The Heritage Ministry can renege on its previous commitments mid-process, in other words.
Good piece from George Jonas.
Saturday, March 08, 2008
The Problem With C-10
Should Bill C-10 become law, a committee of Heritage Ministry’s smut-, hate- and violence-hunters could deny tax credits to a completed film, even one in which the government had invested up front. From that day, no fiscally responsible institution would feel comfortable offering interim financing to any film. Imagine a charity trying to raise funds with tax receipts that may or may not be valid.
The Heritage Ministry can renege on its previous commitments mid-process, in other words.
Good piece from George Jonas.
The Heritage Ministry can renege on its previous commitments mid-process, in other words.
Good piece from George Jonas.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
This is an actual quote:
Despite his list of complaints with the Conservatives, Mr. Dion refused to say when the Liberals will pull the plug on their minority.
"It's a bad government and we'll choose a time to defeat this bad government," he told reporters. "You will see. But it will not be at this time where we have a snowstorm in Ontario and just before Easter. I don't think Canadians want that."
.....uuhhhhh, snowstorm, yeah that's why we're keeping them in power, it's the snow....and uhh... easter, yeah that's it.
pathetic.
utterly pathetic.
George Jonas:
The government insists Bill C-10 isn’t censorship, and the government is right.
I hope he and his buddies over at Die Nazionale Post will stop referring to other mechanisms that set out content regulations for other purposes, such as human rights acts, as censorhip as well. That important distinction has really been irritating me, and the "more speech" crowd, with all their additional speech, have only been exacerbating the confusion.
I heard the giggly and hyperactive Pierre Poilièvre nattering on on the CBC the other day insisting C-10 establishes the same industrial incentives that already apply to book and magazine publishing, but unfortunately, he was unspecific and Anna Maria Tremonti didn't press him for details.
What if, as a taxpayer, you are truly offended with religious films?
They are very violent
In 2003, the Liberal Heritage minister,Sheila Copps, proposed the same bill and there was not the same outrage that there is right now.
Amendments to the Income Tax Act relating to Films and Video Productions
(2003)
(3) The definition "Canadian film or video production certificate" in subsection 125.4(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:
"Canadian film or video production certificate" means 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
(a) except where the production is a prescribed treaty co-production (as defined by regulation), an acceptable share of revenues from the exploitation of the production in non-Canadian markets is, under the terms of any agreement, retained by
(i) a qualified corporation that owns or owned an interest in the production,
(ii) a prescribed taxable Canadian corporation related to the qualified corporation, or
(iii) any combination of corporations described in (i) or (ii), and
(b) public financial support of the production would not be contrary to public policy.
Guidelines
(7) The Minister of Canadian Heritage shall issue guidelines respecting the circumstances under which the conditions in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition of "Canadian film or video production certificate" in subsection (1) are satisfied. For greater certainty, these guidelines are not statutory instruments as defined in the Statutory Instruments Act.
Marc wrote:
"In 2003, the Liberal Heritage minister,Sheila Copps, proposed the same bill and there was not the same outrage that there is right now."
Right, but the libs weren't dumb enough to let the bill get this far.
"In 2003, the Liberal Heritage minister,Sheila Copps, proposed the same bill and there was not the same outrage that there is right now."
Because no one heard of it at the time.
Sucks for the Harpies, don't it?
Sucks for the Harpies?
More like...
Sucks for the Liberals that oppose it. It will pass and they will whine. Will Mr. Dion sit on all both his hands this time? Or maybe clap in support? Perhaps praise the Conservatives for actually taking action on an issue the Liberals were afraid to pursue?
His options are many, as usual his choice will be wrong and weak.
Sucks for the Liberals that oppose it.
Everyone opposes it.
Government shouldn't be in the business of funding movies anyway. If it can't find backers on it's own merits - whatever they may be - then maybe it doesn't deserve to be made, or that the market for it is too tiny. So, if somebody wants to make a powerful, relevant commentary on the plight of left-handed transexualy animal sadists while blaming it all on Harper and Bush, perhaps they can find their own funding. But seeing as you're liberals, and you're entitled to your entitlements, cutting off funding just isn't something in your vocabulary of experience.
Maybe a pro-hunting film should be financed by the Canadian government. Or a pro-life movie, or something against socialism. I KNOW! They could make a movie of 'the only book I've ever read, as I'm a neocon', "Atlas Shrugged"!
Wouldn't you all be happy knowing your helping to fund them?
Post a Comment