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.

CBC's New Series for 2008-2009

SO AFTER SWIRLING rumors for weeks, the official press release went out today. CBC has announced two new shows for next year:

“There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so” – Hamlet. What would you do if you had the chance to go back in time and relive the moments you regret the most? In THE SESSION, 32-year-old Erica Strange (Erin Karpluk – Godiva’s, The L Word, Bionic Woman) does just that. She is given the incredible opportunity to see her life from a fresh perspective when a mysterious therapist (Michael Riley – This Is Wonderland) unlocks the door to her past. It is created by Jana Sinyor (Dark Oracle). Aaron Martin (Best Years) is the showrunner and executive producers are Ivan Schneeberg and David Fortier. THE SESSION is produced by Temple Street Productions. BBC Worldwide has acquired international distribution rights.

Oil, money and greed in Canada’s Wild West—Calgary style. THE WILD ROSES dramatizes the story of a family of women fighting for what is lawfully theirs, set against the backdrop of the new West: steel and glass towers and vast Alberta ranchlands. It features Sarah Power (Repo! The Genetic Opera), Steve Byers (Falcon Beach), Michelle Harisson (The L Word) and Adam MacDonald (1-800-Missing). It is created by Amy Cameron (Song of Slomon, Canadian Film Centre), Gemini Award-winner Tassie Cameron (The Robber Bride, The Eleventh Hour) and Miranda de Pencier (PU-239, Adam). Shelley Eriksen (Shania: A Life In Eight Albums) is the showrunner. Executive producers are Jordy Randall, Tom Cox and Miranda de Pencier. THE WILD ROSES is produced by Seven24 Films and Northwood Productions.

I managed to see a copy of The Session pilot a while back, and it's a very nice piece of work. A good mix of pathos and light drama, with some bigger questions seeded in.

Production values were particularly good -- Holly Dale's direction was crisp and winning. Traditional shooting, well composed frames. Erin Karpluk (left) was always the best thing about Godiva's. There's something that's very sympathetic about her onscreen. And Michael Riley plays an odd kind of mysterious character. Tone? It's kind of Quantum Leap meets Life on Mars, with a dash of Joan of Arcadia, really. To me, it's exactly the right kind of series for CBC right now, especially if they're serious about picking up more of those 25-49 female viewers. There is much about this show that's pure chick crack. And the basic high concept feel of it, plus Riley's rumpled, edgy therapist just might help pull in a few XY viewers, too.

And, uh....seriously? High concept at the CBC? I never thought I'd see the day.

I'm interested to see where the cosmology of this world goes. The Session pilot leaves it vague whether she can actually change things, or whether it's just about changing herself. What's nice is that it avoids the sci-fi cliche angle of changing something and coming back to find that you've totally f-ed up the world.

But they definitely drop hints that there are a few serious things in Erica's past that she's desperately going to want to try and affect. And what's Riley's agenda?

It's a pleasing adventure series. Life on Mars had a great thing going with the Procedural elements. That formula's gotten a little more tired with Ashes To Ashes, the 80's set sequel series starring former MI-5'er Keeley Hawes. But this series is a fresh enough spin that should appeal to the kind of audience that likes Medium, Gilmore Girls, etc. It's got a shot with a few audiences. Will be interesting to see how the CBC promotes it, and if they sell to more than one target audience.

Also...man...hope they don't kill what's cool about the show. Cause there's a lot of cool in it.

This show, BTW, means that Aaron Martin won't be returning to his own series -- The Best Years, which was a late pickup for Global.

Mmm. Writers? In demand? Quoi?

As for The Wild Roses (a project whose working title was until recently "Cowgirls," -- good call on that change) this show's scuttlebutt was some rough development times. But a show like this, set in Calgary (which is Canada's fastest growing city) is also a smart choice. And Shelley Eriksen is a get, who should be great for the material. (She's a friend, so that's probably a little self serving, but the hell with it. It's also true.)

It will be interesting to see if CBC handles this show any differently from last season's MVP.

Good picks. Good talent behind the scenes. Fingers crossed for the future.

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.

What Canadians Think About TV

AS THE CRTC opens its hearings today, and the broadcasters and cablers both line up to the trough to demand more goodies, Pollara released the results of a survey of 1200 Canadians.

The survey, commisioned by arts organizations including ACTRA, the Writers Guild of Canada and the CEP Union, has some interesting conclusions, that probably won't matter a lot, since the CRTC is an organization that's essentially set up to give broadcasters whatever they want:

Of those surveyed, 74 per cent think that "less regulation is likely to reduce the choices of Canadian programs on TV."

Underscoring that suggestion is another key finding that "87 per cent believe cable or satellite providers would likely favour channels they own over independent channels."

Moreover, more than half believe Canada's television-production industry would not survive in an unregulated cable and satellite environment.

In fact, the survey also found only 15 per cent of Canadians were aware of proposals to reduce cable and satellite regulations.

The results are based on 1,200 telephone interviews from March 14 to 19 and are considered accurate to within plus or minus 3 per cent, 19 times out of 20.

Alex Strachan's take on the numbers (from The Calgary Herald):

Just eight per cent of respondents trust the cable companies to do what is right, according to the survey.
The survey also found that 92 per cent of Canadians say preserving Canadian values and identity is important to them.

Of course, it's hard to imagine anyone saying 'No,' when asked a question like, 'Is preserving your culture and identity important to you?' but that's the nature of polls. Ask an obvious question, get an obvious answer.

More interesting were some of the other questions:
. 55 per cent believe the Canadian TV production industry can't survive without cable and satellite regulation. This implies that nearly half the respondents - 45 per cent - believe it will get along just fine. I think they're wrong, but more on that later.

