Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Polley carries protest to Parliament

JENNIFER MACMILLAN

Globe and Mail Update

Latest comment posted at 11:50 AM EDT 10/04/08

Oscar-nominated actor/writer testifies before Senate committee about tax-credit legislation proposed for TV and film industry ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Matt O from Ottawa, Canada writes: Well, excuse us, Ms. Polley, if you're not up to making films that reflect true Canadian values: you know, the average pro-life, pro-Christ, pro-war, anti-'welfare state', anti-evolution, anti-coffee (for Mr. Harper doesn't drink the stuff, you see) isn't interested in your claptrap.

    I also say there should be no more films set in Eastern Canada: who needs to see that culture of defeat rubbed in our faces? I think all Canadian-funded films should be about the folks getting rich off oil in Alberta, and how happy that makes them. Now that's something I'd pay 12 bucks to see.
  2. Alistair McLaughlin from Canada writes: The same legislation was first proposed by Liberal Cabinet Minister Sheila Copps in 2004. Virtually word for word. Only reason it didn't pass was because Parliament was prorogued for the June 2004 election. Funny the arts & culture community wasn't worried about it back then.
  3. True North from Canada writes: Harper's government is entirely hypocritical on this issue as they propose to actually make money from content their Dept of Justice lawyers deem inappropriate by taxing the producer where they would have otherwise received a tax credit (not public funding as many misinformed posters repeat).

    Harper's government of the 'A guys' cannot be trusted.
  4. Hans Lucas from Canada writes:

    Listen, Alistair McLaughlin.

    The 'arts & culture community' is too busy trying to survive. If Copps' proposal had reached the point where this one has, I am sure there would have been a hue and cry.

    We are taxpayers, too (yes) and we depend upon our elected representatives to stop garbage legislation like this. They clearly failed us (through the backdoor trickery of the Conservatives) which is why this has reached a Senate hearing committee stage.
  5. Lawrence Crofton from Canada writes: Go get 'em, Sarah!
  6. Diane Schweik from EDMONTON, Canada writes: .

    Does anyone know where I can see a Canadian film,should I be so silly as to want to do so ?

    Come on TO & Montreal.This is your chance to really vent your anti-AB spleen.

    PS

    I remember reading a few years back that almost all the government
    money for these films went to Quebec.
  7. Uncle Elmer from Canada writes: Get your hands out of my pocket, Sarah. Your 'community's' films wouldn't draw an audience on a rainy day in a one-theatre town. They should not be subsidized by John Q. Public. If they (and you) are as important as you think, then I have no doubt that an investor will back them. Otherwise, get lost.
  8. Hans Lucas from Canada writes:
    'Diane Schweik from EDMONTON, Canada writes: .

    Does anyone know where I can see a Canadian film,should I be so silly as to want to do so ?

    Come on TO & Montreal.This is your chance to really vent your anti-AB spleen.'

    I think I recall just seeing 'Radiant City' by very fine Calgarian filmmaker Gary Burns on the CBC.

    It was about issues surrounding the ongoing suburban sprawl affecting Albertan cities. Gave me a real perspective on what is happening to my fellow Canadian citizens in Alberta.

    There was a shooting in that movie, however, so I'm not sure it would have qualified for a tax credit.
  9. Howard Roark from Whitby, Canada writes: Sex sells.

    So why should tax credits, and other inducements further line the pockets of production companies? Let the free market decide. We should not, as taxpayers, be funding artistic expression that can float on its own.

    Actually, we should not be funding artistic expression that cannot either, but that is another discussion. There is an in-between 'market' that can use assistance from taxpayers to develop skills and create Cdn content.
  10. Lawrence Crofton from Canada writes: Attention ''Uncle Elmer'. The film community is ADDING funds to your pocket, not taking it away. The tax break returns 4 times the money in additional taxes later. Where else does the government get that sort of bang for its buck?
  11. leo bloom from radisson, sask, canada, Canada writes: Sheila Copps proposed this same type of bill in 2004? Is it irony then that she turned to 'acting' after she was trounced from politics? Is it irony or just megalomania? Now I know that she was 'nobody's baby', but is she really anybody's fancy? Ah well, I say you go Sarah. I say we need you and your kind. Never mind the rednecks who would have us all in Mayberry - we're not that wholesome; we're not that blithesome. Some of us like coffee and cigarettes with our icecream...
  12. Hans Lucas from Canada writes:
    'Howard Roark from Whitby, Canada writes:

    Why should tax credits, and other inducements further line the pockets of production companies?'

    Friends of mine have a production company and they gap-financed the tax credits of a feature film they shot 2 and a half years ago, despite the fact that they have two children to support.

