The Shotgun Blog

« Water, water everywhere | Main | My take on Bill C-10 »

Monday, August 11, 2008

Conservatives take steps to reduce culture funding, but are still offside on Bill C-10

I’ve been critical of Bill C-10.

The proposed legislation would grant the federal Heritage Minister broad new powers to deny Canadian Film or Video Production Tax Credits to films that contain subject matter that is contrary to federal policy objectives.

I’ve blogged about this issue many times, arguing among other things that Bill C-10 would create a kind of Ministry of Propaganda. After all, why should any film be expected to comply with federal policy objectives?

I also wrote a news report on Bill C-10 that included a quote from Libertarian Party leader Dennis Young that captures many of my concerns about the bill. Young thinks Bill C-10 needlessly expands the size and scope of government and reflects an insincere commitment from the Conservatives to tackle out-of-control government spending on film.

“The problem is tax dollars being used to subsidize films, any films -- so let’s address that problem directly. Giving new powers to the Heritage Minister to watch over the film industry doesn’t sound like a solution to me,” said Young. “If we can’t even count on the Conservatives to get us out of the business of financing film, what hope do we have that they’ll limit the scope of government in more important areas?”

In the same article, Western Standard blogger and political strategist, Gerry Nicholls, argues that “The Conservative strategy behind Bill C-10 had nothing to do with making government smaller or reducing the role of the state; it had everything to do with appeasing the social conservative base of the party.”

I think Young and Nicholls are basically right in their comments about Bill C-10, and I hope the bill dies in the Senate where it currently languishes.

What Young and Nicholls may have been wrong about -- and me too -- is the Conservative willingness to tackle the $5-billion in tax dollars spent annually on Canada’s cultural community.

Liberal Heritage Critic Denis Coderre complained in a party press release today that “This Conservatives [sic] are clearly demonstrating their willingness to sacrifice Canada’s arts and culture on the altar of ideology.”

The total amount that has been cut in program funding is less than $15 million. It’s not quite the sacrificial blood bath on the alter of ideology I was hoping for, but it’s a good start.

The cuts came from the cancellation of two programs -- PromArt, a $4.7 million program to promote Canadian culture overseas, and Trade Routes, a $9 million program that helps sell Canadian cultural products internationally.

In my judgment, these programs come dangerously close to promoting cultural imperialism. What are we doing protecting Canadian culture at home while foisting it on others overseas? It's a good thing the Conservatives canceled these programs before Canada’s international reputation was tarnished.

PMO staffer Kory Teneycke, a brilliant and principled newish addition to Harper’s team, said the programs were canceled because the money was going to “fringe art groups that in many cases would be at best, unrepresentative, and at worst, offensive.”

Now that’s the way to tackle offensive government-sponsored cultural content. Just get rid of the funding. Bill C-10 does not reduce arts funding by a single dollar, and it has left voters with the negative impression that the Conservatives want the power to control artistic content. Canceling these two minor programs is a safer political move that will do more to secure the Conservative base than Bill C-10.

Besides, do people really need government to give them a culture?

In Lee Harding’s latest column he writes “Citizens buy art, watch films and television, dance, and celebrate traditions all on their own, with or without the government's help. When the state steps in to throw dollars at cultural goals or artistic industries, a Pandora's box is opened for taxpayers.”

Harding, the Saskatchewan director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, goes on to write “Strip away [the] list of irreconcilable and contradictory goals of cultural policy, and something different appears. It's subsidized political correctness in the name of ‘the public good.’ It's governments giving in to lobbyists, who, if they were more honest, would say ‘Give us money to produce things that people wouldn't buy, and advance agendas they wouldn't support, to give you votes you otherwise wouldn't get.’”

Read Harding’s excellent column here on the battle in Saskatchewan against wasteful cultural spending.

Posted by Matthew Johnston on August 11, 2008 in Canadian Conservative Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e553df46528833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Conservatives take steps to reduce culture funding, but are still offside on Bill C-10:

Comments

They do not get it or rather they refuse to get it. First of all there is no rhyme nor reason for the existence of a Ministry of Heritage and if they cannot grasp this, then at least turn off the tap for all.

Posted by: Alain | 2008-08-11 9:47:21 PM

PMO staffer Kory Teneycke, a brilliant and principled new addition to Harper’s team, said the programs were cancelled because the money was going to “fringe art groups that in many cases would be at best, unrepresentative, and at worst, offensive.”

