While I'm not entirely comfortable with government deciding who gets funding based on 'moral' grounds, I'm unsure about how pulling funding equates to censorship. The government would not be saying "you can't make that film", it would be saying, "we're not going to give you money to make that film." David Cronenburg isn't being escorted to jail here. A violation of Charter Rights? No, I really don't think so. The government doesn't fund my blawg, but that doesn't mean it's violating my right to free speech.
Assuming that the quote from the lawyer in the Hollywood Reporter story are accurate, it is disturbing that funding could be retroactively pulled. We don't need another MPAA.
It's quite annoying that none of the stories seem to feel it necessary to link to the actual text of the bill, just what everybody else says it says. So, I think this is it, although I see nothing in there about films or tax credits for film makers. If anybody knows where the exact and full text under question is, I'd appreciate a link.
Incidentally, I'm glad that Parliament has done some historical detective work about the history of the finance minister wearing new shoes on budget day. I can now sleep at night. I found that while I was looking for the actual text in question.