    They are still waiting for the federal tax credits to come back, but they can't wait to start lighting cigars with 100 hundred dollar bills when they do.
  13. Matt O from Ottawa, Canada writes: Diane Schweik, Hans Lucas has aptly demonstrated your ignorance. Gary Burns is a fine Canadian filmmaker...I would also recommend seeing Kitchen Party and Waydowntown, his other works.

    People can make 'free market' arguments, and normally I would be at least in partial agreement with you, but the fact is that the big American entertainment behemoth to the south would suck all the Canadian talent out of the country if it weren't for such subsidies. Seriously, it's easier to get an American work visa if you're in the entertainment business than if you're, say, and engineer...or at least they're on par.

    And how many Canadian-centric movies do you think would be made if all of our resources and people depended on American studios for funding? That's what I thought.

    I agree that a lot of junk programming gets produced by Canadian tax dollars...seriously, who watches CBC except for hockey and the news? But let's not junk the whole program because of that.

    A bit off-topic here, but I thought I'd head off the libertarians before they arrived en masse (not that they'd listen, anyway).
  14. Stan L from Canada writes: I can't belive how self absorbed and narrow minded people are....this is censorship pure and simple. Private investment sources in this country will not invest in a film unless they can see that their tax credit is in place and that other sources of funding are available. No financial backer will back a film with 100% of the money, and like most other investors, would like to receive a tax credit for their investment. Otherwise they'll invest in Canadian stocks where they can get an even BIGGER tax credit. Most other jurisdictions in the world, including the US, offer tax credits for film production and Canada's tax credit for films is one of the lowest in the Western world. If we want to compete we have to be playing the same game. American productions that shoot up here can also apply for a partial tax credit on salaries paid to Canadian workers on the film, but it is only a 16% tax relief credit on salaries. Most other jurisdictional tax credits offer a 16 to 22% tax credit on the cost of the entire production........in short if we want to have an industry at all....the tax credits are a very necessary, to compete with everyone else......... AND bear in mind that all films goes through and exhaustive approval process to even receive the credits in the first place which (among many other requirements) requires them to provide scripts so that the content can be reviewed to ensure that the material does not not contain any elements of serious or gratuitous sexual violence or exploitation, the material must not be obscene, indecent or pornographic within the meaning of the Criminal Code, or libelous or in any other way unlawful.....THIS review is already done in the process we have now, it is fairly and evenly applied....anything else used to judge content is simply cenosrship.......although Charles McVety and REAL women would surely beg to differ.
  15. Sue City from Canada writes: Well, Uncle Elmer, I suppose we should remove funding from all arts and cultural institutions too, especially if they display so-called 'pornographic' or 'violent' images. Hmm, how about targeting the National Gallery of Canada - possibly its collection of European art? Our conservative government may say that paintings of voluptuous nude women, or bloody battle scenes, are inappropriate for our eyes and - zip - no more funding. It's a slippery slope.

    A government should never act as a judge and jury of morality without its citizen's intervention. That is our job alone.
  16. Lawrence Crofton from Canada writes: Diane Schweik from EDMONTON, Canada writes: .

    'Does anyone know where I can see a Canadian film,should I be so silly as to want to do so ?'

    Guess you didn't see 'Away From Her'? Pity. Really good film. I'm sure there were places to see it in Edmonton when it was in wide release. If you chose not to see an Academy Award winner, your loss. I'm sure if you want to be 'silly', you could rent it at a local video store.

    'Come on TO & Montreal.This is your chance to really vent your anti-AB spleen.'

    Why're you trying to make this into a geographic pissing match? What does easter/western have to do with myopic censorship? I guess you'd consider Guy Madden an easterner because he does Winnipeg-centric films?
  17. Lawrence Crofton from Canada writes: Matt O,

    Seconded on 'waydowntown'. Try 'Perfectly Normal' if you can find it.
  18. Trillian Rand from Canada writes: And so our never-ending national debate on the relative merits of a nanny state continues.

    In one corner we have the free-thinkers, those who think they should be able to manage their own lives with a minimum of government interference.

    In the other corner we have the government-knows- best fans. Those who believe people, given a chance, will always make the wrong decision. For them the government protects these muddle-headed fools not only from themselves, but the rest of us from their inconsiderate acts.

    For those who see every issue in political terms, the first group are the obvious Conservatives and the second, obviously, are Liberals. Except that it is an alleged Conservative government that wants to give final cut to the minister. And, by the way, the same thinking applies to the proposed changes to the Immigration system. Forget the system, give absolute authority to the minister.

