Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« The CCP and Syrian nukes: an ominous warning | Main | Ron Paul is worse than Obama »

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Liberal Senators call Flaherty’s bluff on Bill C-10

Calling it the “Conservative Censorship Bill,” Liberal Senators today released proposed amendments to Bill C-10.

Unamended, Bill C-10 would deny tax credits to Canadian film and video productions that are considered offensive to the Heritage minister and that contain messages and themes that are contrary to government public policy.

In a press release from the Liberal Party, it was announced that the amendments would:

Remove the power for the Minister of Heritage to refuse tax credits based on "public policy" or to issue guidelines about film content, while at the same time safeguarding the right to deny funds when the production itself is contrary to the Criminal Code.

Senator Francis Fox, who intends to introduce the amendments in the Senate committee studying Bill C-10, said:

“Witnesses from all segments of the film industry including producers, writers, directors, and actors as well as civil liberties groups have all agreed that Bill C-10, in its current form, would have a devastating impact on the Canadian film industry.”

While these amendments address the legitimate concerns that the bill would expand the powers of the Heritage minister, it may raise a bigger political issue for the Liberals. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has said he’ll treat any proposed amendments to Bill C-10 as a confidence matter that would trigger a general election.

So have the Liberals decided that Bill C-10 is the right issue on which to force an election? Or will Flaherty back down on his threat?

Posted by Matthew Johnston on June 18, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Liberal Senators call Flaherty’s bluff on Bill C-10:


Rather than censorship, they should have eliminated funding. Let them get support from the private sector.

Posted by: lwestin | 2008-06-19 6:17:21 AM

I agree. Since when do tv shows, the most ephemeral and forgetable of products on a 500 channel universe, have a claim on my tax dollars?

Absurd. Absolutely absurd.



Posted by: Epsilon | 2008-06-19 8:57:54 AM

Spot on Iwestin and Epsilon. No need for a new bill, just cut off the tap for all of them.

Posted by: Alain | 2008-06-19 2:06:05 PM

Hey, commenters, why don't you educate yourself about the bill before you shoot your mouths off and look like complete morons? Bill C-10 has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with film funding a la Telefilm and the Canada Council. Do you know what a TAX CREDIT is? Do you disapprove of tax credits, incentives and breaks in other industries like most socialists do? You're so blinded by partisanship that you can't even see that this is fundamentally an ANTI-BUSINESS bill that is going to negatively effect the burgeoning PRIVATE SECTOR of the film industry.

Seriously, between this, Bill C-51 and Bill C-61, the Conservative Party is looking like the CCF, as all three of these bills will have devastating consequences on BUSINESSES across the nation, as market innovation and consumer choice will be greatly limited.

What's up with this fetish for jack boots?

Posted by: Tori | 2008-06-20 3:54:41 AM

Tori, get a real job.

Posted by: epsilon | 2008-06-20 8:59:36 AM

epsilon, perhaps you'd fit in better over at a socialist site like Babble.

Posted by: Tori | 2008-06-20 1:13:55 PM

What's up with this fetish for jack boots?

Posted by: Tori | 20-Jun-08 3:54:41 AM

You lose.

Posted by: set you free | 2008-06-20 1:30:57 PM

Geeze, there goes Hollywood North.

Frankly most of us have no desire to fund smut, let them sink or swim in an open market, not on my dime.
We're paying for enough crap on CBC as it is, including their newscasts.

How about that farce "Little Mosque on the Prairie"?
That's an example of how far out of the loop CBC really is.

Posted by: Liz J | 2008-06-20 2:58:08 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.