Sometimes You Win One

A WEEK BEFORE the Canadian Federal Election, and the Conservatives have finally released their platform. Details are here, and here, but the important thing from an Arts point of view is that the censorious, industry-crippling portion of Bill C10 will not be reintroduced.

I don't know if there's any other way to spin this than this: we won.

The Conservatives thought they were going to ride on the back of increased Quebec support to a majority. But their anti-culture baiting has had a deleterious effect in the part of the country that actually venerates and fiercely supports homegrown culture.

Is it too little too late to bring their fortunes back? I must say, it's quite an interesting turnaround. Guess we'll see.

Meanwhile, if you're in Toronto tomorrow around lunchtime, why not come help keep the heat on, and help make culture an election issue. At 11:30 there will be a rally outside the CBC building on Front Street.


I'll be popping over from set of my last ep of The Border to give one of the (hopefully mercifully short) speeches. Truth to power, my friends. Sometimes it works. Come on out and show how ordinary Canadians populate our cultural industries.

And be sure to say 'hi.'

Oh, The Money (Shots) We'll Make...

SOMETIMES THE GLEE with which which I greet the news is completely unbidden.

The CRTC approved a bunch of new discretionary channels this week. Some are predictable and YAWN-y. Like Rogers Baseball TV -- real exciting sounding right? The sad thing is I'll probably get that one.

But I want you to think back of the fooferal that recently came down the pike about the Government's games with Bill C10. Buddy Boy Charles McVety clucking on and on about the horribly unwholesome tax credits extended to movies like YOUNG PEOPLE FUCKING.

Think, too, on Jim Shaw, Fatuous Gasbag and High School Chum of Prime Minister Shiny Hair, and his terrible pique over the disgusting and inappropriate antics of the Trailer Park Boys.

Think on those things as I tell you about the other new channel they approved: Northern Peaks.

Northern Peaks is, drumroll, please..."Canada's first adult video channel offering significant Canadian adult content."

The CRTC definitely did their job here, though, because they have required that Northern Peaks (get it? heh heh get it?) spend ONE MILLION DOLLARS on original programming in its first year of operation.

Other flies in the Canadian broadcast ointment will be undoubtedly pleased to know that the CRTC also demanded all the programming on this channel be close captioned. Thank heaven for that.

So, yeah, while your head is spinning -- your government doesn't want to be involved with YPF or icky movies or TV shows that might, you know, involve the gays or people doing morally questionable things...

But they WILL encourage that thing that we were ALL CLAMORING FOR...

..A DOMESTIC PORN INDUSTRY.

Because, damnit, we Canadians don't get hepped up unless everybody's really pasty.

It's comforting to know that if the whole rest of the industry goes in the tank, because of government and regulatory idiocy, maybe I can get work as a fluffer. I'm sure I'd be a good fluffer.

Oh, wait, you want more? One little nugget more? Okay. Here you go.

You know how every time there's an article that talks about the arts and etc, etc, all the trog complaints about "myyy txxxx dllllrrRRRS" seem to echo loudest from one particular province? You know, with the oil and stuff?

Well, guess who owns "Northern Peaks?" A numbered company based in....you got it... Alberta.

Say it with me, kids...

"Ma'am, I'm here to clean the pool..."

shwwakkka-wakkka-wakkka-wakka

H/T to Magee.

We All Fall Down

JUST AS I vow that maybe I'll try to take a break from the "industry-saving," (yes, yes, that's why it's in quotes, dumbass.) along comes Our Glorious National Government's Latest Debacle.

It's not the kind of thing that makes big news, especially when you assiduously try to bury it by leaking it on a Friday.

So the Conservatives continue the cynical policy that began with Bill C10 -- trying to punish those that might espouse a point of view that veers one iota off their approved right-wing script. Despite what people might write, this isn't just a matter of bloody minded punishment to dissenters or red meat to the base-- it's actually a calculated gambit for survival.

If you poll Canadians on most social issues, little has changed -- the populace, by and large, tacks left of centre on most issues. The Conservatives are in power because of the vagaries of the multi-party system at play in this country. They can count on their base, but outside of it, most people are left of their stated positions on just about everything. The only hope is to cynically frame things in terms of trumped-up cultural outrages. If you tamp down and cut off speech that disagrees with you, then maybe you have a chance of fooling people a little longer -- and squeaking out another election win.

You cut two programs designed to fund arts organizations, and export CanCulture abroad, and cynically claim (as is this government's only refrain -- that you're spending more on the arts than the previous Liberal government.)

As it was put in Michael Posner's Globe & Mail article:

Mr. Feldman disputed the contention that the Tories have been more generous to the arts. "If they are spending more, it's in adjusted-for-inflation dollars. This is about some right-wing troglodytes in the party overcome with self-righteous indignation that people like [Toronto broadcast journalist] Avi Lewis received funding." He estimated that programs like Trade Routes deliver a 10-to-1 return on investment. "Would we not love to get that from our stock portfolios? If these cuts will save the country's economy, God help us. We're in worse shape than I ever thought."

Mr. Lewis, now reporting for the English-language affiliate of the Al-Jazeera network, said the cuts were "a window into the Machiavellian political tactics of killing a small but crucial government program."

Public funding for the arts is a proven economic and cultural stimulus that the majority of Canadians embrace, Mr. Lewis said in an e-mail yesterday.

"The government knows ... that if the story is framed honestly, there will be little support for killing the program. And so, in the middle of a summer when Canadians are having trouble paying for gas, they find a few examples of grant recipients that will enrage their conservative base ... and use that as a political rationale for doing something that would otherwise hurt them politically. Now they've succeeded in framing the story in terms of who deserves public funding, rather than who supports it - and that is cynical in the extreme."

Director Ken Girotti managed to connect a few of the dots over at his digs. Small investments in culture -- as is understood in just about every country in the world -- including the USA -- pay off in a big way. But this government's stewardship of the economy is shortsighted in other ways.

Item one: "That popping sound you hear is canada's commodity bubble" is a piece written by Jim Stanford in Report on Business. It shows how effectively our current leaders have set up the Canadian economy for the fall.

Item two: two stories, but really one message: fuck the arts and pass the light sweet crude. Simon Houpt has a piece entitled, "without the arts our image grows dim abroad," and coupled with Michael Posner's story, "Ottawa axes second arts subsidy in two weeks," it paints a dim picture of this government's sickeningly narrow point of view.

Together these articles illustrate how completely parochial Stephen Harper's world view is. To save a few nickels the Conservatives cut arts programs set up to sell Canada around the world, while at the same time they preach to the choir with their complete shift of economic priorities to the resource economy.

Parochial, and Provincial, are two words that get thrown around an awful lot. But in the case of culture, when it comes to Canada, it's sadly the norm, and set to go even further down that road.

Canadians tend to have this charming view that "everyone thinks of Canada as a great place to live," etc, etc -- they're stories that Canadians treasure, told in shopworn anecdotes about backpackers greeted with glee at the sight of Canadian flags moving through Europe; or the once-upon-a-time national myth that "Canadians are renowned as peacekeepers."

In its own way these comfortable Canadian fictions have always been this country's own version of the charming tendency of Americans to declaim "we're number one" in everything, whether it's true (military spending!) or not (great health care system!)

Its these comfortable fictions that actually make it easier for the Tories to kill the two programs. For the reality behind it, you have to actually listen to some people who've, you know, been there and not drunk the Kool Aid.

