"Culture is not an expense..."

"New measures to spread Québecois culture," reads the headline on this Parti Québecois campaign graphic; at the bottom, it reads "Culture is not an expense but a profitable investment, both economically and socially."

That's what I've been saying.

See, in Québec, culture is the third rail. Voters want to hear about how a party is going to support culture. Parties that don't seem to "get it" about culture lose elections.

If only I had more confidence that the PQ considers me part of the "culture Québecoise" that they want to spread, I would probably vote for them.

New Development Funding Requirements

[Cancon] Elvira Lount has posted a Facebook Note objecting to the new proposed Telefilm requirements for development funding. According to her synopsis:

1. In order for Canadian producers to access Telefilm feature film development funds they will have to have produced a feature film in the past 5 years.
2. Producers will be graded using the new 3 point performance criteria of box office, festivals/awards and private funding as presented at the recent Telefilm public meeting. It seems that your grade will affect the amount of development funding you will be able to access -- in what seems to be a much expanded development performance envelope.
3. Telefilm won't be providing creative input. It will be up to the producers to handle the development.
4. Producers who aren't eligible - haven't produced a feature film in the past 5 years - will have to partner with a producer who is eligible. There is no info on which partner will control the funds, but most likely it will be the eligible producer since they'll be getting the money - I'm assuming. No info on whether they can be just an executive producer or have to be an actual co-producer with part ownership of your project. No info on whether your TV or service production credits will count, or whether if you've produced films without Telefilm involvement they will count or be assessed under the new performance criteria and render you eligible.
5. A producer can apparently apply for an exception exemption- for instance if you have feature film credits but not in the past 5 years -- you may be able to convince Telefilm that your should be eligible. But, that would be very limited - exceptional circumstances only.
6. There is likely to be a 1st & 2nd time producer development stream - but no indication of how much will be allocated, the assessment process etc. Given that most of the funds will go to the much expanded development "performance" envelope this stream is likely to be heavily oversubscribed.

Her main objection is that this will squeeze inexperienced producers out of development. Why would an experienced producer team up with an inexperienced when they have their own projects?

I'm not convinced the new regulations are a bad idea. Doesn't it make a whole lot of sense to evaluate a development money request not only on the strength of the script or story, but the producer's track record? If I bring a TV project to a network, they are certainly going to judge the project not only on its creative merits on paper, but on my ability to execute, and the producer's track record. Same goes if I bring a project to a studio. Why wouldn't the government be equally careful with taxpayer money?

I disagree that eligible producers will ignore ineligible producers. I spent about 8 years as a development exec before I made my living writing, so I have some experience in production companies. Bigger producers team up with little ones all the time. Why? Because it keeps their overhead low. If I'm E1, say, and a smart emerging producer brings in a project she's nurtured, then I've saved myself a lot of headaches. I don't have to sift through 1000 scripts to find one good one. I don't have to do a deal with the writer. I don't have to give the writer notes. And I have someone who will shepherd the project for me. All I have to do is leverage my relationships with distributors and beat up on talent agents, which is something I, E1, can do better than an indie producer.

Why do you think studios have producers on the lot? Because producers who have everything riding on the project are better at picking winners than employees are.

And, keep in mind that the 40% allowable producer fees/overhead on the development funds will have to be divided between the 2 producers/production companies (most likely 50/50) with the balance going to the writers and story editors. So, on a development budget of $25,000 that combined producer/overhead fee will be $7000 split 2 ways - $3500 per producer/production company - and with that you are expected to devote months or years of your life to developing the project that you no longer own or control and to run your office. Plus, of course you will need to pay a lawyer to draw up the co-producer contract -- so this is an additional expense that will eat into your $3500 share -- let's say it will cost you at least $1000 to make sure you don't get screwed by the other producer. So, now you're left with $2500 and you've given away half your project, or maybe even the whole project.

First, what eligible producer is going to be willing to take on someone else's project for that paltry sum of $2500 when they can keep the whole allowable 40% fee by developing their own projects?

