babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » Tories plan to withhold funding for 'offensive' productions

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Tories plan to withhold funding for 'offensive' productions
Snuckles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2764

posted 28 February 2008 07:03 AM      Profile for Snuckles   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Committee to decide whether material meets new criteria

GAYLE MACDONALD

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

February 28, 2008 at 2:07 AM EST

The Conservative government has drafted guidelines that would allow it to pull financial aid for any film or television show that it deems offensive or not in the public's best interest – even if government agencies have invested in them.

The proposed changes to the Income Tax Act would allow the Heritage Minister to deny tax credits to projects deemed offensive, effectively killing the productions. Representatives from Heritage and the Department of Justice will determine which shows or films pass the test.

Game and talk shows, news, sports, reality television and pornography are already excluded from access to the tax credits. The proposed prohibition would cover a sweeping range of material, such as anything of an explicit sexual nature, that denigrates a group or is excessively violent without an educational value.


Read it here.


From: Hell | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 28 February 2008 08:19 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Conservatives support censorship of the arts - why am I not surprised?
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ghislaine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14957

posted 28 February 2008 08:49 AM      Profile for Ghislaine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
Conservatives support censorship of the arts - why am I not surprised?

Technically it is not censorship. The filmmakers are free to make their films and distribute them, the Canadian Taxpayer just wont be paying for it.


From: L'Î-P-É | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
Istvan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14988

posted 28 February 2008 09:24 AM      Profile for Istvan        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's too bad -- what will some of these Conservative losers who can't get girlfriends watch on Friday night on Showcase
From: NDP4LIFE | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 28 February 2008 10:06 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ghislaine:
Technically it is not censorship. The filmmakers are free to make their films and distribute them, the Canadian Taxpayer just wont be paying for it.

Technically it IS censorship - do your work our way, or look for funds elsewhere.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ghislaine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14957

posted 28 February 2008 10:40 AM      Profile for Ghislaine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:

Technically it IS censorship - do your work our way, or look for funds elsewhere.



Censorship is when the goverment legislates that you aren't allowed to say something, not when they refuse to fund particular art projects. If they are still free to publish/release the subject matter (albeit with alternate funds), then they haven't been censored.

If rabble asked for a government grant (which I doubt they do due to a desire for perceived independence) and the government said they wont provide funding due to rabble being controversial or offensive to conserviatives, rabble is not being censored. Rabble is still free to publish whatever viewpoint it wants.

I would imagine telling prospective funders that your film or show was denied govt funding due to being deemed "offensive" would actually be a decent marketing gimmick for soliciting funding.


From: L'Î-P-É | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 28 February 2008 11:26 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
When the government says 'you do it our way or you don't get funding', that to me is censorship, and it sends out a strong chill to the arts community. You choose to disagree - fine.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
thorin_bane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6194

posted 28 February 2008 05:53 PM      Profile for thorin_bane     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
free marketers believe that as long as you pour billions into marketing and advertisment...that it is the will of the market. BTW government=bad market=good.
But in reality witholding funding because you may not like it may not be censorship, but it does sit next to pure propaganda and gustopo fear of government enforcement. Can you say totalitarianism. Which is only bad when it is leftish, but right of centre police states are more than welcome, see colubmia canada free trade agreement.

From: Looking at the despair of Detroit from across the river! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Le Téléspectateur
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7126

posted 28 February 2008 06:08 PM      Profile for Le Téléspectateur     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Censorship is when the goverment legislates that you aren't allowed to say something, not when they refuse to fund particular art projects. If they are still free to publish/release the subject matter (albeit with alternate funds), then they haven't been censored.


So what you are saying is that laws or rules are bigger barriers and carry more weight than money and buying power in a capitalist society?

Why do you think that government budgets are confidence votes? The power is in the money, not the laws.


From: More here than there | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
laine lowe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13668

posted 28 February 2008 06:10 PM      Profile for laine lowe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Considering it's an economic tool and universal by virtue of being a tax credit, this new amendment is discriminatory and a form of censorship.

The tax credit is designed to stimulate the growth and sustainability of the film and TV industry. The calculation of the credit is based on a percentage of total eligible labour expenditures. It's not a grant based on merit and subject matter doesn't come into play when assessing eligibility. It's structured on the concept of creating jobs earning one a tax break.

It's a real stupid move on the part of the Harper conservatives. The tax credit has worked in creating a very vibrant industry. The additional red tape by having an extra review process is going to be timely and costly to producers. The vague references to "public interest/decency" means that producers have no way of knowing whether their projects will be eligible and in order to secure financing (which approval for a credit triggers), they are going to have to self-censor or take a risk that their work is not offensive.

What's equally repugnant is that they added this amendment in a 600 page housekeeping omnibus bill so that most wouldn't notice.


