Some people, Louise and Damian, just don’t seem to understand the danger involved when the country loses a common culture funded in part by public money. There are many things we have in Canada that are taken for granted because we’ve built such an inclusive and [for the most part] well functioning society, we don’t all realize what got us to this point. Our national broadcast system was a pivotal public service adopted before the age of television, and assisted in giving diverse Canadians common musical figures, humourists, political news, and other entertainment and information.
Louise is framing this debate as a matter of public finance, but she’s wrong. It’s a matter of defending Canadian culture, and I say it is something I value and think benefits Canadians and not just those with careers in the arts. She’s defending the government’s right to give money to films it alone thinks are fine. This bill is wrong for both the taking away of funding from Canadian cultural productions, and in shaping the culture toward only the political bend of those in power.
Either call for a killing of all funding to the arts by the government, or admit that his half measure is not about removing government from dictating the arts. It’s about shaping it. If Louise would rather have the government determining what art you see, instead of the artists, let’s ask her how she’d feel about Stephane Dion deciding what films get funding? If you’re not comfortable with any other schmoe making those calls, then Bill C-10 is a flop.
Prole eloquently tells us they predicted the censorious bend in the Conservative party.
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, ya pass legislation WITHOUT READING IT?!? Next thing you’ll be passing the Canadian Military Commissions Act of 2008 and then whining that “we didn’t know it included illegal wiretaps and the suspension of habeas corpus! I’m very shocked to hear that now that I’ve voted for it, gosh, sorry about that!” I think maybe Mr. Siksay and all the MPs might be deserving of a firmly worded letter about their deriliction of duty.
This sort of presents the case for laws that can be read easily in a minute. If a bill is so complicated that an MP doesn’t understand the implications, then it’s too long and confusing. How are ordinary Canadians supposed to keep up with the law if those in charge of writing them don’t even have time to do what they expect us to do? It’s an obvious way to employ lawyers with make-work laws, and is a good reason why lawyers should never be allowed to become politicians ;-)
–
Hat tip to Cenobyte
@hotmail.com
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.efc.ca/images/efcfreet.gif)
Louise | 01-Mar-08 at 3:58 pm | Permalink
“If Louise would rather have the government determining what art you see, instead of the artists, let’s ask her how she’d feel about Stephane Dion deciding what films get funding? ”
Funny you should frame it that way, because that, in a sense is what has been happening since the very beginning of public funding for the arts in Canada. The funding for many of our major arts industries has ultimately come from the government of the day, which in Canada has been Liberal for most of the past 60 or more years. The Liberal Party has determined the mandate of many of Canada’s publicly funded arts agencies and has directed tax payers money toward them. If you think those arts groups don’t understand the implications of that, you have your head in the sand.
The government does not determine what gets funded. It only determines what it will fund.
I couldn’t care less what gets produced. I want my entertainment money spent on things that I choose and only what I choose and I’m willing to pay for what I’m willing to see once it’s ready to see. And of course I don’t want the government determining what art I get to see. I want that to be my decision. Your argument suggests that the government and only the government should fund the arts and that any and every silly proposal presented in an application for funding should be approved.
I stand by my statement. If a producer has a good idea, he or she can find the money. If the producer can’t find the money, then why should my tax dollars, or yours for that matter, be taken away from me and given to some group whose ideas are deemed to be lacking merit by people who know far better what the market will accept than some government bureaucrat does. Funding losers or funding creations that appeal to only a tiny segment of the population is not something I particularly want done with my tax dollars.
Maybe the solution is, as you say, to cut government funding altogether but then you’d have the cry babies whining about how we’re going to be swallowed up by the American entertainment industry. Please protect us, Big Brother.
Well, I’ve got news for you. That’s already happened, but with the development of new technologies it’s so far gone that it’s pointless to pretend we can buck the tide, and it’s also becoming increasingly clear from reports about market shares, etc. that even the mighty American television industry, in particular, is going into a nose dive. It may be time to accept that the Canadian population is too small to constitute a healthy market for the arts industry. Deal with it.