Here's the thing. The development overhead is not supposed to be how you pay the rent as a producer. It's supposed to tide you over. You are supposed to make your living producing movies. I've heard it said too often that many producers make their living developing scripts. Meaning, that's all they do. The Telefilm development money is not supposed to be there to support people working in the industry. It is supposed to support movie making.

I've often noticed that many producers, particularly in Québec, do not seem very interested in reading my, and other writers', material. What they want to do is develop their own pet projects. An exec friend of mine recently tried to forward an interesting script to a producer I've worked with. He wrote back, "What makes you think I'm interested in reading other people's scripts?"

And frankly, if you're an emerging producer, you ought to be able to negotiate a reasonable deal for yourself with an established producer.

Of course, I worked in LA for 10 years. There was a year where I was exactly an emerging producer with no credits trying to sell my projects to established producers. So all of this seems extremely normal to me, except for the part where the government helps people fund their projects.

I think it makes sense to get Telefilm out of the business of giving notes. I have many friends who are Telefilm analysts, and they're pretty sharp folks. They've often helped me make my scripts better. But doesn't it make sense that the notes should come from the person who lives or dies by the critical and/or commercial success of the movie? No Telefilm analyst was ever fired because their notes made a movie less commercial or less of a festival winner. If Denise Robert wants to make another potential Oscar winner, shouldn't she have the final say on whether the script is perfect the way it is? If Muse wants to make the next big dumb comedy, you know the analyst is not going to say, "we need more fart jokes." But sometimes you just need more fart jokes.

I guess the only quibble I would have with the guidelines is that 5 years might be short. It takes a long time to develop and produce a feature. I think you could be a very good producer and not necessarily have a feature in the past 5 years for entirely legit reasons. I think 7 years might be more reasonable.

Look, I'm as scared of the big bad Conservatives as anybody. And I keep waiting for some terrible drastic change to the creative landscape. But these seem like entirely reasonable and fair new guidelines.

I Want Closed Captions

I rented LES HAUTS ET LES BAS DE SOPHIE PAQUIN, the hit hourlong Québec comic drama that was remade as the Canadian comedy SOPHIE.

The problem is, my French is not good enough to watch francophone TV. I can pitch a show to a producer in French, and I can direct a film crew in French. I listen to the news in French in my car. But TV comes at you a bit faster and stronger than someone you're having a conversation with. (Also, my hearing is a bit degraded from too many nights at the Pyramid Club and too many days in the NYC subway system in my wasted youth.) So I was hoping for subtitles.

No subtitles.

How about closed captions? Surely there are closed captions so the hard of hearing can watch? I read French just fine.

It took me half an hour to figure out how to turn on closed captions on my TV, basically because...

... there were no closed captions to turn on.

This is a shame. Québec's TV industry is vibrant. It really speaks to its audience, who don't see themselves reflected in Canadian TV, or French TV, or American TV. It has funny comedies and dramatic dramas. It doesn't pull punches. Why do you think they keep remaking Québec shows?

It's possible that some Canadians might want to watch it, if only out of curiosity. And maybe, with a few subtitles, they could get into the characters and the stories.

Ditto Québecois movies. A lot of those aren't subtitled or closed captioned either.

Of course subtitles cost money, and Québecois TV shows are made on ridiculously tiny budgets -- think $170,000 per half hour instead of $500,000. So producers and distributors are not going to spring for them.

This strikes me as a problem worth throwing government money at. Subsidize subtitles!

Why? I've been deliberately using inflammatory language in this post, in case you didn't notice -- using "Canadian" to refer to Canada outside Québec. Why, you'd almost think I was a sovereigntist. And obviously, having gone to the trouble of immigrating to Canada, I'd like to keep Canada whole.

But I don't see Québec on Canadian TV. And I sure as hell don't see francophones on Canadian TV. It's practically verboten to show anyone with a Québec accent. A British accent, no problem. An Italian accent, no problem. A Turkish accent, no problem. But Québec? Sorry.

My producer and I were told by a funder that if we had anyone speaking French in our romantic comedy, which is set in Montreal, no one would see it outside of Québec. Maybe if Canadians got a little Québec culture now and then, they wouldn't feel it was "pretentious" for a movie to show a little bilingualism.