First, let's take J. Kelly Nestruck first, a twentysomething journalist now writing Theatre Reviews for the Globe and Mail:

Now, on the subject of touting our artistic accomplishments abroad, I am baffled and infuriated by the news that the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade has axed its $9-million Trade Routes and $4.7-million PromArt program, both of which help send artists abroad.

Here's why: When I moved to England a couple years ago, a friend of mine who was returning from a few years there told me to prepare myself for a shock. "Canada is never mentioned," she told me. "You never hear anything about it. It's completely off the map."

Well, she was right, and she was wrong. Sure enough, Canada came up in the news only on very rare occasions, usually when there was a quirky story like a whole bunch of feet washing up on the coast of BC.

As an example of how Canada is often viewed, take the reaction I got from my boss's boss when I resigned to move back to Toronto and take up this here post. "You're leaving to go back to Canada?" he said. "But it's barely in the G8!" (Before you get too aghast, it was a joke. Kinda.)

And yet, and yet - while Canada rarely made the international news pages in the UK, I came across Canadians in the pages of the major newspapers on a daily basis. Where? In the arts section.

In London, I was working mainly on a music website, so this struck me most in terms of our musicians. If Neil Young or Feist or even Holy Fuck passed through London, they got reviewed. There were reverent articles about Joni Mitchell and Leonard Cohen from the older generation and Arcade Fire and Crystal Castles from the younger. The appeal of Nelly Furtado was analysed at length. Rufus Wainwright was adored - much more so than he is here. NME put out a special Canadian issue with a CD of music stuck to its cover. My site did a special podcast on Canadian music - and it was my editor's idea, not mine.

All this made me - and I know this is very unCanadian - proud of where I came from.

Our artists are our ambassadors abroad. Without them, on the international stage, Canada exists as a bus beheading and a video of Omar Khadr. Is that what we want?

Simon Houpt, New York based writer for the Globe and Mail, put it this way:

It's hard to overstate how low a profile Canada has abroad. If that's the way the government wants it, that's their decision. But if we want our voice to have influence in the rest of the world, to be the moral beacon we believe it is, that requires marketing Brand Canada. Sending artists and writers abroad is an integral part of that marketing that happens to be extremely cost-effective.

A little while ago Pamela Wallin told me that when she served within DFAIT as the consul-general of New York, culture was an indispensable tool to create a broader understanding of Canada within the United States. “It's all about presence; it's all about being top of mind. The more stages we continue to take ourselves off of, the more difficult the overall mission becomes,” she said.

“In order to be more than the Great White North, or more than just a trading partner like others, I think we have to show how interwoven the connections are, and how broad that cultural mix really is.”

She noted that the consulate also often used Canadian artists visiting New York to soften potential trading partners.

“It's an entrée point, it's a way to deal with people other than at the office, nine-to-five, about economic matters.”

That's why it was smart foreign policy to have Feist headline the Canada Day show in Central Park back in 2006, shortly before she became the iPod girl and a four-time Grammy nominee.

Even the United States, which invented the globalized free market in culture, has a long tradition of spending government money on so-called cultural diplomacy. During the Cold War, the U.S. State Department sent jazz musicians Louis Armstrong, Thelonious Monk, Miles Davis and others to the Middle East, Asia and Europe to spread American values. The U.S. is spending more than half a billion dollars a year on TV and radio broadcasts that bring American music, comedy, and drama to the Arab world and other territories.

This is lost on DFAIT, where PromArt and its antecedent programs were never really understood. One long-time bureaucrat in the department told me recently: “Anyone caught doing culture, it was a career killer.”

So separate and apart from the ego-reasons for Canada sending artists abroad. (They like us, they really like us!) with Houpt and Wallin, you see the foreign affairs implications. Again, it's something that's easier to sneak by because of this persistent view that somehow, Canada is in fact thought of as something other than "America's Hat."

It's not.

My own experience with cultural exchange was a particularly frothy and funny one. (At least it was to me.) When I was in South Africa working on Charlie Jade, we had an interesting crew made up of a lot of South Africans, some Quebecers, a few American/Canadian dual citizens, and a group of Other Canadians.

The South Africans kind of understood the Quebec separatism thing, while still (due to their history) being leery about the desire to separate on linguistic or ethnic lines. But the real fun came with tracking their utter bemusement when the Canadians would try to define and explain how they really, really were different than the Americans. The South Africans, of course, saw no difference whatsoever. The more the Canadians tried to explain, the more mystified the South Africans got.

Anybody know any New Zealanders? Yup. Same thing.

There is a school of Canadian thought that is outward looking and internationalist in view. Part of that sensitivity to world events comes from living next door to the most self-absorbed country in the world. But there is also that constant fight -- because you have a culture that negatively defines itself (Here's what we're not, not what we are) it makes it harder to make your case on the world stage, because you're not sure who you are yourself.

I've known a number of musicians and actors and other performers in my time who went abroad. And, strangely, once you get out of your comfort zone, the warm self-defeating, don't be a tall poppy, oh well, everbody loves us blanket of Canada, something changes. Every artist I know who's spent time abroad comes back more focused with a better sense of themselves. I think that's probably true of everyone who travels, not just artists, but artists offer an opportunity to judge them through their work, rather than just through their personality -- which is subject to all sorts of other factors, and can always be concealed or affected...

Once upon a time, too, Canada's outward looking nature gave rise to some of the most trenchant observers of social trends and, especially, media trends. Harold Innes, Marshall McLuhan, Naomi Klein...even people like Cory Doctorow and Malcolm Gladwell...it's amazing that such a small country has produced so many forward thinkers. People who come to shape the larger, world culture.

It's when we look outward, as Canadians, that we find the best in ourselves. So, in a sense, the Tory program killing isn't just small-minded and parochial, it's practically self-annihilating.

We live at a time when the key to our continued economic strength is going to be yoked not to manufacturing or commodities but to the kinds of people and thinkers Richard Florida talks about in The Rise of the Creative Class.

The programs that were just killed encouraged this kind of thinking, travel, exploration and development of artists. And in return, it helped Brand Canada. That's a huge payoff for something that was a very small line item in the overall Canadian budget.

But it threatens a party and a government that needs to count on people remaining parochial and provincial. And if it drives even more of the free thinkers Florida says are the future to emigrate or seek their fortune elsewhere, well then, sure, maybe it does sell out the future...

...But it sure makes it easier to control a message and win an election.

The Latest on Bill C10

MATTER OF CONFIDENCE? ELECTION-WORTHY? Excerpted from today's Vancouver Sun: (click link for full article)

Senate proposes major changes to film tax bill

Amendments could trigger election if Tories deem them confidence motions

Tobin Dalrymple, Canwest News Service

Published: Thursday, June 19, 2008

On Wednesday, Liberal senators Francis Fox and Wilfred Moore announced amendments that would send the bill back to the House of Commons and, if accepted, would remove the heritage minister's control over who gets tax credits. They argued if the House does not accept the changes, the $5-billion Canadian film and television industry will crumble.

"We will not turn our backs on the people who have come to us and made suggestions," said Fox, who sits on the Senate committee on banking, trade and commerce that reviewed the bill and heard testimony from film industry witnesses, including writers, directors and actors, all of whom expressed outrage at the bill.

"All [the witnesses] agreed Bill C-10, in its current form, would have a devastating impact on the Canadian film industry," said Fox.

