Bill C-10, now being debated in the Senate, contains provisions that allow the government to withhold tax credits for films and other artistic works that the Department of Heritage finds “offensive”.
The bill came to the attention of the public on Friday when NDP MP Libby Davies raised the issue and accused the government of introducing these measures to “suit their friends in the religious right”. Even if this is true, it makes the present government no different than any other government, past and present. The only difference is that they have different “friends”.
The focus on this issue brought out all the interested parties from director David Cronenberg to various arts’ unions, all whining and moaning that their government subsidies and tax credits are their “rights”.
The critics do have one good point. They will be required to raise money to produce a film that in the end may be found to be offensive and then ineligible to receive tax credits or other preferential treatment. The production of films is big business and anything that introduces uncertainty in business is clearly not beneficial or in the public interest. But what is troubling is the way that these tax credits are talked about; those in the business seem to feel that not only do they have the right to produce whatever they want but they have the right to make the taxpayers’ pay for it.
Tax credits and subsidies that are quite common are no different than welfare that is given to private individuals and families. Although there are many people who exist on welfare as a lifestyle choice and those who exist on government handouts because their parents and grandparents were on welfare, the vast majority of those who live on government funds do so temporarily and really want to find a job and become self supporting. This is not true with business in general and the arts community in particular. They look at these tax credits as a permanent entitlement; something that the government has no right to take away. Already there are the predictable cries of censorship and even vague threats to bring a court action based upon the fact that their rights under the Charter of Rights have been breached.
All of this, predictable as it is under our current dependence upon government, is nonsense. This is not a matter of censorship. Those in the film industry will still have the right to make any kind of film they want; the only caveat is that if the film is found to be offensive, the government will refuse to assist with its funding. This is hardly censorship; the government will not even be imposing standards such as they do with the public airwaves. It is a matter of financial assistance, not censorship.
As for the Charter of Rights, the government is under no obligation to offer tax incentives or any other benefit for the arts industry or anyone else. But once they decide to grant a benefit, it must be done fairly and is subject to Charter scrutiny. But the Charter applies to individuals and not to movies or other forms of art. If a movie producer is denied preferential tax treatment because of the work that he or she generally makes or the government simply doesn’t like him or her then there would be a ground for a Charter challenge. But basing the refusal to provide tax incentives on the final product is not censorship or a breach of anyone’s Charter rights; it is simply setting standards. Governments set standards all the time. It’s a lot of what they do and the argument can be made that we are subject to too many government standards. And the government is not setting any type of standard to prohibit certain artistic works; they are merely refusing to fund those that they determine to be objectionable and offensive.
Taxpayers should not have to have their hard earned money that is confiscated by the government used to fund offensive films. If the government is wrong in their view of Canadians in this regard then they should be voted out of power.