If francophones never see themselves on Canadian TV, and Canadians can't experience Québec TV unless their French is already perfect, is it any wonder that so many Québeckers feel like they live in a different country already? I get that feeling myself.

Culture binds a society together.

Subtitles are pretty cheap sutures.

UPDATE: The Collaborative for Communication Access via Captioning is an advocacy group for more closed captioning. Check'em out if you're interested.

Où On Va, Canada?

Last night, in case you were distracted by the Osama news, the Harper Conservatives gained a very solid majority of 167 in the 308-seat Canadian Parliament. For the next five years, barring a dozen disastrous by-elections, the Conservatives can do what they want.

It will be interesting to see what that is, exactly -- interesting, and to those of us in the Canadian arts, a little terrifying. Canadian productions are heavily subsidized so long as they fulfill requirements of including Canadian creative talent and setting shows in Canada. The Conservatives are, as I understand it, generally in favor of letting business do as it pleases. To what degree they will loosen content regulations in the film and television industry is the big question. I doubt we'll see a sudden influx of money into the Canada Media Fund. But will they allow US media conglomerates to buy up Canadian media conglomerates? Will they abolish the Canadian content requirements, decimating showbiz here? I don't think anyone outside Steven Harper's inner circle really knows.

In Québec, culture is the third rail of politics; the Conservatives missed winning a majority in 2008 because they stepped on it. Ironically, the day after voters deserted the separatist Bloc Quebecois, my Facebook account is filled with calls for Quebec independence. Will a right-wing, corporatist government push this left-wing, culturalist people to secession? And if so, is there a place for anglophone artists here?

These are the questions whizzing around in my corner of the world. How about yours?

Fundraiser

Okay, we're holding a fundraiser for Tyrone Benskin on Thursday, 7-9, in the Old Port. RSVP...

Shout Out

(Canadian politics)

As some of you may know, Canada is in the throes of an election. I was delighted to see that Tyrone Benskin, VP of ACTRA and Artistic Director of Montreal's Black Theatre Workshop, is not only running for parliament in Jeanne-Le Ber, but is within 1.1% of winning it.

I had the pleasure to work with Tyrone on Charlie Jade (he played Karl Lubinsky), and he is a wise and thoughtful man, easy to work with yet passionate about the work, a rare combination.

I think it would be great to have a voice in Parliament who knows the concerns of the performing arts community firsthand. And with the NDP surging in Québec, it's suddenly possible. So I'm going to organize a little fundraiser this week. In the mean time, check out his site, http://tyronebenskin.ndp.ca, and if you feel like it, come to our fundraiser..

Barking Up The Wrong Tree

[Canadian politics]

Friend of the Blog Vince draws my attention to his letter to the editor of the Montreal Gazette objecting to the bean counters running the Canadian TV and film industry.

I don't think bean counters are the problem. The problem is the Conservative government. They are not incompetent. They are actively hostile to the idea that government should support and pay for the arts. Basically, the arts are either popular or not popular. If they're popular, they should be able to support themselves. If they're not popular (opera, ballet), let people who like them donate to them. Why should the taxpayer have to support them.?

Which is a perfectly legitimate, Republican point of view.

I disagree with it. I don't want Canada to become a cultural backwater. Every civilized country supports its own arts, with the exception of the US, which has a 300 million member audience and is the location of the international film industry (which is what the US film industry really is). I think culture is a public good akin to roads, defense, police, environmental regulation, safety inspectors and fire departments: it gives more value to society than individuals are willing to pay for. We tax everyone to create roads that some people drive on and other people don't, so what's wrong with the government taxing everyone to support a vibrant arts culture?

But the Conservatives disagree. And complaining to them is not going to be very fruitful, because their political philosophy is that government should not protect or support the arts.

The way you protect Canadian culture is you get a government of the left. In my province, Québec, for example, elections are run between the left-wing Liberals and the even-more-left-wing PQ. Culture (even English culture) is very well supported in Québec.