Louise | 01-Mar-08 at 3:59 pm | Permalink
“If Louise would rather have the government determining what art you see, instead of the artists, let’s ask her how she’d feel about Stephane Dion deciding what films get funding? ”
Funny you should frame it that way, because that, in a sense is what has been happening since the very beginning of public funding for the arts in Canada. The funding for many of our major arts industries has ultimately come from the government of the day, which in Canada has been Liberal for most of the past 60 or more years. The Liberal Party has determined the mandate of many of Canada’s publicly funded arts agencies and has directed tax payers money toward them. If you think those arts groups don’t understand the implications of that, you have your head in the sand.
The government does not determine what gets funded. It only determines what it will fund.
I couldn’t care less what gets produced. I want my entertainment money spent on things that I choose and only what I choose and I’m willing to pay for what I’m willing to see once it’s ready to see. And of course I don’t want the government determining what art I get to see. I want that to be my decision. Your argument suggests that the government and only the government should fund the arts and that any and every silly proposal presented in an application for funding should be approved.
I stand by my statement. If a producer has a good idea, he or she can find the money. If the producer can’t find the money, then why should my tax dollars, or yours for that matter, be taken away from me and given to some group whose ideas are deemed to be lacking merit by people who know far better what the market will accept than some government bureaucrat does. Funding losers or funding creations that appeal to only a tiny segment of the population is not something I particularly want done with my tax dollars.
Maybe the solution is, as you say, to cut government funding altogether but then you’d have the cry babies whining about how we’re going to be swallowed up by the American entertainment industry. Please protect us, Big Brother.
Well, I’ve got news for you. That’s already happened, but with the development of new technologies it’s so far gone that it’s pointless to pretend we can buck the tide, and it’s also becoming increasingly clear from reports about market shares, etc. that even the mighty American television industry, in particular, is going into a nose dive. It may be time to accept that the Canadian population is too small to constitute a healthy, viable market for the arts industry. Deal with it.
Louise | 01-Mar-08 at 4:00 pm | Permalink
Oops. Don’t know how that happened.
Wandering Coyote | 01-Mar-08 at 6:56 pm | Permalink
I’m confused. Bill C-10 is this: “An Act to amend the Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.”
Link here
Wandering Coyote | 01-Mar-08 at 7:20 pm | Permalink
Look: the reality is that all of our tax dollars go towards all kinds stuff that we don’t like. I resent having my tax dollars fund the Olympics, the Mulroney-Schreiber inquirey, and project Shoebox. No one will ever agree on anything. The question we should be asking here is simple: do we want ONE elected official deciding what’s appropriate for Canadian consumers and what’s not? Having one politician in charge of such decisions - whether he/she be Liberal, Conservative, or NDP - is dangerous no matter what side you’re on. That’s why we have Telefilm etc. in the first place.
Saskboy | 02-Mar-08 at 1:10 am | Permalink
Wandering Coyote, here’s what CBC says about the bill
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/tv/story/2008/02/28/film-tax-credits.html?ref=rss your link died somehow.
And yes my point is that it’s too dangerous to have one politician with the right to pull the trigger on something.
==
Louise,
“If a producer has a good idea, he or she can find the money. If the producer can’t find the money, then why should my tax dollars, or yours for that matter, be taken away from me and given to some group whose ideas are deemed to be lacking merit by people who know far better what the market will accept than some government bureaucrat does.”
There are all kinds of ideas that don’t make profit, but benefit people. You’ll also find that private interests think they are entitled to all kinds of publicly funded money losers like, I don’t know… roads for one! Not everything is about the “market”, some things have to be about investing in maintaining positive relationships among Canadians, and developing art that is respected around the world (here included).
You’ve made it clear you don’t enjoy Canadian culture. I do enjoy it, and I think we can stand up to American and other influences, even in the face of the Internet. In fact, thanks to the Internet, we’ll Canadianize more of the world than ever before possible.
Real art isn’t an industry, it’s an expression of a culture. And Canadian culture is among the best in the world right now, and it would be a real shame if it didn’t contribute to global culture and art.