. 74 per cent believe less regulation will result in fewer Canadian programs. I happen to believe so, too.
. 88 per cent feel it's important that regulations and cultural incentives remain in effect, if the continued sustainability of privately owned Canadian broadcasters is to be ensured. That's a fancy schmancy way of saying that if cable regulations are lifted, Canada's private broadcasters will have about as much chance as the Leafs in this year's Stanley Cup race.

This all seems fair. I'm naturally suspicious of polls - so often, they don't jibe with what I hear from real people on the street - and the people who respond to pollsters are usually those who have time to answer the phone and are willing to co-operate with a disconnected voice on the phone.

But this poll feels right.

So Canadians, when they are informed about the possibility of deregulation, do not support it. But most haven't heard about it.

And they probably won't until their cable bills go up.

By which point, I and other people like me will not actually be saying things like, "I told you so," because we'll be busy couch surfing all over the Southland.

And then, on our next project somewhere down the road, when a Canadian reporter looking for a local angle tries to play the Canadian card, it's my firm and fervent hope that whoever's on the hotseat will smile tightly and say, "You don't get to claim the cow's milk after you've burned the field down and sent it down the road."

And they'll look kind of strangely at us. And we'll take a sip of our water, and blink and say, "is there another question?"

And they'll try to get us to say something nice about Canada, and we won't bite. Maybe we'll say something cryptic, like, "Neil Young has lived in the United States since the early 1970's."

And then we'll dodge the bullets and mudslides and copter chases on the way back to our houses in Brentwood, and watch Hockey on our illegal Canadian dishes.

It's hard not to get emotional about this when you see, time after time after time, greed elevated upon the smallest, silliest attempts to actually do something in this country. For that feeling, Strachan's got a comment, too:

As for the cultural advocates who are busy financing polls and booking speaking time in front of the CRTC, a little less hot air and a little less hand-wringing and sanctimonious posturing would go a long way to furthering your - our - cause.

It's a simple enough issue. Keep it simple.

Probably a great piece of advice. Lord knows, it would be great if ACTRA -- the largest and loudest of the organizations -- took a different and less one-note strident tack.

But then again, to quote the WGC's main dog in the hunt:

"This just shouldn't be this hard."

I Would Gladly Pay You Tuesday for an Industry Today

CANADA IS AN amusement park that I like to call "Policywonkland." This means that most things that are really important happen in meeting rooms and behind closed doors and don't really involve the adorable little humans we call "citizens," because most of the time they can't be bothered to care.

There are two of these sorts of spectacles going on this week, vis a vis broadcasting.

First, at the CRTC, a bunch of broadcasters will stand up and say how they really should get a bit more gelt from cable companies because cable companies are now offering "timeshifting" packages that allow you to watch shows from other feeds. And the Canadian networks aren't getting their taste. Oh, and they don't want their specialty channels to have to compete with other channels -- Ie: they don't want HBO to come in and eat TMN's lunch, and they don't want YTV to have to deal with The N, and they don't want SPACE to have to deal with Sci-Fi, or TSN to have its lunch eaten by ESPN, so could you pretty please keep the current rules on genre protection in place?

The cable co's on the other hand will say it's outrageous for the broadcasters to demand their gelt. Oh, and by the way -- we think genre protection is bullshit and we want to be able to bring you any channel we think we can make a buck on, cause that's the American Canadian way, eh?

Both, I'm sure, will not want anybody to do anything to jeopardize the inherently non-market driven forces that prop up their business models -- allowing foreign competition in for cable or satellite (no grey dishes please!) or ending cable substitution (don't take our double dipping ads away!)

Both will likely say that the business environment is so tough that, of course, they shouldn't be shackled to having to make more domestic stuff. Oh no. Heavens to Betsy. Anything but that.

The only sure thing that will come out of this? You'll probably have to pay more. You won't really gain anything, since only 3 percent of the programs that are produced in the U.S. aren't now available in Canada on one station or another.

From a sport standpoint, should be interesting, though, since the CRTC is traditionally in the business of giving the Cable companies and the broadcasters just about everything they ask for.

Now Mommy has to choose between her children. Uh oh. There's gonna be tears!

Meanwhile, over at the Senate, this week we'll hear about how pre-censorship in Bill C10 is really good for you. People concerned about violence and REAL women who like to wear dresses and support the traditional family and stuff will tell you about how industrial tax policy the PERFECT way to insure content that doesn't feature gay or brown people.

But none of that will matter at all because classical music fans will continue to stamp their feet and insist that it's all evil pop culture's fault anyway.

Or, as Doyle puts it in The Globe:

The other day, while answering questions from a Senate committee, Verner declared that the proposed legislation "reasserts the principle that there is audiovisual material which may not be illegal but which taxpayers should simply not be expected to pay for." Apparently, the existing legislation that deals with pornography and hate crimes is not enough. This government intends to make "other types of content" ineligible for tax credits. That is, content that the public might find "unacceptable."

This is mad. It centralizes the perception of unacceptable content in the office of a government minister. (By the way, I'm no expert analyst of immigration policy but it seems to me that the controversial changes to immigration policy fall into the same category - the Immigration Minister is given more discretionary power over who is allowed into Canada, just as the Heritage Minister is to be given more power over what gets made in Canadian film and television.) What disturbs many people is the possibility that such discretionary powers reflect one political party's position, not the position reached by consensus and outlined in our laws.

The potential censorship resulting from Bill C-10 is a rather more significant issue for the culture than the continued emanation of day-long classical music on a CBC radio network. There is hardly a shortage of classical music for consumption. The stuff is everywhere. You want Canadian film and television? That's a tad more difficult to find in the marketplace. No offence, classical-music devotees, but there's a whiff of self-absorption and pomposity in the tone and tenor of complaints about changes to Radio 2's schedule. And there's an ugly undercurrent of disdain for popular culture.

