The need for greater flexibility is the central theme that emerged through the initial round of consultations headed by Francois Macerola, who just completed a whirlwind national tour to review Canadian film and television content regulations.

But it is a theme that could put the entire process on a collision course with Canadian talent and craft unions. This, in turn, underlines what will likely be the former Telefilm Canada executive director’s greatest challenge: harmonizing an entire scale of disparate and self-interested views in defining what makes a production Canadian.

According to Macerola, who held discussions between June 4 and 26 with industry representatives in Winnipeg, Regina, Edmonton, Vancouver, Moncton, Charlottetown, Halifax, St. John’s, Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto, there is a great deal of consensus in terms what issues need to be addressed. None has yet questioned the need for Canadian content or the value of the points system.

Some major concerns expressed include the need to marry cultural and industrial concerns, which many feel currently oppose each other; the need for more efficient administration by way of a centralized organization to oversee all certification; more objectivity with regards to evaluating coproductions; and increased marketing and promotional resources.

‘But let’s not forget that they are all looking for flexibility. What they are saying is that the system should permit the production of cultural products with a different degree of cultural density,’ Macerola said following the Toronto consultation.

In other words, the current requirements that productions attain six out of 10 points to receive CAVCO certification and be eligible for federal tax credits will be a primary target in this review. While some groups such as the APFTQ support maintaining 6/10, others are open to a new arrangement.

‘I think we should have flexibility [by way of] a sliding scale,’ says Rudy Buttignol, creative head, documentaries, drama and network at TVOntario.

‘If you hit all the points of being Canadian you get the maximum access to funds. But if you do the minimum amount, in other words, if it’s shot by a Canadian but it’s totally outside of Canada and a non-Canadian subject, perhaps, it can still be recognized as Canadian but doesn’t have as much access.’

Still others challenge anything less than 10/10.

According to ACTRA policy advisor Garry Neil, when broadcasters and producers speak of flexibility, it is usually code for less Canadian-specific elements.

‘When you’re looking at Canadian content and what constitutes a Canadian program, ‘flexibility’ means more foreign actors, more foreign directors, more foreign writers, more foreign technicians. That’s what flexibility is,’ he says.

‘So some are arguing that more flexibility is required, but we are taking a strong position that, in fact, no, a comprehensive holistic approach is required that starts from a pretty fundamental truth: that a Canadian program is one that is produced, created, directed, performed and written by Canadians.’

Indeed, from the very beginnings of the review, ACTRA, which represents 18,000 actors, has been among the most vocal of those with a stake in the outcome. On June 3, just as Macerola was preparing for the first leg of his tour, ACTRA representatives met in Toronto for a national policy conference and emerged with a strongly worded statement on the union’s stand on the issue that echo Neil’s words.

The union has also been using one of its highest-profile members, Paul Gross, who addressed a Toronto members’ conference June 24 to push for a higher level of Canadian representation in dramas. The actor, who starred in, wrote and directed Men With Brooms, was with ACTRA as well when unions and guilds met with Canadian Heritage Minister Shiela Copps in Banff to push for policy revisions to stimulate more Canadian drama

Regardless of such opposing views, there is a consensus that such a review is not only timely, but long over due.

Since the concept of Canadian content was formally defined in 1974 through the introduction of CAVCO’s points system, the industry has undergone so many major changes that today’s version would be barely recognizable by the standards of the day.

These changes have included the rise of private broadcasters, the emergence of cable and pay-TV services and the creation and evolution of virtually every government-based financial incentive for production that the nation has ever known.

In the last seven years alone, the industry has seen the introduction of the Canadian Film or Video Production Tax Credit, the creation of the Canadian Television Fund and the establishment of the Canada Feature Film Fund, plus the introduction of digital broadcast services and an increased dependence on international coproductions.

Add to that, new limits imposed by the CTF in 1999 requiring Canadian productions to accrue 10 of 10 points, reflect Canadian themes and subject matter, be set in Canada and be owned by Canadians, and it becomes clear why there is a need to review.

‘The system has changed a lot,’ says Guy Mayson, EVP at the CFTPA.

‘The market has changed considerably and [the industry’s] goals are very similar in terms of wanting to make sure there’s a healthy industry, but you also want to make sure there’s a lot of choice for Canadian content. It’s timely to have a look at whether the definition is still a relevant one.’

In its formal submission to Heritage Canada (all submissions can be viewed on the Heritage website) the CFTPA devotes a good deal of paper to highlighting what it considers positive changes that came about when the tax credit changed in 1995.

‘They codified a lot of things that were really important in terms of ensuring Canadian producer copyright ownership, producer control of exploitation of the product,’ says Mayson. ‘It was a real attempt to turn the credit system into more of a corporate development system, too, so you were strengthening Canadian companies as well as encouraging Canadian content…we felt that [issue] didn’t get enough attention in the actual discussion document.’

In its submission, as well as those of several other associations, the CFTPA highlights the need to address how animation and documentaries are defined. For example, the current definition for animation has not changed since the late 1980s despite the fact that the way animation is created has changed quite a bit.

According to Canadian Independent Film Caucas, representing 560 primarily documentary filmmakers across Canada, the same is true on the documentary side.

In its formal submission to Heritage, the CIFC states its belief that ‘the haphazard development of the current system has been skewed in favor of genres other than the documentary, particularly drama.’

The CIFC calls for ‘documentary-specific’ modifications to content regulations, making the point a revision of the Canadian content certification system should ‘fully accommodate documentaries as a genre…like drama and animation.’

Other key content review recommendations made by the CIFC include: the nationality of a documentary program should be based on the nationality of the filmmaker and not the subject matter, and that documentary treaty coproductions should continue to count as 100% Canadian content.

In addition, says Sandy Crawley, CIFC’s executive director, elements of the content point system related to production positions are outdated or lack precision.

‘We never use production designers,’ he says, adding that many CIFC members often wear several hats: writer, director, producer and editor. ‘And we should be able to get points for these categories.’

Meanwhile in Quebec, the APFTQ in its preliminary 24-page submission is a leading voice among several saying any modification should lead to as ‘objective’ a definition as possible of Canadian content, one which is not open to subjective interpretation. In the main, the producers say the existing CRTC and CAVCO Cancon definitions ‘are quite good…are appropriate and should in our view be considered as maximum requirements.’

If Canadian content criteria is objectively based, the number of appeals should be kept to a minimum. However, the APFTQ wants appeals handled by a body entirely independent of the certifying authority.

Fundamentally, the producers say any modification to the current definition(s) of Canadian content should take into account: the ownership of the production company and the effective control of the production; the level of prepondance of key creative positions on a production; and an acceptable percentage of expenditures made in Canada.

In absolutely no circumstances, says the APFTQ, should the CTF’s ‘Visibly Canadian’ funding criteria be used for the purposes of determining Canadian content.

The producers have also proposed a single certification agency with regional offices be mandated to evaluate and define Canadian content for all production eligible for production tax credits. In this regard, the APFTQ says CRTC and CAVCO definitions ‘should be identical.’

The APFTQ is also proposing a major overhaul in the definition of admissible production expenses as defined by both CAVCO and the CRTC. ‘For example, excluding legal and accounting fees [from the production budget] makes no sense’ and is essentially a remnant of the lapsed Capital Cost Allowance [tax-shelter] regime when the notion of financial fees effectively meant promoter percentages.

The producers are opposed to CRTC definitions which exclude ‘indirect’ cost of goods such as film stock and recording tape from the cost of a production, as well as certain unscheduled costs not provided for in the preliminary budget.

The deadline for phase two in the content review process is July 31.

-www.canadianheritage.ca