From: north of 50 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 28 February 2008 07:43 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Let me guess, someone watched Kink and had a cow.
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sean in Ottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4173

posted 28 February 2008 08:31 PM      Profile for Sean in Ottawa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You bet this is censorship-- when they increased the price of shipping by 1000 percent (no typo) on a couple weeks notice in early 1993, they put the entire book industry on welfare and at the mercy of the government grants - only predictable best-sellers exempted.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 28 February 2008 09:00 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Bill Siksay, heritage critic for the NDP, said he did not know about this amendment when he voted for the 600-page bill.

"To hear now that there may be a clause in it that will allow the government to censor the creative process in Canada comes as a significant shock and surprise," he told CBC News.


So it seems everyone supported this.

Can we have a law saying all bills have to be read out loud, with all MPs present, before they're allowed to vote on them? Maybe that would do the trick.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
laine lowe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13668

posted 28 February 2008 09:11 PM      Profile for laine lowe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
At the very least, opposition finance critics should have been reading it and attending committee review (even if it wasn't presented as a contentious piece of legislation). At least Siksay had the courage to admit he didn't read it and it's not his portfolio. Why didn't Judy Wasylycia-Leis read it?

I'm also kind of frightened by how Harper is running the civil service. In the past, such a critical change would have been subject to some stakeholder consultation before it even saw the light of day as legislation. Makes me wonder whether they have already imposed this "morality clause" on other arts funding programs that didn't require legislative change.

It sounds like ACTRA, CFTPA and other film and television producers didn't hear about it until it got to the Senate for review. If anything, these days the Senate is doing more for informing the public than the House of Commons. So much for open and transparent governing.


From: north of 50 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 29 February 2008 07:10 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Evangelist takes credit for film crackdown

Christian crusader says he pressured cabinet ministers and PMO officials to deny tax credits to productions deemed too offensive

- Lead headline on page 1 in today's Globe (Toronto)

quote:
A well-known evangelical crusader is claiming credit for the federal government's move to deny tax credits to TV and film productions that contain graphic sex and violence or other offensive content.

Charles McVety, president of the Canada Family Action Coalition, said his lobbying efforts included discussions with Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day and Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, and "numerous" meetings with officials in the Prime Minister's Office.

"We're thankful that someone's finally listening," he said yesterday. "It's fitting with conservative values, and I think that's why Canadians voted for a Conservative government."

Mr. McVety said films promoting homosexuality, graphic sex or violence should not receive tax dollars, and backbench Conservative MPs and cabinet ministers support his campaign.



Martin Gero, the director of Young People Fucking (which opens in theatres in Canada in April), said, "It's old people fucking with the Canadian film industry."

[ 29 February 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 29 February 2008 07:30 AM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Who is going to be on the committee to decide what is and what is not "offensive"? Is "promoting homosexuality," to use McVety's term, offensive? Is sex?

Unbelievable. "We'll find a way not to defeat the government."


From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 29 February 2008 07:38 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Crime... Environment... Economy... Afghanistan... Cutbacks to activist groups... Cracking down on youth and sex... Censorship of free expression and culture...

We now have a Reform Party majority government!

Brought to you by: our courageous and diligent "opposition" parties.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 29 February 2008 07:59 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
MP LIbby Davies called this Bill "censorship" in QP this morning.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
margrace
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6191

posted 29 February 2008 12:09 PM      Profile for margrace        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sounds to me like the kind of act that the governments of Canada and the US supposedly deplore in other countries.
From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Draco
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4885

posted 01 March 2008 10:10 AM      Profile for Draco     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Catchfire:
Who is going to be on the committee to decide what is and what is not "offensive"? Is "promoting homosexuality," to use McVety's term, offensive? Is sex?

Unbelievable. "We'll find a way not to defeat the government."


Given that anything remotely touching LGBT-themes is instantly decried by conservatives as "flaunting sexuality," I'd say yes.

Somehow I doubt uncritical portrayals of culturally-acceptable racism, sexism, and heteronormativity are going send up any red flags. Those tend to be things that "Canadians can sit down and watch with their families in living rooms across this great country," as MP Dave Batters is quoted as saying in the above article. Somehow I don't think I fit into Dave Batters' vision of what a family is supposed to be, or that I'd enjoy the inoffensive pablum they are supposed to enjoy watching.


From: Wild Rose Country | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 01 March 2008 11:15 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
MP LIbby Davies called this Bill "censorship" in QP this morning.

Really? Did she mention whether she had voted for or against it when it passed the House on 3 readings?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 01 March 2008 12:09 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 01 March 2008 12:40 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's obvious everyone in Opposition was caught unawares on this.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Le Téléspectateur
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7126

posted 01 March 2008 01:25 PM      Profile for Le Téléspectateur     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Kind of like when they turned on that dangerous nuclear reactor so that they could go home for Christmas.
From: More here than there | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 01 March 2008 02:10 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Politicians asleep at the switch.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 01 March 2008 02:12 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Or when they all voted against sex and young people and for long prison terms for poor and Aboriginal folk.