Oh, and one more thing: at some point in either the CRTC hearings or the Bill C10 thing, I'm gonna guess that someone will blame Toronto.

And this week, Canadian writers on picked up shows will start working on outlines and trying to define the world of shows they have to be passionate about, even though they don't know when they'll be scheduled, if they'll get a fair shot, or any promotion whatsoever.

There. You're up to date.

The Loaded Gun in The Drawer

WELL, SPEND TIME waiting for your rental car with free wireless, and what's a guy to do?

Catch up on the news.

There's an old theater cliche -- If you put a loaded gun in the drawer in Act 1, it had better go off by Act 3.

So. Bill C-10 -- nearing the end of Act One...

After her underwhelming performance in front of the Senate Banking committee on Wednesday, the Minister of Heritage stood up in the House of Commons and repeated the party line -- that this is not any kind of change from what previous governments proposed, and that objecting to it now is just partisan anti-Tory feeling.

Now, aside and apart from the fact that if there's enmity between the Conservatives and Canada's cultural sector, it's richly earned...there's one big problem with that party line.

It's false.

Here's a transcript of a pretty relevant exchange between a Senator and Gerard Lalonde, the Director of the Tax Policy Branch at the Department of Finance at the hearing on Wednesday. It gets a little arcane, but you can follow it. I have faith in y'all.

Senator Goldstein: The minister told us that the proposal is no different than what has existed in the past. She asserted that the language is the same, the details are the same, and they have been dealt with, passed and accepted by a variety of governments. However, the wording of the provision is radically different; 125.4, which is what we are talking about, reads that a Canadian film or video production certificate means a certificate issued in respect of a production, et cetera, in respect of which theminister is satisfied that public financial support of the production would not be contrary to
public policy.

However, 1106, which was the previous provision, said that an excluded production was a film or video production, the production for which financial support would, in the opinion of the minister, be contrary to public policy. On its face, it would appear that the distinction between the former legislation and the proposed legislation is slight. It is rather significant, do you not think, that in the previous drafting in 1106, the presumption was that the film or production was not contrary to public policy, and the minister was required to make a determination that the production was contrary to public policy, whereas the way you have put it now, the
situation is completely reversed? The presumption is that a production is contrary to public policy unless the minister renders a determination that the production is not contrary to public policy. Why did you make this fundamental change in your drafting?

Mr. Lalonde: For the most part, it is to make it fit grammatically into the legislative framework. The regulation that was talking about an excluded production was phrased in the positive because that is how it was originally drafted. This particular test was proposed to be moved from the regulations into an existing structure. As a result, it had to be massaged grammatically to fit within the structure of the income tax law because there was previously existing income tax law at that time


Senator Goldstein: Mr. Lalonde, you would agree that that is not a grammatical change but rather a change of substance. Lawyers around the table recognize that is a fundamental change of substance. There are questions of onus, of proof, and of when this is determined, as well as the more important question of the inability of proposed financiers to know whether, in the future, the minister will declare that something is contrary to public order. Apparently, you have not considered the impact of financing on a $5-billion industry. I find it rather amazing that we are about to look at this.

There is not a thing to this story that is not amazing.

• That such a fundamental change was slipped in in two paragraphs in a mundane tax bill
• That something that could so profoundly affect an industry was allowed to sail through the Commons without even a moment of debate.
• That, met with a universal howl of derision, and patient explanations of how this is potentially crippling to an industry that has absorbed its share of kicks already, the Tories choose to stay the course.
• That their little censorious friends smack their lips in glee as if the fix is in and the Majority government is already at hand
• And finally, that even when questioned directly about it, the Minister cannot come up with the clear and present need for this legislation. It is a solution for a problem that isn't there. The only conclusion can possibly be that the intent is the chilling effect we're all worried about.
  
• Oh yeah. It's trying to influence content through tax policy.

Verner will not move from her position, which is pass the bill and make it law and we'll worry about the guidelines later. In fact, she's going to great pains now to suggest there will be after-the-fact consultation. Look at this excerpt from an article in Yesterday's Globe:

Producers to help draft guidelines, minister says

GLORIA GALLOWAY

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

April 3, 2008 at 3:49 AM EDT

OTTAWA — The Canadian Heritage Minister says she would wait a full year to wield new powers to deny film and television producers tax credits if their works do not jibe with taxpayer sensibilities - should those powers be granted to her.

And during that time, Josée Verner told the Senate banking committee yesterday, she would allow members of the entertainment industry to draft guidelines to establish what would not qualify for the credits, and how those guidelines should be applied.

The participation of the Entertainment Industry in the 'drafting of guidelines' is now key to her case. The Senate, Verner says, should pass the bill, and then she'll consult. Give me the power, I won't use it, and then we'll all sit down and draft happy guidelines.

Let's go with a simple analogy here:

1. Give me the loaded gun.
2. I will not use the loaded gun. I will talk to y'all about how and when I may shoot someone. Oh, and what kind of varmint I'm looking to shoot.

Does this make any sense at all? Wouldn't you have that conversation before handing someone the loaded gun? Wouldn't the conversation, in fact, be about whether the person needs the loaded gun at all, and if they can be trusted with it?

I think, in no uncertain terms, what the CFTPA and the creative unions should do when they appear before the Banking Committee is to refuse to play that game. Flat out. Say, "This is ill conceived. It was done with no transparency, and it is potentially disastrous." Say that passing the law first, and then drawing up guidelines is backward. Say that you can't participate in that farce.

This choice should be stark. And we should not give the Minister the cover she seeks.

Unless the answers become a whole lot more transparent and satisfying it is clear that the government has yet to make its case about why they should be trusted with this power.

The Gun may still go into the drawer. But we should not be the ones to load it.

WGC Election Results 2008

SOMEBODY ASKED ABOUT this below, so I'm reprinting the email that went out to WGC members this morning.