    If any of this does not seem unsettling, the government will be issuing your opinions in the next few days.
  19. Diane Schweik from EDMONTON, Canada writes: .

    Last year the French made a great film about Edith Piaf,'La vie en rose'.Now why can't these Canadian film makers make a film about great Canadian singers like Deanna Durbin or Anne Murray ? Maybe they might win an Oscar for something other than shorts.

    Hans

    Was 'Radiant City' ever shown in a cinema where people had to cough up cash rather than just padding the CBC schedule ?
  20. Martyn Whitt from toronto, Canada writes: While I support lower taxes for EVERY industry, I don't see why the arts should get special treatment. To Ms. Polley, 'I will support your artistic goals financially if you reciprocate and put some money towards my tennis endeavours'. Thank-you very much, her sense of entitlement is baffling, was she maybe spoiled as a child do you think? Time to act like an adult, you've been playing ann of green gables a little too long now, you're starting to look like Peter Pan.
  21. Lawrence Crofton from Canada writes: Attention Diane Schweik,

    Quick question for you.

    What's the population of France?

    What's the population of Canada?

    Do you see a difference?
  22. Stan L from Canada writes: Adding insult to injury....these Cromwellian tactics will only be held against Canadian productions...Amercican film and the rest will get a free pass and will receive tax credits carte blanche.......Is there another industry in Canada where the domestic industry doesn't receive tax credits, but the foreign industry operating in the country does......is there another industry where tax credits are arbitrarily given based on some vague notion of family calues?.......If we are doing that sort of thing now I vote for the oil industry to be next....becuase my morality doesn't approve of the way they have been handling this and I think the government should be able to remove theri credits on a whim if they don't meet my moral standard.
  23. We Are Not Amused from Carleton Place, Canada writes: Why the surprise & outrage? Once the Reform Party, always the Reform Party.....
  24. Sue City from Canada writes: Here’s are just a few great Canadian films, Diane, some that may not have been made if this new legislation were in effect. Watch them...

    Jesus of Montreal &8211; Denys Arcand
    The Decline of the American Empire &8211; Denys Arcand
    The Barbarian Invasions &8211; Denys Arcand
    Exotica &8211; Atom Egoyan
    The Sweet Hereafter &8211; Atom Egoyan
    Naked Lunch &8211; David Cronenberg
    The Red Violin &8211; Francois Girard
    The Triplets of Belleville - Sylvain Chomet
  25. Crimson The-Red from Canada writes: Here's an idea, taxpayers stop funding any of this... simple, no bias, no governmnet rules, no censorship.
  26. John Ridout from Canada writes: The tax credit would be denied to Canadians if they do 'no, nos', but Americans who shoot 'no, no' scenes in their made in Canada movies would still be eligible if they apply!! Does anyone see anything wrong with this picture? Give my head a shake!!
    Maybe Harper will hire the Taliban next to enforce the next set of morality codes - eg. beard length, women walking two steps behind etc etc
  27. Lawrence Crofton from Canada writes: Attention Martyn Whitt,

    As soon as your 'tennis endeavours' establish a reliable track record of returning $4 for every $1 dollar of tax break, I'm sure many and sundry will be quite happy to do so.

    So, all you fiscal conservatives out there: where you gonna get the additional funds that the short-term film tax breaks bring back in in additional taxes?

    Why aren't any of you responding to that unfortunate fact if for you it's all about money?
  28. Diane Schweik from EDMONTON, Canada writes: .

    Lawrence

    30m vs 60m.Not that much difference.

    What's the population of Sweden compared to Canada ?

    I love the way anyone who has a low opinion of Canadian films is classed as ignorant.

    Perhaps we should make a film of those kids in Naples who got in a fracas with the locals.'We're Canadian' was their response to trouble,i.e. must be OK because Canadian,just like the films.
  29. Stan L from Canada writes: Sue City from Canada writes: Here’s are just a few great Canadian films, Diane, some that may not have been made if this new legislation were in effect. Watch them...

    Sue...you forgot Eastern Promises and Away From Her.......biggies released just last year.
  30. E Maclachlan from Canada writes: As usual with these things the rhetoric on both sides gets silly. First off, it isn't censorship to set criteria for giving away money. Certainly governments money should go to cultural
    initiatives that reflect our country.

    Secondly, it is grossly unfair of the government to refuse to give tax credits to films after their completion.

    Thirdly, Canadian film needs better distribution before the industry can survive without grants &c.
  31. Crimson The-Red from Canada writes: You know what Lawrence Crofton, ALL profitable industries have those positive ratios in regards to tax breaks. Why play favourites, lower taxes for all Canadian industries, evenly across the board.
  32. Larfing Outloud from Virgin Islands (British) writes: Shawn Bull from Canada writes: Maybe all that Polley wants is a cracker.