So they wouldn't look bad in the polls.

At least we have democracy.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 01 March 2008 02:34 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, and that's a good thing.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 02 March 2008 06:41 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Bill Siksay has issued a statement on this issue.

quote:
New Democrats are very concerned about reports that a section of Bill C10 (An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, including amendments in relation to foreign investment entities and non-resident trusts) may be used by the government to censor film and video production in Canada that it finds offensive. [...]

At its meeting of February 28th, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage decided to pursue this issue. It has requested that the “updated eligibility requirements” and the “standardized and updated list of illegal and other ineligible content” developed by Heritage Canada be tabled by the Government. The Parliamentary Secretary for Canadian Heritage has agreed to provide this information to the Standing Committee.


Well done Bill.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 03 March 2008 02:40 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ghislaine:


Censorship is when the goverment legislates that you aren't allowed to say something, not when they refuse to fund particular art projects. If they are still free to publish/release the subject matter (albeit with alternate funds), then they haven't been censored.

If rabble asked for a government grant (which I doubt they do due to a desire for perceived independence) and the government said they wont provide funding due to rabble being controversial or offensive to conserviatives, rabble is not being censored. Rabble is still free to publish whatever viewpoint it wants.

I would imagine telling prospective funders that your film or show was denied govt funding due to being deemed "offensive" would actually be a decent marketing gimmick for soliciting funding.


Sorry, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the commercial Canadian film and television industry works. This is not about art, specifically, although as a cultural industry art intersects with some of the issues here. Art projects that are not funded by broadcasters, distributors, etc, are not eligible for tax credits because grants from sources such as the Canada Council for the arts are "ground out" of your final calculation. But I get ahead of myself.

The tax credits are not a grant. They were originally desgined as both an incentive for both Canadian companies and foreign (mainly American) "service productions" to use Canadian writers, actors, directors and technicians. When you make a production, you calculate your Canadian labour costs and you receive a tax credit for what you have paid. So it's a refund on money you've already spent.

The way most commercial productions (we're talking about everything produced here from Holmes on Holmes to Little Mosque, all the documentaries, etc and so forth) are financed nowadays is this: You get money from a funding body, usually in the form of an equity investment. That means they own a piece of your project and expect you to pay them back from revenues accrued after the production is released. Broadcasters are a bit different in that they offer "pre-licenses", buying rights in advance for a period of time.

Originally, the tax credit was to help boost the producers over the lean times while they develop the next project to go into production. Not so anymore. You, as a producer, are expected to pony up your own piece of funding -- the tax credit, or a large percentage thereof. In order to do this, you require a loan from your banker in order to pay the wages and equipment rentals you need to make your tv show or film.

Now we all know that bankers like security. They don't like risks. They want to be assured that the tax credit applies and will indeed come in after you submit your documents early in the process. However, if the tax credit can be refused AFTER the fact, once all the money has been spent, and whoever decides how much violence or sex or homosexual innuendo or controversy or what have you is acceptable has a chance to screen the finished product, you are a bad risk. Every producer in the country is. No sane banker would touch you with a ten foot pole.

Voila! You have been censored, even if it has been in a roundabout way. Helloooooooo Hays Code!

See, we may be free to make any movie we like, but movies (and tv shows) are not free. They are, in fact, very very expensive. Much more expensive than a website, fine though rabble.ca is. There is no comparison here.

And let's talk about prospective funders, like the ones you mention. Who are they? Oh, well, there's Telefilm. Oh, wait, Minister of Heritage and dear little Davy Batters are busy getting sticky fingers into their criteria and manipulating them. Broadcasters... If they provide full funding for more than a few productions, they're tapped out. You're going to see a lot less Canadian tv. Who else? Last I heard distrubution advances were small, if they're even offered. Private investors are pretty much non-existant. Any other clever ideas?

If we were actually talking about "shock art" you might have a small point (although I would debate that on its own merits), but we're not. We're talking about everything you see that comes out of Canada. Except that there would be provisions for foreign productions to not have to measure up to the same standards so they can collect tax credits. Nice, huh?

I am an independent producer. I do the tax credit thing because I have to. I jump through the hoops, kill a lot of trees and I work exclusively with Canadian personnel. If I didn't have access to the tax credits I wouldn't be paying my rent or feeding my kids. It isn't just about censorship, it's about having the power to bankrupt somebody and destroy their career after the fact, which is even uglier.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 03 March 2008 03:03 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is true, Timebandit.

In order to get the tax credit, you have to have a "Canadian film or video production certificate". Bill C-10 allows the Heritage Minister to revoke a certificate at any time if in his/her opinion public financial support of the film or video in question would be contrary to "public policy".