-----------------

Translation: We didn't like the art, we didn't think it was really something the Conservative Party of Canada should promote, so we cut the funding.

Pardon me Matthew, but on the one hand you rally against Bill C-10 claiming it generates a Ministry of Propaganda, but then you applaud a more or less direct censorship by the Government?

I guess as long as it involves "saving money" all is fine with you on that subject?

"Selectivly cutting" funding to certain programs is just another way of how the Bill C-10 would work, it's just more underhanded and "hush hush" and as your pom-pom waving is making clear: It is a hit with the home base.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-08-11 10:00:52 PM

Snowrunner - the Conservatives eliminated the programs, saving taxpayers millions. It wasn't selective cutting in that they didn't target specific content. They just got rid of the programs. And they didn't create new powers for themselves to regulate the content generated through these programs.

Eliminating taxpayer funding for cultural programs is the only way to respect the diversity of views in society. Charles McVety doesn't want to pay for content he considers smut. Fair enough. And no doubt progressives don't want to pay for socially conservatives films, assuming such films exist and are paid for with direct government money.

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-08-11 10:27:44 PM

While we're at it, let's get rid of funding for amateur sport. If these bums can't find some private individual to pay them to attend the Olympics, I don't know why taxpayer dollars should subsidize the gang losers (and let's face it, most of them do, in fact, lose) who purport to represent Canada on the international stage. Who cares about rowing or running or fencing anyways? Hell, I wager I can find a substantial body of taxpayers who think of hockey as a refuge for overpaid thugs instead of our national game. Why should their tax dollars go towards building arenas or sending millionairs overseas?
And while we're on the subject of taxpayers, I'm one. I pay plenty. And I sure as hell didn't authorize ideologically-driven pinheads like Harding to speak on my behalf.

Posted by: truewest | 2008-08-11 10:46:05 PM

“and it left voters with the negative impression that the Conservatives want the power to control artistic content.”

Yeah.
I mean, why in hell some people would be left with the negative impression that a conservative government composed by the religious right and neocons would want to control the artistic content?

I also love the idea of reducing government’s contributions in our name so let see how fiscal conservative they can be…lets have them attacking taxes reliefs programs to religious groups first.
Anyone’s in?

Posted by: Marc | 2008-08-11 10:48:38 PM

Snowrunner – here are my guidelines for thinking about these issues.

Censorship is telling artists they are legally prohibited from producing content considered offensive to the state. That’s not Bill C-10 and that is not what these recent programs cuts do. There is no legal prohibition here.

Propaganda is telling artists that you’ll give them money or tax incentives if they produce content that supports state objectives, and you’ll take away money or tax incentives if they don’t. That’s what Bill C-10 would do using tax incentives, which is why I have opposed the legislation is probably a dozen posts.

It is not censorship for the state **not** to give an artist money to produce content considered offensive, especially when that money doesn’t belong to the state.

Cutting cultural programs is not censorship, it is not propaganda, and it reduces spending, which is necessary if we hope reduce the tax burden.

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-08-11 10:49:25 PM

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 11-Aug-08 10:49:25 PM

That's one, very narrow, definition of censorship. It is a "good" one in the sense that many will buy it say: "Hey, they can just go do it anyay."

The problem with this logic is that if you fund selectivly the outcome is the same, you can oppress (or last midigate) the things you don't like while promotion your idea.

Censorship is not (only) about prohibiting something but also promoting something else.

------------------

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 11-Aug-08 10:49:25 PM

Yes, but so does selective cutting of tax programs.

Heck, the guy said it himself. The programs got their funding cut because they didn't think that they represented the value of the current Government. How much clearer does he have to be before you see this?

----------------------

It is not censorship for the state **not** to give an artist money to produce content considered offensive, especially when that money doesn’t belong to the state.

Cutting cultural programs is not censorship, it is not propaganda, and it reduces spending, which is necessary if we hope reduce the tax burden.

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 11-Aug-08 10:49:25 PM

Cutting the programs as a whole, yes, cutting individual programs the Government doesn't agree with (out of whatever reason) is.

The problem, as you pointed out yourself with Bill C-10 is that it SELECTIVLY removes funding from movies, so why is this all the sudden so different when it comes to other programs?

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-08-11 11:00:41 PM

While I read truewest's tirade against amateur sport, I had this mental picture of a Star Trek alien. He has a huge bulbous head and shriveled body, with arms that are only capable of adjusting the dials in front of him. He's watching a monitor as Kirk dukes it out with some giant lizard thing, and looking aghast at the spectacle of brutality, but at the same time he's quite taken by Kirk's sweaty, imposing form.

