Four of Harper's MPs Could be Barred From Running in the Next Election

I've been trying to keep track of the ongoing court case surrounding the "In and Out" scandal. There has been nothing new, but just a reminder that it is far from settled.

After one victory, and Pierre Poilievre sticking out his tiny chest and claiming it was over, Elections Canada has said "Not so fast".

A court ruling initially hailed as a triumph by the Conservatives turns out to contain a bitter pill that could poison the electoral prospects of three senior cabinet ministers.

... the Tories are also appealing, hoping to strike down a little-noticed section of the judgment that would mean up to 10 candidates — including Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon, Natural Resources Minister Christian Paradis, Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Josee Verner and former minister Maxime Bernier — exceeded their campaign spending limits in 2006.

If the ruling is allowed to stand, the four sitting Tories and up to six former candidates could face charges. If convicted, they could be barred from running again or even be barred from sitting in the House of Commons, much less cabinet ... "Apart from any conviction," the agency goes on, "this option would cast doubt on the legitimacy of the election of the four candidates ... who are current members of Parliament."

Hopefully this will be settled before the next election.

Luc Harvey Was Right. Josee Verner Did Take a Runner

Recently, former Conservative MP Luc Harvey has blamed Josee Verner for their poor poll ratings in Quebec. He correctly felt that when the announced cuts to arts and plans for censorship, first hit the airwaves, she should have stepped up and explained her Party's position.

Instead she took a runner and actually went missing for two weeks. Was she again simply doing as she was told by the boys in the backroom, or was she just too frightened to 'stand up for Canada'?

Like most Conservative MPs she actually believes that she works for Stephen Harper and not the people who put her in office.

Now her name will always be synonymous with censorship, and I don't really believe that's who she is. Too late though. The damage has been done.

Where in the world is Josée Verner?
MacLeans
Philippe Gohier
August 14, 2008

I think it’s safe to presume the Tories’ sweeping cuts to arts funding in Canada haven’t gone over quite as well as the Harper government had hoped. Sure, the National Post gave the cuts its predictable thumbs-up, but the government’s explanations have such gaping holes in them, it’s been hard to take any of them seriously.

Now, you’d think a government minister—perhaps even the one responsible for the erstwhile programs—would step up to clear the air. Fat chance. Heritage Minister Josée Verner’s been nowhere to be found, and her communications staff has been told not to answer questions from journalists.

Which brings us back to a fundamental question about the way ministers are selected in this government (and, perhaps, this country): Is Josée Verner’s job to be a decision-making, program-shaping, full-fledged cabinet minister? Or is it to be a Quebecer where there are too few?

So long as the Conservatives aren’t 100% sure they’ve got Mario Dumont’s base sewn up, it appears they’ll keep trotting out Quebecers at meaningless photo-ops to somehow prove they’re not like those other conservatives—you know, the ones that wouldn’t run candidates in the province—all while simultaneously barring them from doing anything that might resemble governing. At this rate, you’ll know an election is looming when Harper names a cardboard cut-out of Camille Laurin to take over inter-governmental affairs from Rona Ambrose. (Of course, he’ll have to name the cut-out to the Senate first.)

UPDATE: I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that Verner did indeed grant CP’s French-language service an interview yesterday. According to the heritage minister, the true beneficiaries of the cuts are—wait for it—the artists! “What we’re hoping to do,” Verner said, “is to look at how we could create a new program or new avenues that will be even more effective and have a stronger impact for our culture outside the country.” (Wonder who wrote that? It sure wasn't Josee, because I'm convinced she doesn't believe in that tripe)

She also found time for a photo-op.

The Bloc is reenergized, quick to respond and has yet to see a microphone that it doesn’t want to inhale. The Conservatives, not so much. After dodging debates and reporters for two weeks, and enduring the ensuing fury, Canadian Heritage Minister Josée Verner cobbled together seven other Quebec City-area candidates and launched one of the more bizarre press conferences I’ve ever witnessed. She read from a script as the other candidates bobble-headed their approval and a group of protesters outside banged on the windows. Without exception, Verner spoke in vague generalities: “We need to elect deputies who can deliver the merchandise”; “We go beyond platforms”; “We are going to work with our partners”; and so on…

-Not surprisingly, the Conservatives are on their heels in the region. The issue of cuts to culture is stuck in the headlines and Conservative candidates can’t walk ten feet without being asked about them. Inevitably, these candidates answer in vague generalities (see above), so people keep asking about them. There’s a moral in here somewhere. (Harper has turned poor Josee into another talking head)

Mind you she's still smitten with her 'boss', apparently even asking him to sign her copy of the throne speech. Though apparently she didn't even vote Conservative.