Once revoked, the certificate is deemed never to have been issued. So even if you've already got your tax credit and the film or video is in release, the retroactive revocation of your certificate by the Minister would trigger a tax reassessment by Canada Revenue Agency and you would have to pay back to the government any tax benefit you had received as a certificate holder.

It really is aimed at terrorizing producers into self-censorship, on pain of potential financial ruin.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Farmpunk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12955

posted 03 March 2008 03:07 PM      Profile for Farmpunk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Timebandit: "If we were actually talking about "shock art" you might have a small point (although I would debate that on its own merits), but we're not. We're talking about everything you see that comes out of Canada. Except that there would be provisions for foreign productions to not have to measure up to the same standards so they can collect tax credits. Nice, huh?

I am an independent producer. I do the tax credit thing because I have to. I jump through the hoops, kill a lot of trees and I work exclusively with Canadian personnel. If I didn't have access to the tax credits I wouldn't be paying my rent or feeding my kids. It isn't just about censorship, it's about having the power to bankrupt somebody and destroy their career after the fact, which is even uglier."

Nicely put.

Do the opposition parties have arts\cultural critics? Wouldn't this be like Atwood\Ondaatje not being able to deduct expenses while writing "dirty books"? What's the rest of the art gang saying?


From: SW Ontario | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
laine lowe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13668

posted 03 March 2008 06:42 PM      Profile for laine lowe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Every single film and television guild and association has condemned this frankly sneaky move on the part of the government. If you go to the Canadian Audio Visual Certification Office (CAVCO) web page, the entity who administer the tax credit program for the Department of Canadian Heritage, you will see that even the most minute of changes in the administrative process merited a public notice and is followed by stakeholder consultations. NOT THIS TIME.

This took the entire film and television production community by surprise. This omnibus legislation was reviewed by the Banking, Trade and Commerce Committee who were led to believe that it was a house keeping bill dealing with closing loopholes in the Income Tax Act. Even with reference to the Tax Credit for Film and Television, there were outstanding changes to the process of receiving certification dating back to 2003 consultations. They DID NOT include the statement of having the right to revoke the tax credit for production being "contrary to public policy". That was stuck in there without warning or consultation.

Timebandit outlined how the financing of productions is predicated on receiving a tax credit certification and the implications to film and television producers should their certification be withheld.

And for those of you who don't think it amounts to censorship, think again. Why the hell would the review process include representatives of the Department of Justice if it weren't about censorship. What the hell do they know about the film and television business? They are there to censor. And the statement is left to broad interpretation when you think of public policy. For example, with Harper in power, a documentary about climate change could be deemed as being contrary to public policy.

The powers that that clause gives to the government to control what gets made and distributed in Canada is shocking and repugnant. And here's the kicker: because it comes under the Income Tax Act, privacy laws prevent the Finance Department or Canada Revenue Agency from disclosing any information about who did or did not get a tax credit. At least with Canada Council grants or Telefilm investments, the public gets to see who is receiving funding. So the public will have no way of knowing what productions got rejected other than through self-disclosure.

I should also add that while lots of idiot right wingers are praising Harper for this move, claiming that these tax credits are some form of welfare for lazy artist bums producing films and television productions that the market wouldn't support, the same privacy laws prevent the public from knowing who or how many other corporate interests are catching tax breaks.


From: north of 50 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 06 March 2008 08:32 AM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This was posted to a list serve of the Documentary Organization of Canada.

quote:

Thank you for contacting me about Bill C-10 and the Harper government's plans to censor film in Canada that it finds "offensive". I agree that expanding the criteria used for denying tax credits to artists amounts to censorship and will have devastating consequences for the film and television industry.

New Democrats are standing up in Parliament to protect freedom of artistic expression in Canada. NDP House Leader Libby Davies was the first to raise the issue in Question Period and NDP Industry Critic Peggy Nash has made a formal statement in the House of Commons. NDP Culture and Heritage Critic Bill Siksay pushed this matter at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and in related media interviews. I invite you to support our petition to rescind any provisions of Bill C-10 which allow the government to censor film and video production.

We believe that to be successful in its goal of encouraging Canadian film and video production, the tax credit system must be transparent and objective. We strongly object to having either the Minister of Canadian Heritage or nameless bureaucrats as the arbiters of what stories should be told or how they should be portrayed. Calls for subjective decision-making amount to censorship and have no place in a free and democratic society. I am sure you will agree that we must never confuse controversy for inappropriateness in a diverse country like Canada.

Again, I appreciate your efforts to protect artistic expression in Canada. I encourage you to pass along my response to all who may be interested. All the best.

Sincerely,

Jack Layton, MP (Toronto-Danforth)
Leader, Canada's New Democrat Party



From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 06 March 2008 08:39 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, that's a pretty decent letter, but they need the Liberals onside to get it done.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 06 March 2008 08:40 AM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Just another example of the neo-cons commitment to open and accountable government. I know Bill is not happy this was missed but then not only did the NDP not notice this little "land mine" apparently neither did any of the arts groups because it was done by stealth.

