Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Grant Brown: "An unconstitutional entitlement" | Main | Jimmy Carter reminds Americans why they turfed him in 1980 »

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Bill C-10 gets support from conservative pro-family group


Canadian Family Action Coalition (CFAC) president Charles McVety appeared today before the Senate committee studying Bill C-10. CFAC supports the proposed legislation that would deny tax credits to Canadian film and video productions that are offensive and contain messages and themes that are contrary to government public policy.

Here’s an excerpt from a Canwest News Service report on the CFAC position on the proposed legislation:

"Canadians are fair-minded people that want federal funding to go to support arts and culture in this nation," said Charles McVety, president of the CFAC. "However, it's very clear that the overwhelming majority of Canadians do not want offensive films to be funded."

The group recently commissioned a poll by Compas Inc., that it says proves there is a consensus among Canadians that subsidies should not be provided to offensive films.

Bill C-10 does not, however, address the issue of federal subsidies for offensive films. Government subsidies for films come through Telefilm Canada and other programs. Bill C-10 deals only with the Canadian Film or Video Production Tax Credit – and a tax credit program is not the same as a government subsidy program, as I explain in my last post on this subject.

Furthermore, what CFAC seems to be advocating is a system where government subsidies remain in place but are allocated based on whether or not a film meets government public policy objectives. Would this pro-family advocacy group be taking this position if Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau or Heritage Minister Sheila Copps were still in power? Granting this kind of discretionary authority to the government is a risky proposition for conservatives and pro-family advocates.

Consider this: If Bill C-10 is passed, a film like Fitna, the Dutch film critical of Islam, would likely never be produced in Canada. No Liberal or Conservative government would risk being perceived as sanctioning a film like this.

As I conclude in my last post, the federal government should scrap its programs that subsidize films...all films, but they should leave the tax credit system alone.

Posted by Matthew Johnston on April 16, 2008 in Canadian Politics | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bill C-10 gets support from conservative pro-family group:


John West, thank you for your post and your flattering reference to myself. I am truly humbled.

However, please note the heightened level of post expected to keep up now. I realize not all will be able to post in a meritocracy, but meritocracies by their nature are elitist. I am sorry if you don't make the cut.

However, you are in luck. This board believes in freedom of speech and Libertarianism! So you can post empty drivel if you wish, while I post gems in the rough! LOL!

Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-17 8:30:18 PM

Roger, at a minimum, you are without a doubt the biggest dick head most of us have ever been exposed to. Is there a reason you spend SO MUCH time and effort being an 'expert' on everything that exists. Pathetic, just pathetic. Get a job dipshit. And no, I don't consider your welfare claim a job!!
Always remember roger, without this, you are nothing. NOTHING!

Posted by: JDamn | 2008-04-17 9:13:14 PM

Back to the issue. I do have to clarify. No subsidies or tax breaks of any kind to businesses or to religions (I am a practising Catholic)should be given. Does art reflect culture? It does reflect a particular individuals perception of culture. I have seen Canadian films that I liked and which had good values. Would they have been produced without subsidies or tax breaks? I don't know. My uncle in the UK was a significant investor in stage and screen. He was a very careful reader of scripts and carefully listened to writers and producers before investing. That is the way it should be and, for me, answers whether or not a work will find investors. I am reminded of the works of the Gershwins. The art reflected a specific part of American life and the investors were there. The Gershwins, long since gone, still attract investment.

Posted by: DML | 2008-04-17 9:27:20 PM

JDamn, thanks for your compliments and for spelling my name correctly.
I trust people of faith here are praying for you. I am glad you realize I am an expert on anything you could mention. A real education is a gift that keeps on paying dividends. It allows me to effortlessly post on any and every topic and to put errant posters in their place. I do it as a public service to my fellow humans. No need to thank me.

Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-17 9:59:39 PM

Posted by: Feces Eating Buddha | 17-Apr-08 11:52:16 AM

You're welcome to prance around all you like .. on your own nickel.

Posted by: set you free | 2008-04-17 10:41:05 PM

You know the UK also offers considerable non-market subsidies to its filmmakers. As do many US jurisdictions --- but don’t let that stop this debate, it’s enlightening.


I’m not going to do your research for you, but Adam Smith did indeed advocate protecting industries perceived to have a national interest. No country in the world, in fact, doesn’t attempt to steer its economy one way or the other. This includes the United States.

Posted by: I'll set you free | 2008-04-18 11:04:37 AM


Wattza matter? Can't think of an original nic?

Posted by: set you free | 2008-04-18 11:32:36 AM

Companies run by marketing hacks = Nortel and Enron

Companies run by honest accounting = Imperial Oil

What a laugh. As an investor for the long haul, not some run of the mill speculator, I want a company that keeps costs under control despite rising revenue.

Smith did not care for big business - no one here said he did. He was a laisse faire capitalist who believes in "hands off". He was no socialist. He would have pissed on the grave of Keynes and Galbraith.

Posted by: Faramir | 2008-04-18 3:58:33 PM

But beyond corporate tax, oil companies also must pay royalties on their raw materials. I don't know what these are but they can be extremely high. Tell me what other industry has to pay the government a huge tax on its raw materials other than pizza shops in Naples and Palermo?

Posted by: epsilon | 17-Apr-08 4:10:27 PM

Um. Pretty much ANY company that extracts resources of ANY kind from Land is paying the Government (aka the People) who own the land a fee / royalty / tax whatever you want to call it.

Please, show me one industry that does not.


Not only that the output of oil companies is subject to fuel taxes that comprise 30 % of the value of their output. Name me an industry that has its finished products taxed at a higher rate?

Posted by: epsilon | 17-Apr-08 4:10:27 PM

Two come to mind right now:

- Cigarettes
- Alcohol

Not sure about the Chemical industry, but I guess there is a tax on it as well.

But Epsi, here's a tip: The gas taxes you pay at the pump? That's YOU who gets taxed, not the poor, starving oil company.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-04-18 4:08:06 PM

I'm no accountant but I respect them. If the United States or Canada was run by the Accountants Office we would have a national debt 1/10th its current size. Clearly Roger blew all his money on Juniper Networks, or other long gone tech companies who fired all their cost accountants and replaced them with marketing types. 1 + 1 still equals 2 no matter how far you try to bury those GAAP figures. A company still, at the end of the day, has to actually turn a profit. If marketers ran the world they would be left with trying to get us trade our potatoe for their lentil - because that would be the extent of our collective wealth.

Posted by: Faramir | 2008-04-18 4:09:35 PM

Adam Smith believed in the market but he was not a laissez-faire economist. He provided for functions he thought could be better run by the government. Someone once said that the hole was large enough to drive a legion of beaucrat through.
The argument about beancounters versus marketers is far too simplistic. The failure of companies is legion and if you want a good look at it view the problems faced by GM, Ford and Chrysler when they refused to look at what the consumer really wanted and needed back in the 1980's.

Posted by: DML | 2008-04-18 7:46:04 PM

Dear web-master ! I looked your site and I want to say that yor very welln

Posted by: judy | 2008-07-30 6:00:04 PM

This is very interesting site...s

Posted by: john | 2008-08-02 5:29:57 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.