Gov’t. quagmire

The federal government’s ongoing soul-search over whether to map out an industrial or cultural pathway for the future of Canadian entertainment continues, with no clear indication of which route it favors.

The recent, unprecedented public salvo from crtc chairman Keith Spicer, attacking the federal government for its interference in his commission’s direct-to-home satellite ruling provides graphic, and for all Canadians rather painful, evidence to suggest that the policy-makers are in greater disarray than they have ever been.

Meanwhile, industry forces, especially in Quebec, are lining up in fierce support of the continuation of Cancon regulations.

The issue goes much further than cuts to institutions and funding programs such as Telefilm Canada and the cbc. Within the mix of federal and provincial agencies, funding mechanisms and institutions, there seems to be the same fundamental problem of two divergent strategies.

The industry vs. culture dilemma entwines itself around the roots of the various organizations’ mandates so that inevitably, both the commercial and cultural missions are frustrated. In the case of funding mechanisms that attempt to be universal, the Canadian-based global producer with highly ‘commercial’ product often finds grief when trying to satisfy all the necessary guidelines without sacrificing international deal points.

At the same time, a producer who is trying to tell a local tale with limited ‘legs’ often finds it hard to satisfy the minimum trigger requirements. The still-in-flux tax credit is a case in point. It is potentially headed towards excluding smaller producers by its non-bankability, and at the same time frustrating bigger companies through ownership stipulations.

If the infrastructure were reorganized in such a way that productions flowed into separate ‘streams,’ with financing mechanisms tailored to commercial products and adjusted in other areas to help less commercial ‘Canadian’ stories to make it to the screen, perhaps some of the endless mandate-searching would be resolved.

Perhaps nowhere else is this cultural/industrial schizophrenia more evident – and more plainly destructive – than in the plight of the cbc itself. Saddled with at least some reliance on ‘commercial’ revenue and therefore pressed into purchasing a serving of high-priced American content, the cbc finds itself hopelessly caught in the middle. This year’s fall launch wherein the new drama series consists of two u.s. shows, with the two new Canadian drama series entries slotted for mid-season replacement, was justifiably criticized. The flaw, of course, runs much deeper that one season’s programming decisions.

Further, and in some respects even more disturbing questions arise from the mega-bucks being spent for broadcast rights to the Olympics (not something that Canadians would have otherwise been deprived of) while 25 producers (20 in the a&e department) -filmmakers like Harry Rasky and Norman Campbell who actually do come up with some alternative programming – are let go.

Canadians would be better served if the cbc were able to focus on more programming like the work done by the outgoing producers, rather than Olympian sportscasting. Canada reaches the world with the stories generated by this department; Rasky’s documentary Prophecy was recently named ‘most promising’ amongst mip product by a sales exec with cbc’s international division.