This is probably my favourite news item of the day so far: Heritage Minister Josée Verner doesn’t vote Conservative.

Rather than voting in the riding where she’s running for a seat (Louis-Saint-Laurent), like most politicians do, Verner voted in Portneuf-Jacques-Cartier, where she lives. Apparently, Verner was unaware that, as an incumbent MP, she is allowed to vote in the riding she represents.

The kicker is that the Conservatives aren’t even running a candidate in Portneuf—that’s André Arthur territory. (So who did she vote for?)

Josee Verner is Coached and Programmed on Bill C-10

Despite the fact that she obviously opposed the censorship bill that got buried in the budget, Josee Verner read from a prepared statement, telling her constituents that she really couldn't care less what they thought.

She was a Conservative now and in the Conservative Party women are mere window dressing. If they wanted an MP to work for them, they should have voted for the Bloc, Liberals, Green or NDP, where women still have a voice.

Then she immediately left to make sandwiches because she heard the boys were getting hungry and they got down right cranky if they didn't get their lunch on time.

Heritage minister grilled over C-10
Bill gets month-long scrutiny at Senate committee
April 04, 2008

It's a Senate committee that rarely receives a lot of attention. But on Apr 2 it was a packed house. Heritage Minister Josée Verner was defending C-10, a bill that would give the minister the power to deny tax credits to controversial films. Because the clause appears in the middle of hundreds of pages of income tax amendments, it was the Senate's banking committee that called Verner to testify.

It's a group that usually flies under the radar. This time however, the gallery was packed and two extra rooms were opened with live video feed of the proceedings. Verner arrived 10 minutes late and left before each senator could ask a question. lanked by four senior bureaucrats, Verner's voice shook slightly as she read from a prepared statement. (The big boys were there making sure she behaved.)

The 13-word clause would give the minister the discretionary power to decide if "public financial support of the production would not be contrary to public policy" and the ability to deny production companies Canadian Content tax credits on that basis.

Verner tried to explain the bill as closing "a loophole" that theoretically would allow illegal material like hate speech and kiddie porn to quality for the credit."The policy rationale for the 'contrary to public policy' provision is quite simple," she said. "It would ensure that the government has the ability, in exceptional circumstances, to exclude from public support certain material, material that is potentially illegal under the Criminal Code, such as indecent material, hate propaganda and child pornography." (They already had that power. You need new writers Josee)

During questioning, Liberal Senator Pierrette Ringuette pressed Verner about the vagueness of the provision. Canadian filmmakers have warned that if the tax credits are uncertain, financing for films could evaporate."Why not list the prohibited material in the bill — child pornography, hate propaganda?" she asked in French.

Artists oppose the bill because they argue it is tantamount to government censorship. Director David Cronenberg told Xtra that he is worried about the bill because the minister of heritage's "version of what is acceptable or not is going to be subject to nothing because the guidelines are so vague."

Although the senator's comments were largely tempered, Verner repeatedly pointed out that the proposed ministerial power was first introduced under the Chrétien government in 2002. A similar provision has existed as policy — rather than law — since the Canadian Content tax law was first introduced."

Despite what you may have read or heard," Verner said, "the 'contrary to public policy' test is not a new concept. It has been part of the tax credit landscape since its inception in 1995 through income tax regulations."As a regulation, it's been used twice in the last seven years, once in 2002 and once in 2007. Both were related to porn, which is already excluded from receiving the tax benefit. (So why do we need a new bill just because Charles McVety wanted it?)

Meanwhile, the banking committee has quietly scheduled at least two weeks of witness testimony on the film clause. On the list is actor and director Sarah Polley, who will appear before the committee Apr 10.

That means that a clause-by-clause analysis of the bill — which is hundreds of pages long — may not happen until the end of April, at the earliest. The opposition-dominated committee could postpone deliberating on the bill for months if it chooses. (An illegal election thwarted the bill, but it got buried in the last budget.)