WGC 2008 Election Results

The votes cast for the three positions of Central Region Councillor for the May 1, 2008 to April 30, 2010 term have been counted and validated by our independent scrutineering firm and the results are as listed below. The current council will finish its term on April 30^th, 2008.

Elected as Central Region Councillors:

Jill Golick
Denis McGrath
Rebecca Schechter

The Writers Guild of Canada thanks Sugith Varughese for standing as a candidate for Councillor and for all of his hard work as Treasurer of the current council. Sugith has been an active and vocal member of council for more than five years and has been a key representative for WGC members on the board of governors of Actra Fraternal Benefit Society (AFBS) since 2003. In addition to championing the rights of WGC members and watching over insurance and retirement plans, Sugith also sits on the Audit committee of the AFBS board which oversees the financial health of AFBS.

Sugith was instrumental in helping the Guild create a new service agreement and a new insurance plan that addressed the many challenges of insuring freelancers in a time of escalating costs. Sugith has been writing professionally in Canada for over 25 years and has extensive writing credits. He has received numerous awards including a 2007 Writers Block award from the WGC for service to Canadian screenwriters. The Guild also congratulates Sugith on his newest gig as “Screenwriter in Residence” for the Toronto Public Library.

Other Council positions were filled by candidates acclaimed in their respective regions:

Charles Lazer - Pacific Region
Andrew Wreggitt - Western Region
Anna-Marie Perrotta - Quebec Region
Sherry White - Atlantic Region

For more information regarding election results, please contact Terry Mark, Manager Membership & Information Services at t.mark@wgc.ca or at 416-979-7907 ext. 5226 (toll-free at 1-800-567-9974 x5226).

I don't know Sugith very well, but I've met him a few times, and I greatly enjoyed a recent exchange with him on Facebook's ink canada forum. In no uncertain terms do I think I will, or can, replace Sugith. My expertise and my interests are entirely different. I hope and expect that Sugith will be a force and a touchstone for the Guild for many years to come.

C10 again, ugh.

BEFORE I FLEE, the latest on Bill C10, which was taken up by the Banking Committee today.

First, a news article from Canwest.

The basic impression? The Heritage Minister continues to defend the indefensible here. They insist that the wording is grammar -- and was the same as the bill proffered by the previous government. During the course of the debate, apparently the different language was read out and it was made materially clear to everybody but the minister that, in fact, the change in language to the contentious clause was not a matter of grammar, but a fundamental change to the spirit of the bill.

The Heritage Ministry is desperately caught here, trying to defend bad, sweeping, too broad language and lamely insisting that they want to consult with industry on these guidelines that aren't necessary and have not been required in the past.

Meanwhile, next week, reasonable people like the WGC find themselves on the same bill as crypto-muffin baking, right wing embarrassment organizations like REAL Women of Canada.

This thing is a disaster for the Tories. A disaster. 5000 letters so far. Why don't they just withdraw the clause and be done with it and stop acting like it's a fucking confidence motion that will bring down the government.

I've heard the guy. Nobody can possibly be that scared of a wingnut like Charles McVety.

Test Pattern

HEADING TO BOSTON for a wedding this weekend. I'll be offline til Monday. Have fun.

In The Family Way

I'M STILL HAUNTED by those crazy Heartland fans demanding more and better horse-coverage...so though it's not really the ballywick of this blog, I will bite and pass along the news that the March 14 premiere of The Latest Buzz, a series about a group of grade-nine students who take the reigns at a struggling teen-oriented magazine, drew a premiere audience of 322 000.

Apparently that, for the channel that is probably best swamped these days for Hannah Montana -- represents the highest premiere numbers for a show in the Family Channel's 20 year history!

Congrats to Decode Entertainment, and everyone else involved! It's like crack and cigarettes -- get 'em hooked on the Cancon young, and who knows?

(please note that I do not endorse the use of either crack, or cigarettes.)

"To Serve Man"

"IT'S A COOKBOOK!"

Sorry. No, I just couldn't really think of what to call this entry, and I've decided that I'd already spent too much time thinking about it.

I kept it out of the blog on purpose, but now, I'm pleased to announce that I've been elected as one of three Central Region representatives to the Guild Council of the Writers Guild of Canada.

The Guild is governed by a seven-member council which sets policies and oversees Guild activities. (The day to day operations of the Guild are managed by the Executive Director and staff)

Councillors are elected for two year terms. My term starts in May.

I'm told it's rare to have an election for this sort of thing. Most of the positions tend to be filled by acclamation. To be perfectly honest, I thought long and hard about running. In many ways, now is not the best time for me to take on something like this. I've been blessed to have a very busy couple of years, with staffing opportunities on a couple of different shows. I'm in an active phase of my career, and it seems like I never have time as it is. I'm going to have to work hard to juggle in the year ahead.

So why would I sign up for a bunch of meetings?

Well, unfortunately, I'm gonna lay this one on my Dad.

Growing up my father had one rule whenever you would complain about something: "Write a letter," he'd say. It was a flip off, some of the time, but it also had an important lesson behind it. You can't bemoan the state of things without doing something, anything to try and change it.

My dad oversaw labor negotiations as part of management, and even as a kid, I was fascinated by what he'd say about that process. There, too, he drove home that the only way things ever improved was when reasonable people sat down and made it so.

Another factor has been the wonderful writers I've gotten the chance to know over the last few years. Several of the people I most admire have given their time and effort to make the Guild work. I'm susceptible to that kind of thing. Maybe it's just my turn.

I've watched over the last three years as the readership of this blog slowly crept up and changed. The Americans have fallen away, and the Brits have drifted, and lo and behold, they've all been replaced by Canadians. Reading silently in the dark, from the CBC and CTV, and the CTF and Heritage Canada, from the MacDonald Block, and the Ontario Government, and Canwest, and Alliance Atlantis, and ISPs from St. John's to Prince Rupert.

