New CIPF Regulatory Framework – But What Does It Mean?

Yesterday, August 25, 2016, the CRTC released its new Broadcasting Regulatory Policy (2016-343) – a Policy Framework for Certified Independent Production Funds (“CIPFs”).  There are some minor and major changes to how CIPFs will be managed and the kinds of productions they will be able to fund going forward.

First, the framework sets the rules for how a CIPF has to be set up in order to be certified by the CRTC.  A fund needs to be certified to allow BDUs to allocate some of their mandated contribution to it.  A fund does not need to be certified if it does not need or want those contributions.  For example, while the Independent Production Fund is certified as a CIPF, its funding is based on an endowment so its management is outside of this framework.  However, most of the CIPFs do rely on BDU contributions so will need to abide by the new framework.

There are two types of changes to the framework:  1) new requirements in order to be certified and 2) new permissions which a CIPF may wish to take advantage of.  With that in mind, let’s look at each of the changes in turn.

Requirement: Eliminate Licensed Broadcaster Commitment

Going forward, CIPFs must no longer require a broadcast licence or development commitment from a licensed broadcaster as a condition of funding.  This is to allow greater flexibility in funding by producers as they can access OTT services provided that those services are accessible to Canadians (so yes to Netflix Canada but no to Hulu).  However, tax credits still require a licensed broadcaster so there will not be many productions that will be able to take advantage of this new flexibility at the moment.  It may provide more opportunities for web series, however.  Additionally, CIPF funding is awarded as part of a subjective assessment and each one may decide that in its assessment it will reward a licensed broadcaster commitment with more points as evidence of greater potential audience.  It may be difficult, though not impossible, for a project with a non-traditional broadcaster to be competitive with projects with traditional broadcasters.

Requirement:  Redefining “new media project”

I find this one odd.  “New Media Project” has now been re-categorized as “non-programming digital content” by removing programming content such as webisodes from the definition.  While the Notice of Consultation asked intervenors to consider whether the current definition of “new media project” needed to be updated and many said that it did (mobisode anyone?), the CRTC makes no reference to any intervenor asking for “new media project” to be redefined in that way.

It is more troubling because those who work in interactive digital media (“IDM”) know that most IDM associated with television includes video content either as clips or even within the IDM.  Walls between forms of content are breaking down and this redefinition feels like a belated attempt to put up a wall that the industry does not need or want.  Those in Ontario are currently experiencing a similar challenge with changes to the Ontario Interactive Digital Media Tax Credit draft regulations which attempt to remove streaming sites from eligibility but went too far and remove digital media with any form of video from eligibility.  Standalone web series may still be financed through the change to the broadcaster requirement (and because IPF is outside this framework) but as the new definition (‘innovative projects such as story-driven videogames, interactive or customizable web content, apps and all other similar types of non-programming content’) is very brief it is not clear whether the inclusion of video within ‘non-programming digital content’ will exclude it from eligibility.

Requirement: Maintain cap of 10% on non-programming digital content

CIPFs were limited to spending no more than 10% of their fund on ‘new media projects’ or now ‘non-programming digital content’.  A number of the CIPFs wanted greater flexibility to allocate more or less of their funds to digital media while on the other side the broadcasters wanted to keep the cap to ensure that most of the funds stayed within the licensed system.  The cap is being maintained, though for the more restricted definition of non-programming content.

Permission:  Canadian content certification points

Sigh.  How many times do we have to talk about this?  OK, so the CIPFs can now fund projects with a minimum of 6 CAVCO points.  But will they?  The decision says, without evidence, that the current limit of 8 points ‘excludes many productions that could otherwise be of high quality and qualify as Canadian’.  What exactly isn’t getting funded?   Bueller?

For those of you who were around during the Canada Media Fund review in 2008 (which excludes all of this current Commission), you will recall that when parties argued that CMF needed to lower its point count because lower point count shows would sell better, lots of evidence was presented to show that in fact 10/10 point Canadian programs sell better than 6 point (what we used to call ‘industrial’) programming.  It is hard to get more Canadian these days than “Murdoch Mysteries” and it sells all around the world.  When we used to produce a lot of 6 point productions there was a market internationally for “Andromeda” and “Mutant X” but it has pretty much dried up as international markets focus more on domestic production.  A high quality production that reflects a distinct domestic voice such as “Murdoch Mysteries” or “Motive” but also “Doctor Who” or “The Bridge” or “Wentworth” sells better internationally. It just does.

