Wendy Crewson and Sarah Polley on their way to make ACTRA's presentation to the
Senate Committee on Bill C-10, April 10, 2008.
Photo: David Gonczol

What is Bill C-10?
Bill C-10 is an omnibus bill to amend the Income Tax Act in a number of areas, including for example, implementation of the Atlantic Accord. Section (12) of Bill C-10 makes an amendment to Section 125.4 of the Income Tax Act giving the Minister of Canadian Heritage power to issue guidelines detailing the circumstances under which tax credit eligibility for Canadian film or television productions could be denied.

ACTRA and others in the film and television industry are extremely concerned that these new powers mean the Conservative government plans to act as the country's morality police by denying financial aid for any film or television show it believes is not in the public's interest.

ACTRA's news release of Feb. 29, 2008, states, "The government is overstepping its bounds and interfering in an arms-length process. Withholding public funding for film and television productions it deems offensive is a dangerous direction for this government and it smacks of censorship," said Stephen Waddell, ACTRA National Executive Director.

Existing guidelines already deny public funding to pornographic films. The list of ineligible content will reportedly now be expanded to include productions that feature "excessive" violence or sex or promote hate. Instead of fostering creativity in this country the government is threatening to stifle artists by telling them what they can and cannot create.

The implications of the changes to the Income Tax Act took the industry by surprise when the changes were confirmed by representatives of the Department of Canadian Heritage in news reports on February 28, 2008. The Bill has already passed second reading in the House of Commons.

Where is Bill C-10 in the parliamentary process?

Bill C-10 received third reading and all-party support in the House of Commons in the fall, 2007. Following the outcry of the film community, the Senate Banking, Trade and Commerce held hearings beginning in April, 2008. Well-known ACTRA members Sarah Polley and Wendy Crewson appeared on ACTRA's behalf on April 10, 2008. In June, Liberal Senators announced they would be making amendments to the bill when the committee resumes sitting in the fall. ACTRA welcomes the senators' efforts to fix the bill. When sittings resume, the committee will consider the bill in a clause-by-clause process, which is the opportunity to introduce amendments.

Following clause-by-clause, the bill returns to the House of Commons. The Conservative government has indicated it considers the bill to be a matter of confidence, which means if the bill is defeated, it could trigger a federal election.

What is the controversy?

Media reports on February 28, 2008, revealed that the Conservative government had drafted guidelines that would give the Minister of Canadian Heritage the power to deny tax credits to film and television productions it deems offensive or not in the public interest. Such powers would have the effect of shutting down productions by making them economically unfeasible. The Globe and Mail reported, "Game and talk shows, news, sports, reality television and pornography are already excluded from access to the tax credits. The proposed prohibition would cover a sweeping range of material, such as anything of an explicit sexual nature, which denigrates a group or is excessively violent without an educational value."

The Globe and Mail quoted a Canadian Heritage Spokesman, Charles Drouin. "Bill C-10? would allow the Minister of Canadian Heritage to deny eligibility to tax credits of productions determined to be contrary to public policy." The Globe also reported that the department "has recently standardized and updated the list of illegal and other ineligible content."' (Globe and Mail, February 28, 2008)

ACTRA immediately issued a news release condemning the government's actions. "These amendments have grave implications for film and television productions, and for all artists. This is disastrous culturally and economically. It is chilling for artists, creates uncertainty for the production community, and is morally offensive to modern Canadian society." Click here for ACTRA news release on Bill C-10.

Since the story broke, public outrage has spread like wildfire. Opinion pieces in the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail have condemned the government's actions. Rick Mercer wrote posing as Prime Minister Stephen Harper in the comment pages of the Globe and Mail, gleefully relishing his new powers to stop ?offensive' productions such as the Trailer Park Boys. ACTRA members, producers, writers and directors have been writing directly to the Minister of Heritage and to the Senate Committee members asking them to reconsider the changes. At the ACTRA Awards in Toronto celebration, Outstanding Performance winner Caroline Cave used her acceptance speech to denounce the government's tendency towards censorship. Genie Awards host Sandra Oh criticized the changes, saying, "Censorship has had a little work done and is trying to make a comeback. I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound very Canadian to me."