The way you get a government of the left is you convince the egomaniacs in charge of the parties of the left to form an electoral coalition. An electoral coalition is an agreement that if, say, the New Liberal Party candidate is ahead in one riding, the Democratical candidate will bow out and throw his support to his brother; and if the Democratical candidate is ahead, the New Liberal candidate will drop out and support him. An electoral coalition increases the representation of both parties after the election. You don't even have to agree to form a coalition afterwards; you just increase the number of MPs that both parties have.

The only reason the NDP and Liberals won't do it is because their leaders, want to destroy each other more than they want to govern Canada.

The egos of a dozen people are preventing the 67% of Canadians who vote left from having a majority left government.

Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now.

Digital is Not a Wonder Drug

[Cancon]

OTTAWA -- Heritage Minister James Moore on Wednesday offered support, but no new concrete initiatives, for the ailing over-the-air TV industry. [snip] "There is tremendous opportunity for Canadian broadcasters to harness these new trends in digital technology, to become more innovative and consequently more profitable," he said. "The efficiency of digital technologies and the dropping prices should leave room for effective solutions."

A lot of people keep throwing around the word "digital" like it's a wonder drug. I have yet to see much in the way of synergies between television and the Net. Yes, some people are streaming shows instead of watching them on TV. The only way that helps broadcasters is that on the Net you can prevent people from skipping commercials, which you can't do when they've recorded your TV show.

But the additional promotional content on the website, the additional minutes of the Jon Stewart interview, the Alternate Reality Game -- these are all "added value" for the consumer of TV that don't necessarily put more money in the pocket of the broadcaster.

It's disingenuous for the Conservatives to say, "Hey, you need less money now 'cause there's DIGITAL!" Prices aren't "dropping." Broadcasting TV is actually really cheap. Transmitters don't cost a lot, and the customers buy their own TVs. What costs is making quality programming that people want to watch. You don't save anything broadcasting a sitcom over the Net. It still needs to have decent production values, great acting, great directing and great writing.

Technology is actually a threat. For over the air (OTA) broadcasters, technology is a tsunami and they're the low-lying coastal areas. In the medium run, the advertising model for television is untenable. People are watching fewer and fewer commercials. Cable channels can laugh it up, 'cause they're paid for by subscription. But I think free broadcast is doomed within the next 10 years, and maybe in as little as 5. Product placement isn't going to fill the gap. Broadcasters are going to have to replace airing stuff for free with iTunes-style downloads, pay-per-view streaming, and more subscriptions.

Or explain to me how I'm wrong.

I have no idea how we're going to rework Cancon so it works in the new environment. The current model forces broadcasters to air a (pitiably small) number of hours of homemade programming. As more and more content shifts to other delivery systems, we'll need Cancon requirements for those, too.

Don't count on the Conservatives to provide them. But dollars to doughnuts there's an election in the Fall, and I think Michael Ignatieff gets it. (I know Justin Trudeau does 'cause I've had him over for lunch.)

Meanwhile, when some Minister says, "Hey, you don't need money, you just need to go all DIGITAL," just ask him how, exactly, "digital" is supposed to fix what's wrong with broadcasting.

Cutting the CBC

[Canadian Politics]

Using the recession for political cover, the Conservative Government has cut (or failed to cover) about $170 million in funding to the CBC. The CBC is responding by cutting 800 jobs and reducing the number of episodes of many shows.

Meanwhile, the CRTC is proposing gutting rules that require local news coverage and programming, and is considering giving the private broadcasters "relief" from Canadian content regulations.

I think Canada needs and deserves to have its own popular culture, rather than just being a cultural backwater of the United States. And that costs money. And I think the private broadcasters ought to support Canadian content in exchange for the protection they receive from US networks.

But the Conservative policies are also economically dumb. It's a dumb idea to cut government spending during a recession. The US government is spending trillions to provide a stimulus to the economy. Canada's is looking for ways to save money?

Meanwhile, gutting Canadian content requirements would amount to shipping Canadian jobs to LA. Instead of requiring Canadian broadcasters to spend some money in Canada (currently they spend about $1 on Canadian drama for every 12 they spend on US drama), they would be able to spend all their acquisitions money in the US.

