"The Cooling Factor on Financing Is Real." - Danny Iron, Producer, "Slings & Arrows"

THERE'S AN AWFUL lot of movement on the Bill C-10 front again, so rather than do a bunch of separate posts, I'm gonna collect them all together here to talk about where things stand today.

Firstly, I want to call your attention to a column in the Toronto Sun by Bill Harris. Harris' column is important because it points toward a real and persistent problem in the communication being put across by opponents to the Tories' back-door attempts to control culture. I'll return to Bill at the end of this post. But that column is the reason why I -- from the beginning -- have said that the economic arguments are the stronger ones to make.

Those arguments, briefly?

• Tax Credits are meant as economic stimulus, not as element of social policy. They are a poor method of influencing content.
• Any uncertainty surrounding how a tax credit might be retroactively pulled means you will not have banks risking making the bridge financing loans ALL productions need to start up. This will seriously cripple the industry.
• What are the concrete examples of shows that were financed under the current, unspecified structure, that shouldn't have been. If this is indeed a loophole that needs to be filled -- point to who got through the loophole. And why it's a good thing that this loophole be closed.
• It discriminates against Canadian production, and gives American productions applying for tax credits an advantage. The complete absurdity of this last point was well illustrated in this article in today's Globe:
  

Under the proposed changes to federal tax legislation, Canadian films that receive public funding may be scrutinized by the government for their moral suitability. Yet Hollywood films shot in Canada that have applied for tax credits will get a free pass.

Film director David Weaver (Century Hotel, Siblings) said yesterday that he finds it preposterous that the Department of Heritage would apply this only to Canadian producers, not to Americans or other foreign parties. "The message seems to be big-time American producers can come and produce anything they want, but [Ottawa is] going to undermine and perhaps make impossible smaller Canadian productions. It's outrageously discriminatory."

Toronto lawyer David Zitzerman said the controversial Bill C-10 - the federal government's proposal to cancel tax credits for films or television programs deemed too offensive - deals only with the Canadian film or video production tax credit (the "Cancon Credit") in Section 125.4 of the Income Tax Act.

The proposed amendment does not apply to the Canadian film or video production services tax credit in Section 125.5 of the Income Tax Act (the "Services Credit," through which Hollywood studios and producers from other countries can apply for labour tax breaks).

I simply do not see how you can read the full article and conclude that this is anything other than a hamfisted and unfair burden on the domestic industry. Any similar provision, applied to any other industry that put our homegrown suppliers at such a disadvantage would cause a huge storm of protest.

In fact, if you take the case of something like Climate Change, isn't that the main argument the Tories make against things like trying to make our Kyoto targets? That it puts our homegrown industries at a disadvantage? So you won't take steps to curtail an industry for a reason that's probably our greatest challenge in this century -- a clear case of weighing economic impact versus worldwide good. But that distinction isn't a problem for you whatsoever when it comes to Film and TV?

Well. Um. Why? Why is that good public policy? Or even...consistent, in like, any way?

Now I want to call your attention to something else. Here is a transcript of an interview between a Conservative MP and host of CBC Radio's The Current, Anna Maria Tremonti. An excerpt:

— The same guidelines that are already applied to books and magazines. Again, we don’t see why it is that Canadian taxpayers should be forced to pay for porn films. But I’d like to –

— Well, in fact, Canadian taxpayers buy a lot of pornography. We should get that straight. It’s a big industry. But that’s not the issue.

— But they pay for it themselves.

— Are you saying that all Canadian filmmakers are making pornography? I mean, what are you saying here?

— Of course not. In fact, of the roughly thousand films that have got this tax credit, a very, very, very small number would ever be denied it because of the new rules contained in Bill C-10. Movies like Eastern Promises, Borderline, Ma fille, mon ange, those kinds of films would not have been touched. I don’t think that anything that was at the Genies last night would have seen any difference in its treatment if the bill had been in effect when those movies were produced. But, you know, we believe that – and all the movies that you see in the theatres, that you can order, you know, from your home –

— A lot of those movies, of course –

— Those movies will all, largely, with very minor exceptions, continue to receive the tax credit. All we’re saying is that the same thing that has been done for books and magazines for years in this country, that porno or extreme violence should not be paid for by the taxpayer.

— But again, who decides that? You say “the movies in Canadian theatres” – but a lot of those movies are of course American movies distributed by American-owned distributors. A lot of the Canadian films that are made we don’t get to see – not because they’re not popular, because they can’t squeeze into the theatres.

