 II TO

Tatum O'Neal and Richard Burton in Jules Dassin's Circle of Two. 71-71A —MMINEISIO films, the CFDC moved to create an attention to the business. With the upswing interim pool of money that would act in the economy after the oil crisis of the as "bridge financing" until the early 1970s, the producer/entrepreneurs, producer/entrepreneur could raise the with their corporate partners, tax money in the private sector. In other accountants and lawyers, brokerage houses, words, the corporation took on the role of CFDC and the banking community behind a high-risk banker. The producer/ them, set the stage for the tax-shelter entrepreneur was not slow to take "boom" over the next 18 months. advantage of the situation. In the absence of a federal film policy came the creation The final spark that ignited the "boom" of a full-blown branch-plant industry. was a modest production shot in a The producer/entrepreneurs, without summer camp in Haliburton, Ont. Ivan any history of Canadian cinema (what Reitman's production of Meatballs in the history they understood was the history summer of 1978 (released by Paramount of box-office failures), used the American Pictures in 1979) was the first feature to industry as their model. They were demonstrate that investment in Canadian determined to make "international" films films was viable and lucrative, grossing for the American market, which in the over $70 million worldwide on an original words of film critic John Harkness (who budget of just over a million. Reitman, was then writing for Cinema Canada), was who had previously coproduced the very rather like "trying to compete with Ford successful National Lampoon's Animal This "strictly commercial" orientation by building cars in your basement." House, applied the same formula to his was equally evident in the changes summer camp comedy. And even though invoked at the CFDC that year. Executive Robert Lantos's tax-shelter-financed he is credited with only directing Meatballs director Michael Spencer was replaced by production of In Praise of Older Women, (it was produced by Dan Goldberg and Michael McCabe. Spencer, 10 years at the released in 1978, was a limited critical and financed by Larry Neiss, king of Canadian head of the corporation, was a veteran of commercial success and both Who Has Seen interim financiers, using CCA and CFDC the NFB and respected by the film the Wind and Why Shoot The Teacher? assistance) it was his drive and vision that community at large. McCabe was a career brought respectability back to the industry was instrumental to the film's success. civil servant with a marketing and even though they were both relative investment background. One of his failures at the box office. It was Garth By the fall of 1978 the "boom" was on, previous jobs with the federal Drabinsky's production of Daryl Duke's full-tilt. The Canadian financial community government had been executive assistant The Silent Partner (shot in Toronto in 1977 became aware of the industry and to the minister of Trade and Commerce, and released in 1978) that set the tone and sensitive to the possibilities of tax shelter Mitchell Sharp. His knowledge of style of the new producers and their fuzzy as an attractive vehicle for wealthy Canadian film was limited but he vision of "Hollywood North." Financed individuals and corporations. According understood the investment community only in part (about one-third) by to Toronto tax lawyer Michael Levine in very well. He set about to exploit that tax-shelter investment and without the an article he wrote for the Journal of financial base for the benefit of the assistance of the CFDC, The Silent Partner, Canadian Studies ("I Never Heard Them new-style producer/entrepreneurs. with its clever casting of a major Canadian Call It 'Show Art': The Business Side of star (Christopher Plummer), an American Film Production"): "1979 was a very Despite the earlier warnings of the (Elliott Gould) and a British star (Susannah special year—the honeymoon—for the Tompkins Report and the recom- York), was that special blend of success producer and his financiers in Canada. mendations of Hugh Faulkner, the peculiar to very few Canadian films at the Interim financing was widely available mandate of the corporation was almost time—both critical and commercial. and virtually all film units offered to the immediately changed. From previous Drabinsky's flashy entrepreneurial style (he public were purchased. The result was equity investments in modestly budgeted was 31 at the time) attracted a lot of public that $150 million of feature-film

lAKI 21 By the fall of 1978 the "boom" was on, full—tilt. The Canadian financial community became aware of the possibilities of tax shelters as an attractive vehicle for wealthy individuals and corporations.

