C-10 & Film Censorship

[August1991]

The Liberals acknowledged yesterday that they tried when they were in office to eliminate tax credits for offensive movies, but only to prevent a film about schoolgirl killers Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka.

Critics say that a similar move by the federal Conservative government is an attempt to censor the Canadian film and TV industry.

Television and film industry officials and opposition politicians are enraged over a proposed change to the Income Tax Act that would deny tax credits to TV and film productions that contain graphic sex and violence or other content deemed offensive.

The issue is being debated in the House of Commons today, when the Bloc Québécois will devote its opposition day to the subject because it says it fears that this amendment would open the door to censorship.

Federal Heritage Minister Josée Verner has repeatedly denied that she is trying to censor anything, arguing that the change is necessary to ensure that Canadian taxpayers' money "won't fund extreme violence, child pornography or something like that."

G & M

We've got two publishers forced to appear before human rights tribunals for having published hurtful pieces while at the same time, Canada's subsidized arts community is screaming about "censorship" because they won't have access to taxpayer's money. (In fact, they won't have access to tax credits.)

What gives anyone the right to expect a government subsidy (or a tax credit)? Who should discriminate? At present, various governments dole out all kinds of money based on arbitrary criteria.

The arts community would be wise to enter carefully this debate. Governments can never give out money to everyone and hence bureaucrats have to pick and choose. Sometimes the rules appear less arbitrary - but just barely.

[jefferiah]

G & M

We've got two publishers forced to appear before human rights tribunals for having published hurtful pieces while at the same time, Canada's subsidized arts community is screaming about "censorship" because they won't have access to taxpayer's money. (In fact, they won't have access to tax credits.)

What gives anyone the right to expect a government subsidy (or a tax credit)? Who should discriminate? At present, various governments dole out all kinds of money based on arbitrary criteria.

The arts community would be wise to enter carefully this debate. Governments can never give out money to everyone and hence bureaucrats have to pick and choose. Sometimes the rules appear less arbitrary - but just barely.

Agreed. I don't know how anyone in his right mind could logically conceive that not funding something is censorship. On another forum, someone compared this "censorship" to the old Soviet Union. I debated the logic of that, and how it isn't part of one's free speech rights that one also be supplied with tax dollars in order to exercise that free speech. I also raised the point that real breeches of free speech were being made by the HRCs. I soon found that many of the same people who refer to the conservatives' decision as censorship, are also avid supporters of the HRC. Go figure

It makes complete sense to me, that governments would selectively fund material. As long as they do not ban the rights of independant parties to create the material (or bar it from being displayed) there is no semblance of censorship. I think this should extend beyond film as well. Because when you think about it, Canada has been kind of wierd with funding stuff like this. Just the other day someone said to me, "What kind of Government would think it was vital to spend tax-dollars on the production of Kevin Spencer." And even if I happen to like some shows like that, its not the job of a nation's government to produce that stuff.

Edited March 5, 2008 by jefferiah

[guyser]

Agreed. I don't know how anyone in his right mind could logically conceive that not funding something is censorship.

Explain this then.....?

Income Tax Act that would deny tax credits to TV and film productions that contain graphic sex and violence or other content deemed offensive

In light of what I am aware of on this, and that being the gov will make the pronouncement whether valid for a tax credit after the movie is in the can.

So you can be approved for a tax credit, then someone in the gov deems it offensive and has your credit removed. How is that not censorship?

[jefferiah]

Explain this then.....?

In light of what I am aware of on this, and that being the gov will make the pronouncement whether valid for a tax credit after the movie is in the can.

So you can be approved for a tax credit, then someone in the gov deems it offensive and has your credit removed. How is that not censorship?

Censhorship is the removal or banning of content. It has nothing to do with tax breaks or funding. If the content is made, the government cannot disallow it, or edit it. They are just not in the business of helping it either. That's not censorship. That's denying a tax credit. No one has an inalienable right to tax credits. And also thanks to the liberal created HRC, it seems as if no one has an inalienable right to free speech either.

Edited March 5, 2008 by jefferiah

[HisSelf]

According to the CBC (March 3, 2008), the problem is that the rule does not kick in until long after everybody has committed their money. It is remarkable to see this sort of nonsense from a government that professes to be pro-business, but considering the Globe And Mail headline (March 4, 2008) indicating that an evangalist was behind the whole thing, who can be surprised?

