The FCM (Federation of Canadian Municipalities) has gone out against the Tories amendments regarding fiscal incentives applicable to Canadian films. Not too surprising. Towns like Toronto and Vancouver (and Montreal and Halifax) get a fair bit of revenue from hosting film crews.
FCMs news release also contains the best short explanation of whats wrong with the bill that I have read:
The amendments proposed provide the Minister of Heritage Canada with the discretionary power to withdraw, once the film is completed, the tax credits already agreed upon for the film.
A film-maker who plays by all the rules can still lose funding at the whim of the minister, in other words.
h/t to Western Standard, who are reporting news these days rather than serving as on-line club-house for Ezra's band of thuggies:
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.
True enough, if a bit obvious. Less obvious is the WS contention that these amendments will eventually pass. My money is on them eventually disappearing into a mound of unfinished business this fall when Harper Prorogues the HOC. Harper wouldn't really damage our cities' economies just to throw red meat to the goobers, would he?
Would he?
h/t to Western Standard, who are reporting news these days rather than serving as on-line club-house for Ezra's band of thuggies:
ReplyDeleteJust goes to show how "conservatism" and libertarianism are inherently incoherent within the same system of thought. Too bad The Western Rag didn't realise that earlier.
= 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.=
ReplyDeleteUh, the issue has to do with censorship. You never address that issue or your inconsistency on it BCL.
You are happy to see punitive and arbitrary measures applied to magazines who simply offend. Why do you object to the same measures applied to artists?
Now before ti-guy goes off on a tangent and engages in some semantic arm-waving, how about talking about the issue of censorship?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhy should anyone talk to you about anything? Your cognitive faculties are not fully developed yet, so you can't process language the way everyone else does.
ReplyDeleteGod, the hell we went through trying you help understand what backpedaling meant. It was hopeless.
You're a very uneducated person, Paul S. But that's OK. You're only 9, after all.
Well, to your credit ti-guy, I guess at least you are trying with your insults and that should count for something. Better then sulking as you are wont to do.
ReplyDeleteI'm not even trying.
ReplyDeleteYou are unreachable and unteachable. A smack on the snout with a rolled up newspaper is what you need.
You say something ti-guy?
ReplyDeleteI agree with that they need to refuse it.
ReplyDelete