production was funded in Canada that year." new provincial securities commisson The CFDC, which led the way with its interim- regulations obliged the producers to spend as financing policy, made this clear in the 1979-80 much (if not more) on a prospectus than they Annual Report: "The 1979-80 year witnessed a would on a script. Then there were the "soft spectacular jump in the production of costs," the money that was not seen on the Canadian feature films. Some 70 Canadian screen but crucial to "closing" the deal. Such motion pictures, with budgets totalling more "soft costs" would include, among other things, than $150 million, were interest on interim financing (sometimes as produced in 1979, compared high as 30 per cent per annum); finder's fees to 40 films with budgets (sometimes as high as 15 per cent); cost of issue amounting to over $60 million in (often $150, 000); legal fees for the prospectus 1978.... The increase in production (often as high as $75,000); overhead expenses; reflects the significant impact of the tax certain publicity expenses; broker's commission incentive offered by the 100 per cent CCA (which ranged from seven per cent to nine per provided to investors in certified films." cent); as well as associate producer fees and the executive producer's fee. Such financial Several chartered banks, trust companies, requirements reduced the number of "players" private interim lenders and individuals all in the industry to a few wealthy individuals, became involved in the financing of the well-connected to the CFDC and the tax-shelter "boom." Brokerage houses would established financial community. In addition, underwrite the public or private issue while the the Department of Revenue's ruling on CFDC lent the money to the producer/ revenue guarantees freed the producer/ entrepreneur until full financing was in place, entrepreneur from the responsibility of making usually at the end of the year. The issue itself, a marketable product while allowing him to act either a public prospectus or private as his own sales agent, thereby creating another offering memorandum, source of revenue "off the top" of any future constituted a sizable distribution deal. amount of "legal art" Michael McCabe's aggressive, personalized style and the of leadership at the CFDC ran roughshod over the cultural nationalists ('it's the doubters and small thinkers that have kept the industry back") while lavishing praise on the efforts of the producer/entrepreneurs ("Bill Marshall is one of the leaders because he says 'I want to be judged by world standards. —) Critics charged that McCabe was destroying one of the most distinctive cinemas in the world, while Bill Marshall claimed that producers were not "guardians of Canadian culture and national identity." Robert ° Lantos added to the controversy by telling a Toronto Star reporter that as far as he was concerned, "no Canadian director is worth much." With the blessing of the CFDC, the independent producer/ entrepreneurs became the leading spokesmen/ power brokers within the industry.

The major problem that the producers of such dreadful films as Circle of Two, Dirty Tricks, City on Fire, Nothing Personal, Agency faced was that of trying to create an industry without the know-how or the production infrastructure in place. In competing with the Americans, as they were encouraged by the CFDC to think they could, they faced the insurmountable task of competing with one of the most voracious and culturally imperialistic industries in the world which had been in existence for more than 70 years. International Cinema Corp.'s Canadian/French coproduction of Louis Malle's Atlantic City, 1980, and Peter O'Brian's production of 's The Grey Fox (released in 1983) stand out as exceptions that proved k the general rule that the tax-shelter films made between 1978 and 1982 were horrible, terrible and never to be seen again.