Bill C-10 an 'absolute catastrophe': Cronenberg
Bill to censor 'offensive' film and TV shows
March 13, 2008

Perhaps there aren't too many people who have experienced censorship personally, but I have," says David Cronenberg, one of Canada's preeminent filmmakers.

"It ends up being one person suppressing the expression of another. However you slice it, it's always subjective and it's always maddening and it's always personal.

"The director of such iconoclastic films as the Oscar-nominated Eastern Promises and The Brood leads a chorus of outrage from artists, film industry insiders, and opposition MPs and senators against the Conservative government's Bill C-10.

The bill, which is actually an omnibus bill containing hundreds of amendments to the Income Tax Act, also contains a 13-word clause which will give the Ministry of Canadian Heritage power to deny crucial tax credits to any Canadian film or TV production deemed "contrary to public policy.

"The bill is currently between second and third reading in the Senate, being studied by the Senate's Banking, Trade and Commerce committee."Thankfully the bill is still in front of a Senate committee that can give this important issue the close scrutiny it deserves," says Liberal Senate leader Céline Hervieux-Payette.

"If necessary, we will not hesitate to offer amendments to ensure the tax code is not abused in this manner."If the Liberal-dominated committee decides to amend C-10, the bill will be sent back to the House of Commons for approval."We are concerned that if Bill C-10 is allowed to pass in its current form, the way will be paved for the use of Canada's tax system as a de facto censor of film and video production in Canada," Hervieux-Payette says.

In response to the criticism, the Ministry of Canadian Heritage issued a press release Mar 3. "Bill C-10 has nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with the integrity of the tax system. The goal is to ensure public trust in how tax dollars are spent," the press release states."Under the current rules, the creator of a film that includes content that may be subject to prosecution under the Criminal Code could technically still be eligible for a film tax credit under the Income Tax Act," the press release explains.

"This is a legal absurdity; a loophole that successive governments — first Liberal, then Conservative — have worked to close. This is a matter of good housekeeping, consistent with previous policy and what is done in other cultural sectors."

"Ironically, even though the government is talking about tax-credit housekeeping and trying to trivialize this bill, it is in essence giving the power of censorship to one person, the Minister of Heritage," counters Cronenberg. "And her version of what is acceptable or not is going to be subject to nothing because the guidelines are so vague."

Jim Abbott, Conservative MP for Kootenay-Columbia and Parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, told the House of Commons Mar 5 that guidelines for the bill have yet to be drafted. "They cannot exist before Bill C-10 is passed. There are simply no guidelines to provide. When Bill C-10 is passed, we will be holding consultations," he promised.

But Abbotsford Conservative MP Ed Fast hinted at the guidelines' direction. "Throughout the years most federal funding programs that support cultural works have included guidelines stating that certain materials, such as hate propaganda, excessively violent material, or pornography, are not eligible for government assistance.

In the same way, Bill C-10 addresses only the most extreme and objectionable of film and video productions," he told the House Mar 5."We simply want to ensure that public funds, in other words taxpayers' hard earned dollars, are not invested in productions which are highly objectionable and offensive in their content," he said, adding that privately funded films won't be affected.

"I've made five features that have received tax credits," says queer filmmaker John Greyson, director of Proteus, Uncut and Lilies, "and I'm pleased to say they've all managed to offend someone. That's my job description. I certainly hope they offend Stephen Harper and everything he stands for. But does that give him the right to shut me down?"

The proposed changes had rightwing evangelical Charles McVety crowing. The president of the Canada Family Action Coalition, which promotes the idea that homosexuality can be "cured," publicly claimed his lobbying of cabinet ministers and officials in the prime minister's office helped push the government toward a new moral offensive to promote "conservative values." Officials at Canadian Heritage and other ministries deny meeting with McVety.

Film and television insiders maintain that even if a small number of productions are targeted, the impact on the $4.8-billion industry will be devastating — already there have been news reports in the US media about a possible censorship chill in Canada.

The Board of the Canadian Film and Television Production Association, the Directors Guild of Canada and the performers' union ACTRA are all opposed to the bill."

