Is it censorship if the government withholds tax credits for certain kinds of movies?

The Canadian government is censoring the movies! So say some people, at least, in light of current proposed changes to the Income Tax Act.

First, the Globe and Mail reports:

The Conservative government has drafted guidelines that would allow it to pull financial aid for any film or television show that it deems offensive or not in the public’s best interest – even if government agencies have invested in them.

The proposed changes to the Income Tax Act would allow the Heritage Minister to deny tax credits to projects deemed offensive, effectively killing the productions. Representatives from Heritage and the Department of Justice will determine which shows or films pass the test.

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, that denigrates a group or is excessively violent without an educational value.

Stakeholders in productions, such as Telefilm Canada, the Canadian Television Fund and the Harold Greenberg Fund, would have to try to recoup millions of dollars in investments, and producers would have to repay banks, broadcasters and distributors. . . .

Toronto lawyer David Zitzerman of Goodmans LLP says the government’s plans smack of “closet censorship.”

“The proposed new initiative, if not properly crafted, could potentially violate the Charter [of Rights and Freedoms] and lead to possible legal challenges against the Minister of Canadian Heritage,” Mr. Zitzerman said Wednesday. “Such a provision could potentially lead to the government acting as ‘morality police.’ The existing definitions of pornography and obscenity in the Criminal Code should be sufficient for the government’s purposes.

“Would this committee put money into Juno? It might not want to encourage teen pregnancy. Would the government put money into a film with a dirty title, like Young People Fucking? Would they invest in something like Brokeback Mountain? They might not want to encourage gay cowboys to have sex together in Alberta.” . . .

Variety, however, says the panel with the power to grant or deny the tax credit “will only rule on Canadian projects; American films shooting in Canada, which also are eligible to receive federal tax credits, will be not be bound by the same rules.” So films like Juno — which, despite having a Canadian director, Canadian lead actors, Canadian sets and a largely Canadian crew, was ruled ineligible for the Canadian Genie Awards because it was produced with American money — would seem to be in the clear, no matter what the panel might think of them. Ditto Brokeback Mountain, I suspect.

Meanwhile, the Canadian Press adds:

Canada’s arts community is condemning proposed changes to the Income Tax Act that would allow the federal government to pull financial help for film or television programs that it finds offensive or not in the public interest.

The amendment to Bill C-10 would allow the Heritage Minister to cancel tax credits for such projects, even if government agencies have invested in them. . . .

Stephen Waddell, the National Executive Director of ACTRA, says the arts community is concerned about who exactly would make the decision as to what would be offensive.

Waddell wonders if the standards are of a modern Canadian society or what he calls the “fundamentalist perspective” that has crept up from the United States.

And lest you think that that reference to “fundamentalism” brings in a religious component that is otherwise foreign to this story, the Globe and Mail now gives us this:

A well-known evangelical crusader is claiming credit for the federal government’s move to deny tax credits to TV and film productions that contain graphic sex and violence or other offensive content.

Charles McVety, president of the Canada Family Action Coalition, said his lobbying efforts included discussions with Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day and Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, and “numerous” meetings with officials in the Prime Minister’s Office.

“We’re thankful that someone’s finally listening,” he said yesterday. “It’s fitting with conservative values, and I think that’s why Canadians voted for a Conservative government.”

Mr. McVety said films promoting homosexuality, graphic sex or violence should not receive tax dollars, and backbench Conservative MPs and cabinet ministers support his campaign.

“There are a number of Conservative backbench members that do a lot of this work behind the scenes,” he said.

Mr. Day and Mr. Nicholson said through officials yesterday they did not recall discussing the issue with Mr. McVety. . . .

Conservatives deny that the changes are driven by politics or Mr. McVety, noting the previous Liberal government pledged to review the guidelines as far back as 2003.

Conservative MP Dave Batters recently urged the new president of Telefilm Canada, Michel Roy, to block federal funding for objectionable films, listing Young People Fucking as a recent example.

“In my mind, sir, and in the minds of many of my colleagues and many, many Canadians,” said Mr. Batters during a Jan. 31 meeting of the Canadian Heritage committee, “the purpose of Telefilm is to help facilitate the making of films for mainstream Canadian society – films that Canadians can sit down and watch with their families in living rooms across this great country.”

In addition to the tax credits for labour costs, Telefilm is a second source of revenue for Canadian film producers. Mr. Roy pledged to raise the issue with the Telefilm board, but a spokesman said yesterday that no policy changes have been made.

Mr. Batters said yesterday he does not support censorship, but offensive films should be made with private money.

“If there’s a market for that, let people pay the $11,” he said. . . .

For what it’s worth, I’m of two minds about this. I’m not a big fan of the idea that taxpayers should be compelled to support artists who they may or may not agree with. But I’m also not a big fan of organizations that claim the right to determine which forms of violent and sexual content are acceptable to “mainstream” society and which forms are not. And I especially don’t think it fosters a healthy business climate if the producers don’t know whether their film will get a tax refund until after it has been finished and submitted for the panel’s review.