It is perhaps worth briefly examining Bear Island, 1979, since this film is generally regarded to be the worst-case scenario for the industry. Produced under the Canadian/U.K. coproduction treaty, and therefore approved for certification by the CFDC, Bear Island had the dubious distinction of being the most expensive "Canadian " film during this period. Dubious, because the film was an ICC's Canada/France coproduction of Louis Malle's Atlantic City (above) and Phillip unqualified failure, described by Variety as Borsos's The Grey Fox (left) stand out as exceptions that proved the general rule "dull," "feeble," "trite" and "may prove to that the tax-shelter films were horrible, terrible and never to be seen again. be useful when the marketplace hits a dull patch." Producer Peter Snell, an expatriate Canadian who had some success in the investment. This ripple effect lasted well the capacity to administer the CCA as English film industry, stated that his aim beyond the tax-shelter period and closed tightly as it should have been was "to sell the picture on the American the doors on many legitimate filmmakers administered." market." To this end he convinced Selkirk with modest, sensible projects. Holdings to put up $3 million, and he The producer/entrepreneurs were not secured $1.8 million from the Toronto The CFDC slogan for the Cannes Film inexperienced, as some apologists for their Dominion Bank, $1.2 million from the Bank Festival in 1980 was "Canada Can and failures have claimed, simply greedy. of Montreal,.$3.3 million from Columbia Does." In fact, Canadian films couldn't Aided and abetted by the CFDC, they Pictures, and $200,000 from the CFDC as an and didn't. After 18 months of intense walked away from their films with a great interim loan. The $9.3-million budget was activity, the bubble burst. Although the deal of money "off the top," no matter used to secure the services of an 1980-81 Annual Report offers a rosy how much the film lost at the box office. international cast (Vanessa Redgrave, picture (some 50 features were produced They demonstrated an almost callous lack Richard Widmark, Lloyd. Bridges, in 1980 with total budgets estimated at of concern for the damage they were doing Christopher Lee, Donald Sutherland), a $165 million) by May 1980, the to the future of the industry, preferring second-rate British director (Don Sharp) tax-shelter "boom" was effectively over. instead to sell out the cultural values of and a screenplay based on the Alistair It began with bad press from Cannes their country for the lure of easy money on MacLean novel. Canadian actors appeared concerning films such as Fantastica, Out the American market. in Bear Island, but there were no Canadian Of The Blue and Mr. Patman. The general characters. British Columbia made an view was that the industry in Canada Alvin Rakoff, an expatriate who was hired appearance as Norway and six million had grown too quickly and that, on a to direct City On Fire and Dirty Tricks, two Canadian dollars went into an international world scale, its product was inferior—the tax-shelter "bombs," made the point very embarrassment. The film failed to sell on quality of cheap Hollywood imitations. clear in an interview with Cinema Canada, either the Canadian or the international Of the film units offered in 1980, in January 1980. "You'll have developed market and now occasionally makes an somewhere between $40 and $70 million an industry purely dependent on appearance on late-night TV. were left unsold at year's end. The entire tax-shelter money. No self-expressive edifice of the tax-shelter financing of directors or filmmakers will have evolved All this would have been irrelevant and feature films was in jeopardy, largely, but and the moment that 'external' thing- mercifully forgotten but for one important not wholly, the fault of producer money—is gone and there is nobody factor—the bank's involvement in the irresponsibility and a deepening who will have achieved worldwide financing of this disaster. Banks in Canada, recession that would take its toll in the recognition, the industry has to collapse." with their Scots/Presbyterian background, early 1980s. Ian McLaren, director of And it did. One hundred per cent traditionally looked askance at most cultural industries for the Department of tax-shelter financing continued into 1982, aspects of the entertainment business, but Communications, summed it up this way but production in 1981 was down almost with the CFDC's involvement as an in 1981: "What the film industry has gone by half from the peak in 1979. interim lender, they too became dir- through in the last two years has been ectly involved with film financing. disastrous and the state of the industry After a good deal of public money had been Consequently, when they got "burnt" by now is unbelievable, just unbelievable. spent and a great deal of bad will created in their experience with Bear Island, it sent a There is no investment out there. It's the private sector, the Canadian film ripple throughout the financial really a bad scene, and I feel the industry had come back full circle. The community, reconfirming widely held producers brought it on themselves. I dilemma created by Faulkner/Turner in suspicions that film was a bad also think that government did not have 1975 and Roberts/Chretien in 1978 was one