    Bad pun Shawn,

    Well done!
  33. Henry IV from Toronto, Canada writes: Hey Diane --

    Here are some cinemas in Edmonton currently playing Canadian movies. Check them out!

    Cinema City Movies 12
    Cineplex Odeon West Mall 8
    Cineplex Odeon South

    Canadian movies are everywhere if you open your eyes and broaden your mind and lose some old prejudices. How old are you anyway?
  34. Jeremy F from Alberta, Canada writes: Government should stay away from corporate welfare for GOOD.

    If a film is good, it will draw the viewers...if it sucks, then no amount of tax credits will help.

    Stop punishing the average hard working tax payer and stop pushing us to watch your crap, we will watch what we want to as a FREE people!
  35. Matt O from Ottawa, Canada writes: Diane Schweik from EDMONTON, Canada writes: .

    Was 'Radiant City' ever shown in a cinema where people had to cough up cash rather than just padding the CBC schedule ?

    ========================================

    Yes, it was shown at the local reportory theatre here, as well as others right across the country.

    I'm guessing you didn't notice that on your way to the google-multi-plex to see the latest Pirates of the Caribbean sequel...fine American cinema at its best, there.
  36. david waye from Halifax, Canada writes: Ms. Polley, The Government is not telling you what to produce or not.
    Produce anything you want, but when Film Companies produce Garbage, Don't look to THE TAX PAYERS TO FUND IT. Telefilm is a Government branch that alocats money to The Film Producers. And we all know that they will fund garbage. Millions of tax payers dollars
    go towards crap and it is about time that someone put a stop to it.
  37. Zando Lee from Vancouver, Canada writes: ...this is a shameless attempt at censorship by Stevie and his fundamentalist pals who want to control and define freedom in their own limited scope....should this become law, watch for the new board to be overweight with Neocon clones......
  38. Lawrence Crofton from Canada writes: '30m vs 60m.Not that much difference.'

    Now, how large a country is France vs. Canada?

    'I love the way anyone who has a low opinion of Canadian films is classed as ignorant.'

    I love how you and the anti-Canadian-film crowd insist it's all about not parting with your hard-earned money, oblivious to the fact that these films, aside from reflecting Canada as a whole, ADD money to the treasury, not DEDUCT money from it.

    So Diane, financial wiz that you are, how do you justify reducing tax income if this really is all about money?
  39. Stan L from Canada writes: Does anyone have a answer for this?

    Is there another industry in Canada where the domestic industry doesn't receive tax credits, but the foreign industry operating in the country does?......is there another industry where tax credits are arbitrarily given or taken away to the domestic industry(but no the foreign) based on some vague notion of family values?

    Do any other industries in Canada need to content with this?
  40. E Maclachlan from Canada writes: Sue City...

    Leave out Atom Egoyan's films (and Exotica isn't that good anyway) then 90 percent of your great Canadian films are made in Quebec.

    Why is that?

    They make films Quebecers want to see, and do them so they are accessible to a wide audience.
  41. Paul S from Canada writes: Maybe the average working joe can get some tax credits too?

    Still, if you're making 'art' for money, its not art - its just another commodity, like toothpicks. 'Art' is made for creative expression, and art must be its own end.

    Real artists don't create art for the money or the tax breaks.

    The problem is that these entertainment commodity producers try to co-opt the special social status rightly given to real artists to get priviliges other commodity makers don't enjoy.

    Finally, the government is not censoring anyone - its just not subsidizing them, two completely different things.
  42. Lawrence Crofton from Canada writes: Attention E Maclachlan

    'First off, it isn't censorship to set criteria for giving away money.'

    The criteria's already there. Why add yet another layer of government if this is all about money?

    'Secondly, it is grossly unfair of the government to refuse to give tax credits to films after their completion.'

    Agreed. And grossly unfair to apply a different standard to Canadian-originated productions that won't apply to foreign-made productions that shoot here.

    'Thirdly, Canadian film needs better distribution before the industry can survive without grants &c.'

    Don't tell Diane; she might have a seizure at your suggestion. :)
  43. Stan L from Canada writes: Paul S from Canada writes: .......Finally, the government is not censoring anyone - its just not subsidizing them, two completely different things.

    How is taking away tax credits on a whim that were promised to you any way to operate industry in Canada......defacto censorship....nobody will fund a film based on this kind of loosely applied morality clause.
  44. Lawrence Crofton from Canada writes: Attention Crimson The-Red,

    Why are we even entertaining the notion of reducing the income to the national treasury since you've admitted the facts I made? And why apply this filter to our own productions and not to foreign ones shooting here?