Damn, I wish I could get that image out of my head, so I can go to sleep.

Posted by: dp | 2008-08-11 11:19:09 PM

Alain wrote: “They do not get it or rather they refuse to get it. First of all there is neither rhyme nor reason for the existence of a Ministry of Heritage and if they cannot grasp this, then at least turn off the tap for all.”

While I agree that we have no need for a Heritage Minister, Alain, this move to reduce some program spending is a good one.

The programs were cut, not because these programs promoted especially offensive artistic content (the content produced within these programs is no different than another other program), but because they were easy targets. The programs financed the export of Canadian content, which is likely less popular than producing Canadian content for a Canadian audience.

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-08-11 11:38:57 PM

Snowrunner wrote: "Selectively cutting funding to certain programs is just another way of how the Bill C-10 would work, it's just more underhanded and ‘hush hush’ and as your pom-pom waving is making clear: It is a hit with the home base.”

The Conservatives did not select content to promote within these programs that is consistent with Conservative values, and they did not select content to defund within these programs that is inconsistent with Conservative values.

They cut the funding in a value-free way – they cancelled the programs entirely.

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-08-11 11:40:38 PM

Truewest wrote: “While we're at it, let's get rid of funding for amateur sport.”

Good idea.

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-08-11 11:41:23 PM

dp,
Actually, I'm quite fond of sports, amateur and professional. I like to watch sports and I like to play. However, not everyone feels the same way and those people quite reasonably think that money spent pursuing things like gold medals and world championships should not come from taxpayers. In short, they could make the same narrow, shortsighted argument about sport that Matthew and the other doctrinaire knuckleheads make about culture. And with much greater justification. International sporting success benefits only the athletes who participate and the couch potatoes who live vicariously through them. International cultural exchanges expand and enrich Canada's image in the world for a cost that is mere pittance compared to the dividends, both financial and intangible, that are returned.

I'm sorry my sarcasm was lost on you. But not terribly surprised, given some of the other things you've posted. BTW, nice attempt at ad hominem, but it seem you can't even pull that off.

Posted by: truewest | 2008-08-11 11:41:52 PM

Marc wrote: “…lets have them attacking taxes reliefs programs to religious groups first.”

Why would you want to eliminate a program that gives churches tax relief or tax free status? You think after-tax personal tithing to a church should be taxed again at the corporate level?

Do you have some program in mind for the money?

Sorry, but count me out, Marc.

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-08-11 11:43:12 PM

While I appreciate the performance of a top athlete, a top musician, performer of any kind, the decision to pursue such a life is a personal one and should not involve the involuntary participation of the taxpayer.
I would much rather see private sponsorship of such activities or the underwriting of training by private subscription of ticket sales to competitions. If such is insufficient to provide for training and for international competition, so be it.
As a young naval officer stationed in Halifax in the 1960's I was impressed by the number of Little Theater productions available during the long winter season. These were excellent productions and I was happy to pay to attend them. The arts were alive and the Maritimes were fertile ground for the development of talent without the interfenece of government.

Posted by: DML | 2008-08-11 11:48:04 PM

They cut the funding in a value-free way – they cancelled the programs entirely.

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 11-Aug-08 11:40:38 PM

Matthew, read this again:

"[...]the programs were cancelled because the money was going to “fringe art groups that in many cases would be at best, unrepresentative, and at worst, offensive.”

The deciding factor was that they did not like the majority of the programs being offered (that could just be Truthspeak for "all of them").

This IS censorship, albeit the one conservatives approve on because it is "saving money" and "unbiased".

Come on, do you honestly think they would have cut this if they would have thought highly / approved of even one of the recipients in there?

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-08-12 1:01:06 AM

BTW Matthew,

mind answering my question?

http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2008/08/emerson-issues.html

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-08-12 1:07:30 AM

I responded to your question on the other thread, Snowrunner.

As for your points here, I do not agree that cutting funding is censorship. And I think Kory Teneycke's comments apply to arts funding in general and not to these programs in particular.

These programs were cut because they were easy targets and because conservatives don't want to see the government finance the arts to the degree that they do.

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-08-12 1:29:26 AM

Glad you liked the article, Matthew, though evidently not everyone shares my view.

TrueWest's comments were ironically insightful.