[jefferiah]

According to the CBC (March 3, 2008), the problem is that the rule does not kick in until long after everybody has committed their money. It is remarkable to see this sort of nonsense from a government that professes to be pro-business, but considering the Globe And Mail headline (March 4, 2008) indicating that an evangalist was behind the whole thing, who can be surprised?

The evangelist declared himself as the catalyst for the change. But no one else did. He just claimed credit for it. This has nothing to do with pro-business or anti-business.

[eyeball]

The evangelist declared himself as the catalyst for the change. But no one else did. He just claimed credit for it. This has nothing to do with pro-business or anti-business.

That's right, McVety was the catalyst and this is all about using the power of the state to force his religous viewpoint down everyone else's throat.

[Keepitsimple]

Common sense swhould have prevailed a long time ago. Telefilm's mission is to foster productions that reflect Canadian society, with its linguistic duality and cultural diversity. It was really meant to subsidize films that would have otherwise, found somewhat limited pizzaz ande thus have trouble being financed. As National Post recently put it, it shouldn't be used to subsidize films like "Sperm and the Masterbaters". Surely there is some sort of threshold where the use of tax dollars are inappropriate. It's not censorship - the movies can still be made - they just have to stand on their merit and not be using our tax dollars.

Link: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=356540

[Argus]

This is clearly designed simply to protect the government in case some idiot at Telefilm approves a grant to a patently offensive movie - one so clearly against public norms that the government expects to be highly criticised for funding it.

It will have virtually no affect on normal film funding - which, btw, I'm opposed to anyway. If you want to make a movie do it on your dime not mine. As the Post points out most of the money isn't going to "cultural" films anyway, but commercial films.

[August1991]

Common sense swhould have prevailed a long time ago. Telefilm's mission is to foster productions that reflect Canadian society, with its linguistic duality and cultural diversity. It was really meant to subsidize films that would have otherwise, found somewhat limited pizzaz ande thus have trouble being financed. As National Post recently put it, it shouldn't be used to subsidize films like "Sperm and the Masterbaters". Surely there is some sort of threshold where the use of tax dollars are inappropriate. It's not censorship - the movies can still be made - they just have to stand on their merit and not be using our tax dollars.

That's exactly the point. This is not censorship. People are free to make movies about lurid subjects. They can't benefit from a subsidy or a tax credit to do this however.

There's a history to this proposal that goes back further than some evangelist.

Back in 2003, the then Liberal government figured it should tighten up on the definition of who qualifies for such goodies. The Globe and Mail quotes then heritage minister Sheila Copps as saying the government wanted to ensure it didn't fund a movie on the Paul Bernardo killings.

Maybe that was the motive. But what came out in the end was a classic bit of bureaucratese designed to give the government – any government – untrammelled authority to veto films it didn't like.

Because in Canada, films that don't get government support aren't made. (Maybe they shouldn't be made – the great Canadian flick Porky's comes to mind – but that's a different question.)

The key was to add two small clauses to the largely unreadable Income Tax Act. One would make any film that is "contrary to public policy" ineligible for juicy tax breaks.

The other left it up to the heritage minister to decide what that vague phrase might mean.

Thomas Walkom

The specific question of tax credits (ie. reduced taxation) for certain filmmakers raises the far broader question of who in Canada receives subsidies or tax holidays. Politicians and government bureaucrats have broad powers to hand out taxpayer money (or reduce taxes) for a whole swathe of different groups.

I started a thread on a truly astounding list of various groups with their hands outstretched.

In the case of Canadian filmmakers, this small group is angry that it might lose control over the bureaucrats who hand out the tax credits (ie. subsidies). This is what modern government has become. A mechanism for small groups to access the taxes paid by everyone else. The arbitrary discretion of bureaucrats and politicians makes the ssytem work.

[MontyBurns]

This bill will help stop the artsy-fartsy film crowd from wasting my tax money producing crap films. Why should I have to pay for films about drug use and gays? :angry:

There is no censorship here. They can still produce their artsy-fartsy crap if they want. Good luck finding funding though.

[socred]

Explain this then.....?

In light of what I am aware of on this, and that being the gov will make the pronouncement whether valid for a tax credit after the movie is in the can.

So you can be approved for a tax credit, then someone in the gov deems it offensive and has your credit removed. How is that not censorship?

Because they aren't censoring the right to make the movie, they are just removing tax payer funding from the movie.

In my opinion, we should not be subsidizing any movies.

[Moxie]

G & M

We've got two publishers forced to appear before human rights tribunals for having published hurtful pieces while at the same time, Canada's subsidized arts community is screaming about "censorship" because they won't have access to taxpayer's money. (In fact, they won't have access to tax credits.)

What gives anyone the right to expect a government subsidy (or a tax credit)? Who should discriminate? At present, various governments dole out all kinds of money based on arbitrary criteria.

The arts community would be wise to enter carefully this debate. Governments can never give out money to everyone and hence bureaucrats have to pick and choose. Sometimes the rules appear less arbitrary - but just barely.

Well stated and I concur.

I would like all funding for the arts stopped, if they have talent they should be able to survive without my tax dollars being wasted on art that looks like it belongs in the dust bin. Honestly the artsy fartsy crowd sense of intitlement is scary, but hardly surprising since we've been pandering to these dead beats for so long.

[MontyBurns]

I would like all funding for the arts stopped, if they have talent they should be able to survive without my tax dollars being wasted on art that looks like it belongs in the dust bin. Honestly the artsy fartsy crowd sense of intitlement is scary, but hardly surprising since we've been pandering to these dead beats for so long.

My thoughts exactly. If the artsy-fartsy film crowd are good at what they do and their work is in demand then they dont need tax money. I would guess that few people would be interested in funding this crap.

[Sean Hayward]

As pointed out by others, there is a big difference between not providing support for something and censorship. Some claim that bill C-10 is censorship. This argument is ridiculous because C-10 does not propose to censor anything, just to cut government funding for certain productions. Why should the taxpayer be responsible for funding works that are considered offensive by the general public? In general, Canada needs subsidies and tax shelters for the cultural industry because they are necessary for the preservation of Canadian culture. However, the types of productions that would be affected by bill C-10 are hardly mainstream Canadian culture and so they do not deserve the same protection.

[August1991]

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is declaring film tax-credit legislation a matter of confidence in the Conservative government, meaning MPs could land on Canadian doorsteps this spring to debate the line between art and pornography.

Mr. Flaherty said the legislation, known as Bill C-10, contains a range of important tax measures and changes will not be tolerated.

"The bill should not be amended," he told reporters yesterday. "A tax bill is a confidence bill. We all know that."

G&M

Will the government fall on C-10? Or is Harper simply showing that Dion is a wimp?

Flaherty and C-10? WTF? I think that this deserves a new thread: Do we basically have a majority government in all but name?

----

In the context of the Human Rights Commissions and funding of the arts in a federal country, the Conservatives would love an election on C-10. I suspect the Liberals are not so stupid as to grant it. Once again, Dion will fold.

Edited May 3, 2008 by August1991

[jdobbin]

Do we basically have a majority government in all but name?

Yes. And will it will be like that for any government in Canada with fixed election dates, minority governments and polls too close call one way or the other.

It basically characterizes Harper as a bully and Dion as a wimp and pushes both of their personal ratings down the toilet and hurts their party's fortunes.

Fixed election dates have ensured that when Harper has started to rise in the polls, he can't call an election to benefit. Fixed election dates have ensured that the NDP and BQ get a free ride and can vote no to everything. Fixed election dates have ensured that the Liberals look weak if they vote for the government or opportunistic if they vote against. Fixed election dates means the committees work even less well than they should. Fixed elections dates mean the PMO is even tighter when it comes to controlling the message because the government treats every issue like a confidence vote and can't afford to be embarrassed. Fixed election dates in a minority government means that the Opposition can wait for the most opportune time to bring down the government but it takes any advantage away from the government from doing the same thing.

Eugene Forsey said that fixed election dates would not work well in our system and he is right. We already had a set timeframe for elections. Now, we have a system that treats everything like a confidence motion but makes it harder to improve legislation because of the take it or go to the polls stand.

This isn't benefitting anyone.

[August1991]

Yes. And will it will be like that for any government in Canada with fixed election dates, minority governments and polls too close call one way or the other.

It basically characterizes Harper as a bully and Dion as a wimp and pushes both of their personal ratings down the toilet and hurts their party's fortunes.

Huh?

If Dion had any principles, he would vote against this government. Layton (NDP) and Duceppe (BQ) vote against Harper (CPC) - even before the vote. It is Dion (Liberals) that folds every time because they don't want an election.

The Liberals have no principles and they have no money. They have no support in Quebec. They only exist in federal polls (at 30%) because voters in Ontario (immigrants) don't pay attention to politics and still believe that the Liberals represent Canadian Unity. In a campaign, when these voters pay attention and realize that WASP Stephen Harper is more popular in Quebec than RC Stephane Dion, the Liberal vote in Ontario will collapse.

----

The federal Liberals and Dion don't want an election. The federal Liberals have become a sad paper tiger. After Keith Davey and Marc Lalonde, there's Warren Kinsella and Jean Chretien. (When a Canadian party appeals to people like Kinsella, it's evidence that one is eating one's own.)

[jdobbin]

Huh?

If Dion had any principles, he would vote against this government. Layton (NDP) and Duceppe (BQ) vote against Harper (CPC) - even before the vote. It is Dion (Liberals) that folds every time because they don't want an election.

Fixed elections means various parties can take entrenched positions and then blame the party that goes to an election. Harper knows full well how long it took him to establish himself as leader. He had people in his own party wanting him to step aside five months before the last election. He was considered a laughing stock. Harper himself voted for the government 19 times in matters of confidence because the BQ and NDP were trying to get a free ride.

Eventually, Harper felt he had to take the minority government down even though the polls suggested a Liberal minority or majority government at the time. He knew that Martin wasn't constrained by a fixed election and would pull the plug himself with a few more polls showing majority support.

A poor Liberal campaign and the Goodale investigation sealed the Tory victory but it by no means looked like a sure thing when it first started.

Now, Harper is constrained by his own rules. The NDP and BQ still get a free ride and Harper can make the Liberals look bad if they support the government but can't take advantage of it without looking unprincipled. All governments eventually have a bad run of luck. A major crisis, a scandal or a number of months of poor economic results and suddenly the Opposition gets an advantage that they can take advantage of whereas the government can't do that so easily.

Harper can rule like he has a majority but he doesn't have the security of one. The timing of the election has been removed from his hands but not the Opposition's.

The Liberals have no principles and they have no money. They have no support in Quebec. They only exist in federal polls (at 30%) because voters in Ontario (immigrants) don't pay attention to politics and still believe that the Liberals represent Canadian Unity. In a campaign, when these voters pay attention and realize that WASP Stephen Harper is more popular in Quebec than RC Stephane Dion, the Liberal vote in Ontario will collapse.

Yes, we've heard that prediction before. I think you're counting your chickens early. The more Harper uses the bully pulpit, the more he loses the female vote. This is something you still don't understand.

Liberals are now ahead of the Tories in Quebec in a few national polls including Decima and Ipsos.

The federal Liberals and Dion don't want an election. The federal Liberals have become a sad paper tiger. After Keith Davey and Marc Lalonde, there's Warren Kinsella and Jean Chretien. (When a Canadian party appeals to people like Kinsella, it's evidence that one is eating one's own.)

The Liberals will go when it suits them. Unfortunately for Harper, he appears constrained by his own rules.

If Harper did not have fixed election dates in place, he would probably have both a majority and security now.

In response to this thread, the Liberals are not going to bring the government down over C-10. The government might get its way on this but it takes its toll each time they declare confidence. Dion might look bad but Harper looks pretty bad himself when it seems he is bullying.

Edited May 3, 2008 by jdobbin

[Argus]

Fixed elections means various parties can take entrenched positions and then blame the party that goes to an election.

There is absolutely nothing new about this. Fixed elections or not the party which does not want an election always blames the party which triggers one for the cost and delays to needed bills. Joe Clark felt certain the voters would punish Trudeau for pulling the plug on Clark's shiny new minority government, but they didn't seem to care and gave Trudeau a majority.

Yes, we've heard that prediction before. I think you're counting your chickens early. The more Harper uses the bully pulpit, the more he loses the female vote. This is something you still don't understand.

You keep bringing that up while ignoring the fact Dion's numbers with men are as bad if not worse. And all voters want a strong leader. No one, male or female, wants a babbling wimp who can't make decisions and can't stand up for what he allegedly believes in. That presupposes Dion actually believes in anything, of course, which would be flattering to suggest.

Harper is far from charismatic, but he is a good, strong campaigner who has learned a lot about dealing with the media and sound bites. Dion is a sputtering, confused man in either official language, who comes across as wimpy and whiny. The contrasts come election time are unlikely to boost Liberal fortunes.