What is ACTRA looking for?

• Bill C-10 must be fixed. ACTRA is seeking changes to Bill C-10, deleting the offending sections. Proposed amendments announced in June, 2008, by Liberal Senators appear to address the changes ACTRA is seeking.
• Ministerial powers to issue guidelines are problematic. Despite the Heritage Minister's assurances that she will consult with the industry in developing the guidelines, the powers will be established.
• Sufficient protections already exist in the Criminal Code that mean film and television productions are not eligible for tax credits if they contravene the Criminal Code pertaining to obscenity, child pornography or hate speech.

What action has been taken?

• ACTRA members Sarah Polley and Wendy Crewson made ACTRA's presentation to the Senate Committee on April 10, 2008. Click here for photo gallery
• ACTRA member Paul Gross appeared before the Senate Committee in May, 2008.
• ACTRA has written to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Josée Verner, asking her to revoke the changes.
• Encouraged our members to write letters to their MPs, to the Senate Committee members and to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.Click here to send emails to the Senate Committee.
• Alerted the Heritage Critics of our concerns and asked them to take action to prevent the changes.
• Joined others from the film and television industry in meeting bureaucrats in the Department of Canadian Heritage to express our concerns.
• Worked with opposition critics to get the issue raised in the House of Commons on Friday, February 29, where the NDP led Question Period with a statement and two of its three questions. Click here for hansard.

  .............................

  39th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

  Hansard
  Friday, February 29, 2008

  Statements by Members

  Arts and Culture

  Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale?High Park, NDP):
  Mr. Speaker, today the front page of the Globe and Mail confirms what Canadians saw quite clearly in this week's budget; that the Conservative government does not care about our cultural sector and it is actively undermining our artists and their capacity to create.
  The headline article includes the boasting of evangelical lobbyists who successfully convinced Conservative ministers and MPs to root out artistic works with which they disagree. Canadian heritage officials confirmed yesterday that they would be expanding the criteria used for denying tax credits to artists. What they are doing is called censorship. They are trying to silence voices that diverge from their political agenda.
  We can stop this attack on our artists. Unfortunately, as the Toronto Star says today, the "official opposition has repeatedly turned itself into a Conservative doormat".
  It is time to stand up for Canada's artists and Canadian culture against ideological attacks by the government.

  Oral Questions

  Arts and Culture

  Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP):
  Mr. Speaker, New Democrats are deeply concerned by reports that the Conservatives are planning to censor film and video production in Canada to suit their friends from the religious right.
  Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages confirm that her office is working on "updated eligibility requirements" and the "standardized and updated list of illegal and other ineligible content"?
  Could the minister assure the House and Canada's cultural community that her department will not place any new barriers to accessing film tax credits in Canada? Will she give that assurance today?
  Hon. Jim Abbott (Parliamentary Secretary for Canadian Heritage, CPC):
  Mr. Speaker, filmmakers are free to make movies as they see fit as long as they are within the law. However, the Canadian taxpayer should not be forced to pay for material that is gratuitously violent or denigrating to identifiable groups.
  The government simply reintroduced the same tax measure in an omnibus bill. By the way, that party, along with all parties, voted in favour of the law.
  Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP):
  Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary knows full well that the bill in question does not reveal the Conservatives' plan to censor Canadian films. Rather it is the guidelines that the department is drafting that would create a Canadian film censorship board, a board that would decide what film and video content would be worthy and what would not.
  Therefore, does the minister agree that there can be no role for government censorship in the Canadian film industry? Will she assure Canadians that any plans to curtail artistic freedom will be stopped immediately? No censorship.

  Hon. Jim Abbott (Parliamentary Secretary for Canadian Heritage, CPC):
  Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that the NDP member is trying to make something out of nothing. The fact is the tax measure is nothing new. The fact is that party, along with every party in the House, passed the bill. She should have known what was in the bill in the first place.
  I should note that it originally came to the House in 2003, under the Liberals at that point. There is nothing new. What is the story here? I do not understand.