West shut out by CAFDE policies

I am writing in regard to the article ‘Distribs band together’ (Playback, Aug. 29, p. 4) regarding the reformation of nacfvd (National Association of Canadian Film and Video Distributors) to cafde (Canadian Association of Film Distributors and Exporters/l’Association canadienne des distributeurs et exportateurs de films). This letter is not to comment on the facts presented in the article, which were quite accurate, but to comment on the criteria for membership in cafde.

We at North American Releasing agree that export is a key element in the motion picture industry, and deserves emphasis. North American Releasing has been a producer and significant player at most international markets. We are the only company west of the Ontario border that has been invited to join the prestigious afma.

I was, however, surprised and saddened to learn that membership in cafde is limited to companies that have established lines of credit with Telefilm Canada. As an emerging distribution company, North American Releasing would be unable to join cafde because we don’t have a line of credit with Telefilm. I do not understand why it is necessary to line up at the Telefilm trough in order to belong.

cafde’s press release, and the subsequent article in Playback, promotes Canadian distribution and promises to represent the concerns of English Canada, but cafde’s policies isolate Western Canada.

As you are aware, there are currently no Telefilm recognized distribution companies based outside of Toronto and Montreal. How can this organization be of national scope when membership clearly discriminates against Western-based distributors?

North American Releasing is ‘an important motion picture exporter,’ which should be included in cafde. As this organization will be making recommendations to Telefilm, and supposedly will act on a national basis, I feel that it is vital for cafde to have representation from this coast, especially given that this is the largest production site in Canada.

As cafde executive director Dan Johnson is quoted as saying: ‘Canada is a little sandbox of a market. It’s the stupidest thing in the world to sit there and have these divisionsÉ.’

Meanwhile cafde, through its membership restrictions, now fragments English Canada.

allan locke,

north american booking,

vancouver.

Beacon clarifies

Malcolm Silver’s article, ‘New investment options in the works for film and tv industry’ (Playback, Aug. 15, p. 11), is a well-done summary of the ‘new trends and changes to the market’ for investment in film, television and video. As the organization which pioneered production service deals, Beacon appreciates his description of the merits and advantages to investors of this form of investment.

However, we would like to clarify certain aspects of the article as they apply to The Beacon Group’s Production Services Funding Program.

When funds are distributed to investors at a date certain in the future (and used by them to repay their investment loans), the distribution does create a negative adjusted cost base. This is the only tax consequence of that distribution.

Since our current Beacon Seven offering has been grandfathered so that the new (Feb. 22 federal budget) rules do not apply, this negative cost base does not have to be dealt with from a tax standpoint until the investor disposes of the investment.

In addition, our Beacon Seven structure does not provide liquidity by ‘giving the investor the option to sell his interest.’ There is no sale provision built in to our structure; if this option had been included, Revenue Canada may not have provided us with an Advance Tax Ruling.

a. grant allan,

president and chief operating officer,

the beacon group of companies,

vancouver.

No leg left to stand on

Recently, I submitted to one of Canada’s preeminent production companies a fully developed miniseries project with a view to ascertaining their interest in its production.

Now, I realize that I’m as susceptible to being schmoozed as the next guy, but I gather that they did actually like it – at least enough that it didn’t come back out the door as soon as it went in – and when it did return to me there were several comments of appreciation (verbal only, I’m afraid) attached regarding the dynamics and dramatic merit of the project.

The project’s problem, according to the head of development, was simply that, ‘It wouldn’t have legs in the States.’ A fair comment, perhaps, as the project certainly concerns Canada and Canadian themes.

To me, however, the whole process raises an interesting dilemma in relation to Telefilm Canada’s recent shift toward favoring (along with other projects) Canadian-based stories and themes.

As I understand it, development or production funds from Telefilm for a project (the project’s merit assumed) can only be triggered in the presence of a letter of interest from a producer or a distributor. Since virtually all producers and distributors work within the identical economic environment, are they not all constrained to ask the same question, ‘Will it have legs in the States?’ This would seem to me to act fairly effectively to filter out projects whose character is uniquely Canadian.

I’m not particularly in favor of doing stories for the sole reason that they are Canadian. I think there is a requirement for a dramatic component as well as for the story to speak to the wider human experience that is transborder anyway.

I am, however, puzzled a little as to how uniquely Canadian stories can ever be made if they must invariably meet the qualification of ‘having legs in the States.’

As you may know, the u.s., apart from its undoubtedly laudable qualities, does rather enjoy a remarkably parochial perspective on the world.

Michael j. reynolds,

toronto.