Critics of the bill say it has two major problems -- it is a form of government censorship and it poses a risk to the business model of film producers. Supporters remain unconvinced the bill would pose financial risks and say it is not censorship, but rather a good use of taxpayer money.

In reaction to the proposed amendments, the heritage minister and finance minister said opposition parties would have to wait and see if the amendments would be dealt with as confidence motions, said Verner's spokesman, Dominic Gosselin.

"We are looking forward to seeing the amendments," said Gosselin. "First we will see [them], after that we will take action on this."

Generally, the government considers only amendments on fiscal matters or "money bills" as confidence matters. In April, after speaking to the Senate committee, Flaherty said the bill should not be amended.

There are indications the Liberals would be willing to take down the minority government over the amendments. "I am supporting those amendments, the party supports those amendments," said Liberal critic Denis Coderre. "I don't have any problem, personally, to have an election on culture and what kind of Canada you want to live in."

Hold your shoes, kids. There's another couple yet to drop. Because if I read this right, then what I suspect is true. Since the proposals don't actually deal with anything to do with the money provisions of the bill, it doesn't need to be a confidence motion. The Tories will have to deem it so. Which means if they do, then indeed, voting this bill down would trigger an election.

How do the Tories expect to gain votes on an anti culture message? There's no more votes for them to get in the west, and this won't play the same in Quebec or B.C. where they could pick up some. Right now it's still a big game of chicken.With a whole industry in the middle, like that kid with his sleeve caught on the car, as it hurtles over a cliff in Rebel Without a Cause.

Man.

Those F$&*@ing Young People, Again.

WHAT'S IN A NAME? Did Young People Fucking bring the new censorship debate on itself? Or is it doing what it's supposed to do?

(Or, Denis caps off a busy week by pimping his commenters as fresh content. Again.)

From the Con side, regular commenter ladycanuck:

While I'm against Bill-C10 (I just wanted to make that clear) I think the producers of YPF were just asking for trouble giving their film such a controversial name. After all, as it's funded partially by government money, it's gonna show up on a lot of government documents. The censorship/familyfocus type lobbyists were looking for an excuse to change the film/television system and the YPF producers gave them a goodie. I think the current Bill C10 problems can be placed partially on the shoulders of YPF.

I know what the movie is about and the content is good but I do have a problem with the title. I know the F-word still upsets a lot of people. Try explaining to a person like my mother (for example) who immensely dislikes swearing how a film called Young People Fucking has been financed with government money. The producers crossed the line by giving the film the title they did. Sure the controversy got the film a lot of attention but at what cost?

And the Pro, courtesy of the Mad Pulp Bastard:

For every one of you that is "disappointed" by the choice of the title, there will be 20 who will want to see this movie based on the title alone. Many will see this on DVD and believe me - this title sells.

The producers are smart because yes, controversy sells. It sells their movie and it sells the idea that left wingers who want to stick it to an "oppressive government who wants to censor critically acclaimed movies" needs to see this movie.

See, it builds a movement of anti-censorship and places its must-see movie directly at the center of it. It is a clarion call for people to wake up. You don't have to like the title or the movie for that matter - you just have to hate the idea and the execution of censorship.

If the title were the innocuous "Young People in Love" or something equally "oatmeal", so as not to offend anyone, then the movie would disappear into the landscape and die a well-deserved bland death. But YP FUCKING gets press. Millions and millions of dollars of free publicity that says "YOU MUST SEE THIS MOVIE. NOW."

The title is not "costing" them anything.

YOUNG PEOPLE FUCKING is a GREAT FUCKING TITLE.

And there it is, kids, very cleanly stated, the entire shape of the argument. Both have good points. Both things are actually true. At the same time.

It's all about choices, in the end. What's yours?

Have a good weekend.

See No Evil, But Judge it Anyway...

I KNOW I'M late on this, but considering that YPF is getting a big release now and it really is a sweet little movie, I think it still bears noting:

A special screening of Young People F—king, the film at the center of the Bill C-10 debate, was held in Ottawa on Thursday at the World Exchange Plaza in Ottawa. However, very few of the 40 high-ranking politicians that signed-up actually attended.

Nonetheless, the theatre was packed with young parliamentary aides and assistants, including Victoria van Eyk. Van Eyk was the assistant to Conservative MP Gary Goodyear until earlier last week, when she was fired for ordering tickets to the show under her boss’ name.

The film’s distributor set up the screening so politicians could judge the controversy over the film for themselves, rather than rely on the word of opponents who are mostly basing their opinions on the title.

Young People Fucking has been used as an example by proponents of Bill C-10, which would allow the Heritage Minister power to deny tax credits to Canadian television and film products deemed offensive or contrary to public policy – even if government agencies have already invested in them.

The website describes the film as “a scathingly honest and hilarious portrayal of four couples, one threesome and a crazy night of sex.” The filmmakers have insisted the comedy about sexual relationships isn’t pornographic and they wanted to prove it by showing the movie to those who might be voting on the bill.

Several Conservative MPs were amongst the 40 MPs and senators that originally signed up to see the film; however, they later said their names were listed by mistake and they had no intention of attending the screening.

Is there a single thing in the article above that's in any way surprising to anyone? Up to and including the firing of the admin assistant?

But remember, kids, your government doesn't want to censor you.

Fuck.

Paranoid vs. Naive: Which Side Are You On?

This government had an idea/And parliament made it law...

Which side are you on, boys?

-Billy Bragg

J. KELLY NESTRUCK is a Toronto arts writer, recently decamped from overseas to take a new gig reviewing theatre for the Globe & Mail. He's an affable enough guy, and all in all, a pretty sharp writer. I enjoyed reading his writing on the Guardian Unlimited site while he parked himself over in Blighty. A few years back, he even interviewed me about a little theatre spoof I did called Top Gun! The Musical.

A little over a week ago, a piece appeared in the paper detailing how dailies from a Canadian film called Love & Savagery were stopped by the Canada Border Services Agency. Apparently, an overzealous customs agent thought that sounded a little porn-y. There were some holdups and dark threats that maybe the film would be diverted to an RCMP lab for processing. Producers claimed a sort of chill -- a new attitude that might have been in response to the changing climate as exemplified by Bill C10. Kelly thought that was pretty ridiculous, and said as much here in the comments thread when I wrote about it.

I found myself thinking about that story again on the weekend, for a couple of reasons. One, because somebody forwarded me a kinda smug entry Kelly wrote about it.

It's when I read this article in the Saturday edition of Kelly's current employer that I started ruminating anew. Gloria Galloway files an interesting piece about how Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Minority Government has gone to war with the bureaucracy in several federal departments. It's an interesting peek into the Tory playbook and the ins and outs of governance in Canada, 2008-style:

In less than 2½ years in power, Mr. Harper has had what seems like an inordinate number of fights with senior advisers and heads of independent federal agencies, as well as with the parliamentary officers. He has:

Refused to co-operate with an investigation by Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro, who was also discounted as a "Liberal appointee" by a representative of the Prime Minister.

Phased out the job of national science adviser, after Arthur Carty said he had been 'increasingly marginalized."

Fired Adrian Measner, president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Wheat Board, for defending the board as the sole vendor of Canada's wheat and barley.

