A few weeks ago, some friends and I were sitting around sipping coffee and having the requisite ‘What would you do if you won the $37-million Super 7’ conversation. Among the less than creative and rarely inspiring responses, one friend claimed that before she spent anything on herself she would give 10 friends $100,000 each, present company included of course. ‘But what about the 11th?’ another friend retorted, appreciative that he would be among the chosen ones, but curious where and how she would draw that line. ‘How does friend 10 make a $100,000 and friend 11 make nothing?’ he asked. ‘How would you ever be able to live that down?’

It’s a good question, I thought, and one which I’ve recently contemplated in reference to public funding for film and television, especially since the EIP came up so short on drama in its most recent round, sending hordes of Canadian producers into a raging tailspin. So ‘what about friend 11?’ or in this case, the more than 50% of drama projects rejected by the equity investment fund? Are they entitled to this money? Have they been left out in the cold, justified in crying foul play?

Like the lottery, EIP funding – created by all of us hard-working taxpayers – is found and not earned money. It’s there to assist Canadian television makers to create culturally significant product in an effort to promote Canadian heritage, but I don’t have to remind anyone of that…

The truth is, while the term culturally significant is inarguably subjective, the qualifying criteria and the allocated funds are finite. Which means there will inevitably be those that don’t make the cut, even those that seemingly qualify, or, even better, those that have had audience success in a previous season, as was recently the case with Breakthrough Entertainment’s primetime soap Paradise Falls and Force Four Productions’ MOW Jinnah: Securities (see ‘Producers reel,’ p. 1).

The real problem is not, however, that some projects make it and some don’t, or even that there are insufficient funds, but where that line is drawn and why. If the money wasn’t coming from the taxpayer via Heritage, for example, the culturally significant variable wouldn’t be a factor and popularity with audiences as well as strong broadcaster support would be paramount. Certainly a private investor would value such advantages over prescribed Cancon criteria. And so, of course, would international buyers.

So then, I pose the question, is it more important that Canadian producers make culturally significant product for few to see or marketable programming for popular consumption?

In its drive to put bums in seats, the Canada Feature Film Fund is predicated on the latter, which is particularly exemplified in Telefilm’s latest initiative to establish ‘hurdle rates’ for its investment in feature films (see ‘Telefilm establishes ‘hurdle rates,” p. 1).

But what if for one year all public funding was put on hold? Would Canadian producers be further incited to create commercially viable product? Does Canada have the talent to produce this product? Would Canadian broadcasters and distributors be forced to take bigger risks in production financing? Who would remain in Canada? Who would remain in production?

Where would you draw the line?