Hey, I know! Let's abolish our automotive protections, so people can buy their cars directly from the US! Want to guess what would happen to any government, Conservative or otherwise, that tried that during a recession?

75,000 people have signed this petition to save the CBC. Maybe you could, too. And then you could pass it along to your friends.

Michael Arpin Thinks You're An Idiot

Michael Arpin, Vice Chair for Broadcasting of the CRTC, writes in The Globe and Mail:

John Doyle (Michel Arpin, You Need To Explain - And Apologize - Review, Jan. 22) quotes an answer I gave to Playback magazine, where I said: "I'm a news and documentary consumer. I'm not that interested in televised fiction or even feature films. I would prefer to read a novel."

As far as the quote is concerned, you must appreciate that the interviewer had asked me to name my favourite show; I felt it was inappropriate to do so, given my position with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission as vice-chairman in charge of broadcasting. Rest assured that, throughout the year, I watch all types of television news and documentaries, as well as drama or feature films.

(Via DMc.) When I wrote to Konrad von Finkenstein, he forwarded my email to Mr. Arpin, who wrote the exact same thing back to me, and everyone else who wrote.

C'mon. Seriously. How dumb do you think we are? Had Mr. Arpin wished to avoid picking favorites, he could have said, "Oh, goodness, I love all our children equally the same." But he didn't. He said "I'd prefer to read a novel."

It is a mark of how little respect Mr. Arpin holds the showbiz community that he doesn't even try to come up with a convincing lie, such as, "I promise to watch at least a dozen hours of Canadian drama this year."

Mr. Ignatieff, your coalition is waiting.

Michael Arpin Doesn't Like You

DMc blogs about Michael Arpin, Vice Chair for Broadcasting of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), who said:

Playback:Will Canadian drama on our television screens be an issue again at hearings in 2009?

Arpin: The decline in Canadian drama is an issue that the unions regularly put on the table. It's documented. I'm sure they will bring it to the top of the pile at the hearings.

Playback:What are your favorite television programs?

Arpin: I'm a news and documentary consumer. I'm not that interested in televised fiction or even feature films. I would prefer to read a novel.

McGrath wonders if the guy in charge of broadcasting ought to be a little more excited about, y'know, broadcasting. You wouldn't have a Hockey Commissioner who'd skip a Habs-Leafs game to catch up on the latest Joan Didion. Would you? He proposes various ways we can try to bring Mr. Arpin around, and otherwise work around and through his contempt for our industry. Including, cleverly, to send Mr. Arpin some boxed sets of the best Canadian broadcast TV.

I volunteer for one boxed set, Mr. McGrath. Can I send the first season of SLINGS AND ARROWS? (Pay cable to start with, but it aired second window on broadcast.)

If Arpin is anything like my parents (and it sounds like he is), he's probably more familiar with his DVD player than his cable remote. Assuming he has cable.

It occurs to me that all the CRTC commissioners might appreciate what we're trying to do here if they got some boxed sets. If you work for the CBC, Global or CTV, please bring this up through the proper channels.

Everyone likes a freebie. The broadcast companies have the right to inform the government agencies regulating them what they're up to. And the best way to do that is, I think, boxed sets.

No Soup For You

(The following is about Canadian politics. It's not even about political theatre. I'm basically venting my point of view. Feel free to wait for the next post if that's not your bag.)

I'm hearing various friends and readers of mine are depressed about the Tories getting a bigger minority government.

I'm not depressed. I'm angry.

First of all -- to all of you who voted for the Greens: congratulations! You have helped achieve the exact opposite of what you believe in. Next time consider voting for a pro-environmental candidate who might actually get in.

Second -- Did you vote? Did you contribute money? Did you contribute time? Did you canvass? Did you phone bank? Did you do everything you could? Then don't be depressed. You did what you could. If you didn't, maybe next time do more.

Third -- what did you expect? The Left in Canada is divided into three parties. In a first-past-the-post system, that will bring you failure every time.

