Why we Need to Reinstate Funding to the Arts

blueblood · January 11, 2009

The cuts were widespread, but the big issue was his once again attacking Canadians. I can't say it enough. The arts is an industry that generates a revenue. To suggest that if they were any good they wouldn't need tax money is ludicrous, and frankly a little unpatriotic.
If Canadian cars were any good they wouldn't need tax money.

If Alberta Oil from the tar sands wasn't 'dirty', they wouldn't need tax money.

New businesses wouldn't need start up capital and in fact why have a cabinet minister in charge of industry, if only those who NEVER NEED money to keep Canadians employed have any validity.

One million employees, 45 billion dollars in taxable revenue. Hell...let's scrap it.

The arts from a business standpoint is a horrible investment. The only reason they make 45 billion dollars is through copyright and the CRTC. Government is essentially doing their marketing for them. What's worse is, when we fund arts with taxpayers money, it's export value doesn't even increase. If we passed a law that says all Canadians are forced to buy from GM or Ford from Canadian plants, those business's would be raking in dough as well, but every Canadian will be poorer because of it.

Let the Canadian car makers go under, they produce crap us and foreigners don't want.

Oil on the other hand is something everybody wants. The energy sector is a much smarter taxpayer investment because it is a commodity that is in much higher demand. I even say invest in all sorts of energy. Make Canada an energy powerhouse and those flaky artists can have real jobs working for the energy sector. Hell cook up crown corporations, and keep investing in R&D. By investing tax dollars into something that us and foreigners want is how we as a country get richer and have a better way of life. That puts Canada on the map and gives us bragging rights.

ToadBrother · January 12, 2009

Tell, me...what did artists do before government funding?

That's a rather interesting question, considering artists and artisans have been employed by governments since the rise of civilization.

August1991 · January 12, 2009

Despite the fact that Harper thinks that artists are nothing but spoiled brats living in ivory towers, according to a report from Heritage Canada: "Arts and culture contributed $46 billion to Canada's economy in 2007, but the overall impact of the sector was a much broader $84.6 billion... That amounts to 7.4 per cent of Canada's gross domestic product. "Canada is a relatively small market dispersed across a large geography," the report says. "Therefore the success of many culture products and services depends significantly on international trade."

I would expect some bureaucrat in Heritage Canada to write a report arguing for a bigger budget - what kind of people apply for jobs at Heritage Canada? I know that I never would.

Progressive Tory, I'll concede your point that government should fund "the arts". My question concerns who should decide how to dole out the "government" money? (Er, my money.)

The experience in most countries (eg. Canada) over the past few decades is that a small group gets control of the process and then gives my money to its friends. We don't get "art"; we get welfare for overgrown children - players.

I'm a democrat, particularly when it comes to money, and I think we should all decide democratically which artist deserves support. Whaddya think, PT?

Progressive Tory · January 12, 2009

To us... Or did your toaster think fairies took it?

To us? How? You have to have money to spend it.

Harper is a follower of the Laffer curve, but tax cuts only work if government spending is in line with the cuts. They DECREASED revenue but INCREASED spending, and even my toaster knows that eventually you are going to run out of bread.

Argus · January 12, 2009

Nice to see that you don't mind artists losing their JOBS because of the current government dislike of any artistic expression that fails to meet the approval of the bigoted. I am surprised you don't propose enslaving them.

I'm not surprised you lack even a basic understanding of what the word "job" means.

Hint: welfare is not a job!

The fact you produce 'art' no one wants to look at in exchange for your welfare does not make it a job either.

If these so-called artists had any talent they wouldn't need government handouts to get by.

Argus · January 12, 2009

It is a revenue generating industry that employs Canadians

If you include bookstores (selling American books), and video stores and movie theatres (selling American films) then yes, it generates revenue. But those aren't where the subsidies go. They go largely to talentless people who produce crap no one wants to look at, and which generates precious little in the way of revenue - thus the need for government welfare.

