Press Releases

 
Statement on the Canadian Film and Video Production Tax Credit in Bill C-10
On February 28, 2008, Canadians learned in The Globe and Mail that the federal government wants to deny financial aid to artistic films and television shows that are “contrary to public policy.”

The federal government wants the option of denying tax credits to imaginative films and television shows that, in the government’s opinion, convey gratuitous sex or excessive violence.

The government wants to deny tax credits to the producers of such films even if the producers have already received funds and approval for their films from government agencies such as Telefilm Canada and the Canadian Television Fund.

Proposed changes to the Income Tax Act would grant to the Minister of Canadian Heritage the authority to decide which films qualified for tax credits after the films had been made.

If the minister did deny tax credits to a film, the investors in the film would have to try to recoup millions of dollars in investments. The producer would have to repay banks, broadcasters and distributors. People could face bankruptcy.

The government’s proposal appears in Section 120.(3) in Bill C-10 (An Act to amend the Income Tax Act). The Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce is considering the bill. If Section 120.(3) is enacted into law, it could discourage people from investing money in provocative films. It could encourage filmmakers to censor themselves.

On March 4, however, Minister of Canadian Heritage Josée Verner said at a press conference that the government does not want to discourage artistic expression. She said:

We are far from censorship here. We are just putting forward an intention from
our government and [from] the former Liberal government just to make sure that
we will take fiscal measure to make sure that the Canadian taxpayers’ money
won’t fund extreme violence, child pornography or something like that.

Freedom is a great Canadian value. We want to support Canadian content;
we won’t stop anybody from producing any kind of movies. We just want to make
sure that our fiscal measure will follow our law in Canada.

Despite the assurance, artists’ organizations have objected to the proposal. They include the Canadian Film and Television Production Association, the Canadian Conference of the Arts, the Association of Canadian Publishers, PEN Canada, the Playwrights Guild of Canada, the Writers Guild of Canada and the Writers’ Union of Canada.

At the Book and Periodical Council, we think the phrase “contrary to public policy” in Section 120.(3) is subjective and vague. It is open to political manipulation and abuse.

We wonder if the current (or a future) Minister of Canadian Heritage would deny tax credits to a television series like Trailer Park Boys because the characters drink a lot, smoke tobacco and scheme to sell narcotics.

We wonder if films that portray criminal violence like David Cronenberg’s Eastern Promises could be made in Canada. We wonder if a film like Lynne Stopkewich’s necrophiliac Kissed could attract investors if they knew that tax credits could be denied at the last minute.

Would there be any way for film producers to appeal the denial of tax credits? How would such an appeal work?

We also wonder if this proposal to withhold public funds from “inappropriate” films will be extended to “inappropriate” books and magazines in Canada.1

In addition, we note that the government buried Section 120.(3) in tens of thousands of words in Bill C-10. The proposal received no scrutiny from Opposition MPs in the House of Commons. The proposal was never candidly discussed with the Canadian public, either.

We urge the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce to send this proposal back to the House of Commons for debate. We hope MPs will revise Section 120.(3) in Bill C-10 and remove the threat to imaginative film production. The government’s system for funding films and television shows should encourage artistic expression, not stifle it.

---

1. In 2007, the Department of Canadian Heritage revised the application guidelines for its Book Publishing Industry Development Program. The guidelines deny funds to publications that have “significant sexual content,” “excessive or gratuitous violence” and “similarly offensive material.”