Heritage opts for tinkering, rather than overhaul of TV and film financing funds

The federal Heritage ministry has signaled that it’s not about to make major changes to the way grant money is doled out to the country’s television and movie producers. Instead, in a report released in mid-September, the ministry set out a roadmap for a go-slow policy that would increase communication between agencies, but leave the present system fairly much intact. CTF endorses status quo for guidelinesThe board of the Canadian Television Fund decided earlier this week to make few changes to its guidelines for 2001-02. CTF chair Richard Stursberg says the status quo will also continue for co-production arrangements and regional bonus rules. Technical updates and application deadlines will be posted on the CTF’s web site late in October.The new Canadian Heritage report, prepared by PriceWaterhouseCoopers, is a response to an earlier PWC study of the production financing system and a KPMG Consulting study into the Canadian Television Fund (CTF) (CCR, April 27/00). The ministry has adopted nine of the recommendations of the reports that would increase co-operation and information sharing between players in the film financing sector. (see story this issue) This month’s Heritage report also shies away from recommending any new money for the production industry. Instead, the department, with responses from Telefilm Canada, the CTF, the Canadian Audio-Visual Certification Office, and the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, simply agrees on ways of sharing information. Heritage minister Sheila Copps was in Sydney attending the Olympics and unavailable for comment. The Canadian Alliance’s heritage critic, Deborah Grey, says the report does little to prevent abuse of the funding system. "The responses of the different agencies that are cited in the report sound too good to be true," Grey told Canadian Communications Reports. "I don’t see anything in there that is a guarantee that there won’t be rip-offs. The systems partners and the councils sound great, but there’s nothing in there that really protects the taxpayers of Canada." Concerns over how television and film production funds are doled out have been raised by the Auditor General, who called for a re-examination of how these private and public sector funds are administered. That report prompted Canadian Heritage to respond with its own review, authored by KPMG Consulting and released last winter. The Cinar scandal has raised the political stakes on this issue even further, and escalated criticism over how Telefilm and other agencies manage production funds. At stake are millions of dollars in federal money, combined with mandatory contributions from cable and DTH subscribers. In all, the CTF receives $50 million from the Cable Production Fund, $50 million from Telefilm Canada, and $100 million from Canadian Heritage. Telefilm Canada administers $100 million through its Equity Investment Program, while the CTF distributes the rest through its Licence Fee Program. Governance of CTF not an issue Because PWC’s mandate was to reply only to the reports authored by itself and KPMG, it ignores most of the recommendations of a separate study on the structure and operation of the CTF. Commissioned by the CTF, that study called for a clear separation between the television fund and Telefilm, and a radical shake-up in how the fund is managed. That report, written by François Colbert of Montreal and David Silcox of Toronto, described the CTF as an agency in a state of confusion, as the boards of Telefilm and the CTF seek to set policy for the agency. Specifically, it recommended that the CTF board be reduced from 16 to 11 members, that Canadian Heritage appoint all board members through nominations, and that the CTF’s conflict of interest guidelines be made stronger. The CTF is currently in the last year of its funding mandate. The two authors also concluded that the fund had become "the servant of two masters". "As one person we spoke to suggested, there is no logic to this way of doing things: no administrative logic, no political logic, no economic logic, no employment logic, and no market logic – the underlying structure is wrong, whether as a business model, as a model of a public agency, or as a reflection of normal human behaviour patterns," Colbert and Silcox wrote. But Heritage’s recent reply to the KPMG and PWC reports dealt more with communication than with structure. For example, it called on the funding agencies and CCRA to take a coordinated approach in responding to technology and convergence issues related to TV, film and new media. It also recommended that a "Systems Council" be set up within the next two months that could help coordinate information sharing between the various parties. Other recommendation in the report that have been accepted by Canadian Heritage include: creating a system-wide monitoring process that would compare financial and compliance information on productions. increasing transparency by publishing, at least annually, the list of productions that have been certified or have received funding and the assessment criteria. developing common practices to ensure effective communication and information sharing among partners and consistent, equitable treatment of applicants.

Heritage opts for tinkering, rather than overhaul of TV and film financing funds

News | 09/28/2000 4:00 am EDT

To keep reading, get a free trial.

Already a Subscriber?

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us