    Sort of a stunned kind of approach, wouldn't you agree?
  45. aloysuis paczjoskteyochuk from Canada writes: Good, I am sure a bill that the Dalai Lama, Ghandi and King would like and support.
  46. Zando Lee from Vancouver, Canada writes: ....apart from the censorship thing, there is the dollars and cents aspect of this debate....the film industry provides lots of employment and business in BC, and production is already down because of the increase in the Canadian dollar....stricter censorship rules may very well have a negative effect on attracting further producers....
  47. Tetchy Citizen from Canada writes: Uncle Elmer from Canada writes: Get your hands out of my pocket, Sarah. Your 'community's' films wouldn't draw an audience on a rainy day in a one-theatre town. They should not be subsidized by John Q. Public.

    ***
    And the government should get its hand out of MY pocket for the billions of dollars it is spending to occupy Afghanistan.

    Personally, I'd give my money to Sarah Polley and company any day over the boys (and they're ALL boys) in the defence department.
  48. Lawrence Crofton from Canada writes: Attention david waye:

    'Don't look to THE TAX PAYERS TO FUND IT.'

    The tax payers aren't funding diddly. The government's MAKING MONEY ON THE TAX BREAK. What part of that doesn't compute?
  49. Randal Oulton from Canada writes: Hey, can do we away with any film subsidies, and put the money instead for work for dental and pharmacare for those that don't have it? First things first, I say.
  50. Stan L from Canada writes: Zando Lee from Vancouver, Canada writes: ....apart from the censorship thing, there is the dollars and cents aspect of this debate....the film industry provides lots of employment and business in BC, and production is already down because of the increase in the Canadian dollar....stricter censorship rules may very well have a negative effect on attracting further producers....

    Zando, I think most people would be surprised to kind out that this is a billion dollar(s) industry directly employing almost 127,000 people and indirectly employing much more in every province in the country......there is a lot more on the line than most would imagine.
  51. Martyn Whitt from toronto, Canada writes: Lawrence I believe my point is a little too subtle for you to understand. Let me put it to you another way you might understand. I work every day to support my family, government takes half, I have no choice, they give it to the arts. Not fair to me, why does arts seem more important to them than tennis? tennis is very important to me? that is not fair! Furthermore, the guy next to me can't get a doctor, how many thousands (yes thousands) of municipalities in Canada have been under boil water advisiories for YEARS!!! And the arts are to get special treatment? Are you that evil? People can't get doctors and clean waters but your worried about arts funding? You sellfish elitist twit! Furthermore if these artists were any good at what they do, why don't they stand out on their own? Pretty sad reflection of the state of our so called 'arts' community! They should be ashamed they have simply moved from their parent's basements to the 'government's basement'. Talk about lowering the bar of self expectation, I'd be ashamed, mind you I have some pride in myself!
  52. Hans Lucas from Canada writes: 'Diane Schweik from EDMONTON, Canada writes:

    Hans

    Was 'Radiant City' ever shown in a cinema where people had to cough up cash rather than just padding the CBC schedule ?'

    Matt O has aptly answered this question. Thank you, Matt.

    I want to address this padding the CBC schedule comment.

    Okay, you stereotype us Easterners as venting our anti-Albertan spleen and then I praise this movie that gave me some perspective of what is happening to you yourself, an Albertan.

    Your response is to say that it is 'padding the CBC schedule'. How do you define then what is not padding the CBC schedule?

    You can't win for losing in this country.
  53. Lawrence Crofton from Canada writes: Attention E Maclachlan from Canada writes: Sue City...

    'Leave out Atom Egoyan's films (and Exotica isn't that good anyway) then 90 percent of your great Canadian films are made in Quebec.

    Why is that?'

    La langue Quebecois. Any other questions?
  54. François Papineau from Montreal, Canada writes: Diane Schweik : I was pretty sure there would be a anti-Quebec comment. there is always one even if the subject is not on Quebec. So, Diane, since the Quebec movies have a lot more success then ROC movies, when there is 1$ invetsed in them, you have a lot more chance to receive more than this dollars in return. Why are they so popular? Because we love them. Because it's quality so we love going in cinema to watch them. So stop you anti-Quebec comment and begin to go watching Canadian movies and so send a message that actually ROC cares about their movies.
  55. Uncle Elmer from Canada writes: Tetchy Citizen from Canada writes: 'And the government should get its hand out of MY pocket for the billions of dollars it is spending to occupy Afghanistan. Personally, I'd give my money to Sarah Polley and company any day over the boys (and they're ALL boys) in the defence department.'