"I wager I can find a substantial body of taxpayers who think of hockey as a refuge for overpaid thugs instead of our national game. Why should their tax dollars go towards building arenas or sending millionairs overseas?

And while we're on the subject of taxpayers, I'm one. I pay plenty. And I sure as hell didn't authorize ideologically-driven pinheads like Harding to speak on my behalf."

1) You've just identified the "body of taxpayers" that support the CTF and what it stands for.
2) The last four NHL arenas built in Canada in the last 20 years were built with private money. Thank God taxpayers didn't have to pay a cent. We fought special tax breaks for NHL teams in the past, and we will do so again if the idea ever crosses any sport and heritage minister's mind.
3) You do indeed "pay plenty" of taxes, and that's because of fat government with its fingers in too many pies.
4) You're completely right, you didn't authorize me to to speak on your behalf. But, who said I claimed to?!

I'm Canadian, but the Council of Canadians doesn't speak for me. And I don't mind that they have that moniker, either. Arugably, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, an organization that fights for lower taxes, has a closer connection in name to its purposes and supporters than does the Council of Canadians.

Posted by: Lee Harding | 2008-08-12 7:50:48 AM

Lee,
Fair enough. But the the CTF's position on funding athletes to compete in the Olympics? And why is that different that funding artists?

Posted by: truewest | 2008-08-12 8:32:02 AM

These programs were cut because they were easy targets and because conservatives don't want to see the government finance the arts to the degree that they do.

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 12-Aug-08 1:29:26 AM

But that's not what he said. He clearly gave as reasons "dislike" so to speak. And THAT amounts to censorship.

If the Government doesn't want to fund the arts, then fine, they can just pull the entire funding, but if they start pulling selectivly based on their own criteria on what they "like" or "dislike" then how is this different from censorship?

Of couse you can now say: "Oh, he may have said this, but he doesn't mean it that way he meant X and X is fine."

But I think we both now that this is a bit of "revisionist reading", no?

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-08-12 8:35:29 AM

"International sporting success benefits only the athletes who participate and the couch potatoes who live vicariously through them. International cultural exchanges expand and enrich Canada's image in the world for a cost that is mere pittance compared to the dividends, both financial and intangible, that are returned."

Some examples please truewest. Other than "Anne of Green Gables", I can't come up with a single one.

Posted by: dp | 2008-08-12 9:31:12 AM

dp,
That's because you're a moron and live under a rock.
Here's a few to get you started:
Cirque du Soleil
Margaret Atwood
Alice Munro
Atom Egoyan
Guy Maddin
David Cronenberg
National Ballet
Royal Winnipeg Ballet
Holy Body Tattoo
One Yellow Rabbit Performance Theatre

Posted by: truewest | 2008-08-12 9:51:14 AM

Truewest -- I suppose it is fair to call my position on arts funding “doctrinaire” and “ideologically-driven.”

I don't think arts funding is a proper function of government. That's an ideological statement.

And I think the $5 billion spend annually on the cultural community should be returned to taxpayers, regardless of the so-called practical objections, which I would consider less important than personal freedom and limited government. That’s doctrinaire.

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-08-12 10:23:46 AM

If the Conservatives really are sacrificing Canada's arts and culture on an altar of ideology, they're doing the right thing. If Canadians actually notice that their "arts and culture" are missing, and I don't believe they will, they'll consider the result to be an improvement.

Posted by: ebt | 2008-08-12 11:21:09 AM

ebt- Agreed. I only wish we had a big reset button in this country. Truewest's abbreviated list is an embarassment to a majority of Canadians.

Posted by: dp | 2008-08-12 11:27:53 AM

Truewest's abbreviated list is an embarassment to a majority of Canadians.
Posted by: dp | 12-Aug-08 11:27:53 AM

I was reading that the Alberta Film Development Program was thinking of turning this into a feature film. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7557013.stm

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-08-12 12:15:56 PM

You couldn't have provided a link to the new Lara Croft video, Stig?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7554666.stm

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-08-12 12:52:25 PM

You couldn't have provided a link to the new Lara Croft video, Stig?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7554666.stm
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 12-Aug-08 12:52:25 PM

I could have. Sorry. The other one probably would have more appeal in the large Alberta agricultural community.

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-08-12 1:01:03 PM

The list is abbreviated because I wrote it in 45 seconds. Which apparently is about two hours less than it took you to come up with Anne of Green Gables.
BTW, I note resounding silence to the question of why it's okay to subsidize jocks, but not artists?

