Canada needs more flexible film copro treaties to compete effectively in the global marketplace, say film players in both official languages.

‘The world has become global, and film production is no exception,’ says Niv Fichman, president of Toronto’s Rhombus Media. ‘You have to look to the future.’

Fichman has pioneered landmark copros The Red Violin and Silk, and has just wrapped Blindness – a copro with Brazil and Japan starring Julianne Moore – which shot in Uruguay, Brazil and Guelph, ON. Toronto’s Don McKellar penned the adaptation of Portuguese author José Saramago’s novel, while Brazil’s Oscar-nominated Fernando Meirelles directs.

Having more flexible treaties ‘would make Canada more of a player in the international game,’ says Fichman, and his counterparts in Canada’s French-language market agree.

Canada definitely needs to loosen up a bit, according to Martin Paul-Hus of Montreal’s Amérique Film, which coproduced the feature Restless with Israel, Germany, France and Belgium. ‘When dealing with the treaties, rules are applied way more rigidly in Canada than in other countries,’ says Paul-Hus. ‘We aren’t willing to bend, while other countries apply the rules more loosely.’

The key areas where producers are seeking more flexibility include: the ability to cast marquee-value international stars and directors from outside the coproducing countries in order to generate presales; shooting on location outside of the coproducing territories; and access to financing from a country not directly involved in the production.

As one example, Fichman points to the copro treaty with Germany that allows for a writer from a non-coproducing partner to participate. ‘It would be great if all treaties had that clause,’ he notes.

Paul-Hus is concerned that current rules have cost Canada its once-stellar renown as an international leader in copros. ‘Canada is acquiring the reputation that we are difficult to work with, and in large part that is because we are using coproduction agreements that are outdated,’ he explains.

So it’s back to the drawing board for Canadian Heritage (author of Canada’s 49 copro treaties covering 53 countries), which is already on the case in consultation with Telefilm Canada, which administers the treaties.

Heritage wasn’t allotted the additional $30 million per year for copros it had requested in the recent federal budget, but Telefilm exec director Wayne Clarkson remains hopeful that the Crown corporation will administer a separate copro fund in the future.

‘We will continue to work with the industry to see where we can find the money and see how we can position it for the next budget,’ Clarkson tells Playback. ‘We have our homework to do.’

Clarkson understands the producers’ position that the content of the treaties is just as important as new coin, because without flexible treaties, extra cash won’t help in the often complex copro negotiations. In many ways, the initial copro investment is like seed money.

‘International coproductions provide mass economic benefit to this country with only a modest investment of taxpayer dollars, while levering enormous private dollars from outside this country,’ says Clarkson.

So the arduous process has at least begun in Ottawa.

Heritage is currently ‘working on a policy framework which will serve as the cornerstone to guide any future updating of coproduction agreements,’ says Jean-Pierre Gauthier, director, film and video policy and programs. ‘This is the first piece required before we can engage in modernization of the treaties.’

Achieving ‘official’ copro status also often determines the fate of an independent film in a global environment where the trend is to include more financial players and less risk per company or country. And virtually every Canadian film is ‘independent’ (aka not a Hollywood studio picture), so the treaties go right to the heart of the problem.

Financing a film above $10 million in Canada alone is extremely difficult, and the country’s producers occasionally want to make films with bigger budgets and marquee talent – including American talent.

Fichman is quick to point out that the current system won’t allow him to truly coproduce with renowned American independent producers such as Christine Vachon (Boys Don’t Cry), which is ‘ludicrous.’

Fichman confesses to what Canadian producers are usually reticent to admit – that they would like to work with Americans as well as Europeans.

‘It would make Canada more of a player in the international game,’ Fichman maintains. Quebec producers agree.

‘Any American contribution to a Canadian film is looked at with suspicion [in the Canadian copro system] and you are excluded from most funds, whereas the European Convention allows for 30% participation from outside the European Union in the form of a director or financing from the United States,’ explains Amérique’s Paul-Hus.

‘I understand why we are suspicious and want to protect Canadian content from a U.S. invasion, but the reality is if you want to access American talent and financing, it is much easier to do so if you coproduce within Europe,’ Paul-Hus continues. ‘It makes Canada less competitive and it is one more thing stacked against us.’

It is worth noting that both French- and English-Canadian producers are in agreement with Telefilm for a change, and that all seem in sync with Heritage. So the question becomes how to change the treaties.

Telefilm’s Danny Chalifour, director of industry development operations (including international affairs), explains that a macro framework is fundamental as a starting place.

‘Before getting into the nitty-gritty of specific agreements and what changes we would like to make, Heritage is first reviewing the policy objectives of international coproductions,’ says Chalifour. He says broad-strokes questions being asked include: ‘Are we developing a cultural or industrial policy, or seeking a balance between the two?’

Loosely translated, ‘cultural’ means points required at the top end of the existing 10-point CAVCO system, while ‘industrial’ means fewer points, or what government refers to as more ‘commercial’ films because there are fewer Cancon requirements. Chalifour suggests a mix might be possible.

‘Once the policy framework is in place and the minister and Cabinet are onside, they can implement a strategy of which country we approach first,’ Chalifour explains.

Whatever the length and complexity of the process, even Clarkson concedes that ‘We need to negotiate changes to make the agreements more flexible and adaptable.’

Fichman says that the complexity of the system is just one more reason why he believes that in a new system, each potential copro should be examined individually.

‘We have to go on a case-by-case basis, where the relative Canadian merits are judged individually with a much looser standard,’ Fichman offers. ‘I think what the system is trying to protect or prevent is a diversion of Canadian public funds from non-Canadian films, which I agree with, of course.

‘But if you go on a case-by-case basis, and you see where a script comes from, who the producer is, who the team is, you’ll get an overall picture before you judge. Each film has its own individual genealogy.

‘The problem with the system now is films I work on come up against a glitch because it doesn’t fit the same restricting formula.’