    That's brilliant. I'm sure the Taliban would welcome Ms. Polley's requests for more cultural funding.
  56. François Papineau from Montreal, Canada writes: Lawrence Crofton Lawrence Crofton from Canada writes: Attention E Maclachlan from Canada writes: Sue City...

    'Leave out Atom Egoyan's films (and Exotica isn't that good anyway) then 90 percent of your great Canadian films are made in Quebec.

    Why is that?'

    La langue Quebecois. Any other questions?

    Lawrence: And what is the meaning of that answer?
  57. Stan L from Canada writes: Uncle Elmer from Canada writes: ........That's brilliant. I'm sure the Taliban would welcome Ms. Polley's requests for more cultural funding.

    OK the ignorance is really starting to get me......maybe we should provde tax credits for people to learn how to read......This is not about some artsy fartsy actress looking for a cash grab handout......this is about fairly applying tax credits to an industry without the social commentary from Charles McVety deciding what film gets a pass or not.
  58. Lawrence Crofton from Canada writes: Any of you fiscal geniuses want to explain why not spending $1 to earn $4 represents the epitome of fiscal Conservative financial planning?

    Still a resounding silence from that quarter even though the question has been posed for two days running
  59. Hans Lucas from Canada writes:

    'Uncle Elmer from Canada writes: Tetchy Citizen from Canada writes: 'And the government should get its hand out of MY pocket for the billions of dollars it is spending to occupy Afghanistan. Personally, I'd give my money to Sarah Polley and company any day over the boys (and they're ALL boys) in the defence department.'

    That's brilliant. I'm sure the Taliban would welcome Ms. Polley's requests for more cultural funding. '

    That's brilliant. I'm sure if we got out of Afghanistan, the Taliban would march right over and put a burqua on Sarah.

    Can you clarify your argument? Are you saying we should become like the Taliban?
  60. Seb D from Ottawa, Canada writes: A lot of Canadian movies are being made.... in the US. Just look at the number of Canadians working in Hollywood.

    And here's a shocker: some of these have graphic sex and violence. Legislation or no legislation, this state of affairs will continue. The only difference this law will make is send more Canadians working south of the border, as if there weren't enough already.

    It may be that Canadian films don't need tax credits, but then either they all get tax credits, or none of them do. Basing who gets them on content is censorship. And this applies regardless of whether it's the Liberals or Conservatives who pass this law.
  61. Martyn Whitt from toronto, Canada writes: well lawrence spending 1 to make 4 is a no brainer. what is you point?
  62. Doug Dewan from Calgary, Canada writes: Harper is only following the same narrow minded line of thought that prevails here in Calgary....Arts and Culture are not valued, and that's why Calgary's Art's and Culture barely exists. Calgary could would be such a great city if there was some focus and attention to this.....but I guess we'll just have to settle for the monster truck rally.
  63. True North from Canada writes: How Taliban of the Harper government.
  64. Synchronicity Tour from Canada writes: True North from Canada writes: Harper's government of the 'A guys' cannot be trusted.

    The problem with our lame film industry is that there are too many B guys in it.
  65. dean spence from Canada writes: Oh, calm down, ms polley. There are a host of church basements and community theatres eager for your talent. And some even share out the proceeds after they pass the hat.
  66. Robert Boyd from Windsor, Canada writes: Not at all.
    The CBC is still hiring, failing that, become an NDP candidate in the next election.

    'gordon scott from lotus land, Canada writes: This way Harper can get rid of all film productions containing the 'B' types, you know the, 'filthy fagots with dirt under their fingernails' types!'
  67. Martyn Whitt from toronto, Canada writes: Seth D, 'this law will send more of them south of border'. Precisely you proved my point, they cannot exist without government subsidies, they can't sustain themselves. That is the point, they can't survive without government help, unlike most other industries.
  68. Rain Couver from Canada writes: Here is a wonderful idea for a script. The hijinks of a theocratic conservative government trying to censure Canadian artists. Can you imagine it? Go get 'em Sarah!
  69. Lawrence Crofton from Canada writes: Francois,

    That wasn't a shot; just making the point that the Quebecois recognised a long time ago that for those things important to you to be reflected on your film and television screens, you had to support them and make it worthwhile. Now, your industry is a benchmark in this country.

    Unfortunately, the myopic Diane Schwick's of this country plague the English-language industry.
  70. Paul S from Canada writes: Stan: rember that fisher price toy about barnyard animals - 'the cows says...' etc.?

    How about we try that here : the censor says 'you can't say or publish this.'

    What the debated bill says: 'we are not going to give you cash or tax breaks to publish this.'