Posted by: truewest | 2008-08-12 7:36:26 PM

Truewest wrote: "resounding silence"?

What do you mean? I responded in agreement with your statement that athletes shouldn't get government handouts.

Lee Harding even took the time to respond.

On a different matter, I don't think it is fair to equate opposition to government-sponsored culture with opposition to culture.

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-08-12 8:09:50 PM

Matthew,
Lee boasted that the CTF opposed subsidizing hockey arenas, which is really beside the point. My question was whether he opposed using public funds to send athletes to international competitions, including the Olympics. To which his answer was.....silence.

Posted by: truewest | 2008-08-12 8:17:31 PM

Hey guys, how come truewest gets to keep calling me names, but when I mentioned his sexual orientation you deleted my comment? What about free speech?

How did this deteriorate into the old jock vs nerd argument anyway? There's a name for that isn't there? Of course, I'm too dumb to remember it, so maybe truewest can help me out.

Posted by: dp | 2008-08-12 9:24:33 PM

dp,
I don't know where you go the idea that I'm setting up some jock v. nerd argument. I like sports. (And, I daresay, could kick your ass in any number of disciplines) I like art. Where's the conflict?
The difficulty I have is with notion that funding art is some kind of egghead elitest exercise and a squandering of taxpayer dollars, while supporting "our" amateur athletes is an exercise in nation-building.
We're a succesful developed country that can and should reach out to the rest of the world in a variety of ways, from trade missions and military exercises to cultural exchanges and sporting competitions. My problem is not with jocks or artists, but with the narrow idea of society advanced by folks like Matthew, Kory whatshisface and, frankly, you.

Posted by: truewest | 2008-08-12 10:33:02 PM

Truewest -- so it is broadminded to support government spending on culture, and narrow-minded to believe individuals can and should support their own cultural values and aesthetic preferences? I don't agree.

This is not a debate about whether or not culture is valuable. It’s a debate about whether or not it is the proper function of government to support the arts. It is also a debate about whether or not individuals should be ask to pay for things they don’t want and in some cases find morally offensive.

People express themselves by paying for things they value, and, equally important, by refusing to pay for things they do not value.

Government funding for the arts limits this expression. I don’t see how that is broadminded, Truewest.

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-08-12 11:25:13 PM

"It is also a debate about whether or not individuals should be ask to pay for things they don’t want and in some cases find morally offensive."
Y'mean like the military? Plenty of people find the billions we spend on the military undesirable and offensive. And since the only country that might pose an immediate threat to us would crush any military we might be able to muster, its hard to argue that we need soldiers to defend our territorial integrity. But we're part of a bigger world, with ties to other nations and so we spend that money because we're a developed nation and there are benefits to, as the pro-military folks like to say, punching close to our weight. Likewise, there are benefits - internal and external, in dollars and sense terms and in more intangible ways -- in supporting a cultural sector that is, to some degree, independent and distinct from the great cultural engines of the rest of anglosphere (and francosphere) and has some impact here and beyond. If Canada has a presence in the rest of the world, if it attracts skilled people from other countries, it is in part because our artists have had an impact beyond our borders and have done so with the help of our government.
To suggest that market will take care of it, is to willfully ignore nearly 60 years of Canadian experience. A nation of little theatres and cineplexes playing hollywood blockbusters is not the equal of a nation that produces a Robert Lepage, a Morris Panych, or a David Cronenberg, that can turn local experience into universal expression, that speaks in its own voice rather than consuming only the cultural products of its neighbours.

Posted by: truewest | 2008-08-13 12:18:59 AM

"A nation of little theatres and cineplexes playing hollywood blockbusters is not the equal of a nation that produces a Robert Lepage, a Morris Panych, or a David Cronenberg"

If you like Robert Lepage' work truewest, be assured that Québec will never stop funding its artists. The reason is simple: God has no place in our government and the locals truly live in 2008. We will stop helping religious schools before the architecs of our unique culture.

Let Harper please the rednecks.
He's helping my cause every day now.

Posted by: Marc | 2008-08-13 2:45:47 AM

Marc,
It's not even about living in 2008. Or about left or right. As a letter in today's Globe points out, Winston Churchill was advised that he might have to cut funding to the arts during World War II. He refused, saying "What the hell are we fighting for?"

Posted by: truewest | 2008-08-13 7:55:25 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

The Shotgun Blog

Monday, August 11, 2008

Conservatives take steps to reduce culture funding, but are still offside on Bill C-10

TrackBack

Comments