"It is not a stretch," Trent University historian Dimitry Anastakis and Toronto journalist Jeet Heer argue in a recent commentary in The Guardian, "to say that Harper simply sees many Canadian institutions - Elections Canada being simply his latest target - as illegitimate, not just in need of reform but worth attacking root-and-branch."

The opposition has been just as scathing. "The enemies list now includes Elections Canada," Liberal MP Michael Savage charged. "We know the Prime Minister loves power. Can he tell us why he hates government so much?"

There's a lot of meaty philosophical stuff in the article, and Galloway takes a provocative tack near the end, fairly raising the point, should the will of the unelected bureaucracy be able to endrun and second guess the judgement of elected officials?

There's much that's currently dysfunctional in Canada's parliamentary system. Ever since Quebec decided, in essence, to drop out and vote for a spoiler party en masse, putting together a governing coalition that truly represents the nation has been all but impossible. It's nothing new that governments get into power here with the majority of citizens voting against them, but since the crackup that devolved to five increasingly regional parties, the electoral math really doesn't work at all.

Harper's war on the bureaucracy (as outlined in the Globe) is part of a pattern: ruthless 'on-message' discipline where cabinet members are not allowed to speak to their briefs; the most antagonistic relationship with the press of any government in the last twenty years, and, of course, sneaky agenda-furthering actions like hiding a poison pen censorship clause in a 600 page tax bill that sails through the House without debate, and then claiming that "the industry is divided on the issue" when the condemnation of the bill from the industry is the closest thing statistically you're ever going to get to universal. Just today comes word of a new feint by Harper's increasingly imperial government: an attempt to ram through virtually the same copyright legislation that was roundly rejected in a storm of public pique several months ago.

When you take this climate, and combine it with the idea that if you're a bureaucrat or a civil servant -- the word's out that you toe the line or they take you out, is it really such a stretch to believe that the ripples could cause a Border guard to be a little more vigilant than usual in "exercising his duty?"

Kelly thinks so. I think no.

Harper has been playing from the U.S. Rovian Republican playbook for years now. And we know how that goes: all science and policy must be politicized, and subsumed to the political agenda. Independent oversight is not allowed. Dissension is never tolerated.

It's worked so well, and had such a lasting positive effect on the United States over the last seven and a half years, it's no wonder that the battered frogs of the ecosystem see a connection to what's going on here.

That connection could be illusory. Or it might be real and insidious. Maybe I'm paranoid. Or maybe somebody who's spent most of the last few years outside the country hasn't quite gotten the full flavour of cultural life under the Unitary Executive, True North Division.

One more thing. One nice, random piece of info I found out, thanks to people I've been talking to who were part of that Love & Savagery shoot:

Their import paperwork was pristine.

So, what do you think? Bellweather of what's to come? A case of consolidating Tory power, or a random, isolated incident?

The problem with the former is that it does sound a little far fetched.

The problem with the latter is that it requires you to extend the benefit of the doubt to a government that's actively tried to slip things past not once, not twice, but if you count the Elections Canada scandal, a whole mess 'o times.

It's a government that, on the whole, is about as transparent as its leader's shellacked hairdo.

In the end, I really am not sure what's going on here. Inevitably, after twenty years in this business, you find yourself open to all sorts of cockamamie ideas -- because the truths you've heard that you can't talk about seem even less plausible, even when someone shows you the proof. Things get weird out here on the hustings.

I guess in the end all I'm really asking is,

Which side are you on, boy?
Which side are you on?

At the very least, it's a nice piece of theatre. You'd think people could at least appreciate that side of it.

Contempt of Parliament

IT WAS SUPPOSED to be simple. Just like Sarah Polley, just like the other pros, Director David Cronenberg was going to go before the Senate Finance Committee yesterday and say what he knew about Bill C10, and why it was bad policy.

Instead, it turned into farce.

Senator Goldstein: I have a point of order to raise. It takes precedence for the moment. I attempted to raise this question during Question Period in the chamber earlier this afternoon, but the Speaker ruled that it should be raised in committee. I am doing so now.

I understand that this morning the CBC broadcast news that the chair of this committee had so arranged the situation so that there would not be television coverage of our hearings this afternoon. Later this morning, we the Liberal members of the committee, forced the re-establishment of the coverage as soon as we discovered that it had been countermanded.

Colleagues, this witness, Mr. Cronenberg, will be addressing the issue of government censorship. What I just described is a further manifestation of censorship by this government, attempting to prevent the press and the people of Canada from hearing opinions and ideas which do not reflect the opinions of the government.

Now the government is attempting to censor a public hearing that deals with the attempts of the government to censor the arts in Canada. So much for transparency and honesty."

What followed was a pretty predictable and generally despicable back and forth. But the question remains open -- The Chair, David Angus, denied bitterly that he tried to pull the plug. He said that, in fact, he was the guy who tried to get the cameras in, once he found out there were no plans to televise David Cronenberg's presentation.

But another Senator came back and agreed the whole thing was fishy, since in a year and a half on the committee, this was the first meeting he'd ever heard of that wasn't planned to be televised...

Democracy - 1 , Conservative Playbook - 0

The partisan back and forth the rest of the day was equally predictable. Senator Tkachuk continued his weird attempts to justify the bill by saying that it had already been effect since 1995. He was corrected several times, and Cronenberg, trying to move the discussion along, patiently explained to him that whatever political point he was making was irrelevant. (As it has been every week, when he tried to raise it with Polley, the WGC, the DGC and everyone else. An industry with over 100 000 people is on the brink, the guy wants to parse "who's bad.")

Cronenberg wouldn't let him do it. He pointed out patiently that the outcry now, the situation now, the fact that NOW the Royal Bank is on record as saying it would reconsider gap financing films was the issue.

It is not a pretty thing, seeing laws made. It's terrible to see old people argue back and forth about something that has such a deep effect on your life, and demonstrate with every word from their lips just how deeply fucking out of touch they are.

It's enough to make your head explode.

Speaking of which, when he finally got to speak, Cronenberg was, of course, eloquent as hell. Excerpts of his testimony follow:

I went to Telefilm Canada 40 years ago, when it was the Canadian Film Development Corporation initiated by Judy Lamarche, I believe, to see about obtaining funds for an underground film I was making.

In the 40 years since then, there has never been a pornographic film made with government money. There has never been a criminal film made with government money. There has never been a hate film made with government money. Therefore, why is this happening now? I do not understand it.

The mechanisms that were always there in the Criminal Code and in the mandate of bodies like Telefilm are in place now as they were then. They work. They filter out all of those possibilities.

Those bodies are not allowed to fund projects that contravene the Criminal Code. Therefore, what is this really all about? I do not get it. I do not think we need it and I do not understand it.

Having said that, if it did not do anything negative or cause any problems, then you might say okay, let it go through. Let it become law. It will not change anything. Unfortunately, it has significant repercussions that perhaps the original framers of this clause were not aware of and that we are now all aware of. I am on the advisory committee of PEN Canada. PEN is an international organization that protects writers and journalists, et cetera. They are very upset and disturbed by the implications of this clause. It is not a bunch of hysterical, overly sensitive artists who are running around overreacting.

It is a real issue and it matters not only in terms of the theory of democracy and freedom of expression, but also in dollars and cents. Those of us who work in the film industry have to be tough. We have to have our feet on the ground because it is a business as well as an art form. A lot of money is involved in movie making. Youhave to balance your artistic aspirations with the realities of international finance, distribution, artistic awareness, et cetera.

