It has been busier than usual these past few weeks at the Canadian Television Fund. The March 1 deadline was looming, bringing in reams of paperwork from across the country and, on Feb. 14, an unflattering piece in The Globe and Mail touched a raw nerve about documentaries and Canadian content, sending fund boss Sandra Macdonald and her board of directors into full-on damage control mode.

The story described a ‘major war’ between docmakers and CTF, which, according to one unnamed producer, was imposing a ‘censored state’ on Canadians by enforcing its content requirements too strictly and denying funding to ‘insufficiently Canadian’ shows.

CTF was quick to fire back, insisting in a statement that the story was misleading and that all of the allegedly at-risk projects had since secured CTF cash, in some cases by launching appeals.

And yet CTF has struck a special committee of six of its board members – including Ira Levy of Toronto’s Breakthrough Films & Television and Claire Samson of the APFTQ – and by March 16 will make five recommendations to address the thorniest issues involving docs and Canadian content.

Levy would not disclose the recommended changes but says they will help the guidelines ‘catch up with the times.’ The definition of documentaries eligible for funding may be rewritten, however, and, if approved, could go into effect for the 2005/06 funding year.

Macdonald admits there is ‘a growing gap between the ‘classic’ documentary, which the CTF supports, and the lighter factual programming’ now favored by broadcasters. ‘The creation of Broadcaster Performance Envelopes has made this tension more obvious, creating problems both for producers and for the CTF administration,’ she says.

But Macdonald also says her hands are tied by the cultural requirements of the Department of Canadian Heritage, which will again invest $100 million in 2005/06 for the second part of a two-year installment.

‘We have to ask, is this a genre we support? We have to follow the fundamental conditions of the funding from government.’

The 2004/05 funding year was the first year for the broadcaster envelope system, during which CTF approved 399 applications, up almost 29% by the number of titles in the same genres over the year before.

Broadcaster envelopes have been deemed a success, she says, and not just because the CTF gets away from being the bad guy when the funding announcements are confirmed or, as the case may be, denied. Getting away from deadlines means that shows are brought in when they are ready, Macdonald explains, although English-Canadian producers, in particular, are still piling up the applications in the days leading up to the final cutoff.

The new system also means more professional relationships between broadcasters and producers, she adds, noting that broadcasters have to be more committed to particular projects, rather than entering a lot of projects into a funding lottery.

‘The most important benefit of the new system… [is] that there are no more ‘disconnects,” says Macdonald, ‘where a project applied to both the EIP and the LFP and got a yes in one place and a no in the other. Now, if you apply needing both, you get one answer.’

Vancouver docmaker David Paperny, although troubled by the content requirements, agrees that broadcaster envelopes are working. ‘Broadcasters know what they have to spend, and when they greenlight a project, it should get made,’ he explains. ‘It gives tremendous security to the industry.’

The new funding year will bring refinements, Macdonald adds, beyond whatever modifications come from the documentary working committee.

Because of the deadline rush, for instance, broadcasters with $2-million-plus envelopes will now be required to place 75% of the envelopes by Oct. 15. Analysis of this year’s proposals will for the first time also involve ‘serious’ audience information that will reward broadcasters who bring in the ratings. Viewing statistics from Sept. 1, 2003 to Aug. 31, 2004 will impact the recalibrations of envelopes done by the end of March.

Audience will count for 30% of the decision-making criteria in ’05/06, taking a bite out of the ‘historic access’ category, which is 40% or 45%.

‘The big players can expect to stay the big players,’ says Macdonald, adding that broadcasters were given forecasts of their 2005/06 envelopes in December to allow for advance planning.

Some broadcasters that received envelopes last year will be dropped this time because they didn’t use the funding, including MusiquePlus ($239,000 envelope) and The Movie Network ($105,500). The dropped broadcasters represent a small fraction of the overall envelopes last year – 0.36% and 0.34% of the total French- and English-language envelopes, respectively.

Macdonald admits the CTF didn’t anticipate the workload involved in the broadcast envelope system – for instance, underestimating the number of calls from producers looking for information before they applied. That means the CTF will hire more staff to pick up the customer service this year, she says.

According to the CTF, the 2004/05 fund was worth $275 million (including about $125 million from cable and satellite and $45 million from Telefilm Canada’s broadcast fund). This year’s value will be about the same, says Macdonald.

And yet, ultimately, the CTF’s kitty is still not enough to meet the production demand, says Levy. ‘There is a fundamental disconnect between the CRTC’s requirements to air Canadian content and the money out there to do that. You have to have those two pieces of the puzzle connected and working in harmony.’

The new funding cycle will provide the benchmark year for audience tracking for English-language drama, which will help to define the success or failure of programs going forward, says Macdonald. Lobbying, meanwhile, has not yet begun on securing funding for 2006/07, but she believes the federal government is committed to production over the long term.

www.telefilm.gc.ca