— Right. You say “Who decides?” Again, there is a board that is already in place within the Heritage department, and that board already decides which companies – sorry, which productions get the tax credit. That is an independent board. It is not a partisan operation. It has existed prior to the arrival in power of the Conservative government. And that group already makes the decisions of who gets the tax credit. If this bill passes, effectively the guidelines that exist for books and magazines will be added to their list of criteria. So an independent group of public servants, separate from the political arm of government, will make those decisions based on rules that already exist for books and magazines.

— So you’re basically concerned about pornography.

— And extreme gratuitous violence. And I think Canadians can distinguish between incidental violence or incidental nudity that forms a part of a broader plot in a movie and something that is produced exclusively for the purposes of pornographic gratification or gratuitous violence. And the latter description –

— But you’re saying they won’t get the chance to distinguish. You’re going to distinguish for them.

— Absolutely not. Canadian filmmakers will continue to have the right to produce anything they want and Canadian viewers will have the ability to watch anything they want within the existing Criminal Code. The only thing we’re saying is that if it’s nothing more than senseless pornography or gratuitous violence, then taxpayers are not going to pick up the tab.

That transcript, by the way, was prepared and sent by Joe Clark. Joe (not the former Progressive Conservative Prime Minister once known to one and all as "Joe Who?") is an activist who writes frequently about accessibility issues. He's also not a big fan of mine -- and I find him to be, shall we say, contrarian. But I'll say this about Joe: he does good, important work for people who really could use it. He is consistent in arguing for openness from government and organizations...and the guy has a highly developed bullshit detector.

The amazing thing about that transcript is that when you see it in Black and White, you really do see the strings of what's behind this. The guy keeps repeating the same two phrases over and over -- "gratuitous violence" and "pornography."

It's awesome that Tremonti keeps trying to nail the guy down -- "what exactly do you mean?" and he can't answer, because of course he doesn't have the answer. He's merely been given the talking points. Remember, the Conservative party is absolutely disciplined when it comes to staying on message. So he's been told to hit that stick over and over. Why?

It's good politics. I mean, really, who in heaven's name would stand up and say, "you know, I really would like tax credits (not dollars, remember -- tax credits) to go to pornography and gratuitous violence?"

But here's the thing: those things are already illegal. They are already ineligible for the tax credit. Pornography has always been specifically excluded. And gratuitous violence -- whatever that means -- is surely prosecutable under the criminal code.

Again -- stick to economics. What movies with grauitous violence received tax credits in the past? What is the actual, real world, provable, discernible problem that the rule change is trying to solve here? And why does it require a wording change giving that power to the Heritage Minister or a body appointed by the Heritage Minister?

In short, there are three options that are really on the table.

• The Tories actually think there's a real problem with pornography and snuff films with horrific violence getting tax credits.
• They don't think this, but they've got data that says it'll poll well with their base, and it's a chance to do something symbolic -- but they didn't really think about it beyond that. So all this is catching them by surprise.
  
• They know exactly what they're doing; they know that this is likely to have a chilling effect on what gets made, and that's exactly what they're going for, because they know that chilling the sector before the fact is a far more effective, and plausibly deniable way of controlling content, than actually trying to fight the cultural fight.

The secrecy inherent in burying the change, the fact that the "guidelines" that were supposed to be ready are now, um, not...the fact that they lean so heavily on two things they know that Canadians couldn't possibly be in favour of, and the fact that anybody who knows anything about things like production, or tax credits, thinks this is a unnecessary and onerous change would seem to argue for that latter interpretation.

Which is why there's such an outcry -- and why most people who object to C-10 think this is really an attempt at censorship by another name.

Now. Back to Bill Harris.

To me, Bill Harris seems like a regular guy. He writes for a right-leaning populist newspaper. He's only been the TV critic there for a few years. And in his column today, he gets some things a little wrong, but the point he makes is really well worth listening to:

The Canadian TV and film industry's reaction to the existence of the bill has included references to Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Communist China and the Guantanamo detention camp. And while I share some of the industry's concerns, it's that type of terminology that strikes me as inappropriate.

The average Joe should understand something: This is not about censorship. Censorship means you aren't allowed to make a certain TV show or movie. No one is talking about that here. Everyone in Canada is completely free to make whatever TV show or movie they want, provided -- and herein lies the heart of the debate -- they pay for it themselves or secure private financing.

If the government gives you a tax credit for an artistic pursuit, how much of a say, if any, should the government have in what you create with that money? That's the debate, people. Simple as that. So let's throw away all the talk about censorship and dictatorships and prison camps, okay? That's an insult to anyone who ever really has experienced censorship, or lived under a dictatorship, or been detained in a foreign land.