Argus · January 12, 2009

Where? Have you read that unemployment is on the rise. Why is their industry being punished, just because they're not autoworkers?

Who says their "industry" is being punished? Do you feel every industry ought to get government handouts? How very "conservative" of you.

The autoworkers at least produce a product people are willing to buy and make use of.

Argus · January 12, 2009

For the same reason that the War is subsidized by me, the taxpayer. It's of national interest. Promoting Canadian culture and the creation of artists gives us not only bragging rights, but helps to put us on the map. We could argue that the Olympics, funded by taxpayers, have no benefit.
The Arts is an industry that generates revenues and taxdollars. If the one million plus employed in the arts, lost their jobs, they'd be a far bigger expense to you the taxpayer. So even if you're bereft of culture, surely you understand the nature of capitalism.

There are not one million plus employed in the arts. That's nonsense. The authors of the report included every single person working for all newspapers and magazines, the clerks working for bookstores and video outlets, architect and advertising firms, and the internet, among others.

The subsidies you're speaking about are aimed at a small subset of wannabe artists who would do better devoting their 'talent' to scraping dishes in restaurants.

Would there be 'popular art' without government to fund it - given how unpopular it is among the general population?

Molly · January 12, 2009

You know... the council of the Arts site allows one to search who recieves grants, and how much. If you want to know, it's easy to look up.

I was surprised to see how little of the money went to individuals, and how much was concentrated in the provinces' largest cities, funding institutions that no one bitches about. The various symphonies , for instance get millions, and the better known galleries recieve hundreds of thousands each... compared to $750 here, and $1000 there for special projects by individual artists.

I particularly expected to see a great deal go to festivals, and 'outreach' and market development projects, but where those things appeared on the lists at all, the grants were paltry. The seed money was small compared to the ongoing operations maintenance.

I would propose, though, that there is likely well _more_ than a million employed at least part time in the arts. (The majority are self-employed. ) Many, many, many more consume the products and services of those people, at less than their true cost.

The presence of an 'Arts community' is very important to the economic success of any individual artist, even without cross subsidization. No one really goes it alone.

Progressive Tory · January 12, 2009

You know... the council of the Arts site allows one to search who recieves grants, and how much. If you want to know, it's easy to look up.
I was surprised to see how little of the money went to individuals, and how much was concentrated in the provinces' largest cities, funding institutions that no one bitches about. The various symphonies , for instance get millions, and the better known galleries recieve hundreds of thousands each... compared to $750 here, and $1000 there for special projects by individual artists.

I particularly expected to see a great deal go to festivals, and 'outreach' and market development projects, but where those things appeared on the lists at all, the grants were paltry. The seed money was small compared to the ongoing operations maintenance.

I would propose, though, that there is likely well _more_ than a million employed at least part time in the arts. (The majority are self-employed. ) Many, many, many more consume the products and services of those people, at less than their true cost.

The presence of an 'Arts community' is very important to the economic success of any individual artist, even without cross subsidization. No one really goes it alone.

Exactly. What's interesting about Harper's 'Ivory Towers' speech is that the Conservatives seem to like those people in ivory towers. I couldn't help but notice that the Banff Centre was on John Baird's list of infastructure spending. I don't have a problem with that, though diehard Conservatives might. That was one group that crossed my radar in 2006 when I was looking into the 'big money' behind the party.

One of the Centre's prominent directors is Cheryl Aldred. She and her husband John had each given the party $5,100.00 in 2006 (John also contributes heavily to the Fraser Institute). Cheyrl chairs the Midsummer Ball to raise funds. That year the door prize was a Rolex watch, won by Murray Edwards of Fort McMurray fame and co-owner of the Calgary Flames (who also gave the Conservatives $5,000.00 that year and the family of his partner, Ken King; more than $20,000.00). Jim Prentice was an invited speaker. If you want some idea of their 'ivory towers' sponsors, check it out:

http://www.banffcentre.ca/support/events/2..._supporters.asp

None of this is illegal, but if Harper thinks all artists live in ivory towers, why is he funding the ivory towers when clearly this group has the means to pay for them themselves?