All filmmaking in Canada is independent filmmaking," Cronenberg explains. "We don't have studios here with their own financial backing. When you are trying to produce a movie in Canada you have to put together a patchwork of financing that involves distribution advances in many countries, private investors possibly, and investment from bodies like Telefilm, government funding bodies.

All of that is incredibly volatile. Things keep falling out; it's like juggling 20 balls at once. And the stable platform that a Canadian producer depends on is government funding — that is the least volatile, the most stable. And what this bill does is to destabilize that platform."

If Bill C-10 passes unamended, the ministry could deny tax credits at any point in the production schedule, resulting in what Cronenberg calls, "an absolute catastrophe to all the investors in the film because the whole thing would fall apart like a house of cards."

The lack of guidelines makes him even more nervous. "They're putting a lot into us giving them censorship powers... to later be discussed? That just indicates what I was saying. It's of the moment, at the whim of politics and personal taste," he claims.

Citing the famous aphorism that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, Cronenberg calls the fight against censorship "a constant struggle." "It's not going to go away. I remember we were fighting Bill C-53 many years ago in the Mulroney era. That bill was defeated. But it keeps coming back because there will always be people who want to impose their sensibility on everybody else," he says.

More to the story:

Josee Verner Minister of Censorship

Minister 'surprised' by Lee's ire

Charles McVety has all the power

Josee Verner Demoted to Cheerleading Position

Josee was a good little Conservative gal. When her bosses (allegedly) asked her to launder money for the Party she brought her own bottle of 'Cheer'.

When they asked her to sell the country on censorship, she again brought the 'Cheer'; yelling 'give me a 'B' ... give me an 'i' ... give me an 'l', give me another 'l' ...now how about a 'C' and a '10'?

But poor little Josee. Darned if her cover wasn't blown by a big bad old senator who admitted she hated the bill, but was willing to be the head cheerleader anyway.

And of course other gals like Helena Guergis and Rhona Ambrose joined the pyramid, before serving sandwiches and cookies to the boys. Giggle .. giggle.

The above may be tongue in cheek, but what is wrong with the women in the Conservative Party? Did they really get into politics to do as they were told? If Ms Verner didn't like the bill, why didn't she just say so? Instead she hid from reporters, hoping no one would find her.

What a disgrace. How can they possibly encourage young women to consider a career in politics, when they've allowed themselves to be nothing more than human props?

Heritage minister 'hates' C-10, says Conservative senator
Senator caught on tape after he forgot to turn off his microphone during committee
April 10, 2008

Heritage Minister Josée Verner "hates" Bill C-10, a Conservative senator was caught on tape saying in committee Apr 10.Senator David Angus' comments were recorded by C-PAC at the Senate's banking committee, which is studying a controversial clause within Bill C-10 that would revoke tax credits for films that are "contrary to public policy."

Angus called for a two-minute break between hearings around noon Apr 10, but for a short time after he adjourned the meeting, Angus' microphone was left on. His conversation with an unidentified man was broadcast over the Senate's live internet audio feed.

"The government has to bite the bullet," he was heard saying. "The minister agrees, she told me she hates the law." Angus was heard on the internet audio feed for another few seconds before his microphone was cut off, but his comments were hard to make out.

Representatives from Verner and Angus' offices were quick to downplay the claims."He's wrong," says a spokesperson for Verner, reached at the minister's office. The minister herself had no comment when contacted by xtra.ca.

A representative for Angus defended the senator. "The context is that I don't think that anyone realized it was going to cause such a controversy," he says. "Probably the minister is just tired of dealing with the bill."

Bill C-10 passed through the House of Commons last fall in one day, with unanimous support from all parties. But when news broke in February that the bill contained a clause that amounts to censorship, arts groups and opposition MPs were outraged. The Ministry of Canadian Heritage has been on the defensive since then.

Verner appeared before the Senate committee Apr 2 to defend the bill, saying that it would close "a loophole" that theoretically would allow illegal material like hate speech and kiddie porn to qualify for the credit.

She repeatedly tried to pass the buck to the Liberals, since an earlier version of the film clause appeared in several bills between 2002 and 2006.

Witnesses at the Senate committee Apr 10 said the bill would discourage banks from financing edgy film and television productions, because tax credits are awarded late in the production process. "The very existence of such provisions creates financial uncertainty," said Sandra Cunningham of the Canadian Film and Television Producers Association.

