"An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, including amendments in relation to foreign investment entities and non-resident trusts and to provide for the bijural expression of the provisions of that Act"-Income Tax Amendments Act, 2006
When Bill C-10 was first introduced back in 2003 it caused little excitement. Short-titled The Income Tax Amendments Act, 2006, most of the bill deals with housekeeping changes to tax law. In October 2007, it passed with all-Party support in the House of Commons and recently moved smoothly past its second reading in the Senate.
Which was where people started to worry.
The text of the bill is 560-odd pages long, but it's just one clause that has captured public attention in recent weeks-a clause which would give the federal government (specifically, Heritage Minister Josée Verner) the responsibility to ensure that "public financial support of [a] production would not be contrary to public policy."
"There's recently been an amendment which puts a loophole in the way that films are funded in Canada such that after a film has been approved for funding of Telefilm Canada and it is produced, if the content is deemed to be offensive or not in the public interest, which is extremely vague, then the tax credits for that film can be retroactively taken away," says Professor Alanna Thain, who teaches cultural studies at McGill.
However, Verner and supporters maintain that current laws are illogical and the changes have been long in the making.
"Under the current rules, the creator of a film that includes content that may be subject to prosecution under the Criminal Code could technically still be eligible for a film tax credit under the Income Tax Act. This is a legal absurdity; a loophole that successive governments-first Liberal, then Conservative-have worked to close. This is a matter of good housekeeping, consistent with previous policy and what is done in other cultural sectors," said Verner in a statement released March 3.
The practical implications for the film industry are a palpable reality. Under the current system, funding for Canadian productions is regulated by Telefilm Canada and if he production is approved, those involved benefit from tax credits. If the bill passes, the Heritage Minister will have the power to revoke tax credits after the film has been made if the content is deemed offensive or not in the public interest.
"It's essentially preemptive censorship," says Thain. "The terms in which they're phrasing this-'offensive,' 'not in the public good'-are so incredibly vague that one of the ways it's been described is as producing a chilling effect: that people won't be willing to invest in anything that has even slightly risky content."
Better than Anne of Green Gables
People don't usually think of Canada producing anything more risqué than Heritage Minutes, but in fact many films funded by Telefilm Canada have non-mainstream subjects.
Consider Young People Fucking, a romantic comedy featuring graphic sex and due for release this April, which some critics have blamed for the bill. Or The Sex Files. Or David Cronenberg's Shivers, a 1975 film in which parasites turn people into sex-crazed monsters and which, despite outrage at the time, was one of the first publicly funded Canadian films to make money.
"Time and again Canadian filmmakers have said that they would not have been able to make their films without the structure of public funding in Canada... Our filmmakers have an opportunity to produce films that are outside of the mainstream and anything that interferes with that-anything that interferes with the right for artistic self-expression-is going to undermine the film industry," says Thain.
Those backing the bill disagree, but still voice their support of Canadian content.
"We want to support Canadian content, we won't stop anybody from producing any kind of movies. We just want to make sure that our fiscal measure will follow our law in Canada," said Verner in a press conference on March 4.
"Part of what makes Canadian film interesting-and, I would argue, Canadian-is precisely its great diversity-precisely that it produces films that are outside of the mainstream," says Thain. "Our industry is dominated by Hollywood; not only do most Canadians consume Hollywood films, but with Hollywood North, even the ability of filmmakers to get resources... to shoot Canadian productions is really under threat. Anything that restricts public funding for Canadian films is itself a threat to Canadian content."
One prime supporter of the bill is the Canada Family Action Coalition, an interest group that describes themselves as having "a vision to see Judeo-Christian moral principles restored in Canada."
"The film industry is violently opposed to C-10 saying it is 'censorship.' Yet it does not prevent any movie from production. CFAC was called barbari[c] at the Genie awards for asking that tax money cease being used for such un-cultural projects. CFAC has received dozens of hateful and disparaging emails. Because we dare call for responsible government use of tax dollars!" reads a statement on the CFAC Web site, which goes on to criticize the government for "caving" to the media and arts industry. No one from CFAC was available for comment.
Expansive public debate
Public outcry surrounding the bill, despite its earlier obscurity, has been swift and brutal. Groups like the CFAC are part of a comparatively small pro movement, while the online community in particular has come out strongly against it. From online petitions to statements urging readers to contact their MPs to the Facebook group "Keep your censoring hands off of Canadian film and T.V! No to Bill C-10!" the outcry against the bill extends beyond the public and into Parliament.
The Bloc Québecois put forth a motion for the government to amend the bill as soon as possible, which failed, while the Liberals, despite being the initial force behind the bill in 2003, are now equally against it.
"The arts community has already widely condemned the government's attempts to twit the tax law into a means of censorship-by-stealth," said Liberal Heritage Critic Mauril Bélanger in a press release dated March 5. "Liberals understand that artistic freedom is good public policy. We stand with Canada's artists and the public in their desire to protect their freedom of expression."
The artists themselves voiced opposition to Bill C-10 at the Genie Awards held at the beginning of March, when the bill had just started its rise out of obscurity.
"Censorship has had a little work done and is trying to make a comeback," Sandra Oh (Grey's Anatomy) said at the awards. "I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound Canadian to me."
While debates rage over whether or not the bill should or should not be in place, others are concerned about whether or not it would even work.
"Censorship has proven throughout time to be a clumsy and often ineffective, if not counter-productive tool. Think of all the films or plays that have drawn full houses as a result of their being earmarked for censorship," says Professor Richard Plant, of the Graduate Centre for the Study of Drama at the University of Toronto. "There are potentially serious problems inherent in the personal and/or ideological agendas of the people chosen to decide what works are acceptable… Furthermore, the nebulous nature of the criteria on which qualitative decisions are made about works under question leave the procedure open to very serious mistakes."
As of printing, the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce is still reviewing Bill C-10.
2008 Woodie Awards
Be the first to comment on this story