I blame a couple of people who should know better.

Jack Layton, I hear, is largely responsible for the lack of an electoral compact. (An electoral compact is where two parties agree not to compete with each other. In a riding where one party is ahead, the other party's candidate bows out. That gets more members of both parties elected. The idea is to form a coalition government afterwards.) He was not trying to beat the Tories. He was trying to crush the Liberals so his party would become the Official Opposition, giving him a shot at Prime Minister next time. Thanks a lot, Jack!

Stephane Dion is responsible for an incompetent campaign. He is a lackluster leader with poor control of English. It was largely because of him that the Green candidate, Elizabeth May, got to come to the debate. Why did he encourage the Greens, who exist primarily to siphon off Liberal votes? Because he figured she'd siphon off more NDP votes, thus preventing them from becoming the Official Opposition. Can we just get rid of this guy, please?

NEWS FLASH: Until the two left parties stop fighting for who gets to be Official Opposition, they will both stay in opposition.

Naturally I blame Elizabeth May. She bears heavy responsibility for taking votes from the two parties that most agree with her. I mean, my God, Stephane Dion lost the election because he was trying to introduce a carbon tax. If she were secretly working to get Harper elected, she could not have done a better job.

Does she have a right to run? Sure. Do people have a right to vote for her? Sure. People have the right to bang their heads against the nearest wall, too. But I have a right to point out that the entire country has to share their headache.

(Oh and by the way -- what kind of eejit bases his campaign on a tax?)

The Left must unify. This is a 62% left-wing country where the only thing keeping the right wingers from total power is the party for people who don't want to be part of the country. That is nucking futs.

Next time, can we please have an electoral compact? Agree that two weeks before the next vote, whichever Left candidate is ahead in the polls gets the riding to him- or herself. I don't really care which of the two parties gets more MPs. I just don't see a lot of semantic space between the Liberals and the NDP. All I see is egos getting in the way.

And fold the Green Party into one or the other of the two real parties and give Elizabeth May a cabinet post.

And if Jack and Stephane (or his replacement) and Liz won't do it, send all of them up to their rooms without supper until they agree to play nice.

Thank you for listening.

Touche pas à nos arts!

According to today's The Montreal Gazette, one reason the Conservatives are now set to lose all their parliamentary seats in Quebec is their hostile attitude towards arts funding. Quebecers consider their culture absolutely vital to their way of life. When you make obnoxious comments about how artists are elitist snobs, and cut arts funding by $45 mil, they feel personally attacked.

That's right: attacking arts funding in Quebec is a Big Vote Loser.

Imagine that.

See why I live in Montreal?

Party for the Arts and Liberal Fundraiser

(Canadian politics)

I'm organizing a small bash for the various arts communities in Montreal on Tuesday, October 7th, from 7-9 pm. We're trying to help stop the Conservatives from getting a majority by raising money for the Liberal Party. Our special guest is Justin Trudeau, who'll answer questions about his party's support for culture and the arts. If you'd like to come, please drop me a line, or go to our Facebook page and RSVP.

If you're not in Quebec, please give your money or time to whichever of your local candidates has the best chance of beating the Tories!

Le Phoque, Or Why I'm Terrified of a Tory Majority

This hysterical spot explains why those of us in the arts are terrified of a Tory Majority. It is almost certainly incomprehensible to anyone outside Canada. It is probably incomprehensible to anyone outside of Québec. But if you're assez bilingue, it is just very, very funny.

Canadian Election

(Americans, y'all probably want to tune the rest of this post right out.)

Steven Harper has called a new election. Current polls put the Conservatives within spitting distance of a majority.

If you've been following cultural politics the past few months, you know that the Conservatives have been doing their level best to kill off government support for the arts. Cuts in the CFC's funding. Cuts in producer support for marketing. The attempt to kill the CTF. The attempt to allow the Ministry of Heritage to cut a film's funding after it's been made.

It is pretty clear that the Conservatives fundamentally do not want to support the Canadian cultural sector. I don't imagine they feel the same way about the Canadian beef, timber, hydroelectricity, oil or auto sectors; for some reason we don't count as a business that employs people, even though we're a business that employs people.

