Since the arrival in office three months ago of the new Ontario Conservative government, Premier Mike Harris has made major, sweeping cuts to government spending. Caught in the line of fire are the Ontario Film Development Corporation and the Ontario Film Investment Program, which were frozen for the remainder of the fiscal year this summer along with all institutions which deal in government grants to businesses, the Ontario Arts Council, which has received a 10% cut, and tvontario, for which the new government has spoken of privatization.

Playback spoke with Ontario Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation Marilyn Mushinski about the cultural landscape in the province according to the government’s vision.

Playback: Would you say there is any cause for alarm over the issue of protecting indigenous culture?

Mushinski: No I wouldn’t. I would have said there would be great cause for alarm over protecting indigenous culture if we hadn’t been elected.

I think we as a government recognize that culture has a significant economic impact on this province, it has inherent value. Indeed, it defines who we are and what we are. Having said all that, until we can put our fiscal house in order there will be no opportunity to ensure the survival of the very culture that defines us as a province.

Playback: You said in an earlier interview that you got into politics initially because you thought the government wasn’t listening to the people it represented. How then do you respond to accusations that you and your government have not consulted with the industry before making cuts?

Mushinski: I consider the people of this province who we are listening to are the people we took our business plan to.I have met with all of the principals of the agencies that fall under my ministry and I have consulted with individuals.

We are committed to doing business in a different way, and certainly we intend to carry out our agenda in full consultation with our stakeholders, and that includes the agencies that my ministry funds.

Playback: Have you met with, for example, ofdc head Alexandra Raffe and the oac’s Paul Hoffert?

Mushinski: No, I haven’t.

Playback: You speak of philanthropy as a necessary alternative to government subsidies. Do you believe the film and television industries are well positioned to attract private sponsorship?

Mushinski: If you look at our common-sense revolution commitments, we, for example, suggested we were going to get out of the business of business assistance.We think business is much better in the private sector at creating jobs, so yes, we’re redefining our whole role in terms of business assistance. That isn’t to say we are getting out of the total business and closing down our agencies.

Playback: What is being planned to make arts philanthropy attractive to corporate donors?

Mushinski: That is in the development stage.There is no point of me pulling the wool over anybody’s eyes. We are going, as we look at barrier removal, to look at what Crown status means or improving tax rebates. As these barriers are identified in order to encourage the philanthropic community to invest in our culture, we must (make any changes) in concert with the federal government.

Playback: Will the allowable tax deduction on donations of 20% be raised?

Mushinski: It would be premature for me to suggest any solutions to barrier removal. We have to do it very closely with the stakeholders – the cultural agencies, the cultural industries and the arts community – before we can develop a framework which we must be able to bring as a business case not just to the federal government, but to the Ministry of Finance.

Playback: One argument is that government cuts will only serve to hurt the film and tv industry, and a weaker industry is less attractive to bankers. What, then, are your ministry’s plans to make culture more attractive to the banks?

Mushinski: Those are very much the critical questions. There are some agencies we have that can’t even borrow from the bank without the approval of the government.

We think if we want our agencies to be much more businesslike, they need to be able to run their own business plan without government interference. These are the kinds of things I intend to highlight in consultation with the agencies that are identifying these barriers to raising funds.

Playback: As cuts increase and the need for private sponsorship increases, what are the best strategies for the film and tv industries to take in order to position themselves for private investors?

Mushinski: I think the agencies and the industries are already developing those strategies.

Playback: Do you think less revenue-aggressive areas, such as documentaries or Canadian-content series, should be supported by government subsidies?

Mushinski: The whole issue of Canadian content is one we have to review in terms of the competitive edge with other provinces and of course the nafta agreement. I think most certainly we have to look at some special subsidy for those kinds of arts groups that probably would not survive. That is not to say, however, that we are going to subsidize arts groups that probably wouldn’t survive anyway without some significant assistance.

We know there are groups out there that perhaps should not be funded to the extent they have been, but again, we’re not going to go with the slash-and-burn attitude that we’re being accused of, we’re going to do it in full consultation with our stakeholders.

Playback: I don’t understand your public statement: ‘My ministry is in the process of deciding what business it will be in.’ Will you clarify?

Mushinski: We are going to do a complete analysis of what business of culture we should be assisting. We recognize culture does have a significant economic impact on this province.

We are looking at those agencies we traditionally fund and we are going to challenge them to think of their agency as a business and make sure, for example, the oac looks at maximizing efficiencies to ensure funds we grant to them are channeled directly to the artist.

In defining what we should be in the business of, we are also going to be looking at privatization strategies, and that includes, for example, taking a looking at tvontario.For example, access in Alberta was sold to a private consortium at the price of a dollar, and indeed the level of educational content of that programming has increased and the province has bought that programming at a much cheaper rate than it cost them to run public television in that province.

Playback: Do you feel tvo serves an essential role as a public broadcaster?

Mushinski: We have to look at tvo as being an institution that is 25 years old. We have to look at the whole role of public television in 1995 and see if it is indeed providing the same service it did 25 years ago.

And we also have to look at the whole broadcasting environment and recognize we are in a significantly different environment today than we were 25 years ago. There are private broadcasters and cable companies that are now providing significant educational broadcasting at a fraction of the cost that it costs the taxpayers of Ontario to pay for tvontario.