    Its only de facto or de jure censorship if you define 'censorship' so large it effectively becomes a useless term.
  71. Uncle Elmer from Canada writes: Sure Hans. It's mighty ironic that some twerps on this board would rather have their tax $$ go to Sarah Polley and Co.'s pogey instead of to our troops in Afghanistan who are protecting real people from real censorship, and worse. It is a sign of how decadent we have become that we equate refused tax dollars to censorship while simultaneously demanding that we don't defend against real censorship.
  72. Allan Simonson from Canada writes: I have the solution:

    Eliminate all tax benefits for films.

    Problem solved.
  73. RJ Dupree from Canada writes: The fact that the CBC cast Justin Trudeau as the lead for one of their biggest productions ever conveys about all you need to know about the state of Canadian film making.
  74. François Papineau from Montreal, Canada writes: For every one: acountry without culture is not a country. Without these subsidies, there will be no culture here for 2 reasons: first USA is too close and their cultural products are so many and without the language barrier. Second, the Canadian population is too small to support it by itself
  75. Rain Couver from Canada writes: By the way Polley, 'Away from Her' was an outstanding film that dealt with the tragedy of Alzheimer's. As someone who has had to live with a family member suffering from the insidious disease, thank you.
  76. B L from Canada writes: Quote: If a film is good, it will draw the viewers...if it sucks, then no amount of tax credits will help.

    Not true, Jeremy F. Distribution of films takes dollars. If my production budget can't distribute my film outside of my home town, then no one is going to see it - no matter how good it is.

    Think of the kind of bombardment that American garbage entertainment permeates our country. The reason for that is that they have enormous distribution budgets. Canadian production companies simply do not have the budgets to compete.

    The tax credits are an EMPLOYMENT incentive to hire Canadians. It's not a moral issue, it's an economic issue.
  77. François Papineau from Montreal, Canada writes: Thanks Lawrence...
  78. Synchronicity Tour from Canada writes: The Cdn film credit = so much spent on producing so little.
  79. Lawrence Crofton from Canada writes: Attention Martyn Whitt:

    'well lawrence spending 1 to make 4 is a no brainer. what is you point?'

    Well, the Conservatives don't seem to understand this kind of concept of 'no brainer'. They'd rather not have that net 300% return coming in.

    Why's that? And why the double standard for foreign films shot here?
  80. Wilf Kruggel from Canada writes: There must be no tax dollars for the film industry, maybe tax credits but definately no money. If they produce a worthy product, Canadians will respond accordingly and in this case it becomes self financing. We, over the years, have been inundated with garbage so now the industry must win Canadians back, a formiddible task awaits them. They have only themselves to blame, not the taxpayers, Wilf
  81. Sir Loin from Montreal, Canada writes: “It's very dangerous when the government starts getting directly involved in what can and can't be made,” Ms. Polley said Thursday.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the other hand maybe tax credits and direct taxpayer funding shouldn't be used to produce 'not passing the smell test' material. I also don't believe anyone person in government should be making the call on what constitutes such material but I think we all know it when we see it.

    There are more than enough outlets to attract private funding for projects. Perhaps Sarah Polley, David Cronenburg and Co. can set up private funds to specifically fund these types of projects. When the well runs dry I'd be anxious to see if they still feel as generous towards the proposition.
  82. Martyn Whitt from toronto, Canada writes: B L, why can't we just lower tax rates across all business? why is arts different? are they special?
  83. Lawrence Crofton from Canada writes: Attention Uncle Elmer:

    'Stan L, I think you've lived in socialist Canada for so long that you are beginning to equate free speech with pogey.'

    Would you say that stopping yourself from earning a net 300% return on investment represents intelligent investing?

    If so, why? And if not, why are you defending it?
  84. S Lucht from British Columbia, Canada writes: As a taxpayer, I'd rather fund film production or other artistic endeavors than fat pensions and benefits for largely useless politicians. Especially when some of those politicians have decided that their prudish morality somehow reflects that of Canada's population as a whole.
  85. Andrew E from Canada writes: Newsflash to Arsty's: it's not 'censorship' if the taxpayer doesn't fund your little arts projects. To call it censorship is a blatant and deliberate misuse of the term. What you really mean is that you are no longer under the aegus of the taxpayer.

    There are absolutely no laws prohibiting you from practicing your chosen metier. That would be censorship. The only criteria for success is the appeal, or lack thereof, of what you produce.
  86. Bob Macdonald from Liverpool, United Kingdom writes: We should be proud of Sarah Polley, not running her down. She is a remarkable director/actor who IS recognised for that around the world. To attack her, is kind of like an American saying Marilyn Monroe is an irrelevance.

