S(i)ntax

You’d think that Heritage Minister Sheila Copps would have learned to choose her targets more carefully following the castigation her proposed magazine-protection bill received at the hands of Canada’s powerful advertising lobby and u.s. trade interests.

But with the recommendation of the film-policy advisory committee, Copps has already tried to pedal a 3% to 5% levy on the distribution of all feature films in Canada to American Motion Picture Association head Jack Valenti. Copps and the advisory committee want the estimated $70 million such a levy would create annually to be put towards a feature film fund.

Without question, Copps and the committee’s intentions are noble. Like television a decade ago, Canadian feature film is under-financed, under-promoted and under-seen. But a dedicated tax could prove more trouble than it’s worth – for Copps and the industry.

Though he has yet to comment publicly, Valenti, the stalwart and cogent lobbyist for the u.s. studios will undoubtedly oppose the measure. As he has in the past, Valenti will fight skillfully and vigorously to have it quashed. Rest assured that the u.s. government will back the much-loved entertainment industry he represents.

Closer to home, more crucial is public opinion.

If the levy is imposed on distributors, they would certainly raise the price they charge exhibitors and video retailers for films. Surely the exhibitors and retailers would increase prices as well, thereby passing the tax along to consumers.

And when the outcry from those consumers hits theaters and video stores the proprietors will be quick to point a finger at Sheila Copps’ tax. The complaints would create another pr nightmare for the Hamilton mp whose ability to weather another goof-up in the wake of flags, magazines, the ctcpf fund blow-up and a forced resignation over the gst is unlikely.

But Copps has a simple solution to avoid the ire of Jack Valenti, Canadian movie watchers and Andrew Coyne editorials.

Of the $2 billion a year the video rental and sell-through market is worth, adult videos account for an estimated 12% to 18%.

Placing a dedicated tax on the $300 million dollars worth of pornographic video tapes bought or rented each year in Canada would face little opposition. Though the adult film industry does have a few associations, they are unlikely to be as effective as Mr. Valenti. And despite its strong libertarian politics, an overriding penchant for puritanism (see impeachment trial) would no doubt prevent the u.s. government from opposing a tax on porno movies sold in Canada.

Furthermore, a tax on porn videos would be aimed at the proper country since 95% of all adult sex films are shot in a certain valley in California.

But what of Canadian smut consumers? No problem. The government has been imposing outrageous sin taxes on tobacco and booze for years with little opposition. A demonstration of raincoat-clad porn watchers on Parliament Hill is unlikely to impact Copps.

Let’s be clear, the motives for this tax are not puritanical. Indeed, some lurking in the Playback hallways would like to see more porno in Canada, but in this context it’s merely a matter of pragmatism and numbers. By some estimates the sex business is worth four times that of the music business. Just imagine if the proceeds from a $2 tax on every sex video sold in Canada were put towards a feature film fund. By decreasing the guilt factor, such a measure might even increase sales.

Besides, it wouldn’t exactly be the first time that Canadian cultural products were created with the proceeds from sex films. It’s a good idea. Just ask Robert and Moses.