On a more practical note, how will these 6 point projects get financed?  For one, CMF still requires 8 points. Will the 6 point projects be competitive in the selection process with 8 and 10 point projects with greater sales potential?  A key sentence in the decision is “CIPFs will continue to have the discretion to finance the productions of their choice, based on their expertise and measurements of success”.  So only time will tell as to whether this change will have any real impact.

Permission:  Eligibility of Co-Ventures and Co-Productions

While the discussion in the decision is about treaty co-productions and co-ventures, the actual decision is only about co-ventures, this current Commission’s pet project.  This is probably because treaty co-productions are not actually ineligible for CIPF funding, though the CIPFs have rules to ensure that only majority Canadian co-productions benefit from Canadian funding.  Co-ventures have not been eligible.  Few productions use co-ventures (a system that allows Canadian producers to partner with non-treaty producers, i.e. from the U.S.) because they are too hard to finance. As well, the control that is then given over to the U.S. partner is not that attractive.  The Canadian partner must have 50% of creative control and profits but realistically co-ventures are U.S.-driven projects.

Time will tell whether CIPFs will actually allocate more funds to co-ventures or whether this is flexibility they really did not want or need.

Permission: Script and Concept Development

Previously, the requirement for a broadcast licence prevented CIPFs from funding early stage development except through non-BDU funds (i.e. endowments).  The removal of the requirement for a broadcast licence automatically frees up CIPFs to allocate more funds to early stage development, or even slate development, if they so wish.

Permission:  Promotion Funding

CIPFs have not been able to specifically fund promotion, an increasingly important part of any production in the crowded marketplace.  However, the CIPFs have limited funds and many stakeholders are concerned about money being reallocated from production to promotion.  It is therefore up to each CIPF as to whether it wants to reallocate any of its limited resources specifically to promotion.

Requirement:  Measurement of Audience Success

CIPFs each make subjective assessments of projects and decide to fund the ones that meet their criteria, including the greatest potential for success.  CIPFs were concerned that any formalization of that process would impede the subjective analysis but also attempt to standardize what are inherently non-standard funds which cover many different niches of programming and audience.  The CIPFs are likely relieved that the decision is instead to require the CIPFs to report on the audience success criteria used rather than to change them in any way.

Requirement:  Accessibility

CIPFs will now have to ensure that all programming that they fund is closed captioned and includes described video.  They are not required to fund it but to disclose it.  While broadcasters require closed captioning and described video, by requiring CIPFs to ensure that a project has it before it is funded, the theory is that this rule will ensure that productions are developed with accessibility guidelines in place rather than dealt with after the fact in post-production.  This will have little effect on CIPFs except as a check box on their application form but may have a positive effect on production planning for accessibility.

Requirement:  Reflection of OLMCs

There are no requirements currently to reflect in any way Official Language Minority Communities (OLMCs).  The new framework will require that one person on the selection committee for a CIPF will be responsible for ensuring that OLMCs are properly reflected in decision making.  Annual reports will now have to track OLMC projects.  There is no quota system so it is not clear how the Commission will define ‘properly reflect’ and what penalty there might be.  Many CIPFs already fund OLMC projects on a regular basis so this may only be an added reporting requirement.

Requirement:  Governance

The Notice of Consultation hinted at possible major changes to the governance of the CIPFs, which worried many intervenors who could not see any problems that needed to be fixed.  However, with vertical integration there were some concerns about how the Boards of the CIPFs were constituted in order to ensure that they remain independent of their contributors.  Two thirds of Board members must now be independent, rather than previously no more than one-third could be members representing BDUs.  The definition of independent excludes employees, officers, directors etc. of a contributor or its affiliates.  For example, an employee of CTV would be independent of Bell under the old rules but not under the new rules.

Additional wording was also added to the conflict of interest language to require that decisions are made ‘absent of actual or perceived conflicts of interest’ but without setting any specific criteria to abide by.

Requirement:  Reporting

While most CIPFs publish annual reports there was no requirement to do so nor any criteria for those reports.  This is now standardized with few additional criteria beyond what most CIPFs already report on.  They will also have to submit audited financial statements.  The Commission understands that this could be an administrative burden for smaller funds which might not be able to cover the cost of an audit, particularly with the cap of 5% on administration costs.  These smaller funds can apply for an exemption from the audit if they can prove it would be unduly burdensome.