The people who are being upset by this are telling you something that is real. It is not a hypothetical thing that does not matter. It is something quite substantial. I will assume these implications were not properly understood by the original framers of this clause. That is the way I prefer to think about it.

Having said how tough and down-to-earth artists are, I also like to think of us as the frogs of the ecosystem. Biologists are always looking at frogs because they breathe through their skin. They are the first to absorb any toxic elements that exist in the environment and they react by becoming quite deformed and die.

Artists are like that. That is our job. We have these antenna and we have this thin skin. Therefore, in certain circumstances, we are the first to become aware of dangerous toxic elements in the environment that other people may not be aware of as quickly.

I have read letters to editors saying these artists go to the government for handouts and now they are complaining that the handouts they should not get anyway will be cut off.

The film industry is a business. I have had the experience of being censored, first by the Ontario Censor Board. That was at a time when you could go to jail for five years for putting the pieces of your film that the censor board had cut back in your film and showing it. The projectionist could lose his licence and also be put in jail. One of the implications of this clause is that it is not easy to censor in a democracy. It is not easy at all. The mechanism of censorship is quite complex and difficult because, basically, you want to filter out the subjective. You want to filter out the idea that one person or three people in a closed room will look at your film and say, “I just don’t like it. So let’s suppress it.”

That is antidemocratic. It is not anything that I think anyone really wants.

However, it is what would result from this clause coming into law.

The issue is this: The government investment in most films is the foundation. All filmmaking in Canada is independent filmmaking. I do not mean student filmmaking; I mean independent filmmaking. By that I mean you do not have major Hollywood or Canadian studios that have their own source of financing. All Canadian films are independent films and government funding is the platform; it is the solid, security platform upon which all of those productions are built. I cannot think of one that was not built that way.

This clause would make that platform very earthquake prone. It would take away the solidity of it. That is why the bank has said that it could not accept that. They have loaned money to you based on the tax credit that they expect. Knowing that it could be pulled after the fact, why should they take that risk? As I said, there are no guidelines that can make that risk reasonable enough that a bank would take it. The film business is risky enough as it is. It is like a house of cards with the tax credit as the basis. You pull that out and the whole thing falls apart.

Therefore, this makes it very difficult for any producer. The whole structure that has been in place and has worked, as I said, for at least the 40 years that I have known and benefited from it will be destroyed. In essence, this clause negates the existence of Telefilm and the existence of the Canadian Television Fund. They might as well not exist. There will be nothing for them to invest in because everything will be seen as too risky.

A lot of money is involved. Once again, you have heard from producers of all kinds: Television and movie producers. This is not a hypothetical thing. This is much more real than the threat that I think is quite imaginary. The imaginary threat is that there will be the embarrassment of government funds somehow put into a film that is pornographic and contravenes the Criminal Code. That is a threat that has not existed for 40 years. However, the threat I am talking about is very real.

These Jackboots Made For Walkin'

THAT DIDN'T TAKE LONG.

Keep in mind, Please, as you read the following story that Bill C10, has not, in fact, even been passed yet.

Canada Border Services officials recently held up footage from the film Love and Savagery, a tale of passion and longing set in Ireland and Newfoundland, because they suspected it was pornography, its producers say, and they blame legislation currently under review by the Senate.

The movie's producers shot scenes in Ireland last month, including some in a Catholic church, and had sent footage to Montreal for processing. The film was held for days by border officials at Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport.

"All of a sudden this batch of rushes got held up day after day after day at Canadian customs," a bemused John N. Smith, the film's director, said in an interview from St. John's, where shooting on the Ireland-Canada co-production continues.

"There was a big kerfuffle and they suspected us of being involved in the pornography trade. They were insisting they were going to send it off to the RCMP lab to develop it to see if we were engaged in pornography."

Both Smith, who directed The Englishman's Boy and the award-winning The Boys of St. Vincent, and Kevin Tierney, the producer of Love and Savagery, suspect the menacing arm of Bill C-10 was at play.

The controversial bill, currently being debated in the Senate, would allow the government to withhold tax credits from film and television productions it deems offensive.

"There's now a kind of attitude that permeates the bureaucracy based on the signals they're getting from the elected ministers," Tierney said.

Niiiiiiiiiiicccce.

C10 Goes To The Show

SEE? WHEN I'M heads-down in a script I miss an awful lot.

Jaime Weinman at Macleans Magazine tipped this morning that the contretemps over Bill C10 in Canada made The New York Times over the weekend, complete with a nice fetching picture of Sarah Polley:

Josée Verner, the heritage minister in the Conservative government, said during an appearance before the Senate committee that the measure was not an attempt at censorship but simply a way to block subsidies for films that are “potentially illegal under the criminal code, such as indecent material, hate propaganda and child pornography.” Ms. Verner did not explain why current guidelines that ban makers of pornographic films, among other things, from even applying for grants were inadequate.

A key point. And remember: the big amendment that Liberals and Creatives are pushing for the contentious clause is something that the Conservatives, if they really are genuine in saying they're not trying to pull a fast one, should have no problem with:

Simply amend the clause to specify that the review, and the potential pulling of a tax credit, will only apply to those films or TV shows that contravene the criminal code.

In explaining the controversy to an American audience, the explanation of why Canadian film and television is partially supported by government is divorced from the ideological pissing that goes on every time the subject comes up in this country. Instead, Polley's matter-of-fact summation is allowed to stand:

“I have heard it suggested many times in response to our attacks on this bill that we are free to make whatever film we want but with private money,” Ms. Polley told the committee. “It is a suggestion that, unfortunately, has absolutely no basis in reality. Every Canadian television program and film that I and any of us have ever been involved in has involved some public financing. When you tell artists to use private money, it is essentially telling us to leave the country.”

So the fear of many creatives is here. The more this story circulates -- especially once it gets beyond the USA -- the only country where the state, in fact, doesn't have a huge investment in protecting homegrown cultural product -- the more we risk ping-ponging back to the days of The Tin Drum, where Canada was viewed as a prissy little backwater. We also risk throwing our lot in with the very cultural forces in the United States whose influence (finally) seems to be on the wane. Gotta hand it to Canada, we do find new and creative ways to be slightly behind the times.

The idea that the Conservatives will bring this to a confidence motion is almost too ridiculous to contemplate. The votes they will gain on this issue are miniscule -- it's red meat to their base, sure, but it's not like there are more votes to be had in the West for the Tories. And the one place where they actually DO care about culture in this country, Quebec, is the other place where they hope to pick up votes.

Again, though, what's important to remember here is that this is a tax policy bill. The way the bill is projected to work, is not the way that it will work in reality. The Conservatives are being disingenuous and they know it.

In theory, the bill will allow the Minister of Culture to review films after they're made, and if they're deemed not suitable, withdraw the tax credit.

In reality, no bank will gap finance any film or TV show where the tax credit might eventually be questioned. So anything with edge will not be able to get gap financing. (Unless it's not Canadian, in which case, they can shoot here and get the credit, another element the Times pointed out, in their usual understated way, as "curious.")

The Conservatives know that coming out in favour of anything approaching censorship would be politically disastrous in Canada, a country where a majority of the people are socially left of their party's stated positions.

That's why these provisions, this is idea of an extra level of review, are not being proposed, say, at the Telefilm or CTF level, before projects get made.

This is the Tories' Hail-Mary attempt to get the same effect, without having to take the political hit for being in favour of censorship.