I've done what once seemed unthinkable in the Canadian industry -- written from the hip and the lip about what I saw, and what I felt. It's an industry that I think is important for the life of this country, an industry that's underappreciated and also weakened by cronyism and tired thinking. And Greed. Greed's always in there, too.

Along the way I've had a few quite unpleasant encounters with the "other way" of the Canadian TV business. Nasty letters -- signed and anonymous -- taking me to task for expressing opinions, or calling it as I saw it. I'm not talking about people who wrote in to say, "you're full of shit and here's why..." I like those kinds of letters. Any argument that furthers understanding and exchanges points of view can lead to new synthesis, new ideas -- and that's always an exchange worth having.

Nope, what I'm talking about is the voice of apathy and inertia. The "this is how it's always been," crowd. The "Who do you think you are?" crowd. The privileged who think that if anybody, anywhere shakes the tree a little bit, the low hanging fruit that they've been entitled to for so long will go away.

I believe I've probably lost a few contracts because of this blog. I know I have. But on balance, what I've gained is far more valuable. I'm pretty sure I've gotten work through the blog, too. For the way it raises my profile, and (I hope) the way it portrays me as an advocate for Canadian work -- in then end, I'm okay with my choices. I think I've proven that you can say what you think and not have the sky fall in on you.

But the road is not all rosy. It's been a terrible year for this industry, in terms of crews being out of work because of the WGA situation down south. And it seems with every billionaire blast or sneaky pol missive, the regulatory patchwork that governs us looks to collapse in on itself.

I've also had the same conversation with more writers than I'd care to think about in the last few months. It goes like this:

"So you've got your dual citizenship?"

"Yup."

(shakes head)

"What?"

"What the fuck are you still doing here?"

Well. Well.

Right now, I'm writing a letter. Or trying to.

I believe that, even with everything stacked against us, there can be an upside to trying to make TV in this country. I think that even private networks, gorged on U.S. programming, can still want to do something worthwhile. I believe that I've met, and had drinks with, and laughed along with talents that are the equal of anything you see hanging out in Silver Lake or Santa Monica.

So I've decided to go all in.

In the end, writing a blog doesn't change anything. And no matter how I try to spin it, at some level the most basic, petty critcism -- that it's all about me, here...well, that's kind of true, innit? But if I have two years on Council, it's a chance to make it about all those great writers I've met, that new community that I've been lucky enough to discover.

So even though it's a crazy time, I'm going to spend the next two years trying to bring all the stories I've heard from you to the heart of the Guild. I'm going to try and leverage my enthusiasm and drive and try to shake free some of the apathy from the membership. I'm writing my letter, and doing everything I can to make it work.

There's plenty of people with poise and experience both on the staff and on council. I expect to do a lot of listening. That's the attractive thing about this, too. Less shooting my mouth off, more hearing the way things are.

Since I'm going to be representing Writers Guild members, it's also probably going to change this blog a little bit.

I'm going to feel out how that works over the next few months. Obviously, since Council sessions are In Camera, I'm not going to be able to discuss anything that's discussed at those meetings. That should cut down on the "don't talk about this on your blog," questions, too. Won't miss that.

I also think that now that I represent people, I feel a little honor-bound to pull back on one other thing: critiquing Canadian shows. You can't expect people to bring you their concerns if they feel you've attacked them or slammed them. (And believe me, I've discovered in the last little while how little you have to say before somebody feels aggrieved and attacked.)

So...I will promote and announce, and preview and maybe discuss cool things I see, but I think I'm going to have to pull back on the show reviews. You want that skinny, you're gonna need to buy me a Guinness and then we can gossip proper.

Comment threads will be left open, of course, so registered readers who want to step up and offer their $.02 can hopefully move to fill the void a bit. We'll see. As I said, it's a work in progress.

So, anyhow, that's it for now. I'd like to thank the outgoing WGC Council for all their efforts on behalf of us all.

A Viewer Speaks

WE GET A good group of commenters here in Sticksville. Lately, we've been hearing quite a bit from a young woman from the Prairies, who has an openminded attitude toward Canadian shows, and an engaged and passionate way of defending them. On the subject of all the changes going on at the CBC, I think she's expressed the necessary corrective point of view better than Richard Stursberg, Kirstine Leyfield, or anybody else at the public broadcaster has managed to do.

So I'm bumping her comment here. This is what she, handle of Ladycanuck, had to say:

I agree with the direction the Ceeb is going in. We still have CBC Newsworld for all the extra news shows, there's Documentary Channel for the docs, and then there's Bold (ha!) for the artsy stuff. Right?

The truth of the matter is that if the Ceeb is to survive, it needs better-rated shows. I hate the ratings system--we all know it's flawed--but by trying to hit big marks, there's a larger likelihood that more good shows will get viewers. The important thing right now is getting eyeballs to CBC. It should go with quantity of viewers for now and quality later. We've all seen that quality shows can't get a ton of viewers until there's actually people watching the net to begin with. FOX, for instance, used to be #4 down south and than when Idol hit the airwaves, suddenly people were watching FOX shows. Now there's House, Prison Break, Bones and New Amsterdam on FOX--much better fare than before.

CBC did a great job this year. I disagree with the naysayers. With more 1-hour dramas than ever before, I'm recognizing the effort the net went to. Sure, maybe Intelligence wasn't promoted well and maybe MVP shouldn't have gotten the Friday deathslot, but there was a big improvement this past season compared to earlier ones.

I agree. There's one other thing I forgot to mention in the talk of the changes to Radio 2 controversy.

In 2005, when the CBC Lockout happened, and much of the CBC Radio schedule went away, Radio One saw some serious dives in listenership. Radio 2, on the other hand, with canned muzak, no announcers, no content of any kind -- had exactly the same ratings as before. Which is the same as the ratings they have now.