Another Harper hypocritical oath.

Again, the Arts need to be protected as a viable Canadian industry. We do it with corporations all the time, only we call it 'tax cuts'.

Mr.Canada · January 12, 2009

If the arts bring in so much money they don't need government money then.

Progressive Tory · January 12, 2009

If the arts bring in so much money they don't need government money then.

If the corporations bring in so much money, why do they need tax cuts and bail outs?

And if Harper's ivory tower buddies have so much money, why is infastructure money, that will be part of the proposed deficit, being filtered to them.

What's your point?

Mr.Canada · January 12, 2009

If the corporations bring in so much money, why do they need tax cuts and bail outs?
And if Harper's ivory tower buddies have so much money, why is infastructure money, that will be part of the proposed deficit, being filtered to them.

What's your point?

Corporations make billions of dollars and provide millions of jobs. We need infrastructure to live, we don't need to look at a painting to live. Simple economics my boy, simple economics!

Keepitsimple · January 12, 2009

I just can't accept that funding for Arts and Culture should NEVER be reviewed.....that programs should be continued even if they don't provide the value that was expected. There is never any criticism when a new program is started. Why should every Arts program expect never-ending funding? Shouldn't there be some sort of multi-year plan to make some programs more self-sufficient so funding can be used for other Arts investment? Here's an article from the Globe and Mail that doesn't really support my point of view but at least puts Arts funding in perspective.

The Conservatives are out on the hustings saying they spend more on the arts than did the Liberals. The Liberals are pledging to restore recently axed arts-and-culture programs, and accusing the Tories of cultural insensitivity.
So, wherein lies the truth?

The Globe and Mail has parsed the budgets and crunched the numbers to reveal the true trajectory of Canada's support for the arts in recent years.

A close look at federal budget documents suggests that nearly $45-million in recent federal funding cuts are symptomatic of a larger trend under the Conservatives that has seen dollars gradually shifted away from arts and culture, and funnelled instead into other branches of the Department of Canadian Heritage that focus on the department's social mandate.

The analysis also calls into question the rosy picture the Conservatives have sought to paint about their support for the arts: Although there is some truth to the government's claims, they derive their force from a vague definition of “culture” – which can comprise everything from piano recitals to ESL classes.

In an exclusive interview with The Globe last week, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said that his government “has increased funding for the arts” – and he cited a rise in the Canadian Heritage budget as an example.

His claim is valid in a broad sense: The overall cultural budget, combining funding for the Department of Canadian Heritage and its agencies and Crown corporations (such as the National Gallery of Canada, the Canada Council for the Arts and the National Arts Centre), has increased since the Conservatives took power in early 2006. In 2004-05, the Liberals spent a combined $3-billion overall – compared to about $3.3-billion that the Conservatives planned to spend this fiscal year.

Link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ertainment/home

Progressive Tory · January 12, 2009

Corporations make billions of dollars and provide millions of jobs. We need infrastructure to live, we don't need to look at a painting to live. Simple economics my boy, simple economics!

Oh, Mr. Canada. I don't know what I'm going to do with you.

1. The Arts make billions of dollars (46 Billion to be exact) and provide millions of jobs. However, they don't benefit from corporate tax cuts, so generate a lot of tax revenue and tourist dollars.

2. I was talking about infastructure money going to the Banff Centre which is actually run by people living in 'ivory towers', only because they are strong Conservative financial backers. Now give your head a shake and pay attention. THE PROPOSED INFASTRUCTURE SPENDING ON THE BANFF CENTRE IS GOING TO YOUR SELF PROCLAIMED ENEMY - THE ARTS!!!!! THEY ARE AN ART INSTITUTE. I don't protest the funds they are getting, only the hypocrisy.

