Pressures on Canada’s top cultural bureaucrat are coming from all angles of the cultural industries and the woman in charge, the newly appointed Minister of Heritage Sheila Copps, has been bombarded since her appointment in late January.

Top of the list for the production and broadcasting sectors are the Juneau report, the tax credit, the crtc decision regarding dth distribution in Canada which was challenged by the cmpda on behalf of the major studios, and continued severe cuts to the country’s cultural agencies.

Pending is a new cultural fund Minister Copps is developing with the Department of Finance, phase two of copyright legislation, and a plan to develop a comprehensive cultural policy for Canada as a whole.

Playback spoke with the minister March 28.

Playback: What is the greatest challenge facing the Department of Heritage with regard to the film and tv industries?

Copps: I think it’s protecting Canadian culture and content in a mega-universe.

Playback: What are the primary weaknesses of the industries as you see them?

Copps: On film, it’s definitely distribution. On television, the challenge generally is to be innovative and continue to be financially viable in a broadening band there is a greater demand for creativity and uniqueness than there ever was – with less money. And that’s probably as true for us in government as it is for the broadcast sector.

Playback: In going after support for funding for Cancon, what is the greatest asset you have to work with?

Copps: History has shown Cancon works. Over the last two weeks, productions that we’ve had on tv – like the Geminis and the Junos – show the development of a star system in Canada and that’s been a function of regulated Canadian content.

Playback: What are the sources of financing for the proposed new cultural fund?

Copps: There is government financing already in place. On the question of a video tax, there is not a great appetite out there for any kind of individualized levy. At the same time, there is obviously a real appetite in the telecom industry for access to the airwaves and there are costs involved with that and one of the costs should be support for Canadian culture.

Playback: Is the fund restricted to television programming?

Copps: At this point we’re still at the working stages with the Department of Finance and there are going to be a number of conditions attached. I wouldn’t restrict or expand it at this point.

Playback: Will the fund operate independently or within one of the existing agencies that already funds the sector?

Copps: I would hope it would be an existing agency because I also don’t think there is an appetite for creating a new agency right now.

Playback: Regarding the relationship between the sector and government assistance, some say government funding is unquestionably required while others argue there is too much dependence on government support.

Copps: I’m of the view that we’re in a unique situation. We have an extremely long undefended border that we share with the Americans and I don’t think any other culture in the world is as vulnerable as we are, particularly in the English language. Therefore, the role of government in terms of regulatory process, foreign ownership issues and also funding will continue to be important.

The cultural envelope of the department, if you include the elements of Telefilm, the cbc and the nfb as well as the cultural agencies, is still almost $2 billion. It’s a significant amount of money but I think we should also be more creative in how we deliver it.

One of the things the Juneau report said, for example, is if you take the cbc when it started, it was kind of a catalyst and an incubator for a lot of Canadian talent, and it was also the only game in town. That’s not the case anymore, and they could probably be doing a more liberal job in partnering with Canadian film companies and film houses to do more partnered material that they can, in turn, market abroad.

Playback: What else of the Juneau report recommendations are you in favor of pursuing?

Copps: What I’d like to do is to focus with Paul Martin on the nuts and bolts of how we establish a fund in the short term, and then once we’ve established the fund, I’d like to actually do a kind of an overview of where we go with Juneau.

But a key piece of that is the capacity to start a cultural fund that is outside of the parliamentary appropriation becausethe problem that any organization faces is that if you don’t have stable long-term funding it’s hard to make the kind of long-term decisions to forecast productions, etc.

As long as Parliament will strictly be the provider of cultural funding, then as Parliament is squeezed that funding will be at risk.

Yet it’s ironic that although cultural funds took a hit, the size of their reductions was actually substantially less than many other departments because we made a decision that we wanted to cut less in culture. My previous department – Environment – was cut by 25% and culture was cut by about 15%.

Playback: Another way to introduce more stability into the industry is to provide incentives to generate more private support. Are there plans afoot for new incentives for the industries?

Copps: One of the things I would like to review is the government policy vis-a-vis partnering and some of our grants and contributions because I think we could do more with matching dollars.

Playback: Are you satisfied with the relationship between the Departments of Heritage and Industry?

Copps: Certainly I’ve had a good relationship in the time that I’ve been in the department. I think the rocky periods over the last couple of years have necessitated a greater integration and actually we’re in the process of establishing an ad hoc committee of cabinets so that some of the policy issues are more widely discussed and debated at times.

We’re going to be doing some work on how we approach the balancing act between protecting Canadian culture and not stifling Canadian access to emerging and burgeoning Canadian technologies.

Playback: What is your reaction to Manley’s recent remarks about the role of the crtc as an agent or some say a mouthpiece of the government?

Copps: I didn’t agree with the statement and I think Mr. Manley was putting it in a context of areas that are under his jurisdiction. I would argue that in the multichannel universe we’re facing, the role of the crtc is going to be that much more important.

In fact, I think cultural policy de facto means that sometimes government regulation must be balanced against competition and not blindly in favor of competitiona lot of people who talk about competition are referring to the hardware and not the software, and when it comes to the software we have to be all the more vigilant and not sacrifice all at the altar of competition.

Playback: Does your support of the crtc decision regarding the cmpda/dth issue set a precedent for Heritage’s stance with regard to what the u.s. calls ‘protectionist’ measures?

Copps: I’m quite sure that Mickey Kantor will not let up in his constant criticism of what he agreed to in the nafta, but certainly I think there is a solid feeling in cabinet that we have to hang in there.

Playback: Some cultural advocates are saying Heritage is taking a more aggressive role in these issues. Is that your view?

Copps: We’re certainly more involved on a day-to-day level. I think there is a real appetite in the Liberal government for an insurance policy for Canadian culture and we see the importance in upholding the crtc decision as one of those insurance policiesSomebody could argue (we shouldn’t) do anything for fear that it might upset the Americans, but I think that is a bit of slippery slope.

We have to focus on the strength of our policy, on the fact that we did negotiate a cultural exemption in the nafta for a reason and that they signed on understanding that exemption. We are not a 51st State, and if we don’t have a regulatory framework to keep Canadian television and to try to create a climate for Canadian film, we won’t have culture and we won’t have country.

Playback: Do you have any plans to examine improving the ratio of Canadian films on Canadian screens or at least via Canadian distributors?

Copps: What we want to do first is get copyright phase two forward. The film battlefield is littered with the corpses of those who have tried and failed and I don’t want to be amongst them, so what I would like to do is to see if we can get copyright through. I think we do need a broader policy but that will be in the longer term, but I don’t want to promise something and not deliver.

Playback: What stage is the new copyright legislation process at now?

Copps: We’re hoping to introduce it after Easter.

Playback: Do you have a position on the Industry policy (regarding Polygram and Turner start-ups in Canada) which is currently under revision?

Copps: We’ve expressed viewpoints to them. I’d rather wait to have a full cabinet position before giving you my personal viewpoint.

Playback: What is a realistic timeline for coming up with a plan for alternative funding for the cbc?

Copps: I originally said 60 days and that takes us into April and May.

Playback: Are you still considering a summit for the industry?

Copps: No, there must be some mistake, but it sounds like a great idea. One of the things I’ve asked the Heritage committee to look at is the possibility of establishing a cultural policy for Canadawe have pieces and bits but not the whole.

Playback: How would you define Heritage’s mission with regard to this sector?

Copps: I look upon my mandate more as driven by the need to keep this country together and the best way we can do that is if we know each other, and we know each other primarily through the eyes of television, film and culture.