That is a flatline, people.

That is not a vibrant or growing service. They're right to try and change it up. And if the minority now screaming bloody murder had gotten a couple more people to listen (or even if they'd listened themselves) maybe we'd be having a different conversation.

Sometimes You Can't Keep a Player Down

WELL HERE'S AN interesting little tale for you:

Seems like the recently canceled MVP has gotten picked up by cable in the USA. First season episodes will run on SOAPnet. Now, I don't know much about SOAPnet, other than the fact that it's the channel one of my little sisters seems to have grafted directly onto her eyes every time she visits my parents in Florida -- but supposedly they're going to tour around and about and push the stars of the show -- so MVP will in essence, get a second launch.

There's a couple of things that are intriguing about this. Not the least of which is this: for all the noise surrounding the dropping of JPOD, I've not heard any similar clamor from down south for a pickup. I also think that MVP isn't really soapy ENOUGH for a channel like SOAPnet - but maybe that's the point. It's probably a higher value series than they could afford on their own.

According to the articles, CBC retains the right to pick up the show if it does well in the USA - meaning if they could come in for a 2nd season window at a much lower price. Entirely possible.

All of this contains within it the abject lessons of this business: when the show was axed a few weeks back, the producer went to great pains to give a very even-handed quote. She didn't take the bait that so many Canadian producers do, and bash the network.

Consequently, here 's a possible act two for the show -- and no bridges were burned. Imagine such a thing.

The Canadian TV industry is such a curious place; people who won't speak up when they should, and people who won't shut up when it's clearly in their best interests to do so. Funny thing, that.

The So-Long Sayonara Sendoff

IT IS A truly weird day in Toronto. It's like 15 or 16 degrees Celsius, so the months of snow have melted. And everywhere you look on the streets there is detritus: cigarette butts, stray gloves and mittens and scarves; used condoms and needles and juice boxes, baby clothes, matchbooks, gum wrappers, mummified dog poo and deposits of much larger, scarier substances. It's like Mother Nature got pimped out as a Crack Ho By Old Man Winter.

But as Winter ends, and Yankee TeeVee returns, the Canadian TeeVee season ends.

Last night's episode of The Border drew 665 000 viewers. So we started at 710 000 and crested and dipped and wowed and rose and fell. But a big core of you folk followed faithfully and for that we're grateful. It was also cool to read a couple articles around the finale that talked about how the show got better as the season progressed. We think so too. Thanks for your support.

Just because a couple people have asked, I guess there's no reason to not say it here: I'm back on The Border for a new season, which we're plotting and outlining right now. I'm pretty excited about my stories, and hope that Season Two will bring new twists for Kessler and Co, just as it seems poised to bring new twists in the political backdrop of the real world.

So as the filth emerges from the snow cocoon, the Canadian tv writer moves from complaining about the cold and utter lack of work to being hot and too busy to enjoy a summer of cottaging.

Maybe we should just wear hair shirts?

The Border returns with new episodes this fall.

But What Will the Statue Look Like?

GOD HELP US. Epstein's got an idea for a new, national, Montreal-based awards show for film and television. And dash nabbit if this one doesn't actually sound like a good idea.

We already have the Genies and the Geminis and the Jutras and even more regional awards. These would have to be national awards. But what American award ceremony haven't we ripped off? Those'd have to be the Razzies, eh?

Ah, the Razzies: the award for the most spectacularly bad Screenplay, Direction, Performance in a Leading Role, etc. But you couldn't just vote someone a Canadian Razzie: that would be rude. No, people would have to submit their own films, by way of apology for their awful work, or the awful job that was done to their work. An award, if you will, by way of apology. Fortunately, Canadians are just self-loathing enough to do it. After all, if you write a real stinker, and you submit yourself for a Canadian Razzie, you're cool. If you don't, you're just the writer of a stinker. (As someday it may happen, I've got a little list, myself. But I'm not going to sing about it.)

And the name of these awards, to be doled out at a ceremony at, probably, McKibbins Pub, some time around the Montreal Film Festival -- whichever one we have left, that is -- shortly before the parties at TIFF? Why, inevitably, the SORRIES. Sorry is, after all, our national motto, isn't it?

Maybe there is no award, Maybe, symbolically, if you win you have to empty whatever money you have in your pockets and put it in a jar, and at the end we all add it up and send it back as a money order to the Auditor General:

"We can't pay it all back, but here's a bit of that Telefilm/CTF/Government money back. We're sorry for helping to make a bad show."

Is that opening Pandora's Box? Too far?

Sorry.

My G G G G G Generation and the CBC...

THE CBC IS embroiled in a bunch of no-foolin stuff these days, it seems.

First, there's the ongoing controversy about taking the Radio Two service and reducing the amount of morning and afternoon drive time classical, in favor of folk, jazz, and other styles of music.

People who like it the way it is have their panties in a bunch.

Then there's the ongoing imbroglio over Richard Stursberg's attempts to reverse CBC's audience slide by pursuing a more populist programming strategy, built on drama series instead of mini series and TV movies that explore Canadian historical themes.

R.H. Thompson has his panties in a bunch.

To be fair, as John Doyle writes today, there are those who are concerned that CBC seems to be backing away from its committment to News and Current Affairs -- which they have traditionally done very well at and which provide a valuable public service.

So News Junkies have their panties in a bunch.

Now comes the news that, Oh My God, they're going to cancel the Air Farce after about a million years.

Cue the panties.

I have to say, I've always thought that having three satirical news programs on CBC TV was a bit much. Still, I find the news about Air Farce quite surprising, especially since they have done quite a bit to refresh both their writing staff and their talent in the last few years.

But aside from the fact that complaining about the CBC has got to be one of the top five sports in Canada, what strikes me most is that all these things happening at once really does point to a profound generational struggle over who the public broadcaster is going to serve.