3. Don't call me 'your boy'. Last time I looked, I don't have the right equipment.

Mr.Canada · January 12, 2009

Oh, Mr. Canada. I don't know what I'm going to do with you.
1. The Arts make billions of dollars (46 Billion to be exact) and provide millions of jobs. However, they don't benefit from corporate tax cuts, so generate a lot of tax revenue and tourist dollars.

2. I was talking about infastructure money going to the Banff Centre which is actually run by people living in 'ivory towers', only because they are strong Conservative financial backers. Now give your head a shake and pay attention. THE PROPOSED INFASTRUCTURE SPENDING ON THE BANFF CENTRE IS GOING TO YOUR SELF PROCLAIMED ENEMY - THE ARTS!!!!! THEY ARE AN ART INSTITUTE. I don't protest the funds they are getting, only the hypocrisy.

3. Don't call me 'your boy'. Last time I looked, I don't have the right equipment.

Well sir. I have to tell you that if they are making $46 Billion they dont need my money.

Jerry J. Fortin · January 12, 2009

Well sir. I have to tell you that if they are making $46 Billion they dont need my money.

The arts are a matter of culture and as such deserve public funding.

Progressive Tory · January 12, 2009

The arts are a matter of culture and as such deserve public funding.

I agree with Jerry, but for those who don't respect Canadian culture, they should at least respect the revenue generated, and the number of Canadians it employs. That's the point I'm trying to make.

blueblood · January 12, 2009

To us? How? You have to have money to spend it.
Harper is a follower of the Laffer curve, but tax cuts only work if government spending is in line with the cuts. They DECREASED revenue but INCREASED spending, and even my toaster knows that eventually you are going to run out of bread.

Harper's income and GST tax cuts have saved me thousands of dollars. Let that number roll in your head. Those thousands of dollars have been spent in the community instead of going to the government that spends it on half assed programs that accomplish little to nothing. By helping me spend makes life better for me and the person who I buy goods from.

harper tried cutting spending to political parties and inefficient programs, but the looney left is having a hissy fit. harper wants to cut, but meets resistance.

OddSox · January 12, 2009

1. The Arts make billions of dollars (46 Billion to be exact) and provide millions of jobs.

Which begs the question: What difference does a $45 million cut make compared to $46 billion? Besides, many of the projects this was being spent on ( http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=710676 ) only benefited travel agencies.

Edited January 12, 2009 by OddSox

Alta4ever · January 12, 2009

If the corporations bring in so much money, why do they need tax cuts and bail outs?

They don't they can cut the corporate welfare with it.

This is what the spenidng priorities of a federal government should be, in order.

National infrastructure. IE trans Canada hwy, and keeping ports and trade routs open

Justice (policing, courts ect)

Military

Everything else is Provincial jurisdiction, cut federal taxes and let the provinces increase their taxes to cover their short falls.

fellowtraveller · January 12, 2009

It is entertaining to see the arts become The Arts here.

Jerry J. Fortin · January 12, 2009

It is one thing to provide funding to the arts, and another to fund pornography and other little tidbits found within the art community. If the "art" has any cultural value, then it may be considered for public funding, art galleries, symphonies and the like come to mind. However, in my view the "art" considered for public funding should have in its roots some "Canadian" aspect that makes it stand alone from other cultures.

Goat Boy© · January 13, 2009

Culture and arts are a big part of our economy..

Yeah, 46 billion in government funding changing hands to, "the arts."

What a waste.

Molly · January 13, 2009

Why? Why galleries and symphonies, that really few Canadians will ever view/hear/experience, and even fewer will be entertained by, and _not_ quilt shows, fiddle festivals, ceramics workshops, etc.?

The benefits I've harvested from arts funding are on the line of attending folk festivals, taking (and teaching) art and craft classes, having my kids education enriched by writer and artist -in-residence programs, theatre workshops, music programs... reading books that would not have been published by the big guys, or sold through Chapters...

I've never attended a Canadian symphony or ballet, and only rarely lived within reach of any publicly funded gallery. How'bout you?