Most witnesses have called on senators to remove the "contrary to public policy" section of the bill, or at least establish the guidelines before the bill is passed. As it stands, the specific guidelines are not contained in C-10, and would be open for change at the whim of the ministry of heritage.

"We have already seen that there has been enormous controversy and censure of some of the most important Canadian films ever made," said Noa Mendelsohn Aviv of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Apr 9. "There were calls not to fund films about abortion and gay youth.

Should these too have been suppressed in the name of public policy?"

"If we give the government a free hand to pick off certain movies and chill our artists, how many more innovative films on controversial topics will get made?"

The Senate committee will hear two more days of witnesses' testimony Apr 16-17. Among them is Charles McVety, the founder of rightwing group Canada Family Action Coalition, which promotes the idea that homosexuality can be "cured." Last month, McVety took credit for the clause, saying it represents conservative values.

More postings on Josee Verner:

1. Josee Verner Involved in "In and Out" Scam and Alleged Cover Up

2. Luc Harvey Was Right. Josee Verner Did Take a Runner

3. Josee Verner is Coached and Programmed on Bill C-10

4. Luc Harvey Blames Josee Verner For Problems in Quebec

5. Josee Verner Says 'You'll Watch What I Tell You to Watch'

Luc Harvey Blames Josee Verner For Problems in Quebec

With the Conservatives tanking in the polls in Quebec, former Conservative MP Luc Harvey is laying the blame on partner in crime, Josee Verner, for her cuts to arts and funding.

That's not really fair because while she is definitely inept as an MP, I think the problems with Quebec are a great many things, including the abysmal attack on Francophones during the Parliamentary crisis, and the fact that this government just doesn't understand their culture.

I'm hoping recent attack ads on he Bloc, backfire. I believe that Quebecers are smarter than that, and the latest round of Harper poison went too far.

PM Harper needs to 'patch things up' with Charest
And former Quebec Tory MP Luc Harvey blames Josée Verner in part for party's poor showing.
By Harris MacLeod
The Hill Times,
April 27, 2009

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's polling numbers are dropping dramatically in Quebec, but if the Conservatives hope to have any kind of a future in the province they need to "patch things up" with Premier Jean Charest's provincial Liberals, says a leading expert on Quebec politics.

Antonia Maioni, a political science professor at McGill University, said the Conservatives made a "strategic error" by relying so heavily on the ADQ. She said they not only misjudged the depth of support for the ADQ, but they also overestimated the scale of the party's campaign machine. Prof. Maioni said that if the Conservatives hope to have any kind of a future in Quebec then they need to "patch things up" with the provincial Liberals, led by Premier Jean Charest ...

Josee Verner Says 'You'll Watch What I Tell You to Watch'

I don't know if Josee Verner herself is this narrow minded or if she's just like all Conservative women. Good little girls who do what the big boys tell them to do. Was this why she so easily agreed to become involved in an alleged money laundering scheme that she is yet to be accountable for? (nothing has been proven in court and won't be until this matter is allowed to be heard in court. The Conservatives still declare they did nothing wrong)

However, her defense of arbitrary Bill C-210, sure shows her inadequacies.

This got buried in the last budget, courtesy of Harper's pal, Republican Jim Sensenbrenner, who taught them all the dirty tricks he knows, and believe me, he's a master.

Pierre Poilievre had a little rendezvous with the man to learn how to pretend to have an Accountability Act, while hosing taxpayers, and look how well that's going.

Six Questions: Sex, Tax and Bill C-10
April 30, 2008
Jeanette Lee

In February 2008, members of the Canadian film and TV industry publicly denounced amendments to the Income Tax Act contained in Bill C-10, Dlabeling them "censorship." Director David Cronenberg was quoted in Xtra.ca, an online magazine, as calling the provisions an assault on freedom of expression, and the source of potential catastrophe to financing a film "because the whole thing would fall apart like a house of cards." Minister of Canadian Heritage Josée Verner rebuffed the censorship claims, asserting that Bill C-10 has nothing to do with censorship and its goal "is to ensure public trust in how tax dollars are spent."

Why the fuss? This six-question primer covers key and background points in the current controversy over Bill C-10.