That might be an arcane thing to explain on the campaign trail. But try us. I Young People Fucking Dare you.

What every person who makes their money on cultural stuff in this country needs to understand is that this is that moment. Your government is telling you that you either play their way, or you leave. If you don't want to spend your days working under the table in the Southland, or if you're not ready to give up making money in an industry that supports tens of thousands in this country, then maybe it's time to suit the fuck up.

The Toxic and The Tin-Eared

CAN NO ONE save Heritage Minister Josée Verner from herself?

Here's the latest Bill C10 lunacy.

A couple days ago Director Ang Lee (Brokeback Mountain) was talking to students in Vancouver, when the subject of Bill C10 came up. He exhorted the students to do what they could to fight it.

He said financially-assisted films should not be treated as propaganda "or as a salesman for the tourist industry. I think that's just too low. They (the government) should know better than that."

Afterwards, as youthful film-makers gathered around him, Lee urged them to "make a noise, whatever" to stop Bill C-10. "It's almost like censorship."

Lee, who also directed such celebrated films as Sense and Sensibility and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, is the highest-profile opponent so far to speak out against the bill, currently in hearings before a committee of the Senate.

So, fine, that's embarrassing. An internationally-renowned Director calls you out on your shoddy Bill. People with long cultural memories in Canada might be a little leery if they remember the fiasco around The Tin Drum, which for years gave Canada a reputation as priggish, censorious, and a little unsophisticated in the world cultural scene. It's been a couple decades, and the country has certainly clawed its way back. But in reacting to Lee, here's what the Minister said, (as reported in today's Globe & Mail:)

In addition to pointing out that Lee, as a non-Canadian, is exempt from being denied the particular tax credit included in the bill, [emphasis mine] Verner denied Lee's charges of censorship.

It's not often in this world that you see someone try to defend something by pointing at one of the things that makes the thing odious in the first place.

Central to the opposition to C10 by Canadian creatives is this idea that there are two sets of rules for tax credits -- one for foreigners and one for homegrown artists. It's ridiculous -- and purely political -- to have such a double standard. And if this shoddy bill ever became law, it's probably the clause that would eventually get it struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada.

There's no way to defend this double standard. If you try to say, "well, you can't apply it to foreign productions because then we won't attract their films and jobs will be lost," the obvious retort is, "well, um, what about the homegrown jobs created by Canadian producers -- why are they different?" Part of me would really like to see the Minister chew over that one, but then I realize it's probably not a good idea. Her head might explode.

The incredible thing is that in the very same breath, after pointing out how (separate from the emotional argument about censorship) her government intends to discriminate against homegrown creatives, she goes on to repeat the canard she's been floating for weeks now:

“We are reaching out to industry to work with them on Bill C-10. Together, we will find the best solution for the industry, for Canadian citizens and tax payers.”

That raises another issue for critics of the bill such as writer Susan Swan, the chair of The Writer's Union of Canada. Swan says the arts community has no intention of working out guidelines with the Minister. Swan was in Ottawa last week to deliver this message to a senate committee.

“None of the delegates from the other arts organizations at the senate banking committee last week expressed any interest in doing it,” she said. “There are already guidelines in place for government funding of film. Why would we want to add another tier? The Writers' Union, like Ang Lee, believes artistic freedom is the best public policy for film funding.”

So nobody -- except the Minister, her puppet master, and her special interest groups think it's a good idea. In defending it, she points out why it's odious. And then she claims support and consultation that simply isn't there.

This woman is completely alone out on this limb. And, lo and behold, now the news breaks that Verner is one of the Conservative MP's involved in the brewing campaign finance scandal, which saw Conservative Party headquarters raided by the RCMP last week, on a warrant prompted by an Elections Canada investigation.

Really, how long can this continue? How bad can Canada look before something's done?

And what the hell is it with this country's governments and Election Scandals, anyway? Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

Yuck.

Smart People Doing Smart Things To Help Canadian TeeVee

I'D LIKE TO point you in a couple of good directions today. First, one of my colleagues on Blood Ties, Mark Leiren-Young (The Green Chain,) testified to the Senate last week as one of the voices opposing Bill C10.

In The Tyee, he wrote an entertaining piece about what it was like to be a normal human called to testify before a Senate committee. It's a fun look behind the process that so affects the life of this country, yet couldn't, seemingly, be more removed from it:

I was one of the people in the Canadian arts scene not named Sarah Polley who spoke to the Senate last week about the dangers of allowing the Canadian Heritage Minister to deny tax credits to films and TV shows deemed "contrary to public policy."

Being asked to appear before the Senate is like being called to the principal's office. You know how high school teachers talk about "your permanent record." I remember the day I realized there was no permanent record and I had a sudden urge to torch my guidance counselor's desk. Preparing to speak to the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, looking at the senators, then past them at the media control booth where people record every word and simultaneously translate it from English to French and vice versa, I suddenly realized that yes there is a permanent record and this is it.

While I work in film and television, I wasn't invited to the Senate as me. I was asked to speak as a member of the Book and Periodical Council because I serve on their freedom of expression committee on behalf of the Playwright's Guild of Canada. And if that sounds confusing, it was confusing, because while I'm personally appalled by the implications of C-10, the organizations I represented are probably closer to "concerned." So when we drafted our brief -- the BPC's official statement for that permanent record -- I wrote a toned down version of how I felt, that was toned down even more before it was approved to present.

Leiren-Young's personal take on the experience is a fun read. Hopefully, you'll be able to hear more about yourself -- which is a nice segue into the second great thing you should be prepped for this weekend -- the launch of a brand new, unprecedented live Net Radio show about Canadian TV.

It comes courtesy of Diane Kristine, tireless toiler and keeper of the PR flame the Networks Should be doing -- hostess of the TV, Eh? Canadian TV site, to which we Canculture types really do all owe a debt. (The best place for info on Canadian Television is a volunteer run site. Crazy.)

Leiren-Young will be appearing, and you can Click this link to hear what else you'll be getting on the first show, this Sunday at 2pm ET. (via blogtalkradio.)

Robson Arms co-creators Susin Nielsen and Gary Harvey talk about the show's return on April 28. Technogeek Steve Wild weighs in on web streaming and downloads, and what the networks are doing wrong ... and right. Mark Leiren-Young reports on Bill C-10: censorship, bad business, or prudent stewardship of public funds?

I know from personal experience that Susin and Gary are two very interesting people to talk to. It's well worth tuning in -- especially since thanks to a bit of corporate synergy, you have a chance to catch up with the entire series of Robson Arms!

Meet the neighbours of Robson Arms all over again during Bravo!’s two day, 26-episode marathon, leading up to the Season 3 premiere on CTV. Revisit the hijinx and hilarity of sleazy superintendent Yuri (John Cassini), slackers Nik (Fred Ewanuick) and Hal (Zak Santiago), adorably clueless Bobbi (Gabrielle Miller), and the rest of the Robson Arms’ tenants. The marathon begins with the very first episode Saturday, April 26 at 11 p.m. ET / 8 p.m. PT.

Season 1 airs back-to-back and features Canadian talent including Margot Kidder, Mark McKinney, and Will Sasso. In Season 2, beginning Sunday, April 27 at 10 a.m ET / 8 a.m. PT, the building may be falling apart, but new tenants are still moving in, including cantankerous Caldo Vasco (Leslie Nielsen). Bravo!’s marathon wraps up with an encore presentation of Gila Monster, one of Season 3’s sneak peak episodes, Sunday, April 27 at 4:30 p.m. ET / 1:30 p.m. PT.