A lot of the things that generate the most carping -- George, Jian, Radio 3, are all the things waiting in the wings that I find the most interesting.

For the first time, ever, it seems like the Baby Boomers are not on the most favored nation side of that argument, that generational struggle.

I wonder if, in years to come, when you look back on the fights going on right now, if it will all look as quaint as, say, the fact that the BBC kept Rock and Roll off the air as long as it could.

In any case, whoa nelly, it's gonna be ugly.

Nobody argues like this about NPR.

EDIT: if you read between the lines of this article about the show's cancellation by Lee-Anne Goodman, it seems to me like it wasn't particularly that much of a surprise to Abbot and Ferguson. The timeslot conundrum is a big one for CBC -- remember, they don't have ANY 10pm drama slots to give out. I'd bet -- watch for Holiday Air Farce specials to become a fixture on the CBC.

And other than that, only thing I can say is Thank GOD they got another quote from Waddell at ACTRA!

Sheesh.

Pretty Pictures win Awards

CONGRATS are due to David Greene, csc, the fabulous DOP of Across The River to Motor City. He's just won an award from the Canadian Society of Cinematographers in the TV Drama category.

Other winners include Ousama Rawi csc, bsc for Episode 106 of The Tudors, and Dylan Macleod csc for the film Civic Duty.

The full list is available here.

Congrats David!

TV DRAMA CINEMATOGRAPHY
David Greene csc Across the River to Motor City Jonsworth Productions & Devine Entertainment Corporation
(Pierre Jodoin csc Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde Muse Entertainment
Rene Ohashi csc, asc Sea Change Brandman Productions/Sony Pictures Television)

TV SERIES CINEMATOGRAPHY
The Tudors "Episode 106" P A Tudors Inc./ Showtime Networks Inc.
(Stephen F. McNutt csc Battlestar Galactica "Maelstrom" GEP Productions Inc.
Glen Winter csc Smallville "Noir" Smallville 3 Films)

Fin.

I'M DONE WITH the writing thing. I'm quitting to pursue my first love, the clarinet. Goodbye.

EDIT: okay, yeah, that was lame. Especially when stacked against Alex's April Fools Goof, which really, honest to god, alllmost got me.

Jim Shaw? Road to Damascus moment? C'mon Epstein. That was gilding the lily. Although he does get bonus points for proving that nobody ever clicks the links.

While we're at it...here's my favorite clearly goofing post from the past (which recently inspired two very different emails -- one from a guy who knows the guy and actually experienced the program -- which sounds cool -- and the other from a cease and desist nutter who thinks I'm somehow...harming Jesus or something.)

Of course, it was the baby Jesus who not only led me to Mike Crain, but who also put me in a work situation where I worked with another "Mike Crain."

Mysterious Ways, he has, the LORD does...

The Border as a Viewer

TONIGHT IS THE season finale of THE BORDER. (CBC, 9pm)

Interestingly enough, this episode was scripted and shot mostly after my contract was up last fall. I wasn't around when they made it. I didn't see any cuts of it. What that means is that a few weeks ago, I got to see it for the first time, fresh, pretty much as viewers do.

And I was some heap impressed. It's a sweeping story, with flashbacks and secrets exposed and twists and all manner of tension piled high upon tension. It's a cracker. Tune it in, and I hope you'll agree.

The Big Week, Or, It's Interesting When They Try to Kill You

"MAY WE LIVE IN INTERESTING TIMES." You've probably heard that before. It's a Chinese saying, I think. What most people miss when they trundle out that quote, though, is that the Chinese meant it as a curse.

Well, we have plenty of interesting coming up this week in the Canadian TV racket. First, as previously mentioned in this space, on Wednesday the Senate banking committee takes up the cause of Bill C10. There's an article in the Hill Times that has an interesting take, if for no reason than it finally quotes someone who can speak to what the real effects of this hasty and ill advised change will be, Maureen Parker, Exec Director of the Writers Guild. It also hints at just how much the Government really wishes it didn't have to deal with this:

Canadian Heritage officials recently met with film and television lobby groups to "allay fears" surrounding the so-called "censorship" provision in the Conservative government's bill affecting tax credits on offensive TV and film productions, but the groups weren't so impressed with the meeting, says Maureen Parker, executive director of the Writers Guild of Canada.

"They were trying, I think, to calm us down and perhaps get us off the topic and out of the media, but of course we're not going to do that. This is very much a pressing concern. It is a censorship issue," Ms. Parker said of the March 6 meeting, when she and representatives from ACTRA and the Directors Guild of Canada met senior Heritage officials.

"They weren't successful in what they were setting out to do because, as we all told them, ACTRA, DGC, and WGC, that they were missing the point. The point was that guidelines will not work," she said. "I expect as employees that they're taking a lot of heat right now."

The Heritage Department requested the consultation with the groups to discuss a controversial provision on film and TV tax credits in the Conservative government's Bill C-10, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, which has passed in the House of Commons and is now before the Senate Standing Committee on Banking, Trade, and Commerce.

The bill would give the government the flexibility to deny tax credits to television and film productions with graphic sex, violence, or other offensive content. It's said the provision was not caught earlier because it is buried in a large bill primarily intended to implement the taxation of non-resident trusts and foreign investment entities and implement amendments to the Income Tax Act.

Film and television lobby groups have been getting in line to appear before the Senate Standing Committee on Banking, Trade, and Commerce, which will open its study on the bill this week with an appearance from Heritage Minister Josée Verner (Louis-Saint-Laurent, Que.). The government has said it will publish guidelines to help determine tax credit eligibility for productions, and Minister Verner has said that the new provision has "nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with the integrity of the tax system."