Just more right wing Gottcha Politics.


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 06 March 2008 08:45 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There was debate upon this yesterday in the HoC, and an amendment to the income changes regarding this was put forward. Siksay and a Bloc MP spoke at length. I believe the amended motion failed, the details on voting should be in the Hansard link that is in the Bill c484 thread.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 06 March 2008 08:53 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
Just another example of the neo-cons commitment to open and accountable government. I know Bill is not happy this was missed but then not only did the NDP not notice this little "land mine" apparently neither did any of the arts groups because it was done by stealth.

Just more right wing Gottcha Politics.


Actually, the more I think about it, the more it's totally inexcusable.

In a minority government, the "opposition" parties get huge amounts of taxpayers' money and have nothing better to do than to listen up, do their homework, and pay attention.

Each party must have someone assigned to just read this crap and report to the critic/caucus/leader, no? Someone should be reprimanded or replaced over this incident. That would demonstrate some seriousness about looking after our interests.

[ 06 March 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
mary123
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6125

posted 06 March 2008 08:55 AM      Profile for mary123     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
"Incremental Conservatism."

Flanagan put the strategy into a one-sentence nugget: "My vision of incremental conservatism means endorsing even very small steps if they are in the right direction, and accepting inaction in areas that can't feasibly be changed right now, but opposing government initiatives that are clearly going the wrong way." While Flanagan is here describing the go-slow Conservatism of the Harper government in Ottawa


Reminds me of the frog burning story - place a frog in cold water and then slowly heat water and you've boiled a frog alive (instead of it escaping if placed in boiled water right away!!!) Those sneaky bastards.


From: ~~Canada - still God's greatest creation on the face of the earth~~ | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 06 March 2008 08:57 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'd like to see Layton publicly and in a non-partisan manner approach Duceppe (that's a given) and Dion and ask them to work together to correct this error. Or, if Dion doesn't think it was an error, let him justify censorship in front of the cameras. I just can't f***ing believe that Harper has a majority government.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 06 March 2008 09:07 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
I believe the amended motion failed...

It did indeed fail. Overwhelmingly. Because the Libs voted with the Conservatives. Details are here (courtesy of Accidental Deliberations).


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 06 March 2008 09:11 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
I'd like to see Layton publicly and in a non-partisan manner approach Duceppe (that's a given) and Dion and ask them to work together to correct this error. Or, if Dion doesn't think it was an error, let him justify censorship in front of the cameras. I just can't f***ing believe that Harper has a majority government.


I guess no one reads what I post, again they had a motion to amend this part of the new Income Act yesterday. Both the NDP and Bloc voting for the extraction of the clause allowing this back door censorship to happen. I believe the Liberals voted with the CPC to keep it in place.

Again see the Hansard link in the Bill C484 thread


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 06 March 2008 09:13 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pogge:

It did indeed fail. Overwhelmingly. Because the Libs voted with the Conservatives. Details are here (courtesy of Accidental Deliberations).


Thanks pogge, I was positive I saw it yesterday, and we cross posted.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
mary123
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6125

posted 06 March 2008 09:17 AM      Profile for mary123     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So the cons are governing as if they have a majority and if they win the next election by a minority they'll STILL govern as if it's a majority because by their calculation 2 successive minority governments = a majority.

What the helk is going on here?

[ 06 March 2008: Message edited by: mary123 ]


From: ~~Canada - still God's greatest creation on the face of the earth~~ | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sean in Ottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4173

posted 06 March 2008 09:21 AM      Profile for Sean in Ottawa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is in the Income Tax Act. That is a money bill. Money bills are confidence motions. What is the point approaching Dion. You could leave it on his voicemail. You might hear something like this:

"Hello, you have reached the Liberal Party of Canada. We are not in right now and will remain out till the polls say that we can win. Please leave a message if your issue has nothing to do with money or confidence. If it does, press 7 and wait to be disconnected. If your matter is urgent please call Jack Layton or someone else who cares. Thank you for calling the official opposition."


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 06 March 2008 09:38 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sean in Ottawa:
This is in the Income Tax Act. That is a money bill. Money bills are confidence motions. What is the point approaching Dion.

I understand your point - but my point is actually showing some leadership.

If you want to see Layton making truly pointless approaches, check out this - it's embarrassing (besides the fact that the only problems he appears to recognize with NAFTA are environmental concerns and labour standards, which he repeats twice!).

He should publicly raise this issue and politely call on Dion and Duceppe to join forces with him to eliminate this draconian and dangerous provision which none of them were responsible enough to notice in the first place.