Louise | 02-Mar-08 at 6:31 am | Permalink
Blah, blah, blah. You’ve summed up what’s wrong with Canadian arts - all anti-American all the time and you’ve linked to the worst offender - CBC. We can do way better than that.
But that’s not why I am objecting to your little tantrum. Regardless of what focus a particular artistic effort may have, the notion of entitlement to tax payers money, no questions asked, is patently ridiculous. The case you’ve made if one of extreme hyberbole. You, and now Coyote, want to convince yourselves that government is approving all creative products and thereby acting as censors.
This is so typical of the Canadian left. You’ve elevated the role of government to this collossal overarching big brother that is required to and must tinker with everything. There is nothing wrong with grants to cultural organizations or to individuals wishing to create something. I never said that and never will. My point is simply that all funders, private or public, do and must say no to many requests and, by virtue of that, they must establish acceptable criteria. You know. It’s called accountability. Or maybe you don’t know.
BTW, the link to Bill C - 10 works this morning. I wonder if CBC read it.
Saskatchewan Politics - The Arts Don’t Do Anything For Canada | Saskapedia | 02-Mar-08 at 7:15 am | Permalink
[...] The Arts Don’t Do Anything For Canada March 1st, 2008 Some people, Louise and Damian, just don’t seem to understand the danger involved when the country loses a common culture funded in part by public money. There are many things we have in Canada that are taken for granted because we’ve built such an inclusive and [for the most part] well functioning society, we don’t all realize what got us to this point. Our national broadcast system was a pivotal public service adopted before the age of Read More… [...]
Wandering Coyote | 02-Mar-08 at 10:27 am | Permalink
Sask Boy: I have read the CBC article.
CBC isn’t the only media outlet that is referring to this as Bill C-10. The Globe and Mail is as is The Toronto Star. Still confused…
I guess the other thing we should be asking is why we’re just hearing about this now as the bill goes into its third reading in the senate. Seems to me like the government is trying to sneak something in through the back door…
Sean | 02-Mar-08 at 10:30 am | Permalink
There are two types of artists so far as I’m concerned:
1. Opportunists.
2. Real artists.
The opportunists are the ones spending more time looking for grants and handouts than they are creating art. They don’t care how badly they compromise their art to satisfy the demands of the crowd paying the piper. They’re not real artists.
Real artists have a vision and nothing can stop them from sharing it. The state of their finances doesn’t matter. Having to work three jobs to scrape up the money doesn’t matter. They are so consumed by the art they have to produce that nothing can or will stop them. They won’t compromise their message in order to get funding for it. They’re the real artists, and they’re the ones whose work I pay to see.
Louise | 02-Mar-08 at 10:52 am | Permalink
Coyote: “Look: the reality is that all of our tax dollars go towards all kinds stuff that we don’t like. ”
That’s not the issue. The issue is who gets to decide how tax money is spent? It is government that does, that’s who. They are accountable to tax payers, not to film makers. That’s the issue. Funders, be they governments, private foundations or corporations have criteria - full stop. Film makers have a right to produce whatever types of films they choose, but they do not have a God given right to have tax dollars fund them. The arts community is behaving like a bunch of spoiled children.
Louise | 02-Mar-08 at 11:09 am | Permalink
And where did you get the idea that only “one elected official” is going to be making these decisions? If you don’t know how to make a link, at the very least you should provide a quote and identify your source by name.
Wandering Coyote | 02-Mar-08 at 1:07 pm | Permalink
Louise:
“Bill C-10, currently at third reading in the Senate, contains an amendment to the Income Tax Act which would allow the Minister of Canadian Heritage to deny eligibility to tax credits of productions determined to be contrary to public policy,” Charles Drouin, spokesman for Canadian Heritage said in a statement.
The quote is from this Globe and Mail article here.
Saskboy | 02-Mar-08 at 2:14 pm | Permalink
3rd Session, 37th Parliament,
52-53 Elizabeth II, 2004
That’s why C-10 in the link isn’t the right one :-) The link oddly enough did start to work again, I don’t know why it went down.
And yes, they have been accused of sneaking this one in the back door as an amendment to the bill.
“And where did you get the idea that only “one elected official” is going to be making these decisions?”