This revised policy framework will go into effect September 1, 2016 however it will take time for the funds to review and implement the changes into their guidelines, and have those changes approved by their boards.  There are no transition rules so it is not clear how quickly the CIPFs will have to change those parts of their guidelines that must change, before the Commission declares them offside of the new policy framework.  The only real penalty is being de-certified so hopefully the Commission will give the CIPFs at least one fiscal year to implement all the necessary guideline changes and possibly even board changes.

#TalkBroadband CRTC Hearing – Why I’m Listening*

The CRTC is currently in the middle of a three week hearing on basic telecommunications services , which has been hashtagged as #TalkBroadband because it really is about whether broadband should be regulated as a basic telecommunications service (“BSO” – basic service offering) and at what capacity.  It’s pretty telecomm and I don’t do well with telecomm (Bram Abramson did promise me a ‘Telecomm for Dummies’ tutorial or series of blog posts and I will pin him down to do that at some point) but the discussions have been far ranging and quite interesting even for a content policy wonk like myself.

I glaze over at discussions of bandwidth and speed.  I shouldn’t but as ‘good enough’ is a constantly moving target I find the discussion of what should be the minimum a bit of a mug’s game.  As soon as the CRTC sets a goal or mandates minimums they’ll be out of date.  It’s important to be fast enough and for the network to be able to handle the capacity no matter where you live but I’ll leave it to others to decided what those goals or mandated minimums should be and how often they should be updated.

As a content policy wonk I’m more interested in the discussion about affordable universal access because I know that before long everyone will need access to broadband to have the choice to watch a variety of entertainment programming.  I don’t want to see anyone left behind because they can’t afford it, there isn’t appropriate infrastructure or they don’t have the necessary digital literacy to take full advantage of this world or even know that they should want it.

Until recently, the government and the CRTC have been focused on ensuring that rural and northern communities were connected and a lot of the discussion during the #TalkBroadband hearing has continued to focus on it.  During this hearing there has been a broadening of the discussion though to include urban affordability both on the part of intervenors and through questions raised by commissioners. If access to broadband is essential to citizenship then the CRTC has to consider establishing rules or guidelines to ensure that all Canadians have access, that they can afford, to broadband regardless of where they live.

I’ve been working with Syrian refugees recently and it really brought home to me how important broadband is to citizenship and how difficult it is to pay for it on a reduced income.  Social assistance barely covers rent in Toronto plus food and electricity.  Families also need at least two mobile phones and an Internet connection to be able to communicate with each other, access government and settlement services and keep in touch with family back home.  I would also like them to be able to access Canadian programming to help them settle in their new country.  Cable is just too expensive but at least with an Internet connection they can access and other (possibly less Canadian) broadcaster websites as well as content in their own language.

From this experience I am even more convinced of the importance of broadband to citizenship but it doesn’t stop there.  I’ve also been listening at this hearing to great examples of the importance of broadband to isolated communities in the north, minority language communities and rural communities.   I look forward to other examples over the course of the hearings from other stakeholders.

The Commission is also starting to talk about digital literacy and the fact that it isn’t good enough to just present access but we need to ensure that everyone knows how to access broadband and why they should want to.   Should there be funding from stakeholders or the government and how should it be implemented to ensure that no one is left behind.  Interesting discussions.

To bring it back to content creators and providers, as we move into a multiplatform or platform neutral world, we need to ensure that the entire country has the opportunity to chose Canadian programming on whatever platform it is presented.  We should be struggling with the issues of regulation or not, contributions to Canadian programming or not, and not have to wonder if any segment of the population has been left out of the system that we are trying to create.

That’s why I’m listening.


*I gave up on watching it on CPAC because, ironically, the online feed kept breaking up so I’ve just been on the CRTC’s audio feed.

Dueling Industry Conferences

It’s hard not to compare industry forums when they are back to back.  Thursday the Banff Media Festival held its “Content Industries Connect” conference at the Ritz Carlton.  Swanky.  It was a paid event.  In the past it had been part of the Academy’s Screen Week but this year while during Screen Week it wasn’t affiliated with the Academy (there’s a story there somewhere but I don’t know it).  Friday the official Industry Forum took place, hosted by the Academy, CMPA and DGC.  It was free for members of those three associations and took place at the TIFF Lightbox.  Not quite as swanky but the seats were more comfortable.