Hey, maybe carte blanche on subject matter should apply when the government hands out tax credits. I don't know. I understand the concept of the slippery slope when governments slide from artistic assistance to artistic regulation. And I understand that on a level playing field against the risk-taking financial behemoth that is the United States, habitually nervous-to-spend Canadians wouldn't invest very much in TV or film if the government didn't do it for them, and our culture would get swamped even more.

But isn't this a debate worth having? Shouldn't we be talking about this every five or 10 or 15 years, just to make sure Canadians still feel the same way?

Bill Harris correctly summarizes the change to C-10 as a sneaky attempt to add a "morals clause" to the administration of Tax Credits. He's right. That's exactly what it is.

He's also right when he talks about the rhetoric getting out of hand. I think we should all agree on a new rule. Unless you're talking about people en masse actually getting hauled off to Concentration Camps or Gulags, comparisons to the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany are...overheated.

I describe myself, when I'm forced to, as generally centre-left in my thinking. (I know, to many Americans who read regularly, you might think, "uh, really?" to which I punt to a description from 1960's "Beyond the Fringe" about the American system: "you have the Republicans, who are the equivalent of our Conservative party, and the Democrats, who are the equivalent of our Conservative Party..") People on the left very often shoot themselves in the foot by going to a place that's shrill. And that simply isn't necessary here.

There is no good economic argument for the change proposed. The idea that it's censorship by another name is simply the most plausible option. And the reason why, it's great to see, that it looks like the Senate will now send C-10 back to the House of Commons for further debate. Because that debate is clearly needed.

The thing that Harris gets wrong is also on the economic argument: the tax credits he's talking about are breaks that are given to productions by just about every country, besides the United States. It is a common precept that in order to compete against the much larger American machine in culture, homegrown productions need some help. Canada is not alone in this.

But I'll tell you this much: if Canada actually implements a policy that penalizes its own shows over U.S. shows -- well, that's gonna be a unique, Only-in-Canada folly.

Finally, Maureen Parker of the Writers Guild of Canada had this to say today:

I just received a phone call from the Stephane Dion’s chief of staff who advised me that the Senate has now officially (controlled by the Liberals) decided to address the issue of Bill C-10, in particular the requirement for guidelines to ensure that an film, TV or digital program is not contrary to public policy.

Should the Senate decide an amendment is required (and this seems likely), the entire Bill will be sent back to the House for another reading as an amended Bill. If the government manages to raise enough support amongst all of the MP’s it seems that this could mean a non confidence vote for the government. But given that the Liberals, Bloc and NDP are supporting an amendment to this Bill, it doesn’t seem likely that it will become an issue that will bring down the current government and force us into an election. But if it does, we say bring it on.

Maureen is off to Ottawa again tomorrow. Maybe she can ferret out the disappearing guidelines that supposedly don't exist yet. We'll see.

In any case, I leave you with this:

In Montreal last weekend I did two things that you wouldn't think would have bearing on C-10, but they do.

First, I went to Mass for the first time in a long while at the Notre Dame Basilica. Mostly for the novelty of it. The service was in French, but you know Catholics, it's all hard wired in there somewhere. As I struggled to catch snippets in my imperfect French, I looked around the faces in that church -- young and old, and I reminded myself that this was not a fight of the secular versus the religious -- even thought that's the way that the McVety's of the world want to paint it.

This is a fight of one religious minority trying to impose their will on a Canadian populace who simply does not support their radical views of what is and what is not acceptable. They can't go in the front door -- because it won't work. They have to stealth this through.

So that means that the only way we can lose this thing is if we somehow manage to piss off the average Canadian.

It's easy these days to demonize people of faith. But they are not all (if you'll pardon the expression,) cut from the same cloth. You go to the shrill rhetorical place and you put your argument on the level of those who currently have neither social support, or economic sense on their side.

The second thing I did was walk through a very interesting exhibit of Cuban art from conquest to the present. There is an island that's endured much, and the swings of politics and politics trying to sway culture. Some of the strongest pieces were wildly propagandist in nature. Pretty interesting stuff. But the show also had a fatal weakness, in that the cooperation of the Cuban authorities and the Havana Museum meant that there could really be no inclusion of anything that even slightly criticized Castro.

So in a sense, like when I saw RockN'Roll last month, I was struck by what is lost when you can't make part of the argument.

There's nothing -- nothing at all -- that says we have to fall into the rhetorical traps the Conservatives set for us. Make the argument. The full argument. Do it with passion in your heart. Demand answers, and proof that this change is needed.

Truth. Economics. And the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are on our side. The only way we lose this one is through apathy or by turning freethinking, reasonable Canadians against us.