1. WHAT?

Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, including amendments in relation to foreign investment entities and non-resident trusts, and to provide for the bijural expression of the provisions of that Act, amends the definition of "Canadian film or video production certificate" in subsection 125.4(1) of the Income Tax Act. A production must receive a Canadian film or video production certificate in order to qualify for certain federal tax credits administered by the Canadian Audio-Visual Certification Office (CAVCO).

Under the changes, a "Canadian film or video production certificate" will mean a certificate issued in respect of a production by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, certifying that the production is a Canadian film or video production in respect of which that minister is satisfied that certain criteria have been met concerning revenue share, and that "public financial support of the production would not be contrary to public policy [emphasis added]." This ‘public policy’ provision is the source of the controversy.

The heritage minister has stated that Bill C-10’s public policy provision will address "only the most extreme and gratuitous material." News reports speculate that criteria for denying tax credits could include grounds such as gratuitous violence, excessive sex, significant sexual content that lacks an educational purpose, or denigration of an identifiable group.

In fact, the language of Bill C-10 provides no explanation of the criteria according to which a film could be considered, in the heritage minister’s discretion, "contrary to public policy." Bill C-10 also provides that the heritage minister shall issue guidelines under which a film or video production would satisfy the criteria. The bill expressly states that the guidelines will not be statutory instruments under the Statutory Instruments Act (and therefore not governed by the process of review and public comment afforded to regulations).

At the time of writing of this article, the heritage minister had not released any guidelines nor given precise indications of their content, despite urging from members of the film and TV industry.

On April 2, 2008, the Department of Finance reportedly argued, before the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, that the criteria for offensive film and TV productions should not be included in the legislation or its regulations — the court could void regulations due to vagueness but were likely to be more lenient with criteria contained in guidelines.

Minister of Canadian Heritage Josée Verner (now James Moore. I have no idea what Josee is doing these days but it doesn't appear to be much) also appeared before the Senate banking committee, stating that Canadian Heritage would not apply the public policy provision until 12 months after Bill C-10 received royal assent. In addition, she invited input from the film and TV industry on the development of the guidelines. Members of the industry have subsequently voiced concerns about being involved in the development of censorship guidelines, since they are opposed to their very concept.

WHEN?

The bill was passed by the House of Commons with all-party support (hidden in the budget) on October 29, 2007. It received its second reading in the Senate on December 4, 2007. At the time of writing this article, the Senate banking committee was conducting hearings on Bill C-10, and concerned parties were appearing before the committee.

WHERE?

The bill must undergo its third and final reading in the Senate. The Senate banking committee delayed a third and final reading of Bill C-10 in late February 2008, when public criticism of the bill erupted, putting the matter on hold until April 2008.

WHO?

Objectors within the industry include a wide range of groups and individuals, including directors, actors and politicians who have publicly voiced opposition to the bill. Groups expressing concern or lobbying to challenge the bill include ACTRA (Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists), the Writers Guild of Canada, the Directors Guild of Canada, and the Canadian Film and Television Production Association.

WHY?

A similar "public policy" provision was proposed in draft regulations to the Income Tax Act in 2003 by then Liberal Heritage Minister Sheila Copps. Ms. Copps was quoted in various press reports as explaining that the intention of her proposed provisions was to establish "reverse onus" for producers of extremely objectionable material, and to give the heritage minister discretion to prevent a film from receiving a tax credit in extreme cases.

The 2003 proposal arose in response to the film Karla about the lives of Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka, and the hypothetical scenario where a film such as Karla might be eligible for tax credits had it been produced in Canada. However, the Income Tax Regulations enacted in 2005 did not contain the provision granting ministerial discretion to deny tax credits to films considered contrary to public policy.

The motivation for the Conservative government’s inclusion of the public policy provision in Bill C-10 is unclear. Traditionally, the tax credits have been highly labour-driven, designed to encourage producers to hire Canadians using relatively objective criteria that award points to a production based on Canadians hired for key positions. Current regulations already exclude content such as pornography, news, reality television, game shows, talk shows, corporate video and advertising.

HOW?

The affected federal tax credits are not the only source of funding available to film and TV producers. Other direct and indirect sources are available from federal, provincial and private sources, including Telefilm Canada (also administered under Canadian Heritage), banks, provincial tax credit programs and other private financiers. Practically, however, CAVCO tax credits and Canadian Program certification are often critical components to secure funding for Canadian productions. Consider that:

Domestic film and TV productions typically apply and may obtain subsidies at the script stage, but refundable tax credits are subsequently applied for and received after completion of principal photography.

