In the course of a long and distinguished career as a television critic, this reviewer has suffered through many dire effusions from the CanCon mill. But I have yet to see as puzzling a work of publicly funded art as yesterday's production of The Right Choices: Securing our Future, produced and directed, it says here in the credits, by the Government of Ontario, which I gather is some sort of avant-garde collective.

Part reality show, part movie-of-the-week weeper, part revival meeting, this was a show that never really found its tone, or established a theme. I know it's only a pilot, but if this is what the avant-garde thinks Mr. and Mrs. Canada want to watch, then I say they "avant" a clue!

It starts promisingly enough. We see an expensively dressed, impeccably groomed man, known as the Premier (Ernie Eves, in what I understand is intended to be a recurring role), alone on a stage, in what appears to be an empty airline hangar. The studio audience applauds, then falls silent, or as silent as the cavernous space and tinny sound make possible. (Production values! Still the bane of Canadian TV.)

What is he doing, we wonder? Why is he here? Why are we? For that matter, where are we? (A secure undisclosed location? The Fortress of Solitude? No, it's an automobile parts warehouse. The significance of this is never explained.) Little is revealed in his short speech of self- congratulation, which appears, bafflingly, to be based on someone else's achievements. Indeed, his role is limited to introducing us to a short, smiling character known as the Minister of Finance (Janet Ecker, dreadfully miscast here as a conservative).

What follows is essentially a 45-minute monologue, interrupted by occasional videotaped confessions (video within video, how very po- mo) from a number of uninteresting characters on a large screen to her left. The effect is less Stephen Soderbergh than Stephen Seagal: A lot of money went into this, apparently none of it for acting lessons. Or a speech coach. I'd say it was wooden, but we've done the trees enough harm already.

The Minister begins by addressing a mysterious off-screen character referred to only as You. "You told me," she says, "that health care and education are your most important priorities ... You told me that continued tax relief is important not just because it rewards individual initiative by leaving more money in your pocket to spend, save or invest, but because you recognized that lower taxes attract and keep jobs here."

Who writes this stuff? The last time I heard dialogue this clunky I was in a summer stock production of Aguirre, Wrath of God (we redid it as a musical). Anyway, first thing they teach you in screenwriting class: Show, don't say. Do we ever actually get to see these "lower taxes"? Nohow. I don't want to give away too much of the plot, but in the end the song remains the same, and so does the top marginal rate of personal income tax.

At length we encounter yet another off-screen character, bearing the ominous name of Ottawa. Every script requires some sort of conflict, I suppose, but this has got to rate as one of the most tedious in memory: something about how much who spent on what, after adjusting for anticipated growth rates in this critical sector, notwithstanding ...

When I awoke, there was one of those characters hovering on the big screen, this one played by Jim Flaherty. I have seen this actor perform well in other roles, but here he seems lost, boasting about how many hundreds of millions of dollars "we" have spent on handouts to the auto industry. The performance is entirely unconvincing. When he says "this investment will lead to more high-skilled, high-paying jobs," we don't even believe he believes it. One suspects he was chosen for the part largely for reasons of tokenism, as a nod to an oppressed minority, i.e. the right wing. How very PC.

Then it's back to Janet. Suddenly, the script is careering all over the place. $90-million for our high schools! $1-million to fight child pornography! A 100% tax credit for investments in renewable energy! A $450-million tax credit for seniors, to compensate them for the property tax they pay! All seniors, rich or poor? And why only seniors? Why not poor people in general? Because (cue: tears) they are "our parents, our aunts and uncles." Unless they're childless or we're orphans, yes. And? And because they "have given so much to Ontario." Including a $110-billion debt.

Then everything comes to a screeching halt. "We intend to introduce legislation to phase in the Equity in Education Tax Credit according to the original schedule." No backstory, no subtext, nothing. We are never told whether the credit was ever delayed, or by whom, or why. Perhaps this is deliberate.

By the end she was already thanking the people who made it all possible, leaving out only the taxpayers. All told the total cost was nearly $60-billion, making this the most expensive television show ever. Perhaps they'll find a way to pay for it all in the budget, whenever that is.