The Canadian Television Cable Production Fund License Fee Program is debating a ‘Distinctively Canadian Programming Incentive’ clause for inclusion in next year’s program guidelines. The incentive plan would require a reduction in funding levels across the board, while projects deemed ‘distinctively Canadian’ would be supported at ’97/98 levels.

To capture the incentive, projects would have to meet a number of additional criteria beyond nine out of 10 cavco points, such as underlying rights held by Canadians, a Canadian shoot and the majority of the on-screen setting a Canadian city. Eight, nine and 10 Cancon projects that do not fulfill the extra criteria would continue to be supported but at the reduced level. (The percentage reduction remains undetermined until the size of the ctcpf is established in February.)

This is one of a number of proposed ’98/99 guideline revisions laid on the table for industry input during the Dec. 1-11 ctcpf national discussion tour. The adjustments are aimed at spreading the funds to the most benefit over the broadcast landscape, increasing the quantity and quality of distinctly Canadian production and viewers.

Not only would the lowered base contribution free up more lfp money for more projects, but it is also a move to secure a permanent federal commitment to the ctcpf, says executive director Garry Toth.

‘The silver bullet in making our request distinct from the many other demands for funding placed on the government is that we are a cultural programming fund.’

The consensus was clear at the Toronto stop of the tour that the ctcpf renewal is imperative.

While producers and broadcasters were quick to applaud the administration’s difficult task of balancing high funding demands with limited supply of resources, some of the proposals met with mixed reaction.

cftpa chair Linda Schuyler calls the distinctively Canadian bonus a strong incentive for producers and broadcasters to bolster high Cancon production, but some producers note this comes at the expense of other projects.

Documentary and performing arts producers raised a potential problem for their genres of programming which often require shoots outside the country. Toth says the ctcpf is in discussions with cavco to look at a more flexible point system for documentaries.

Nelvana’s Michael Hirsh addressed the concern that animated projects would have trouble meeting some of the Canadian setting criteria and have difficulty achieving nine out of 10 Cancon because of the amount of work generally required from Asian companies.

Toth took note of Hirsh’s proposal for a separate conference between animation producers, the ctcpf and cavco to look at the point system disadvantages faced by animation in comparison to live action and consider some flexibility in terms.

A prorating of the bonus as projects moved up the Cancon scale was suggested.

The call was also made for information and magazine-style programs, which are often 10-plus in Cancon and meet all the guidelines, to be eligible for funding.

A Telefilm proposal to cap Equity Investment Program support for one-hour drama series at $3.5 million ($2 million for half hours) for 13 eps sparked debate as the cap would not be prorated upward for orders above 13. Numerous industry players pointed out that broadcasters would be more inclined to license two different series and pick up $7 million in financing rather than place a 22-ep order of a single series at $3.5 million

‘Don’t penalize success,’ said Alliance Broadcasting ceo Phyllis Yaffe of the proposal that after two years series renewals would face reduced caps as follows: 5% less for cycle three, 10% for the fourth round, 15% for cycle five, to a maximum of 65 episodes.

Schuyler recognizes that Telefilm is addressing the concern that big-budgeted series are eating up too much of the funding pie but says this ‘anti-series, anti-broadcasting’ proposal is not the answer.

‘I am sympathetic but we need a few strong, high-profile Canadian series running from fall to spring on each of the broadcasters to anchor the schedule and hold viewers. Then audiences will be drawn to the six packs and specials and mows.’

The cbc, she adds, is particularly reliant on the ctcpf to Canadianize its primetime and a continuous crop of new series would cause havoc to its schedule and viewership.

The argument was made that Canadian series running only September to December could not develop audience following nor compete against the 22-ep standard of American series.

‘The renewal of this fund is based on getting increased quality and quantity of product on tv and more viewers,’ says Schuyler. ‘If we do not spend the money wisely this year so the fund achieves these objectives it could have a negative impact on getting a long-term commitment from the government.’

While some producers and broadcasters share the rationale that programs edging close to the 65-ep cut-off should be able to pick up international sales and generate revenue through syndication, Schuyler questions the future of conspicuously Canadian series like North of 60 that deliver high audiences in Canada but are not strong sells on the international market and are entirely dependent on the ctcpf.

Another consideration pointed out is that producers may be forced to become more dependent on international marketability of series, fostering more industrial, homogeneous product.

LFP proposes second application date

To counteract the ‘one-day sale notion’ created by the mad rush when the lfp gates open April 1, 1998, the phasing in of additional application windows over a two-year period is proposed. For the ’98/99 fiscal, 10% of the lfp’s funds could be reserved for a second application date, likely Oct. 1.

In future years the funding ratio and number of application dates could change as companies and broadcasters adjust their business plans to the revised app procedure, says Toth.

The intent is to capture projects initiated later in the year, particularly docs and other genres that get trampled by series and dramas in the April 1 window. Toth noted that it should also reduce the necessity for broadcasters to occasionally over-license in the hope that some projects tap into funds.

Although response to the split application dates was supportive, some concerns were raised.

With oversubscription a given, projects missing out on the April 1 round could delay principal photography and be first in line for Oct. 1, leaving little room for new projects to access the second portion.

John Panikkar, director, programming at Discovery Channel, asked the lfp to consider making available a higher percentage of funds for the second application date. He pointed out that the bulk of his commissioning takes place at Banff in June so projects miss out on the April 1 deadline. Docs are reserved 20% of the total lfp envelope, and with only 10% of the fund available for the second cycle, dollars available for docs could be minimal.

EIP licence trigger proposals

Currently an English- and French-language licence can be combined to meet the threshold and trigger the eip, but a proposed change would make only one language of broadcast eligible.

History Television is developing numerous coproductions with Canal d and tfo where the combining of French- and English-language licence fees is the key incentive, says vp programming Norm Bolen.

‘We couldn’t do high-quality English-French versioning without being able to combine licence fees to make the threshold because the budgets are larger on some of these projects,’ he says. ‘At a time when we are trying to build networks between French- and English-speaking producers it is important we do not put constraints on these relationships.’ He adds that English versioning is important for French producers to make sales on the international market.

The lfp is also considering a number of adjustments aimed at making the program more flexible. Taking into consideration that many provincial agencies announce commitments a few weeks after the lfp gates open, projects with a piece of funding not yet secured could potentially have funds earmarked as long as core document requirements are met and the producer can show a viable financing alternative (e.g. their own investment or deferrals negotiated) if the final financing falls through.

‘Earlier-than-application’ principal photography would be allowed for special cases and certain genres such as docs and animation.

As for feature films, the eip proposals called for revised contributions to two times the licence level up to $500,000 for an English-language feature, four times the licence fee level up to $500,000 for French-language films. The question Telefilm’s Bill House asked the industry reps is whether less money should be spent on more projects or more money on fewer films.

Most of the producers called for the higher caps.

‘Do we want quantity or quality – I prefer quality,’ says Victoria Fusca, director of development at Stornoway Productions. If caps are lowered, budgets and production values would likely drop and it becomes more difficult to attach the talent required to attract audiences in Canada and buyers overseas. ‘It’s a domino effect.’

Alliance’s Ted East says with lower caps the production of larger films is unlikely.