If you want Canada to continue supporting its own culture on screen, then you should immediately send a big fat check to the party that you think will do the best job of defending that support. You should also volunteer at phone banks. And explain to your right-wing friends why they should care if Canadian culture disappears off screens, out of bookstores, out of your iPod and your radio dial.

Seriously. IF YOU DON'T GET OUT THERE FOR THE NEXT FIVE WEEKS AND DO SOMETHING, YOU FORFEIT YOUR RIGHT TO COMPLAIN. Next year, when they cut the CTF envelopes; when they abolish the requirement that CTV air a certain number of hours of Canadian drama; when they close the CBC; when they abolish the CRTC, I will ask you what you did during the election. If your answer is "I voted," then I will tell you to quit whining. You'll be getting the government you deserve.

I should also point that if you get your ass out there and help win the election for the opposition -- you know, the guys who believe in funding culture -- then you will make friends in government. That might come in handy next year when Maureen Parker has to go up to Ottawa to explain why producers shouldn't be allowed to get Cancon money for scripts written by unemployed American sitcom writers.

IF YOU ARE NOT PART OF THE SOLUTION, YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM.

Montrealers: I will be organizing a fundraiser in the next few weeks. Save your pennies.

Torontonians, Vancouverites, Haligonians, etc: organize your own fundraiser. I'll post anything helpful.

Canadian Politics Sites?

I'm writing a thriller set in the exciting world of Canadian politics. 

(Now that's not something you hear often.)

It's a little unfamiliar to me. The topic of the day on the Conservative Party's website is how we need better product labelling. 

I'm way too familiar with leftie American political websites like Huffington Post, Daily Kos, FiveThirtyEight. Crafty readers: what are the best rightie Canadian political websites? (And by best: intelligent, thoughtful, not mindlessly repeating talking points.) 

C-10 Wavers

My fellow Canadians:

It looks like we have a shot to get the dread Section 120 out of Bill C-10. That's the section that would allow the Minister of Heritage to retroactively yank government funding from an already-made picture by deciding it is "contrary to public policy." It's a dumb idea because it would destroy the business model of the Canadian feature film industry. We could live with a censorship board if we had to; we can't live with retroactive censorship.

There is a movement afoot to define "contrary to public policy" as "illegal under the Criminal Code of Canada." In other words, the taxpayer shouldn't be funding hate films or pornography. I think we can all agree on that, especially as no such film has ever actually been funded by the taxpayer.

If you care about the future of the Canadian film industry, please harass the following parliamentarians:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper: pm@pm.gc.ca
Leader of the Opposition, Stephane Dion: Dions@parl.gc.ca
Minister Josee Verner: Verner.J@parl.gc.ca
Minister Jim Flaherty: Flaherty.J@parl.gc.ca
Bill Siksay (NDP): siksab@parl.gc.ca
Jack Layton (NDP leader): laytoj@parl.gc.ca
Gilles Duceppe (Bloc Leader): duceppe.G@parl.gc.ca
Maria Minna (Bloc Heritage Critic): minna.m@parl.gc.ca
Denis Coderre (Lib Heritage Critic): coderre.d@parl.gc.ca
Angus, W. David Chair ‐ C ‐ (Alma ‐ Quebec)anguswd@sen.parl.gc.ca,
Goldstein, Yoine Deputy Chair ‐ Lib. ‐ (Rigaud – Quebec) goldsy@sen.parl.gc.ca
Banks, Tommy – Lib – gautht@sen.parl.gc.ca
Biron, Michel ‐ Lib. ‐ (Mille Isles ‐ Quebec) bironmi@sen.parl.gc.ca Eyton, John Trevor ‐ C ‐ (Ontario) rokosg@sen.parl.gc.ca
Fox, Francis – Lib – foxf@sen.parl.gc.ca
Harb, Mac ‐ Lib. ‐ (Ontario) harbm@sen.parl.gc.ca
Jaffer, Mobina S.B. ‐ Lib. ‐ (British Columbia) ) jaffem@sen.parl.gc.ca
Massicotte, Paul J. ‐ Lib. ‐ (De Lanaudière ‐ Quebec massip@sen.parl.gc.ca
Meighen, Michael A. ‐ C ‐ (St. Marys ‐ Ontario) meighen@sen.parl.gc.ca
Moore, Wilfred P. ‐ Lib. ‐ (Stanhope St. / South Shore ‐ Nova Scotia) moorew@sen.parl.gc.ca
Ringuette, Pierrette ‐ Lib. ‐ (New Brunswick) ringup@sen.parl.gc.ca
Tkachuk, David ‐ C ‐ (Saskatchewan) tkachd@sen.parl.gc.ca