After the marathon, viewers can renew their lease with Robson Arms on CTV – Season 3 airs Mondays at 9:30 p.m. ET beginning April 28.

So there it is, my mitzvah for the day. Set your PVR's, people. And don't forget to tune in for the radio show on Sunday!

Alex Strachan ALMOST Gets It Right

WRITING IN TODAY'S Vancouver Sun, Alex Strachan has a clear-headed argument about C10:

Bill C-10 is bad economics for publicly funded films, TV

There are arguments, and then there are silly arguments. It's funny how the silly arguments almost always come at taxpayers' expense.

The flap over Bill C-10 -- a government proposal to amend the Income Tax Act so that tax credits will be clawed back from those homegrown TV and film productions the government judges to be offensive -- is a classic example of what happens when the misinformed meet the misguided.

Bill C-10 is bad public policy masquerading as tax policy.

Strachan then goes on to posit a theory that I hadn't heard before, but which sounds like it could be plausible: that these provisions had their genesis in the once-upon-a-time flap over the making of a movie about Canadian serial killers Karla Holmolka and Paul Bernardo. When the Conservatives say that the policy was inherited from a previous Liberal Government, they're partially correct.

(They have juked the language to vest all the power in the Heritage Minister, and that is a change, but that's small beer.)

Where Strachan goes off the rails -- and it's only a little bit, is when he recounts the hysteria on both sides -- those like Charles McVety who want to deny tax credits to anything they think is dirty, and the cultural community who posit that it amounts to pre-censorship.

There's a tendency in journalism to take two contentious sides and ascribe a moral equivalency to the two of them. The formula goes like this: "So and so believe this; and So and so that, but they're both wrong, the point is this..."

The problem with doing that in this case, again, and dismissing the claims of censorship as false, is that it denies the real way this would be administered:

Film and TV Producers borrow money to finance films. These completion loans are repaid with interest to the banks once the tax credits come through -- at the very end of the process.

So you could borrow the money, and then have your tax credits denied.

No bank will lend you money for anything that might even POSSIBLY exceed the standards, ergo, you self-censor. The nice thing about it is the government doesn't have to act heavy handed -- after a while, the chill just stops "bad stuff" getting made. And believe you me, the line will get drawn by the banks far, far east of Eastern Promises -- just as, ever since the fining over Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction, when FCC starting handing out fines for obscenity, the lines are far, far, more conservative than they were in the 90's. And this in the USA, the land of "free speech."

Today's censorship dresses up in finer robes. It doesn't have to be a coarse, blunt instrument -- only a whisper in the ear of a worried banker or producer.

Fortunately, judging by the exchanges yesterday, there are members of the Senate banking committee who are clearer on this line than Strachan.

Strachan continues:

Public funding of film and TV projects is decided by agencies like Telefilm and the Canadian Television Fund long before a TV or film makes it on to the screen. Proposed projects have to jump through a dizzying number of hoops to get made, and can be derailed -- or stopped outright -- at any stage of the process. Any proposal featuring a gratuitous amount of sex, violence or other offensive material -- whatever "offensive" means -- is already at a distinct disadvantage when a fund manager at, say, the CTF has to decide between a degrading exploitation flick and a feel-good family comedy.

Public funding is not the same as a tax credit, though. There's a difference between public funding, as represented by Telefilm, and tax credits, which are waivers on taxes due.

Economic decisions are just that -- economic. As a general industry rule, one dollar spent on TV and film production generates four dollars in economic activity.

The only issue, then, facing a government banking committee should be to figure out how to generate more economic activity, not less.

Bill C-10 is an unnecessary, misguided, wrongheaded and shortsighted piece of legislation. Not because it's censorship disguised as tax policy, which it may well be and which cultural critics insist it is, but because it's bad economic policy.

If somebody somewhere wants to make a film about Karla Homolka, fine, I don't have to see it. I certainly wouldn't pay to see it.

But if that same somebody is going to hire 200 actors, cameramen, electricians, carpenters, caterers, drivers and any number of other trades people, and pay them a decent wage -- a wage which will then be funneled back into the local economy -- I say, all power to them. Every one of those crew members is paying income tax and GST on top of any ancillary spending, regardless of what tax breaks the production is or is not getting. If that production weren't there, the tax haul wouldn't be there either, and there would be less money to go into government coffers.

So, yeah. Mostly right.

Down and Dirty With The Senators on Bill C10

WELL, IF YOU'RE a certain type who enjoys the perverse pleasure of a good Senate hearing transcript, you can read yesterday's presentations into BillC10 at the Senate Banking committee yourself. To subscribe, email boulim@sen.parl.gc.ca and ask to subscribe.

The first bit o' fun comes in this exchange between Senator Wilfrid Moore (Lib, Stanhope St./South Shore (N.S.) and Rose Anne Dyson, Chair, Science for Peace (Media Working Group) (University of Toronto) and Vice President Media Relations, Council on Global Issues (Ryerson University.) The Chair is Senator David Angus (C, Alma (Quebec)

What's nice about this exchange is that it runs down exactly what the problem is with the wording of the bill -- how it invests a whole lot of power, with no oversight, in the personage of the Heritage Minister .

Senator Moore: The chair in his remarks at the beginning highlighted the section of the bill which is very important and has caused most of the interest from the cultural community. I will read that:

The Minister of Canadian Heritage shall issue guidelines respecting the
circumstances under which the conditions in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the
definition of “Canadian film or video production certificate” in subsection (1) are satisfied.

This is the key part:

For greater certainty, these guidelines are not statutory instruments as defined in the Statutory Instruments Act.

That means those guidelines can be changed at any time – it is open-ended
authority – and they are not subject to review by Parliament, by the House of Commons or by the Senate of Canada. Do you think that is right?

Ms. Dyson: I am not a lawyer. I am sure there are many areas that government has to proceed in good faith from one administration to another. I am not sure what point you are raising.

Senator Moore: This was not in previous drafts. This is a new section. This is a new sentence. This is a very sweeping section. It is unassailable. I suppose you could go to court over it but otherwise Parliament does not have any say. I just thought that you, as a Canadian, may have a position on that.

Ms. Dyson: Parliament does not have a say but I thought the minister did.

Senator Moore: The minister only.

Ms. Dyson: The committee under the minister, established by the minister.

Senator Moore: No, the minister only has this authority.

Senator Tkachuk: The minister is responsible for Parliament.

Senator Moore: Read it. It says "these guidelines are not statutory instruments."We can move amendment.

The Chair: Clearly the response is also in order.

Senator Moore: Do you have an opinion on that?

The Chair: It is a legal issue.

Ms. Dyson: I would hope that Parliament and the minister would act in good faith in establishing a committee to develop guidelines, as she set out in her remarks, a copy of which I read early on. As far as the legal fine tuning, I would want to leave that to the discretion of her and her ministry.

Senator Moore: Do you think it is appropriate that one person has that authority?

Ms. Dyson: It is not one person.

Senator Moore: There is only one minister.

Go Wilfrid!

In a way, there's a perverse part of me that wishes for the passage of this bill, and through some funhouse weirdness, the rise of a Government with a Gay Richard Dawkins-like dude as Heritage Minister, who will pull funding for anything with a religious, or, um, breeder agenda.