    There are very good Canadian films out there: and amazing Canadian talent (Daniel MacIvor, Deni Arcand, etc.). But what holds the industry down is two things: One, the fact that too much of it is spent whoring for the worst of American film and TV (though I realise it pays, so hey). And two, we need studios in Canada who know how to make money-making movies, and then who plow the profits back into making more. Since the rise of DIY and indie film, the issue of money is no longer relevent. What matters is understanding your audience and coming up with great stories and compelling actors to tell them. You can make a big seller with no special effects or groovy sets: just look at Ellen Page and Juno: all set in a very normal environment, but a great story and great actors.

    The CBC should also be stepping up and funding brave filmmaking. But on second thought, screw them: we need an HBO.

    All else, my fellow coffee-and-donut friends, is excuse-making.
  87. Martyn Whitt from toronto, Canada writes: so lawrence if you give a 1 dollar tax credit it creates 4 dollars to the economy you're telling me? I'll accept your maths for the sake of this debate, why the hell are we not cutting taxe rates by 1 dollar across the board in every industry? Why do only the arts get this tax credit program? It is insane.
  88. Lawrence Crofton from Canada writes: Attention Synchronicity Tour:

    'The problem with our lame film industry is that there are too many B guys in it.'

    Pity one of those 'B guys' won an Oscar last year. Yeah. That sure backs up your 'argument'. And I guess by your logic, there's no explaining why so many foreign productions come here and use our 'B guy' crews.

    Genius, you are.
  89. Uncle Elmer from Canada writes: Lawrence Crofton: what does one thing have to do with the other? My point is that denying the cultural goofballs their tax $$ is not censorship. Censorship is telling someone that they can't say something lest they suffer the hammer of the state (as the Canadian Human Rights Commission has been doing).
  90. M Warren from Ottawa, Canada writes: I believe that C-10 is a de facto blight on free speech; cultural liberty must be maintained and indeed fostered regardless of the subjective definition of 'public interest' being used by the government of the day. It is the role of the government of Canada to employ this principle wherever possible, to spur whatever creative force exists in the Nation, so as to maximize the sum total of our influence abroad. 'Freedom of expression' implies the freedom of the range of expression.
  91. B Benton from Thornhill, Canada writes: Lawrence Crofton

    First of all, your assumption that the govt gets $4 for every dollar given away is just that - an assumption. Part of your assumption means that if a film is not financed by tax credits - it won't get made. Not necessarily true. And of course if it does get made without a government handout, the government makes even more than 4x return.

    And secondly, no one is talking about reducing funding by even a penny. They are just allocating funds to a more deserving project. So even if your assumption is correct, the govt will still get the same amount of dollars, as will the film industry.

    Surely an entity paying the costs can choose where to spend it. That's just common sense. Why should the government (and the taxpayers) be on the hook for every single project coming down the pipe regardless of merit? Does that make sense to anybody?
  92. Lawrence Crofton from Canada writes: Attention Martyn Whitt:

    'Seth D, 'this law will send more of them south of border'. Precisely you proved my point, they cannot exist without government subsidies, they can't sustain themselves. That is the point, they can't survive without government help, unlike most other industries.'

    I bet you're never going to guess what most locales south of the border have. They've got....................................wait for it..............................TAX BREAKS!!!!!!!!!!!

    Bet you wouldn't have expected that, would you? In the oh-so-capitalistic-never-a-socialist-concept-to-be-tolerated United States of America!

    Go figure, eh genius?
  93. Mark S Noel from NT, Canada writes: If movie makers want to make smut let them, just don't expect special tax breaks for it. What on earth is wrong with that?
  94. Hans Lucas from Canada writes:

    'Uncle Elmer from Canada writes: Sure Hans. It's mighty ironic that some twerps on this board would rather have their tax $$ go to Sarah Polley and Co.'s pogey instead of to our troops in Afghanistan who are protecting real people from real censorship, and worse. It is a sign of how decadent we have become that we equate refused tax dollars to censorship while simultaneously demanding that we don't defend against real censorship.'

    Okay, twerp. Perhaps you should read up on the history of Afghanistan, the politics of why we are there, a bit about the military-industrial complex, the indoctrination of patriotic ideals, yada, yada, yada, all stuff that is effectively censored by market-driven media forces and you will start to understand a little bit about what a sinkhole this endeavour is that we are throwing billions of dollars down compared to the piss in the bucket that is the 'pogey' (did I mention Baudrillard? - read up on him, too, twerp) which actually returns an investment via an economic multiplier effect (take an economics course, twerp).

    I agree with you that we have become decadent.
    • Posted 10/04/08 at 12:53 PM EDT |