II TAKE ONE 23 CANADIAN CINEMA: at,& taix— skeltv,r y eaits

of sustained and determined avoidance of $35-million Broadcast Fund shifted the impose a personal vision on the film at the central issue of control over domestic focus of the CFDC (renamed Telefilm hand. It is ironic, and almost tragic, that distribution and exhibition. The 1981-82 Canada in 1984) to made-for-TV Don Owen and Claude Jutra, two directors Annual Report from the CFDC makes the productions, a tacit acknowledgment of the whose fresh and original films in the early point once again: "While the corporation theatrical distribution blockade. As Sandra 1960s were the raison d'etre for the creation has been effective in stimulating production, Gathercole notes in "The Best Film Policy of the CFDC, became the victims of a badly on-going problems in domestic distribution This Country Never Had": "The only mismanaged film policy. Canadian writers have restricted Canadian audiences for indication that the authors (of the new and actors fared no better. According to Canadian films." With production off policy) recognized a problem with the ACTRA, less than one per cent of the $150 drastically and investor confidence all but performance of the CCA is unintentional. million invested in Canadian films in 1979 destroyed, the tax laws were again modified In a list of critically successful Canadian found its way to Canadian writers, in 1982 to reflect an accumulated 100 per films, the hundreds of productions while talented actors filled in as sup- cent write-off over two years (50 per cent financed under the CCA are conspicuous port for aging American stars, the each year). Pay TV was the big issue of the by their absence." producer/entrepreneurs fearing that day and the tax-shelter years began to fade Canadian talent wouldn't guarantee, at like a bad memory. Francis Fox, minister of It is perhaps appropriate that we can draw minimum, an American TV sale. communications, initiated a new policy that some conclusions from an article ("The emphasized TV production and virtually Coffee-Boy Syndrome") by Allan King, The justification most frequently put ignored the feature-film industry. And the one of Canada's most respected forward by the CFDC, producers, filmmakers and a economists and policymakers for this survivor of the tax- travesty was that at least employment shelter years, who wrote was generated for crews, technicians in the Journal of Canadian and the laboratories. E.R.A. Consulting Studies (Spring 1981): Economists, in its report on the "We watch Mr. Michael performance of the CCA for the secretary McCabe spend a couple of state in 1979, concluded that, "Since its of years at the CFDC inception in 1974, it is reasonable and and express the view conservative to estimate that the CCA that films like Why Shoot regulations and the related influx of the Teacher? and The investment into the feature-film industry Apprenticeship of Duddy have created approximately 550 man Kravitz are not really years of direct employment.... In worth doing because conclusion, it appears that the economic films like Benji are doing benefits derived from the 100 per cent much better here in CCA program far outweigh the costs." Canada than our own The fact that this relegated Canadians to product.... When [he] their familiar role of "drawers of water says that what he did and hewers of wood" seemed not to was to create a film worry the consultants and certainly not industry the two years the majority of the public or politicians. he was in office, and I hear other people However, it should be pointed out that agreeing that was the did thrive and grow Christopher Plummer in Daryl Duke's case, I find it all a little laughable. I wonder into a major talent during those years The Silent Partner. what the rest of us have been doing for the and Ivan Reitman, whose film Meatballs past 25 years? Those of us who have been led the way, developed into one of making features for the last 10 years, what Hollywood's most successful have we been doing in all that time?" producer/directors. It is also un- The Silent Partner was that special deniable that certain producers cheated It is certain that the majority of tax-shelter on Canadian certification requirements producer/entrepreneurs were not while others inflated the costs of blend of success peculiar to very prepared to deal with the established production to their own advantage. A Canadian directors of merit. Major handful of unscrupulous tax-shelter talents such as King, Robin Spry, Don producer/entrepreneurs, with the few Canadian films of the time— Shebib, Don Owen, Peter Pearson and assistance from short-sighted policy- Zale Dalen were ignored in favour of makers and indifferent politicians took directors with much less experience, or a distinctive, yet fragile national cinema, both critical and commercial. worse, imported hacks for certified and in less than a year-and-a-half turned it Canadian coproductions. The producer/ into a full-blown, branch-plant entrepreneurs didn't want troublesome industry. A great deal of damage was directors who were likely to attempt to done. III