I mean, I think that would be horrible for freedom of expression, and a terrible overreach. But man it would serve em right, wouldn't it?

There was another bit of comedy a minute later when Dyson showed her deep understanding of the issues, when Moore quoted from the Globe & Mail article quoting Sarah Polley on the issue.

Dyson replied that Polley was American -- and had to be corrected on the point by Moore. She's "Canadian all the way," he said.

Heh heh.

The next exchange is between two Senators -- Tommy Banks (Alberta) and Michael Meighen (C - St. Marys), in a question to the woman representing REAL Women of Canada (I leave it to you to discover the agenda of her delightful group.)

Senator Banks: I have two short questions. The first is to Ms. Watts. You
mentioned your view that film producers ought to be able to stand on their own two feet like other Canadian industries. Can you give me an example of a Canadian industrial sector that does not receive public support?

Senator Meighen: How about musicians?

Senator Banks: Musicians get a lot of support. So does the oil industry and themanufacturing industry. Every aspect of Canadian industry receives public support of one kind or another, farmers, fishermen, whatever. Our society is built in terms of its industrial aspect largely on the fact that there is public support. I wonder if you know of an exception.

She didn't. She dodged the question. Which is typical. Every idiot troll who bleats about the wasteful support of the cultural sector -- especially when you talk tax policy -- is probably employed in some industry receiving its own share of support. I know economics is hard. That's why, generally, one tries to actually inform oneself before you crack off on a subject.

A 50 000 person industry is at stake here. Hey Calgary, how bout we pull the support for your construction industry -- or the oil biz. Yup. That'd go over well, hey?

Senator Banks then got Dyson to agree, reluctantly, that guidelines set for tax credits before the fact might be better than leaving it to the end of the process.

Next, here's an excerpt from the presentation by Ms. Noa Mendelsohn Aviv, Director, Freedom of Expression Project, Canadian Civil Liberties Association:


What if I asked you to give me a cheque for a good cause, and I assured you that
even though you had not filled in the amount, I will not take more than needed. You
would have some good questions for me. You would ask: "What do you mean by a
good cause? "How much exactly will I be withdrawing? "Who gets to decide the
questions anyway?" How can you trust me or my affiliates not to take more than we
agreed upon or more than we need?" Bill C-10 and the provision we are talking is that
blank cheque that the government is asking you to sign. If this honourable house signs
off on it as it is and the bill becomes law, it would allow the government to take away
tax credits from any production that contravenes public policy, whatever that means.
This bill could give the government almost unlimited power to decide which films they
think are bad for the Canadian people, whether it is material they do not like or even
material that denigrates the government and its actions, so long as they can make out
that the films are against public policy. While the courts might not ultimately allow
this, they might even strike down the whole section for vagueness, the question before
this committee is: How much unlimited power are you willing to give the government
to suppress our cherished and vital freedoms? The government has reassured us, and
the bill states, that there would need to be guidelines. The government has said that
they will consult industry and restrict the scope of this power to certain limited
categories. Even if we can trust this government implicitly, how can we trust its
successors. The government might consult with the film industry and might even
consult with the public and civil liberties organizations, although they have not said
that they will. They might make limited guidelines, but they might change their minds
or they might change the guidelines; and they might do all of that tomorrow, if they
choose to do so. That is the chief problem with this bill and, in a democracy, "trust us,"
is just not an answer.

After the presentations by Ms. Mendelsohn Aviv and Mark Leiren-Young (Producer, Director, representing the Playwright's Guild of Canada, Senator George Baker (Lib, Newfoundland and Labrador) managed to contextualize in one statement, all of the frustration that people in Canada's battered cultural sector have been feeling for months on this issue.

Senator Baker: I will first congratulate the witnesses. Each witness who
presented made reference to the fact that, in our democracy in Canada, in the House of Commons, not one member of the elected members referenced this new law when speeches were given at second reading, at third reading, report stage or in the committee. None of the people affected by the legislation were asked to appear as witnesses, which is a part of our democracy parliamentary process. Not one of you were asked to appear.

It is an extraordinary event to see a bill passed in this manner. If this section ever goes to the courts – which it undoubtedly will – it will cause issue. Your organization intervenes in practically every case that has to do with matters such as this. I congratulate you for the marvellous work you have done. It is an extraordinary situation that no one Parliament knew that this was being passed and two political parties are asking for a second chance because they did not know what they were voting for.

Do you think, based on the principle that the NDP and the Bloc have admitted publicly they did not know what they were voting for, it should be returned to the House of Commons?

Mr. Leiren-Young: Absolutely.
Ms. Mendelsohn Aviv: For that and many other reasons it should be returned to the House of Commons.

The Presentations continue today -- including an appearance by the Writers Guild of Canada and Americ...sorry...Canadian writer/actor/director Sarah Polley.

Alex Epstein Wants You To Be A Hooker

OUTLINES TODAY. Mine...other people's....outlines, outlines, outlines. So it's time for a bit of hump day linkslutting. Alex over at Complications Ensue has got an ingeniously sneaky post about how you, office peon on a tv show that you are, can actually get the Mighty Showrunner to read your script:

Here's what I would do. At some point when he is obviously procrastinating -- e.g. showing you a video of an elephant painting his self-portrait -- ask him a specific craft question about a script you are working on. The question should be something you can't answer yourself; don't ask him something you ought to be able to figure out for yourself. It should be something that can be answered quickly, but only by someone with great experience. Since you are constantly working hard on your scripts at home, right, you should have a few of these questions at any point.

Get his answer and thank him.

A couple of weeks later, ask him another thoughtful question...

The full post is great. And it's here.

Also, Kay Reindl explains how today's TV industry is just like the Kentucky Derby. It's insane, but as inside baseball analogies go, it's hard to fault.

And finally, the Globe and Mail today finally (outside of John Doyle) prints an article about C10 that gives the full context it deserves (and if it takes fronting Polley, then so be it):

"This legislation threatens freedom of expression as well as the very financial foundation upon which this industry was built," Polley said yesterday. "Take that away, and many of us would be hard-pressed to understand the motivation to stay here."

"The main reason that I choose to make films in Canada, and act in Canada, is because public funding allows a level of creative freedom that is simply not possible with private money," Polley added, whose feature-film directorial debut, Away from Her, was nominated this year for two Academy Awards.

The actress's comments come a week after Canadian Heritage Minister Josée Verner faced an onslaught of questions about why her department should have the power, as a provision proposes, to cut off tax benefits for productions that contain graphic sex, violence or other content that the government finds offensive.

Equally upsetting to Canada's cultural sector is the fact that this so-called "morality hammer" applies only to Canadian TV and film projects. Hollywood and other foreign productions that apply for tax credits get a free pass.

"I can't think of an issue that has galvanized people in the arts community the way this one has," said Polley. And the idea that Bill C-10 applies only to Canadian productions and not to Canadian tax credits subsidizing American productions is "horrific," she added.

"That's one of the more amazing things about this bill. Why should Hollywood studios, who apply for our tax credits, not be subject to the same criteria? The whole thing is sloppy. Of course we shouldn't invest in movies filled with excessive pornography or hate. That makes sense, and there are rules [under the Criminal Code] to prevent that. But there are a lot of things that have not been rigorously thought through."

Have a good day. And to those speaking to the Senate: may you be fleet of foot and Dr. King-like in voice.