Heritage minister 'hates' C-10, says Conservative senator
FEDERAL POLITICS / Senator caught on tape after he forgot to turn off his microphone during committee
Brent Creelman / National / Thursday, April 10, 2008
Share |

Heritage Minister Josée Verner "hates" Bill C-10, a Conservative senator was caught on tape saying in committee Apr 10.

Senator David Angus' comments were recorded by C-PAC at the Senate's banking committee, which is studying a controversial clause within Bill C-10 that would revoke tax credits for films that are "contrary to public policy."

Angus called for a two-minute break between hearings around noon Apr 10, but for a short time after he adjourned the meeting, Angus' microphone was left on. His conversation with an unidentified man was broadcast over the Senate's live internet audio feed.

"The government has to bite the bullet," he was heard saying. "The minister agrees, she told me she hates the law." (watch the video below)

Angus was heard on the internet audio feed for another few seconds before his microphone was cut off, but his comments were hard to make out.

Representatives from Verner and Angus' offices were quick to downplay the claims.

"He's wrong," says a spokesperson for Verner, reached at the minister's office. The minister herself had no comment when contacted by xtra.ca.

A representative for Angus defended the senator.

"The context is that I don't think that anyone realized it was going to cause such a controversy," he says. "Probably the minister is just tired of dealing with the bill."

Bill C-10 passed through the House of Commons last fall in one day, with unanimous support from all parties. But when news broke in February that the bill contained a clause that amounts to censorship, arts groups and opposition MPs were outraged.

The Ministry of Canadian Heritage has been on the defensive since then. Verner appeared before the Senate committee Apr 2 to defend the bill, saying that it would close "a loophole" that theoretically would allow illegal material like hate speech and kiddie porn to qualify for the credit.

She repeatedly tried to pass the buck to the Liberals, since an earlier version of the film clause appeared in several bills between 2002 and 2006.

Witnesses at the Senate committee Apr 10 said the bill would discourage banks from financing edgy film and television productions, because tax credits are awarded late in the production process.

"The very existence of such provisions creates financial uncertainty," said Sandra Cunningham of the Canadian Film and Television Producers Association.

Most witnesses have called on senators to remove the "contrary to public policy" section of the bill, or at least establish the guidelines before the bill is passed. As it stands, the specific guidelines are not contained in C-10, and would be open for change at the whim of the ministry of heritage.

"We have already seen that there has been enormous controversy and censure of some of the most important Canadian films ever made," said Noa Mendelsohn Aviv of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Apr 9. "There were calls not to fund films about abortion and gay youth. Should these too have been suppressed in the name of public policy?"

"If we give the government a free hand to pick off certain movies and chill our artists, how many more innovative films on controversial topics will get made?"

The Senate committee will hear two more days of witnesses' testimony Apr 16-17. Among them is Charles McVety, the founder of rightwing group Canada Family Action Coalition, which promotes the idea that homosexuality can be "cured." Last month, McVety took credit for the clause, saying it represents conservative values.

— with files from Marcus McCann



(note: xtra.ca has combined the committee's internet audio feed with the television video feed. The version broadcast on television did not include Angus' comments; they were only audible through the internet audio feed and to people listening through headsets in the committee room. )

Read more about C-10:


Share |


Reader Comments


 
I don't want my taxes to pay for
Filth, smut and politically offensive works of art. That is not censorship - go ahead and make such crap. Just quit asking me to pay for it. I hope this bill passes.
Black Bart, Stettler Alberta
04/10/08 11:51 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Taxes Schmaxes
Wether the Heritage Minister likes Bill C-10 or not, the fact remains that it *is* flagrant censorship and the bill will certainly be going back for review and editing. Something that is "against public policy" is a very vague term, and needs to be defined, clearly. If the Conservative's are merely trying to close any possible loophole that could enable someone to make "hate films or kiddie porn" like the Heritage Minister implies, then thats fine, define it as such and be done with it. No one would want their tax dollars going to such tripe. But then again, not one single tax dollar ever has gone into making either. The actual analogy made that the film tax credits are linked to hate and kiddie porn shows the sad low levels of intelligence in the Conservative party and the fearmongering they have learned from the USA. Canadians are smarter than that. The film credits are there to help get films made that might never otherwise get made because of a lack of funding. It also helps an industry that struggles with the fluctuating dollar to keep thousands employed in the film industry. When the tax credits get censored by the "moral right wing" then no one benefits in the art world and jobs will be lost.
Don, Vancouver British Columbia
04/11/08 2:46 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Amateur hour yet again
I'm certain that theoretically there would be some productions that I would not want taxpayer dollars funding. Xtra! would be up in arms, let's say, if Telefilm funded a production that praised so-called "ex-gay ministries", for example. However, just like the copyright legislation, the Conservatives think they can just ram through legislation and nobody will notice. They really need to learn to consult the stakeholders better. Stephen (not me, the big guy) really doesn't know what's best for the country; he should listen to the people who will be affected.
Stephen Cooper, Ottawa Ontario
04/11/08 8:21 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Not About Tax Dollar Funding
I love how the right is trying to frame this issue as one of saving the tax payers money by not funding questionable productions. If that were the case, then why only apply the clause to Canadian productions? As Sarah Polley pointed out before the Committee, the proposed clause to censor productions based on content "contrary to public policy" does NOT apply to foreign service productions. They also receive tax payer $$$$$$$$. This is obviously a fob to Harper's social conservative base.
B. York, Winnipeg Manitoba
04/11/08 2:54 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.