Domestic productions often rely on funding from more than one source. Other sources of funding may base their funds or advances to the producer on the expectation or condition that the federal tax credit and certification as a Canadian Program by CAVCO will be received.

A producer (or financiers) therefore will not know if a production is unacceptable until after it has been shot, monies have been spent and the reviewing committee has reviewed the film and rendered a decision, should it choose to do so.

Producers who are denied tax credits could face a great risk of exposure to repay financiers whose grants or advances (e.g., Telefilm Canada, bank and distribution advances, etc.) were based on anticipated tax credits. This could potentially result in business or personal bankruptcy for the producer.

The public policy provision may not affect foreign productions shooting in Canada that receive CAVCO-administered federal tax credits but are not considered "Canadian" productions. Canadian Heritage representatives have argued that such tax credits are intended to encourage investment based on spending in Canada and not on content.

Supporters of the public policy provision claim it is only fair that public monies not be used to support the production of offensive content, and that nothing stops producers of such content from making their projects using other funding.

Opponents of the amendments raise numerous concerns, including:

the importance of the tax credit and Canadian program certification to financing arrangements;
the lack of clarity about who will decide what norms are "contrary to public policy";
the lack of guidelines or criteria;
the discretionary nature of how review and decisions will be exercised;
the volatile and practical effect of the timing and subjectivity of decisions;
the resulting inability of producers to secure adequate financing for their productions; and, of course,
the aftertaste of censorship.

Banks may be discouraged from providing the necessary loans to edgier, riskier productions if the projects may not be eligible for the tax credits on such subjective terms.

If the guidelines are put in place, some opponents argue self-censorship will result — writers and producers will write to the guidelines in order to ensure tax credits are received so the production can be made. Either way, they argue, the end result may be a freeze on the artistic expression of edgy, unique Canadian voices in film and TV.

Bill C-10 may be law but our fight isn't over
Public Service Alliance of Canada
March 13, 2009

Our parliamentary democracy continues to be tarnished with the passage into law of another Conservative omnibus budget bill. Unable to accept their position as a minority government, the Conservatives have chosen, once again, to ram through legislation completely unrelated to the budget without time for proper scrutiny.

Bill C-10 is full of poison pills including wage roll-backs, a new pay equity law for federal public sector workers that is anything but, watered down environmental protection of our navigable waters and considerable loosening of foreign investment limits, among many other changes.

At the same time, the budget and its stimulus measures provide virtually no help for social infrastructure such as child care or for industries and jobs that are not “shovel ready”.

The Conservatives' callous use of the unemployed to get its budget bill passed – the extra five week's of benefits only become effective once the bill becomes law – is reprehensible, as is their refusal to fix the system to allow more workers, particularly women, to access the benefits they have been paying for and to provide a reasonable level of benefits. They even reinforced this position when they recently voted against an opposition motion to improve EI. The motion passed but the government will take no action.

The Harper government had a choice. They could have introduced a budget that was just a budget. There was absolutely no reason to include such a wide range of legislative changes in the budget bill, changes that would normally have been introduced as separate pieces of legislation with sufficient time for proper scrutiny by the House of Commons and the Senate. Instead the Conservatives chose to abuse our parliamentary democracy.

More than 550 pages of a bill have been given Royal Assent and have become law. I doubt very few of our MPs and Senators can tell you the extent of Bill C-10, much less what impact it will have on us, our economy, our environment and our country.

C-10 became law but not without a valiant effort by our members and staff who met with, phoned, e-mailed and petitioned both MPs and Senators; who demonstrated and made their opposition known; who joined with women's groups, the unemployed and other concerned citizens to protest against the ugliest features of this bill. I thank you for everything that you have done.

PSAC will continue its fight against unjust legislation. Challenging bad law in the courts is one avenue. But legal action isn't enough. We all need to talk to our family, friends and neighbours and to connect with others in our community who believe that what this government is doing is unjust and undemocratic. We need to continue the pressure on our MPs to bring them to account. We need to be prepared for the next election. And we need to start this now.

John GordonPSAC National President