Or, in email friendly format:

pm@pm.gc.ca, anguswd@sen.parl.gc.ca, goldsy@sen.parl.gc.ca, bironmi@sen.parl.gc.ca, rokosg@sen.parl.gc.ca, harbm@sen.parl.gc.ca, jaffem@sen.parl.gc.ca, massip@sen.parl.gc.ca, moorew@sen.parl.gc.ca, meighen@sen.parl.gc.ca, olived@sen.parl.gc.ca, ringup@sen.parl.gc.ca, tkachd@sen.parl.gc.ca, hervic@sen.parl.gc.ca, lebrem@sen.parl.gc.ca, Verner.J@parl.gc.ca, Flaherty.J@parl.gc.ca, Siksay.B@parl.gc.ca, BelanM@parl.gc.ca, Mourani.Ma@parl.gc.ca, Mulcair.T@parl.gc.ca, Crete.P@parl.gc.ca, McCallum.J@parl.gc.ca, pm@pm.gc.ca, duceppe.G@parl.gc.ca, laytoj@parl.gc.ca, Dions@parl.gc.ca, gautht@sen.parl.gc.ca, foxf@sen.parl.gc.ca, coderre.d@parl.gc.ca, minna.m@parl.gc.ca

Here's what I wrote:

Dear Prime Minister:

I am one of the writers of the smash-hit Canadian comedy movie BON COP BAD COP. I'm writing in opposition of Section 120 of Bill C-10.

The proposed section would create a form of backwards censorship that would cripple the Canadian film industry's basic business model. I take it personally, because it would throw me, personally, out of work.

There is a simple solution. Rather than allowing the Minister of Heritage to define "contrary to public policy" on a whim, define it as any unlawful content according to the Canadian Criminal Code.

No one wants to see illegal films funded by the Canadian taxpayer; but no illegal films have been funded by the taxpayer. On the other hand I hope even the most socially conservative politicians will recognize that throwing an entire industry out of work is bad business and bad politics.

Yours very truly,

Alex Epstein

For more info, go to the WGC press release (PDF).

Because I Said So, That's Why

The Tories have obviously got sick of hearing how Bill C-10 is a bass-ackwards way of imposing censorship while crippling the whole tax credits system on which the Canadian motion picture industry relies. So rather than fixing the bill, they just made it a confidence measure in Parliament:

OTTAWA — Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is declaring film tax-credit legislation a matter of confidence in the Conservative government, meaning MPs could land on Canadian doorsteps this spring to debate the line between art and pornography.

Mr. Flaherty said the legislation, known as Bill C-10, contains a range of important tax measures and changes will not be tolerated.

"The bill should not be amended," he told reporters yesterday. "A tax bill is a confidence bill. We all know that."

A confidence bill (for those of who you are subjects of the Unitary Executive) means that if the opposition votes it down, the government falls. The Liberals aren't ready for an election, so they probably won't have the balls to vote C-10 down.

So we'll get sneaky, bass-ackwards, financially crippling censorship.

Wow! They Listened!

Bill C-10 has been sent back to the Banking Committee. Where, perhaps, the Royal Bank of Canada will tell them that while they couldn't care less about imposing censorship on Canadian culture, they very much mind losing all the business they're doing banking Telefilm contracts, which the bill would render worthless... Every now and then, you actually win one!