The production community is thanking its lucky stars that John Manley won’t be the next prime minister of Canada. The odds are good, however, that Manley will be the next finance minister, so there is really very little to be thankful for. After all, it was as minister of finance that Manley lopped $50 million over two years from the Canadian Television Fund.

The question now is how committed will Paul Martin, the next PM, be to Canadian film and TV production? Will he leave such priorities to the discretion of his finance minister, who is doing a decent enough job steering Canada’s economic interests, or force the issue on Manley?

To be sure there will be no guaranteed respite in the funding crisis come February 2004 when Martin is set to take over in Ottawa. February coincidentally is also the deadline for CTF applications. So, unless Martin is more committed to production in Canada than to, say, restoring Canada-U.S. relations or fighting terrorism or dealing with heath care, the window to boost the CTF will already be closed.

This means that under the current framework, CTF funding, if it is restored at all, will not trickle down to producers until 2005, at best.

Luckily, the CTF is not entirely counting on Manley and Martin to work it out. The funder is convening its board of directors this summer with the goal of figuring out the mess with the very good possibility of releasing new guidelines in the fall.

Many of you will remember that the CTF released new guidelines last fall with a similarly expressed goal, but, hey, why dwell on the past?

Producers have long insisted that what the CTF needs most is consistency and predictability. Since productions can take years to finish, knowing what to expect over the long term is a critical component to any type of film and TV fund. New, entirely revamped funding guidelines every year doesn’t exactly meet those parameters, but, to be fair, the current crisis is not the fault of the CTF. Finding out that $25 million has been cut from the fund weeks after the application deadline, as happened this year, tends to undermine the niggling problem of consistency and predictability as much as anything. It is like finding out your car has no tires a week into your road trip. There’s not much to do but thumb a ride home.

One of the more practical solutions on the table will be to shift the fund into a model that allows broadcasters the freedom to choose how and when they will trigger production. The idea of dedicated broadcaster envelopes has been floating around for a while. With the level of uncertainty and little chance of miracle cures, the broadcaster envelope’s time has come.

Aside from rewarding a network’s ability to attract audiences to Canadian programming with more money, broadcast envelopes need not be tied to any deadlines. This would allow broadcasters to commission new programs as more money becomes available. In other words, producers and broadcasters will know what to expect well in advance and be able to anticipate what resources will be available to them.

It may not work, but, hell, if not, they can always change it again next year.