What would be the downside of taking the right stand and looking like a leader?

quote:
Originally posted by remind:
I guess no one reads what I post, again they had a motion to amend this part of the new Income Act yesterday. Both the NDP and Bloc voting for the extraction of the clause allowing this back door censorship to happen. I believe the Liberals voted with the CPC to keep it in place.

I was fully aware of this. My question remains. Why doesn't Layton - why didn't Layton - publicly approach Dion and offer to join forces on this one issue? Why not force Dion to either do the right thing, or if he won't, make him publicly support what Harper is doing here?

[ 06 March 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 06 March 2008 12:39 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
So where was the opposition when the bill sailed through two readings in Parliament? You have to wonder whether the Libs and the NDP have been snoozing through this one.

The Globe and Mail was quick to point the finger at the allegedly huge influence of Charles McVety, the outspoken president of Canada Christian College and the Family Action Coalition, on the process.

McVety does have some outrageous views. On one debate spot we did together for CH Television, he opposed a city-sanctioned Pride Day, claiming it was an all-weekend orgy that shed a bad light on Toronto. In another, he opposed Gay-Straight Alliances in high schools because they were really just glorified sex clubs.

Not exactly the kind of person you want exerting undue influence on Canadian culture. But he insists he doesn’t....

Liberal culture critic Mauril Bélanger explains that the bill was originally tabled as Bill C-33 in 1998 (before his time as culture critic) and that the call for additional guidelines was buried in a complex, 560-page document 10 years later. Consultation was limited, he says, and there is no mention of the suggested guidelines in the Canadian Gazette, where new regulations are usually available for MPs’ perusal.

“The government has an obligation to explain clearly what the bill is about, and I don’t think it did that,” he says.

Yes, but you’d also think that it’s a culture critic’s job to read the damn thing before it passes.

Bélanger’s NDP counterpart, Bill Siksay, sounds slightly chagrined when I say as much to him. “I don’t want to make excuses. All I can say is that when you’re looking at this kind of legislation, you’re not looking for a censorship mechanism within it, and we’re going to do everything in our power now to oppose it. But you’re right. It is our responsibility.”

He goes on to press all the freedom-of-speech buttons. “It doesn’t surprise me that the the Conservatives have an impetus to censor. It’s not unusual for them to complain about something being objectionable. I don’t think there’s been a problem with tax credits going to inappropriate projects.”


NOW

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 06 March 2008 01:01 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
I was fully aware of this. My question remains. Why doesn't Layton - why didn't Layton - publicly approach Dion and offer to join forces on this one issue? Why not force Dion to either do the right thing, or if he won't, make him publicly support what Harper is doing here?

Apparently, you are not aware, and you still did not read, they did just that yesterday. The NDP and Bloc debated against it for over an hour, and then the Liberals publically supported the CPC and rejected the NDP and Blocs proposed ammendments.

So the answer is, the Liberals and Dion would NOT do the right thing after both the NDP and Bloc argued they should.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 06 March 2008 01:15 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
remind,

In the work I do every day (and which I've done for decades), we form alliances, watch alliances fall apart, appeal to our friends, appeal to our enemies, make compromises, stand firm, take a step back... And until we have what the members need, we keep looking for new ways to get it.

Did Jack Layton publicly call on the Liberals to join and help correct this situation? Or did he and Duceppe just debate and self-righteously watch it get defeated?

Do you know why the Liberals voted "NO"? I didn't think so. You know why you don't know? Because no one held their feet to the fire. No one made it impossible for them publicly to say no.

If any of these politicians came into our workplace and tried to resolve a grievance, or negotiate a change in working conditions, or work through a health and safety or accommodation issue, they would be sent packing with a boot in their ass. Because when they're in opposition, they say, "WTF can we do - we have no power!" And when they're in power, they do shitty stuff for the first couple years, then make empty promises just before election time, and they are answerable to no one.

So, tell me why Layton wouldn't do this? Is it not important enough to try? What's the worst that can happen? Someone may say, "he tried"?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 06 March 2008 02:08 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A Liberal senator was on Newman's 'Politics' tonight and explained the censorship provisions of the Bill amounted to one tiny paragraph in a 500 page document with a further 200 pages of footnotes and explanations, so it was easy to escape notice.

Further, this senator (didn't catch his name) said the Bill will be admended in the Senate to limit the censorship provisions to child pornography and one other thing I can't recall; then the amended Bill will be sent back to House of Commons for another vote. I suspect the Conservatives (and especially Josee Verner) to raise holy hell and call for the Senate to be abolished.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 06 March 2008 02:16 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Parties clash over 'censorship' bill

excerpt:

The Bloc Quebecois passed a motion calling on the government to amend the bill "as soon as possible". Liberal Senate leader Céline Hervieux-Payette and Liberal heritage critic Mauril Bélanger said Wednesday that Liberal senators will ensure hearings are held to examine the amendment and the possibility of government censorship.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 06 March 2008 02:45 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
I suspect the Conservatives (and especially Josee Verner) to raise holy hell and call for the Senate to be abolished.