Yeah? That’s a pretty generous statement, given that Ministers don’t even have to be elected officials. ;-)
Wandering Coyote | 02-Mar-08 at 2:23 pm | Permalink
Sask Boy: Ah! Thanks for doing that bit of research for me… Silly me, I assumed C-10 would refer to ONE bill, not several as I found out for myself just now. There was a C-10 in 1994 and 1999 as well, both on totally different issues. Way to confuse the issue, eh?
Oh yes…I do recall Mr. Harper did make an unelected official or two into ministers of something or others!
Saskboy | 02-Mar-08 at 2:25 pm | Permalink
“You’ve summed up what’s wrong with Canadian arts - all anti-American all the time”
That’s complete BS. Because something doesn’t trumpet the praises of America while they talk about Saskatchewan grain elevators, they are anti-American? I see you are familiar with hyperbole, and how to use it when BS’ing someone.
“You, and now Coyote, want to convince yourselves that government is approving all creative products and thereby acting as censors.”
So now if a single politician [yes the bill says the Minister of Heritage] feels squeamish about a proposed film, they can kill the government funding. That’s not hyperbole, and it is censorship.
“There is nothing wrong with grants to cultural organizations or to individuals wishing to create something. I never said that and never will.”
Yes you have said that. You say frequently, and in this discussion even, about killing Canada’s best cultural and information media [aside from the Internet] — the CBC.
Louise | 02-Mar-08 at 2:32 pm | Permalink
Read the whole thing, my dear Coyote. This is how the
“Minister” does things: “Mr. Soucy said that a panel set up by CAVCO and the Department of Justice would review content. CAVCO would have the final say based on the panel’s recommendations.” (CAVCO = Canadian Audio-Visual Certification Office) That is not “the minister”, as in an individual person, elected or otherwise. That is an office, an agency, staffed with civil servants. If you have ever applied for a grant from any funder, you must know that all decisions are made by a group, duly appointed and authorized by the agency or individual who provides the money. And I repeat, no funder ever agrees to every application for funds. In fact, most get turned down. Nice try. But don’t let that stop you from whining.
Wandering Coyote | 02-Mar-08 at 6:06 pm | Permalink
Ooooookaaaaaaay….
Here is an actual quote from the ACTUAL BILL C-10 (the current one; not the ghosts of C-10s past…)
Uh, before I forget, link here. Scroll down to subsection 125.4.
“(16) Subsection (3) applies in respect of film or video productions in respect of which certificates are issued by the Minister of Canadian Heritage after December 20, 2002, except that, in respect of those film or video productions in respect of which certificates are issued by the Minister of Canadian Heritage before 2004, the definition “Canadian film or video production certificate” in subsection 125.4(1) of the Act, as enacted by subsection (3), is to be read as follows:
“Canadian film or video production certificate” means a certificate issued in respect of a production by the Minister of Canadian Heritage
(a) certifying that the production is a Canadian film or video production in respect of which that Minister is satisfied that
(i) except where the production is a treaty co-production (as defined by regulation), an acceptable share of revenues from the exploitation of the production in non-Canadian markets is, under the terms of any agreement, retained by
(A) a qualified corporation that owns or owned an interest in, or for civil law a right in, the production,
(B) a prescribed taxable Canadian corporation related to the qualified corporation, or
(C) any combination of corporations described in clause (A) or (B), and
(ii) public financial support of the production would not be contrary to public policy; and
(b) estimating amounts relevant for the purpose of determining the amount deemed under subsection (3) to have been paid in respect of the production.
Blah x3.
No mention of CAVCO, though I realize in practice that the minister probably isn’t going to review everything him/herself personally. BUT THE BUCK STOPS WITH THE MINISTER, ACCORDING TO THIS BILL.
saskboy1 | 02-Mar-08 at 7:09 pm | Permalink
“BUT THE BUCK STOPS WITH THE MINISTER, ACCORDING TO THIS BILL.”
As with any ministry, it’s the minister that is ultimately responsible for the actions of the department. That’s what’s so shocking about this bill, is that it doesn’t even attempt to create a non-partisan, at arm’s length division for doling out funding.