The Heritage Department's request for the meeting is seen as quite unusual, however, because such a consultation would normally be held before the bill is tabled, when the legislation is in development. Indeed, the issue is said to be a sensitive one for the government, particularly because if the Senate amends the bill, it would be sent back to the House of Commons for a debate and vote—and further politicking.

Conservative Quebec Senator David Angus, chair of the Senate Banking Committee, did not respond to a request for a comment on the issue, and the Heritage Department's communications office last week said next to nothing about its meeting with the lobby groups. The Heritage Department took 24 hours to respond to questions about the meeting, after which time the department only said that it "has been consulting with stakeholders to collect their views. This will continue."

Ms. Parker, who said she has not had any meetings with Parliamentarians to discuss the bill, said she expects to appear before the Banking Committee with screenwriters, and one of her central arguments will be that the guidelines will result in a kind of self-censorship for television and film writers who will write to ensure that they receive financing.

Film and television productions have high costs, she said, and no one will spend time developing a show or film that has the potential to come short on financing.

"I can tell you, my writers will write for guidelines. If you think you're not going to get a show financed, you'll completely change the type of program you deliver," Ms. Parker said.

The tax change, she said, will also discourage banks from providing loans to risky productions because they may not be eligible for the tax credit. For instance, she said that a 13-part series would borrow about $1.7-million.

"That's a lot of money. If the bank thinks they may not get that money back after the fact because the tax credit is denied, after the production has been made, they're not going to invest. It's not like a $40,000 investment. It's $1.7-million," Ms. Parker said.

At the meeting with the Heritage officials, attended by Robert Soucy, director of the Canadian Audio-Visual Certification Office, and Annette Gibbons, deputy director general of cultural industries, Ms. Parker said she asked to see the proposed guidelines but was told that they were not finished. She also asked whether the guidelines will be similar to book and magazine guidelines for tax credits, but did not get a straight answer, she said.

"It's not necessary. This is something from the omnibus bill that should just be deleted," Ms. Parker said. "It creates uncertainty for the financing of projects."

Right on, Mo. Deleting the language from this bill and sending it back for debate is the only appropriate course of action, first because it's a bad precedent, and a bad change, and secondly, because any thinking person can look at the way in which this was done and know it stinks. They tried to get one past. It didn't work. Send it home.

Keeping the pressure on is essential. In this post you'll find the email addresses of the Senate banking committee. Blanket them. Tell them that these provisions in C10 amount to pre-censorship. Tell them to toss it back. Tell them to do the right thing.

Meanwhile, across the river and down a bit in Hull, you're gonna find the latest hearings from the CRTC. On the agenda today, and for the next three weeks: "Should the CRTC lift genre protection and rules that prevent American cable channels like ESPN and HBO from being seen in Canada?"

The cable co's say yes...but of course they would. They'll make tons of money selling new premium packages if they can offer Canadians the crack that they always loooove -- U.S. Channels! But then again, the broadcasters say, much like Amy Winehouse re: Rehab, "Noo, noo, noo."

This article in the Globe and Mail today is typical in laying out the positions -- as far as it goes. I'm not gonna quote from it. You can go read the whole thing and come back if you want. The interesting thing in it for me, though, is how it ignores the elephant in the room.

See, neither the Report on Business writer who wrote the article, nor those broadcasters really want to go headlong into the argument that could save them: don't let the channels in because it will kill our homegrown programming.

That's the argument they could make; except for the fact that they haven't really done much homegrown programming. Especially on the cable side. There's the rub.

This is part of an ongoing thing in the Globe, too, by the way. Yes, John Doyle writes about Canadian culture -- he does it again today -- but that's in the Arts section. The business writers in the paper act as if the whole domestic industry does not exist. So a few weeks ago, an article about the economic impact of the WGA strike makes it seem like nothing new has been on Canadian TV for two months -- when the reality is that we had more new programming on than in the USA, because, um, you know, there were shows we made, too...and now this. The very thing that could have made this a no-brainer argument: protect us because we make things that are different and we use the U.S. program rights we have to support that -- isn't a strong argument. Whoops.

There's no question that Canadians would like to have ESPN and HBO. But, here's a case where I think Astral could stand up there and argue TMN. TMN may sell by making money on Showtime and HBO shows (and Canadians get a better deal than Americans -- You only have to subscribe to one channel here to get the best of both of those American networks) but they also have moved into aggressively making Canadian series -- Durham County only being the first example.

The fact that MTV was kept out in the 1980's means that Canada is one of the only countries in the world that has a youth branded Music channel (Much) that is homegrown, and not a copy of that MTV brand. That's significant.

But for many of these specialty channels, it's a law of diminishing returns. They've been treated a bit like cash machines for the last few years. Safe in their protected areas, they recycle the same programming seen on their over-the-air corporate brothers. This strategy reaches its height of lunacy with the rerunning of CSI: NY, or JAG, on History, as Alliance Atlantis (Now Canwest) burns off runs from other contracts.

There are the good, and the bad. Slice and Food Network Canada make a lot of shows. Space, not so much.

I happen to think that bringing in HBO and ESPN and channels like it would be a disaster. I think that Off The Record is Canadian Culture. I think sports headlines with a Canadian twist is something to be fought for. And I think TMN trying to be the Canadian HBO won't work if the US version is right there sucking all its oxygen.

But at the same time, I'm sure when it finally comes down to it, and when those broadcasters stand up and say, "how can you think of ending this practice" and they trot out a few Canadian Domestic TV supporters to support them, I hope somebody on the ball would say, "well, why don't you make more programming, then? To me, it doesn't look like there's much here we should be protecting?"

Maybe then the discussion can shift a bit. For too long, the industry has hoarded their protections, and traded away ours. Maybe some meaningful, real committments to CanCon can be pulled out of this.

Or maybe we'll all get HBO next year.

Who knows?

Have an interesting week!