The Conservative government is trying to prevent the abuse of taxpayers’ money by requesting that those receiving government grants or tax credits be made accountable for the money received. It is little to ask.
To achieve this objective, the government tabled Bill C-10, a 560-page document dealing with amendments to the Income Tax Act, including provisions dealing with taxation on foreign investments, and government funding of “cultural material”, among other items. The Bill sailed through the House of Commons, supported by all parties.
However, when it reached the Senate, someone spotted a provision (Section 120 (3)(b)) which stated that public financial support of media productions should not be made if they were contrary to public policy. The media raised an unbelievable hue and cry at this Senate stage when it was alerted to this provision. Film producers and media stars captured headline news in most print and visual media, but in doing so gravely misrepresented the Bill.
Canadian Producers Misrepresent Bill C-10
The producers and actors claimed that this provision was “government censorship” and was “a serious attack” on their creativity and freedom of expression. This hysterical reaction was completely unwarranted.
No films are either banned or destroyed under this provision. Film producers can represent whatever perspective and depictions of violence or sex they wish that are not contrary to the Criminal Code. The only limitation is that they will no longer be able to do this with the use of money from overtaxed Canadians. These disgruntled artists were really arguing that funding from Canadian Heritage is their “entitlement”, regardless of how or what they choose to depict in their films and programming and regardless of how detrimental such material may be, especially to women, children and adolescents. That is, these elites want “carte-blanche” to use government grants any way they choose, regardless of the consequences of the productions. Artists, however, should be held responsible for their work, the same as plumbers, lawyers, physicians and carpenters.
Why Aren’t the Media Held Accountable?
Other industries have to meet strict requirements and regulations in order to gain tax credits, so why not those undertaking artistic endeavors? Why should “artists” claim to have the right to operate freely by way of taxpayer funding, yet not be held responsible for their work? If their works are detrimental to society, and/or do not appeal to the public because of their subject matter or content, why should the taxpayers support them? Many of the works funded by our tax dollars only alienate or offend Canadians, which defeats the major objective of the program which is “to develop Canadians’ sense of belonging” and “building the country’s national identity”. In short, the government has a fiscal responsibility to the taxpayer and this proposed amendment in Bill C-10 is merely an attempt to carry out this responsibility.
Sexually Explicit and Violent Materials Have Consequences
That is, the issue is not merely that of giving full rein to the artistic creativity of film producers. There is also a problem with the long-term effects of sexually explicit and violent material. Among the detrimental effects are: danger to women caused by the trivialization of crimes, such as rape, the loss of desire to raise a family and the diminished satisfaction with one’s partner by men who view of pornography. Also, for adolescents, sexually explicit materials become a significant source of sex education and greatly contribute to confused attitudes towards sexuality. Researchers have also found that some explicit material serves as ritual preparation before committing a sexual offense and that some material is used by child molesters to induce children to cooperate with them. These are far reaching consequences which affect many segments of society. Do Canadians want their tax dollars to contribute to these harmful repercussions?
REAL Women Appears Before the Senate Committee
On April 9, 2008, REAL Women appeared before the Senate Committee reviewing Bill C-10. We pointed out that The Department of Canadian Heritage’s support of the cultural industries in Canada - film, television, publishing, sound recording, and news media - now amounts to $5 billion annually. The purpose of this funding is supposed to encourage Canadian cultural content so as “to develop Canadians’ sense of belonging” and “building the country’s national identity”. Regretfully, the material created by the culture industry in Canada, by way of government grants and tax credits, has rarely achieved these objectives. Instead, these grants have had the opposite effect, in that they have resulted in works that alienate and offend Canadians.
Significantly, in 2006, only 4% of the Canadian box office receipts went to Canadian produced films, 88% of the market went to Hollywood produced films and the remaining 8% went to non-North American movies, e.g., British, European, Iranian, etc. Canadians are staying away in droves from taxpayer supported Canadian films with titles like Bubble Galore, Hanging the Dead Rabbits, The Masturbators, Sperm, and other titles too gross to repeat.
Amendment Originally Introduced by Liberals
REAL Women also pointed out that this provision first appeared in the regulations to the Income Tax Act under the Liberal Government in 2003, at the time that Sheila Copps was the Minister of Heritage. According to Ms. Copps, the clause was inspired by a controversial film about convicted murderer Paul Bernardo, from which the government of the day wished to distance itself. The current amendment that is now causing so much concern in the arts community simply permits the Minister of Canadian Heritage to draft guidelines so as to preclude taxpayers’ monies being used for offensive material.
A Sensible Provision
Bill C-10 seems to be a sensible approach to government funding and in accordance with a report of the Auditor General in November 2005, that stated that the Heritage Department “needs to strengthen its strategic direction, results, measurement and accountability structures to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its programs and operations”. The amendment to the Income Tax Act, as set out in Bill C-10, is merely an attempt to solve some of the problems of cultural program funding by the Canadian Heritage Department. |