After Carstairs being alone to publicly speak out on Bill C-2; and after this debacle on censorship; I'll be repeating my call for abolition of the House of Commons. Just can't get good help there any more.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 06 March 2008 03:21 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And what would replace it unionist?
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 06 March 2008 03:27 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
And what would replace it unionist?
Do we really need a bicameral Parliament?

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 06 March 2008 04:16 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
And what would replace it unionist?

A House of Responsible Elected Persons who don't posture and preen and make and break promises and always vote on their party's call, especially when the party is wrong.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 07 March 2008 03:51 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
Do we really need a bicameral Parliament?

mmm....bicaramel


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 08 March 2008 02:20 AM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
National Post bravely speaks up in favour of Bill C-10
quote:
Suddenly and inexplicably, panic erupted this week over legislation that was introduced over five years ago and has enjoyed near-unanimous support ever since. Bill C-10 is a large tax-related bill that deals primarily with housekeeping matters. One small section also aims to stop public money from flowing to films containing hatred towards identifiable groups or gratuitous violence.

In order to understand this uproar, one must first examine the origins of the bill itself.

The Bill originated with former Liberal Heritage minister Sheila Copps --hardly Canada's leading fundamentalist censor -- who aimed to prevent public funds from financing a film about Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka. While no one opposed the bill, it meandered around for the last five years and has been reintroduced in two subsequent parliaments.

The bill is well-supported and well-needed.



From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 08 March 2008 03:05 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh, yeah, the National Post is a credible voice on this matter.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 08 March 2008 03:14 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, what do you expect from the Post?

And you know what? I'd totally support government funding for a film about Homolka and Bernardo. That was a huge event in Canadian history. It was our OJ trial. Why the hell shouldn't filmmakers who want to chronicle Canadian events get the same funding as any other Canadian artist?


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
vaudree
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1331

posted 31 March 2008 08:48 AM      Profile for vaudree     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I get the feeling that there are some sitting MPs which would find a docudrama about the Mulroney Schreiber affair offensive.

What about a film about the truth of what is going on in Afghanistan? Though worse things are going on in Iraq, it is probably still pretty bad.

Or about the Maher Arar affair - the part where Monia tries to get "Steve" to help her get her husband back to Canada. I get the feeling that if someone wants to get funding for that movie, they would have to keep that scene out of it.

Or a movie about Chuck Cadman and Jim Walding (the guy who did bring down government after being bribed by the Conservatives).

Or the David Orlikow story.

They say that this is all about not funding racist (or movies with a lot of sexual content) - even though the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does have a mechanism to prevent the creation of hate material - government funded or not. This is really about the funding of films which the government of the day might find embarrassing.

[ 31 March 2008: Message edited by: vaudree ]


From: Just outside St. Boniface | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sean in Ottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4173

posted 03 April 2008 10:35 AM      Profile for Sean in Ottawa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Funny, I find much of the tax-payers supported communications coming out of the PMO to be offensive. Can we argue that the tax payer should not support that?
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Buddy Kat
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13234

posted 03 April 2008 11:10 AM      Profile for Buddy Kat   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I wonder if that is why they are cancelling "air farce"...poking too much fun at neocons suffering from pot belly dementia.
From: Saskatchewan | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 10 April 2008 10:00 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sarah Polley takes protest to Parliament

quote:
Oscar-nominated actor/writer Sarah Polley arrived on Parliament Hill on Thursday to protest against a provision now before the Senate banking committee that could cut off tax benefits for film and TV productions that contain graphic sex, violence or other content that the government finds offensive.

“If there's something artists fear, it's censorship,” Ms. Polley said Thursday at a press conference. ...

Ms. Polley, whose feature-film directorial debut, Away from Her, was nominated this year for two Academy Awards, was joined at a press conference by actor Wendy Crewson ( 24, Air Force One) and screenwriter Rebecca Schechter, president of the Writers Guild of Canada.



From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
toddsschneider
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6280

posted 02 May 2008 03:22 AM      Profile for toddsschneider     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"MATTER OF CONFIDENCE: MATTER OF CENSORSHIP?
Grits vow to amend bill denying film tax credits"

http://tinyurl.com/3sqlbn


quote:
Liberals are vowing to amend the government's film tax credit legislation at the risk of triggering a federal election, insisting they will not let bureaucrats decide what Canadians can watch.

But the NDP expressed skepticism yesterday that the Liberals will ultimately back up their tough talk, noting a recent pattern of Liberals backing down on key issues when it comes time to vote.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty raised the stakes this week in the battle over whether Ottawa should fund films that include gratuitous violence or objectionable sex scenes. He declared this week that amendments to Bill C-10 would not be tolerated on the grounds that tax changes are a matter of confidence in the government ...