I don’t know if anyone went to all of both.  I was signed up for both but came late to Banff and skipped out of one of the Industry Forum panels.  It’s just too much of a time commitment to do both.  Most people seemed to pick one or the other.  The topics were quite similar but Banff was the only one with a Media Leaders panel so my impression is that the senior executives chose to pop in to the end of the Banff day to attend the Media Leaders panel and bypassed the Industry Forum.  The Industry Forum was more grassroots given the free admission for members of those organizations.  The speakers seemed to be aware of that and targeted the production community rather than the executives with their discussion.    So while the topics were the same, they ended up being quite different days (I’m not going to compare the cocktail parties though for me the food at the Industry Forum won – quinoa battered shrimp and lamb chops!).

As someone who attends a lot of conferences I didn’t think I’d miss much by skipping the Banff panel on The Future of Content in a Multiplatform World and based on the tweets and what I heard, it was the same talk we’ve been hearing for the past year from Vice, Shomi, Blue Ant and CBC. I don’t know anyone who attended the panel on brand engagement with speakers from Hyundai, Microsoft and Kraft and the tweets don’t tell me much either.  Honestly, it seemed an odd choice for the content crowd.  I finally made it to the conference in time for the “Letterkenny” panel.  Full disclosure – I haven’t seen it all (I don’t have CraveTV) but every second of “Letterkenny” that I’ve seen makes me laugh.  I enjoyed the clips, hearing about the process, learning about its success (more views on CraveTV than any other show in its catalogue including Seinfeld and South Park) and its renewal announced during the panel.

Then there was the Media Leaders panel.  Banff has it every year that they have done this event.  This year there were only two leaders after consolidation (and CBC cancelled) – Mary Ann Turcke from Bell Media and Doug Murphy from Corus.  Talking to people afterwards there was one word that seemed to sum up the panel and it’s not a polite word.  It starts with a b.  There was a very negative reaction to Doug Murphy’s discussion of the CRTC’s decision to not require Terms of Trade as part of broadcast licences – they’re now free to treat every deal like a snowflake.  Yes, a snowflake.  Which ignores the very real imbalance in bargaining power between the mega-broadcasters and most independent producers.  There was a marked contrast between this Media Leaders panel and the one last month at Prime Time – this one was channeling ‘sunny ways’.  Everything is going to be great.  Netflix isn’t a threat as they’re now starting to partner with it, get high profile casting because of its involvement and negotiate windows.  It’ll be interesting to see if they go back to ‘Netflix is heralding the end of the world as we know it if you don’t deregulate us’ mantra next time they’re in front of the CRTC.    They were also pretty positive about pick and pay.  Sure a few of their services will die but producers shouldn’t worry because the remaining ones will only be bigger and better.  Since the jury is still out on this big shift in consumer behaviour due to pick and pay that has been predicted by some, this could mean that pick and pay is going to be used as an excuse to close up some of the underperformers. Again – we’ll have to wait and see what happens in front of the CRTC.

Now off to the Industry Forum.  The first panel was on discoverability.  I’m still not sure we’re all talking about the same thing (push vs. pull) but this panel was a lot more about new techniques to find audiences and provide them with what they want than the discoverability panel at Prime Time which talked more about traditional marketing using digital platforms (and I believe that it was also programmed by the CMPA since it was branded Prime Time Any Time).  In particular, it was useful to hear about Richard Kanee (CBC) and Ramona Pringle (interactive digital media producer) experimenting in finding and engaging audiences.  I appreciated Kanee’s admission that the CBC had missed social media engagement opportunities in promoting “Strange Empire” (you can’t expect him to take responsibility for the whole marketing mess) and his admonition that producers and broadcasters shouldn’t always chase the latest new thing.  Some of the tried and true engagement methods, like email newsletters, still work and should remain part of your strategy instead of running after all the riskier new methods.  Final favourite bit of wisdom from the panel was that the studios (and broadcasters and producers) should be learning audience engagement from the YouTubers who have learned how to find, support and grow their audiences.  Casting them in a mainstream television show isn’t enough to migrate their audience, but if the YouTubers develop their own television show their audience will recognize the authenticity and watch.

The next panel was on co-production featuring three Canadian majority copros:  “Book of Negroes”, “Born to be Blue” and “Room”.  There was a good discussion of why go copro – the added money allowed them all to afford higher profile talent which generated more sales.  It also allowed them to access government funding rather than distributor advances which meant casting the best person for the part rather than for international sales.  Unfortunately, that government funding helped those stars become international hits and now it’s unlikely that anyone in Canada can afford them so for me there is a flaw in that system.

I have to admit that I stepped out and missed the “Orphan Black” panel not because I don’t love the show (I do!) but because I’ve seen a few “Orphan Black” panels over the years.  I ran into a few others doing the same thing so we did our own networking.  We went back in for the keynote speech from Colin Brown, who among other things is a professor of film and economics at NYU.  He gave a very insightful presentation on the international markets for feature films and how they differ between markets and between films and the business case for investing in a mid-size studio producing a slate of mid-range budget films.  His add-on bit about Canada was less insightful as the audience did not need to be told who are the Canadians in Hollywood or that we should be prouder of all the great talent who have left.  As someone who has spent their entire career in the domestic film and television industry I was not impressed.   But I am thinking about what Canadian stories might be naturals for the Chinese and Egyptian markets.  Hmm.

So did we need two such conferences in two days?  Nope.  They could have been merged and been one great day – as long as they kept the quinoa-battered shrimp.

Heritage Committee on Local TV

This morning I listened to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage (#CHPC).  It was their first meeting on a study on ‘The Media and Local Communities’ which is also their first study.  I tuned in because it’s the first real meeting for this committee in this Parliament and I wanted to hear them interact with senior staff at Heritage and the CRTC (and then last minute additions from Industry – I mean Innovation, Science and Economic Development – and the Competition Bureau).  I’m not that interested in local tv but I’m glad I did tune in.

I was talking to my local MP, Julie Dabrusin, on the weekend since she sits on the Heritage Committee and I realized when I spoke to her about the local tv study that her interests in it were broader than my interpretation of the terms of reference of the study.  The minutes describe it as:

“… how Canadians, and especially local communities, are informed about local and regional experiences through news, broadcasting, digital and print media; the unintended consequences of news media concentration and the erosion of local news reporting and the impact of new media”

In listening to the meeting though I was struck by how wide ranging the questions were. Heritage started off by giving a very rapid ‘Canadian media policy 101’ talk with what sounded like (the feed was audio-only) a lot of slides.  A few of the MPs sounded overwhelmed.  It should be remembered that I believe Pierre Nantel (NDP) and Hedy Fry (Lib) are the only MPs there with previous experience on the committee.   So some of the questions continued on the 101 theme (‘how is Canadian media funded’ – I think I heard Helen Kennedy’s sigh before she started counting the ways) while others went off on to topics like diversity, funding for digital media, local news, newspaper consolidation, Broadcasting Act objectives, the Bell-Astral merger and the inability for anyone to make any money on digital platforms (that was a Conservative MP statement without any evidence).

The CRTC could not really say much because their local tv proceeding is outstanding and there are rules about not discussing a pending proceeding.  They did chat a bit about why LPIF wasn’t renewed, which honestly could have been the topic of a whole meeting as it had been a whole hearing.  They made a pitch that they are lowering barriers to innovation and encouraging broadcasters to evolve to multiplatform businesses, though without specifics.  Innovation, Science and Economic Development made some odd statements about how millennials don’t care about funding for digital media, just access and making money from their content.  Umm, just because you can make content for peanuts doesn’t mean you want to.   The Competition Bureau said they didn’t care about whether diversity of voices was impacted by consolidation, only if there was a negative economic impact.

There were some good questions but my favourites unfortunately were thrown in at the end when there wasn’t time for answers so we won’t hear them publicly.  Julie Dabrusin asked if the CRTC planned to update the 8 year old Diversity study (I swear I didn’t plant that question) and Hedy Fry asked who was in a position to regulate digital platforms for accuracy.  I suspect Scott Hutton of the CRTC was pretty happy there was no time to answer that last one!  The answers should be incorporated in their report so I’ll be looking for them.

Things could obviously change over the minimum 10 meetings that will be devoted to this study but based on today the Committee will be asking all sorts of questions about the media landscape and I’ll try to pay attention when I can.  It’s good to hear what the MPs are interested in and what topics they need help on (i.e. yes, there are businesses making money with content on digital platforms).

Prime Time in Ottawa 2016

I live tweeted the annual CMPA conference, then Storified my tweets and those of others (twice – I lost the connection on the train and then my work – argh!!) and after thinking about it for a bit put it all into some context in a TV, Eh! post.

On a personal note, while not all the panels were interesting to me (everyone has different assessments based on their level of knowledge and interest), Prime Time is still a ‘must schmooze’ event for me.  I saw lots of people and had both fun and useful conversations.  I was reminded that more people read this blog than show up in the stats because some of you cut and paste posts and circulate them by email.  I’m not saying you shouldn’t but I apparently shouldn’t be discouraged if it just says 36 people read a post.  And I should blog more.  Promise.


Diverse Thoughts on a Train

I don’t know about you, but I live in a diverse Canada.  My mother is Anglo-Indian.  My daughter is Chinese.  My sister-in-law and nieces are from Bangladesh.  My daughter’s friends cover a wide range of ethnicities including Pakistan, Afghanistan, Jamaica and China.  Her boyfriend is Vietnamese and Aboriginal.  I have friends who are Chinese, South Asian, Black, Filipino and yeah a whole pile of white ones.  This is my world.

So it is important to me that my Canadian media is diverse – my television, my websites, my videogames.  All of it to the extent that it makes sense for the story.  It should reflect the audience and not some long ago version of the audience.

Which is why I get cranky (cranky enough that I Facebook posted my annoyance and then on the train to Prime Time stewed about it until I started to write this post) when I read articles about the tv industry in the mainstream media which seems to think that it’s an all-white, mostly male, industry.

Bright, creative young people will not join mainstream media unless they see opportunities for themselves and that means seeing people ‘like them’ in positions both in front of and behind the camera.  They have other options – ask Lilly Singh or Jus Reign – and while I applaud them for pursuing their careers on YouTube I am concerned that not enough of them are trying to tell their stories in mainstream media.  Will my daughter and her diverse classmates at Centennial’s Broadcasting and Film program have careers in film and television or will they too find more opportunities on YouTube? Yes, I can hear Jason Kee (Google Canada) asking me what’s wrong with that but we can’t have truly reflective audiences only on one platform.

Content that reflects the audience can only happen when both employers hire diverse talent and when diverse talent pursue those careers.  So – how do we make that happen?  That’s our challenge.





Ontario’s Culture Strategy Consultation

The Ontario Ministry of Culture launched a consultation back on September 24, 2015.  Sorry – life got in the way or I would have posted earlier.  I appear not to be the only one slowly realizing that this consultation is out there.  I hear few members of the cultural industries have been attending the town halls around the province.  It’s never a good thing to miss an opportunity to be heard by a government so here’s what is going on and how you can participate.

This consultation is aimed at providing the government with input on the development of a culture strategy that will guide the government in its priorities and policy development and in particular guide the allocation of the government’s spending on culture. The Ministry of Culture has released a Discussion Paper that outlines the size and characteristics of the arts and culture industries in Ontario and the questions that it wants answered.  A series of town hall meetings are being held around the province to hear from both individual members of the public and those who work in the arts and culture sector (if you live in Markham, Toronto, London, Kingston, Mississauga or Windsor there are still dates coming up).   There is also a discussion board where people are encouraged to post ideas and vote other people’s ideas up and down the list (which is a format that the Ontario Liberal Party has used to implement grassroots policy development).  Few cultural industries (mainly just music) are showing up in ideas on the discussion board – you might want to think about throwing a few out there.  Finally, anyone (members of the public and stakeholder organizations) are encouraged to file a submission addressing the questions by December 7, 2015.

The Discussion Paper asks the following questions specifically about the cultural industries:

  • What is the Ontario government doing well to support the cultural industries sector?
  • What would you like to see changed?
  • Are there best practices that Ontario could learn from and adapt?

Through the OMDC the Ontario government has been very supportive of the cultural industries with tax credits, the IDM Fund, Export Fund, Research Grants and programs like Digital Dialogue.  Yes, there are tweaks that could and should be done (I think specifically about the OIDMTC preventing co-production with other companies in Ontario and/or other provinces or countries, and the OFTTC expanding to web video) but this is the time to think about new ideas.  What could help the sector, or your part of it, expand, grow, adapt to change, become sustainable?  Yes, more funding but what kind of funding?  Are there gaps in training or skills development?

You might also want to look at the other sections of the Discussion Paper and see to what extent the cultural industries can address those questions.  Can Ontario film, television and digital media be a tool as well as an end in and of itself?  For example, how can the cultural industries be used to inspire youth to create, participate in and consume Ontario culture?  Can the cultural industries help the other cultural sectors better respond to digital challenges and opportunities.  How can the cultural industries help the Ontario government serve the various regions, communities and populations?

You can’t win if you don’t play (which probably quotes a lottery ad but that seems appropriate).