[margrace]

Hmm here's another one that need a lot of discussion, trying to slip these by Canadians and tying up committees discussing them. What happened to Democracy

[jdobbin]

There is absolutely nothing new about this. Fixed elections or not the party which does not want an election always blames the party which triggers one for the cost and delays to needed bills. Joe Clark felt certain the voters would punish Trudeau for pulling the plug on Clark's shiny new minority government, but they didn't seem to care and gave Trudeau a majority.

The difference is that the government is constrained by legislation from calling an election according to a timetable advantageous to them while the Opposition can pick them off whenever they have the advantage. The government can try to trigger an election but if the Opposition won't bite, it is difficult for them to declare no confidence. Meanwhile, the work of the House can grind to a halt and the government feels compelled to declare confidence on every bill. It makes it extremely difficult to create a give and take minority government such as the one where the NDP were able to influence Liberal policy in the Martin government.

Harper can rule with a majority but doesn't have the security of one. He can't take full advantage of his position as PM and go to the polls when it might best suit him. Partisan entrenched stands on the parts of the political parties can be taken without the consequences of an election.

You keep bringing that up while ignoring the fact Dion's numbers with men are as bad if not worse. And all voters want a strong leader. No one, male or female, wants a babbling wimp who can't make decisions and can't stand up for what he allegedly believes in. That presupposes Dion actually believes in anything, of course, which would be flattering to suggest.

Liberal numbers have been lower among men for decades now. Even with a leader like Chretien who was hardly a wimp, support from men was lower than support from women.

Harper's support among women has dropped since the last election according to a number of different pollsters. This isn't good since women probably mean the difference between a minority and a majority or even the difference between victory and defeat.

If Harper appears to be a bully, it affects his popularity among women.

Harper is far from charismatic, but he is a good, strong campaigner who has learned a lot about dealing with the media and sound bites. Dion is a sputtering, confused man in either official language, who comes across as wimpy and whiny. The contrasts come election time are unlikely to boost Liberal fortunes.

And Harper five months before the election was facing critics in his own party who wanted him ousted. Opposition can make you look weak and unengaged.

Elections are tricky things. The Tories must be thanking their lucky stars the Liberals hadn't taken them down a few weeks ago and then had the raid on their headquarters take place. It would have become a dominant issue just as the announcement of the RCMP investigation into Goodale turned out to be. They haven't been so good at dealing with the media on that issue.

There has been very little change from the election results in part because of the fixed election dates. The view that Harper is a bully and Dion is a wimp will prevail for a while longer.

[punked]

This bill will help stop the artsy-fartsy film crowd from wasting my tax money producing crap films. Why should I have to pay for films about drug use and gays? :angry:

There is no censorship here. They can still produce their artsy-fartsy crap if they want. Good luck finding funding though.

Know what I wish, I wish the pro war kill em all and let god sort em crowd would stop wasting my money on bombs. So we can make a compromise my money will go to film and arts and your money will go to bombs and we will all be happy. You know cause the country belongs to about 30 million people not just you.

[margrace]

Hey Punked didn't you know that the country belongs to the Conservatives, people like you and I are just trouble makers and liers. I get tired of being called a lier, don't you.

[August1991]

Eventually, Harper felt he had to take the minority government down even though the polls suggested a Liberal minority or majority government at the time. He knew that Martin wasn't constrained by a fixed election and would pull the plug himself with a few more polls showing majority support.

Martin's government would have fallen earlier except for the bribe to get Stronach to cross the floor. Harper did everything he honestly could to bring the Liberal government.

Dion, OTOH, has consistently criticized this Harper government and then supported it when the chips were called. Why? Because the Liberals have no scrupules and have no principles. They remain at 30% in the polls because of several groups, primarily in Ontario, who do not follow politics and still believe that the Liberals are the party of National Unity. Well, they're not. Stephen Harper has seen to that by what he has done in French Quebec. The federal Liberals have become in fact the party of Ontario and possibly anglo-Quebec and once Liberal voters realize this, they'll go elsewhere.

Dobbin, the federal Liberal party is in difficult straits and it's not merely because it has an apparently weak leader. (BTW, I don't think Dion is a pushover at all.) Since Trudeau, the Liberals don't really know what they are.

Meanwhile, sneaking up the centre, there is the whole thing of political correctness, C10 and human rights commissions. This Liberal nomenklatura, all the moochers and do-gooders at the federal trough, may soon be exposed. When the tallies add up, I think they'll be on the wrong side.

Edited May 5, 2008 by August1991