From: Montreal, Canada | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sean in Ottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4173

posted 02 May 2008 08:13 AM      Profile for Sean in Ottawa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It is truly amazing to watch Conservatives say that the bill is not censorship because nobody is stopping people form doing the work without the grant. this is coming from the party who say they know business; the people who say that when the government interferes into the market those without government assistance cannot compete or afford to produce.

This was a universal program to support the industry. (like the bookrate was before they killed it in early 1993 ro also replace it with direct grants to the types of projects the government deems worthy. Of course now 14 years later you see a lot less published that the government does not deem worthy.

In fact this is all about censorship. These are the experts on it. They know that the government has a power when it enters the market with money and that this power shuts other people who do not have access to that money out of the market. From a public policy point of view this is the point of it.

The fact that the film industry tax credits are a judgment after the fact and that this judgment is entirely subjective- this gives the government the power of ruination on any producer of films in the country. With this threat, no doubt we will have self censorship going much further than the government might dare -- just to be sure that you won't get destroyed after the fact. This self censorship will not be just on the part of the movie producers who may be able to develop some expertise in terms of predicting what the government might demand- investors may just abandon the industry altogether as far to risky. I can't see a bank wanting to loan money based on a project the government could destroy at will, in a subjective manner, after it is finished. This is quite rightly being identified as a bill that could destroy our film industry.

But our film industry is fully of lefty artistes so why would we care about that???

This is in keeping with the power grab the Cons are conducting over arms-length agencies. Who ever heard of an Emperor elected with a minority government before?


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
toddsschneider
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6280

posted 03 May 2008 12:16 AM      Profile for toddsschneider     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A good and bitter chuckle on a Saturday morning.

"Why Tories are blowing off the G-G's arts party"

http://tinyurl.com/5yvvzq

quote:
OTTAWA — Tonight, Marjory LeBreton will put on her best gown and her highest heels and go to the National Arts Centre.

And she will be lonely.

LeBreton, the Government leader in the Senate, is the only member of Stephen Harper's Conservative cabinet to be attending tonight's black-tie affair – the Governor-General's Performing Arts Awards Gala ...



From: Montreal, Canada | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
toddsschneider
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6280

posted 30 May 2008 06:43 AM      Profile for toddsschneider     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"Bill could kill film biz, cities fear"

http://tinyurl.com/4ofd75

quote:
A ribbon-cutting ceremony to open the Filmport complex on the waterfront won't happen June 5 as planned because Mayor David Miller will be in Ottawa speaking against Bill C-10.

Mayors from Vancouver, Montreal and Halifax, all big film production locations along with Toronto, are worried the bill could negatively affect film production.

Critics of the federal bill say proposed amendments give Ottawa discretion to withdraw already agreed-upon tax credits once a film is finished if it is deemed "contrary to public policy.'' ...



From: Montreal, Canada | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 18 June 2008 07:21 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Senate to amend controversial Bill C-10

quote:
Liberal senators say they will strip from a controversial income-tax bill the sections that would empower the Heritage Minister to deny tax credits to film and television productions she deems too violent or pornographic.

Senators Francis Fox and Wilfred Moore announced at a press conference Wednesday morning that they will try to amend Bill C-10 to say the tax credits would be refused only when content of the films or shows violates the Criminal Code.

They would also give producers an avenue for appeal if the minister blocks or delays the funding. And they would ensure that the government continues to bar the tax credits to material that is pornographic or hate propaganda.



From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 11 October 2008 05:44 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I missed this when it was reported a few days ago:
quote:
Canadian artists scored a victory Tuesday after Stephen Harper abruptly pulled the plug on a controversial clause in Bill C-10 that would have given government free rein to censor film and television projects it found morally offensive.

The Conservative Leader's about-face comes as Tory hopes of a majority fade, and support for the party is sagging in the crucial battlegrounds of Quebec and Ontario.

The move appears to be aimed at appeasing voters incensed at the censorship provision in C-10, and at the nearly $45-million in recent cuts to a swath of other arts and culture programs. Reaction from some of the most influential voices in Canada's cultural sector was swift.

“It's the first arts cut that he's made that's actually good,” said director David Cronenberg. “It's obvious he thought he was playing to a major constituency when he was talking about the cultural elites and the rich galas, and all that nonsense. He realized there are a lot of people of every so-called ‘class' – working or middle class – who depend on their arts for their livelihood and for their intellectual well-being.

“He tried to play the dumb-it-down game and it didn't work because Canadians are not dumb.”

Mr. Cronenberg was referencing comments made by Mr. Harper at a recent campaign stop in Saskatoon, where he said he did not believe that “ordinary working people” were sympathetic to “a bunch of people, you know, at a rich gala all subsidized by taxpayers claiming their subsidies aren't high enough.” - Globe and Mail



From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 12 October 2008 01:05 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
He may have retracted it, but it is another lie that no one will believe.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca