The Arts Advocate Blog

The missing puzzle piece in Canada’s cultural policy

noreply@blogger.com (mmckay@artsadvocate.com) — Mon, 20 Oct 2014 11:43:00 +0000

Cultural policy in Canada is complex. Like a puzzle, many different, sometimes disjointed pieces, come together to make a whole. The past week-end’s Globe and Mail demonstrated, with clarity, that some of the puzzle pieces are missing.

Elizabeth Renzetti did a wonderful column on how we pay, or more accurately don’t pay, artists, even those who are legendary such as Iggy Pop or the latest Booker Prize winner, novelist Richard Flanagan. In Ms. Renzetti’s words, “a new reality has tripped him [Iggy Pop] up and it’s the same one shafting artists all across the world: Namely, that everyone wants to listen, and no one wants to pay.”

Deeper in the paper, Kate Taylor did a profile piece on new Canada Council Director Simon Brault. For Mr. Brault, the challenge is one of engaging the public, particularly the young. Ms. Taylor quotes Mr. Brault as saying “Traditional companies need baby boomers as subscribers, yet they have to engage in a new generation or they will die.” Further he is quoted to say “The last thing we want to do is say we want a little more money to keep doing the same old thing.”

Nowhere in The Globe and Mail, or anywhere else, is there adequate debate about how we sustain and update the operational and organizational infrastructure [not bricks and mortar] for artists and cultural organizations so they can continue developing and attracting audiences and pay the artist. Put another way, how do we, as a country, monetize the creation, production and interpretation of arts and culture, so those who create and interpret art and culture can put food on their table?

In the cultural sector, this is not a new theme. Each year the Ontario Media Development Corporation presents Digital Dialogues. Monetization is a dominant theme. Last week at the Ontario Museum Association conference, a similar dialogue emerged, where curators and museum professionals noted adequate investment in our institutions is what is required, not shiny new baubles.

Cultural organizational infrastructure is critical to having the ability to pay artists and engage new audiences.

Like the infrastructure in our cities and towns, Canadians have come to count on a rich and diverse cultural sector: We want clean water, good roads and adequate transit; we also want the ability to go to a play, hear great music, read a good book or be enticed by a great magazine.

There is the rub. Organizational infrastructure and support for the cultural sector, like infrastructure for cities and communities across the country, is not compelling for Canadians. In Canada it seems that crumbling community infrastructure only commands the attention of decision-makers and politicians when it’s near the point of collapse. As citizens, we justifiably moan about the lack of foresight and political will to have addressed it.

It could be said that we’re at a similar place in Canada’s arts and cultural sector. The sector is contorting itself to secure alternative resources [public and private], offer new programs and engage Canadians in more and different ways. The missing puzzle piece though is that we haven’t figured out how to keep the lights on so we can pay the artist.

Let’s hope that together we can find the missing puzzle piece.

How Will Online Streaming of Content Change the Arts and Culture Policy Landscape?

noreply@blogger.com (mmckay@artsadvocate.com) — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 19:30:00 +0000

It’s the start of a new season, and as the leaves begin to change colour, season premieres of many popular TV shows have been rolling out. In Ottawa, the Let’s Talk TV study is underway, as cable companies, internet giants and broadcasters debate the new realities of online television. Spotify launched in Canada at the end of September, bringing renewed interest to the policy surrounding online music streaming.

A recent study by the Pew Research Centre found that a majority of arts organizations surveyed agreed “that technology contributes to an expectation that “all digital content should be free”.[1]” A sentiment that many, if not most, consumers of the arts agree with. There are a plethora of legal sites to watch tv and listen to music for free. But how do we ensure a policy framework that supports the creators and artists while also maintaining all of this access to content?

Most of the big television networks stream their shows on their websites. There are still commercials in most, but far less than you would see on TV. These Canadian companies still comply with the CRTCs regulations on Canadian content, which is also available to be streamed online. Because revenues for TV shows are not as affected by online streaming as music, this availability is good news for Canadian TV.

Netflix has also become a huge player in streaming content and now has entire series of popular shows like How I Met Your Mother and Star Trek, The Next Generation. It’s not free, but it’s pretty hard to argue against their very modest fee. The Let’s Talk hearings regarding Netflix and the CRTC will be interesting to watch unfold, as they begin to battle over the importance of Canadian content. Regardless of the outcome of these hearings, it could herald a new era of difficulty for Canadian producers.

Music

Online streaming of music has become a sticky issue in the wake of Tarriff 8, a controversial decision by the Copyright Board of Canada last May. The new rates are quite low, paying artists approximately $102.00 for every million times their song is played through a streaming service. Put another way, if the entire population of Ontario streamed a song once a month, the artist would still not be making the equivalent of minimum wage. Granted, streaming is not, nor should be, an artist’s sole source of income, but seeing as streaming is becoming more and more popular through sites like Songza, 8tracks, and the much-heralded CBC Music, it does seem a little unfair. If the average cost of a song on iTunes is $0.99, then, using these rates, you need to listen to that song nine thousand and seven hundred times to be getting your money’s worth. It’s worth noting also that these rates are 10% of royalties in the US, an especially big blow to artists who haven’t broken into American markets.

But it’s still better than illegal downloading. While the policy on online streaming does little to benefit artists, there are things we can do as their audience to support them. If you’ve enjoyed an artists’ music, consider purchasing their album. Purchasing directly from the artist is best because they receive a much larger share of the profit, but purchasing in general will always be more of a benefit than streaming or illegally downloading. Many record stores allow you to buy and download digital music, and likely give a higher portion to the artist than iTunes.

The online world is rapidly changing the face of the arts and culture industry. If online arts policy is something you feel strongly about, be sure to let your MP know, or get involved with an organization like Music Canada. They have all kinds of information about the recent Tarriff 8 and a long list of other legal ways to access or download digital music.

By Michela Comparey, The Arts Advocate Researcher (and frequent user of the web).

[1] http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/01/04/arts-organizations-and-digital-technologies/

noreply@blogger.com (mmckay@artsadvocate.com) — Tue, 24 Jun 2014 17:27:00 +0000

Canada Council for the Arts: Martin Lipman

As Robert Sirman, Director of the Canada Council for the Arts, prepared to bring his eight-year term at the helm of the agency to conclusion, The Arts Advocate Report sat down with him to reflect on his accomplishments and challenges, as well as the current cultural policy context in Canada. He discussed the mandate of the Council, as he saw it, and the impact it makes.

What follows is an excerpt of the conversation, the full version of which will be published in The Arts Advocate Report later this week. We sincerely thank Mr. Sirman for his generosity and insight in granting this interview.

The Canada Council also shared this video, where Mr. Sirman shares his perspective on the mandate of the Council.

TAA: You came to the Canada Council for the Arts directly from National Ballet School. Before that you’d been at the Ontario Arts Council and the Ministry of Culture. You also came at an interesting time in Ottawa. What surprised you the most?

The question is so big, I’ll just be literal. When I first came here, what surprised me first was where we worked …. the total anonymity, compartmentalization, distancing and isolation of the Canada Council’s physical form.

Another thing (was that) I couldn’t get my hands on the (new Canada Council) money (first announced in 2006-07) because that is not how it works in Ottawa. It doesn’t matter what is announced -- freeing that money up is another process all together and it’s very rigorous. In my first year, that was the most important process I was engaged in. We succeeded in not only freeing the money up, but getting it made permanent.

The third (discovery was around) how we were going to spend the one time money. My third day on the job was the board meeting where the members approved how (the Council) was going to spend the one-time money… I believed that if there was something taken by senior management to the board, it had buy-in from all parts of the organization. … Then, when we started rolling the program out, all kinds of voices surfaced asking “what is this?” and how (are we) to we explain it to the community? … At the time that I arrived, there was a management culture in the organization, which was not a collaborative model. That’s why I focus so much on building collaborative participatory, shared responsibilities. There is nothing easier to deliver than something where people have had a voice in generating it. There is nothing harder to deliver than giving someone direction to do something that they haven’t been party to.

Do artists say thank you enough?

noreply@blogger.com (mmckay@artsadvocate.com) — Wed, 07 May 2014 14:20:00 +0000

Thanks and acknowledgment of government investment in the arts is a big topic for the federal government. Just how big was reinforced when one of the first questions posed recently at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage pointedly suggested artists don’t do it.

This is what Conservative MP John Weston had to say on the topic as the Committee’s current study on the music industry got underway:

I am very interested in this topic because I am not very familiar with it. If we compare musicians to athletes, we can say that many athletes thank Canadians and our country for their support. In my riding of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, there are a lot of famous musicians, including Joni Mitchell, Sarah McLachlan, Randy Bachman, Shari Ulrich and Diana Krall. I am not sure whether I have heard them thank the government for its support. … Is that because musicians don’t think about it? (Canadian Heritage Committee Hansard, 4 March 2014)

Canadian Heritage Minister Shelly Glover was more subtle and nuanced in her comments about this topic at the public Annual General Meeting of the Canada Council for the Arts:

We are the only G7 country that did not cut arts funding during the global recession and recovery. People forget that. You’re doing such a good job implicating the public and making sure people know there is no political influence when these choices are made that they forget that the Government of Canada is actually part of this. So, good on you, keep doing what you’re doing. Every once in a while, mention us.

As federal politicians ramp up to the 2015 election, it looks like this issue will become an increasingly important concern. There is a clear perception and belief that the Government of Canada is not adequately or sufficiently acknowledged for its investment in culture, which is undeniably significant.

So, do artists and arts organizations say thank you enough?

Connecting the dots - demonstrating the importance of public arts funding

noreply@blogger.com (mmckay@artsadvocate.com) — Mon, 28 Apr 2014 14:46:00 +0000

Saturday night, Miranda Mulholland was the featured artist at Soulpepper’s Cabaret series. I had the good fortune to be among the sold out audience.

Beyond the fabulous music, what intrigued me was the conversation with Miranda, a young indie artist. She shared stories about her career, her artistic goals and her gutsy move to start her own record label in the volatile music industry. She embodies the entrepreneurial spirit that is increasingly evident in many young artists.

And out of the blue, Miranda recognized and appreciated the role and contribution of public funders. She gave a shout out to FACTOR, the Canada Council for the Arts, Ontario Arts Council and the recently launched Ontario Music Fund.

For an arts advocate and cultural policy wonk, it was refreshing to hear this come from the stage on a dark Saturday night.

The work of cultural funders and policy makers does matter. It’s great to see the connection between the artist, the audience and the policy and funding wonks in the background.

Thanks Miranda.

Australia's Biennale Corporate Sponsorship Saga is a Lesson for Everyone

noreply@blogger.com (mmckay@artsadvocate.com) — Fri, 11 Apr 2014 11:00:00 +0000

In Australia, a recent sponsorship decision of the Sydney Biennale is testing the relationship between the government, arts organizations, artists and sponsors.

As government investment is eroded and ticket sales cannot keep up to the rising cost of producing arts events, increasingly organizations are turning to corporations for help with the bottom line. While many productive partnerships between large companies and non-profit corporations exist, navigating the fine line between a good partnership and a partnership that will alienate the artists and audience can be tricky.

A prime example is the recent uproar in Australia over Transfield Holding’s sponsorship of the Biennale of Sydney. Transfield is a company that is contracted by the Australian federal government to supply facilities to the Manus Island Detention Centre, where asylum-seekers are sent to await processing. Outrage over the partnership led to boycotts by artists and eventually a mutual termination of the partnership.

The government was unhappy with the decision. George Brandis, the Minister for Arts, wrote to the Chair of the Australia Council for the Arts, Rupert Myer, “At a time when government funding for the arts is, like all demands upon the budget, under pressure, it is difficult to justify funding for an arts festival which has announced to its principal private partner that it would prefer not to receive its financial support.” He added, “Equally appalling is the fact that the board of the Biennale, apparently under pressure from certain individual artists, has decided to decline to accept funding from a generous benefactor, because of the political opinion of those individual artists, concerning a matter which has nothing to do with the Sydney Biennale.”

Essentially, the minister told the arts community that beggars can’t be choosers. He worried that the controversy would send the wrong message to other corporations who would withdraw funding in fear that an artist would boycott them and draw attention to an unpleasant aspect of their business. It is almost as if he thinks that corporations only support the arts as a way to distract the public from what they really do.

Here in Canada there seem to be far fewer of these tenuous relationships. Corporate sponsorships, undeniably, are part of the art funding landscape. For the big companies, it offers the opportunity to expose large audiences to your brand, build your philanthropic image, and usually comes with some free marketing. For the arts organizations it provides the funding necessary to pull off a season that would otherwise be difficult to do without outside money. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the Sponsorship Marketing Council of Canada and the Sponsorship Report have been paying attention to the growing industry of corporate sponsorships and have been put in place a policy of best-practices.

Thankfully, we haven’t had a minister tell the arts sector that beggars can’t be choosers, though artists and arts organizations should have the power to choose their sponsors. Most organizations have a mandate that goes beyond the creation of their art and they should be given the power to partner with a sponsor that fits with that mandate. Individual artists can, and should, think independently, and if they feel they are being used for propaganda, their art will likely suffer.

MC

A Look Back at Budget 2012: Some Impact of Cuts to the CBC

noreply@blogger.com (mmckay@artsadvocate.com) — Tue, 25 Mar 2014 12:07:00 +0000

It is cultural policy that is tangible to many average Canadians: the 2012 federal budget cut funding for the CBC. In the wake of the announcement the CBC faced a difficult situation, announcing a plan to cut 650 jobs and introduce advertisements to CBC Radio 2. According to an article in the Globe and Mail, the broadcaster hoped to earn $20-million per year from the new ad revenue, but restrictions imposed by the CRTC cut those potential earnings in half.

Many people vehemently opposed the introduction of the ads, the most noticeable effect of the cuts. Friends of Canadian Broadcasting created a petition that had close to 18 000 signatures until it was taken down in mid-March. According to an email from Friends of Canadian Broadcasting’s Ian Morrison, “By the CRTC’s own count, 92.5% of the interventions they received on this topic opposed the introduction of ads to select CBC/SRC Radio services.” The pressure and complaints of Canadians did have some impact – the CRTC limited the amount of advertising to 4 minutes per hour and only national advertising is allowed to air. Nonetheless, ads began appearing on Radio 2 at the beginning of October.

A glance at their facebook page reveals some of the more recent criticisms, here’s a sample:

“Too many commercials! If you needed money, why didn't you just ask? I thought we were friends? Oh ya, Northern Gateway? Not cool, CBC, not cool.” – Radio 2 facebook page, March 14

“Had it with the AWFUL ADS that have invaded our beloved CBC Radio 2!! If you HAD to sink to the level of having commercials, which is completely against what CBC stood for, then at least pick ones that are befitting our National Radio. Show some class, will you please?
"The New 2" is sounding more & more like ALL the other channels. There is not much distinction from the noisy CHUM mindset... It has lost its mojo” – Radio 2 facebook page, March 11

Friends of Canadian Broadcasting believes that many people were affected by the ads, though was unable to estimate the number of disgruntled listeners.

“We have received many letters of complaint from supporters and from the public. We have also observed that people were quite outraged and that they took to Twitter to complain when the ads first appeared. In February 2014, the CBC started airing ads promising Enbridge’s Northern Gateway. We also received letters of complaint about this and observed people airing their opposition to this move via Twitter and Facebook.”

While there are still some listeners who vocally oppose the introduction of the ads, Chris Boyce, Executive Director of Radio & Audio, said in an email that Radio 2 actually increased its audience in October and November.

“So far the reaction has been quite quiet. We've received very few audience complaints. And most listeners that I've spoken to have been understanding of the difficult situation that we find ourselves in.

"We wrestled with the decision to carry ads on Radio 2 in the first place and we considered every option carefully before applying. But we needed to address a financial shortfall at CBC, following the significant cuts to CBC funding in 2012. Given those financial constraints, CBC Radio’s primary goal was to avoid making more drastic cuts or shutting down CBC Radio’s services and stations. The reality is that featuring advertising on Radio 2 is one of the ways we can generate additional funds while continuing to offer programming on Radio 2. And I think most of our audience understands that.”

Judging by comments on Radio 2’s social media pages, some people are still upset by the ads, but they are a vocal minority. For most of the months after the introduction of the ads there is hardly any mention of advertising. It seems that lately, however, listeners are irked by one company’s ad in particular: Enbridge. While already a controversial company, some listeners appear to feel that the ads do not relay accurate information or the complete story. Mr. Boyce also addressed this sentiment, saying,

“I have received a few letters about the Enbridge ads over the past few weeks. CBC has comprehensive policies on advertising standards that govern what advertising we will accept and what advertising we won't. Those policies are consistent across all of our platforms including Radio 2. […] In this case, the Enbridge ad was reviewed and in accordance with the policy and was approved with the condition that it not run directly adjacent to news programs.”

Some had hoped that the introduction would annoy listeners enough to demand more funding from the government, most people don’t seem to really mind, or even notice, them. It looks like the ads are here to stay.

-Michela Comparey

The Federal Budget: A digest of reactions from within the culture sector

noreply@blogger.com (mmckay@artsadvocate.com) — Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:41:00 +0000

After yesterday’s federal budget, many in the arts and culture community were pleasantly surprised to see that it includes a commitment to renew and provide ongoing funding to key arts and culture programs at the Department of Canadian Heritage. The twittersphere was alive with comments when it began to sink in that this renewal was announced a year ahead of any anticipated news.

Many organizations submitted pre-budget recommendations in other areas; on these the budget was silent.

Here is a cross section of cultural sector responses to Budget 2014 to date:

ACTRA was disappointed that the budget did not do more to create security in the industry and capitalize on its potential to create jobs.

“This is yet another budget with no action on the part of this government to harness the enormous job-generating potential of our industry,” said Ferne Downey, ACTRA National President. “Status quo isn’t good enough. To compete internationally, our industry needs to grow and evolve. That means solid, long-term investments and public policy that boosts production from coast to coast.”

“ACTRA has asked the federal government to guarantee stable, long-term funding for the CBC, NFB, Telefilm and increased funding for the Canada Media Fund. ACTRA is also looking to the federal government to make regulatory changes to re-introduce income averaging for artists, and to sign and ratify the Beijing Treaty, thereby extending moral and economic rights to audio-visual performers.”

Read the full statement here.

The Canadian Arts Coalition was pleased about the renewal of key Canadian Heritage programs on a more permanent basis.

“[the Canadian Arts Coalition] applauds the Government of Canada for renewing key programs at the Department of Canadian Heritage in Budget 2014. These programs include the Canada Arts Presentation Fund, the Canada Cultural Investment Fund, and Cultural Spaces Canada. The Canada Book Fund and the Canada Music Fund have also been renewed.”

“Budget 2014 also makes permanent $25 million to the Canada Council for the Arts that had previously been renewed from year to year. This is a promising step and welcomed by the Canadian Arts Coalition.”

Read the full statement here.

The Canadian Museums Association was similarly buoyed by the announcement that funding for the Virtual Museum of Canada will receive a boost and that the government seems to be committed to important role of heritage activities and museums.

“The Federal Government has demonstrated its continued support of Canada’s museum community by allotting new funding to a few key areas in a time of overall financial constraint,” observed John McAvity, executive director of the CMA. “We welcome the proposals for ongoing funding of heritage programs as they clearly recognize the important role of museums in our society.”

“The Virtual Museum of Canada (VMC) will see its annual funding increased by $4.2 million for a total of $6.2 million per year. The VMC is to be taken over by the Canadian Museum of History.”

“A total annual investment of $2.1 million (a $1.2 million increase to the existing $0.9 million) for the Online Works of Reference, which provides access to The Canadian Encyclopedia/Encyclopedia of Music in Canada and The Dictionary of Canadian Biography. The Canadian Museum of History will also take over this program.”

“With 2017 fast approaching, it’s good to see that the celebrations for Canada’s 150th anniversary of Confederation are on the Federal Government’s list of priorities,” says McAvity, “but there is still no confirmation regarding the allocation of funds toward the initiative. The CMA will keep reminding politicians across all parties about the importance of museums in the 2017 celebrations, as well as other critical issues affecting the museum community.”

The full statement by the CMA can be found here.

We anticipate further statements from other organizations. We’ll keep the blog updated.

What will 2014 hold for cultural policy and politics? Our musings

noreply@blogger.com (mmckay@artsadvocate.com) — Fri, 10 Jan 2014 20:20:00 +0000

As the first full week of 2014 draws to a close, it’s time to put away the last decoration and look ahead to what the year will hold in the realm of cultural policy and politics. Here are just some of the themes and initiatives we will be watching at The Arts Advocate.

Election anticipation is growing in Ontario. Battle lines are being drawn among the parties, with issues like transit, scandalous spending and job creation expected to dominate the debate. As in most elections, arts and culture are unlikely to garner more than a mention. That said, the Ontario PCs have put it on the radar with the December release of their Building Great Cities white paper. “We understand that arts and culture do more than add vibrancy to our cities. This is a significant generator of employment for creative Ontarians and a sector with great export potential." they state.
The Ontario government’s review of business support programs, like the creative industry tax credits, holds the potential for some substantial changes to the support of cultural industries – changes promised as soon as this year’s budget. That said, the screen-based industry has a good relationship with the Ontario government and a history of effective mobilization. This makes it unlikely that substantial changes the industry won't like are imminent.
Also under review, and up for renewal in 2015, are many Canadian Heritage programs that support the cultural sector. Expect the results of various program evaluations to become available later this year; from there, look for signals on potential changes to these programs.
People changes will abound. The Ontario government is searching for a new CEO of the Ontario Science Centre; in Ottawa, there will be a new Director of the Canada Council for the Arts.
In the realm of celebration, expect increased momentum in the lead up to Canada’s 150th anniversary in 2017. Canadian Heritage has begun roundtables across the country to engage citizens in the conversation.

Finally, and not to be lost, 2014 marks the 20th anniversary of The Arts Advocate. We plan to make time for some celebration!

Taking a fresh look at arts support in Canada: Choreographing our Future is a new report with a view

noreply@blogger.com (mmckay@artsadvocate.com) — Wed, 27 Nov 2013 17:17:00 +0000

Choreographing our Future, Strategies for supporting next generation arts practice is a welcome addition to Canada’s body of literature examining the public policy and funding framework that underpins Canada’s artistic sector. In this report, Metcalf Innovation Fellow Shannon Litzenberger enriches the dialogue and discourse around support of the arts in Canada, a dialogue that is currently limited in its depth and reach. This, despite attempts by some, particularly the Canada Council for the Arts, to engage the arts sector in the conversation.

In the report, the author intends to spark a “robust and informed debate about how we shape our collective future” as we contemplate a “transformation” of arts support in Canada. A key objective is to ignite a conversation about addressing the existing logjam in arts funding in this country, one that makes it increasingly difficult for emerging artists and arts practice to secure public support.

In the report, Ms. Litzenberger challenges the validity of established funding practices, particularly around discipline-based assessment. She calls for something she calls ‘industry-focussed” models; put another way, these would be programs that draw together the various disciplines and redefine the assessment criteria to be more based upon “sector-wide ecological conditions as they shift and evolve”. She urges that greater emphasis be placed on the public value and engagement of Canadians in the arts, an area that is currently a major focus at the Canada Council, yet one the arts sector has not particularly embraced. Not least, the author calls on public funders to consider mechanisms and programs that are more fluid, something Ms. Litzenberger believes is key to “next generation development”.

In making her case, the author draws on extensive research and literature from other jurisdictions. Through travels in the US, UK and Australia, she sought out and learned about emerging and new policy practice to ground her recommendations.

Throughout the report, Ms. Litzenberger also integrates her own experience as a contemporary dancer. The real-life realities that she brings to her analysis make her observations and recommendations all the more compelling.

Perhaps because of her perspective, the role and value of enduring “institutions”, or more established longstanding artistic enterprises, are given relatively scant attention in the report. While the author is right in pointing out that artistic practice has evolved considerably over the last 50 years in which public funding has played a critical role in Canada, the report does not address how “institutions” often underpin much of the artistic activity that goes on in a community. In many towns and cities across Canada, larger, typically older*, companies tend to provide assets and attributes like venues, relatively steady artist engagement, education programs, public profile and marketing heft which smaller or independent artistic enterprises leverage. Without these institutions, the capacity of all artistic endeavour would be limited.

Choreographing our Future also calls for more fluid programs and mechanisms, including the recognition that a “defined organizational structure is not a pre-condition to successful growth and sustainability”. True; however, the rigours of Canada’s legislative and regulatory regime, together with increased public expectations around accountability and governance, will limit how quickly organizational structures can be adapted and still receive public investment. This is not to say that new models of operation should not be explored as is being done through another Metcalf initiative, Jane Marsland’s paper on Shared Platforms and Charitable Venture Organizations: It is to say though, that it will take time and happen in small steps.

As Canada’s arts community contemplates the analysis and recommendations in Choreographing our Future, a lively debate is sure to ensue, one that holds the potential to make a significant contribution to the arts policy dialogue in Canada. Shannon Litzenberger and the Metcalf Foundation are to be congratulated for sparking it.

* Institutions do not always need to be older. Soulpepper, a relative "youngster" among institutions, engages the largest number of artists in Toronto. It underpins the activity of many other artistic endeavours.

The federal Throne Speech received muted support from cultural sector

noreply@blogger.com (mmckay@artsadvocate.com) — Mon, 28 Oct 2013 15:41:00 +0000

For policy watchers, the Speech from the Throne normally provides substance on which to link their priorities and issues. As the cultural sector has become more sophisticated over the past decade, national organizations have looked to it to provide the platform for connecting to the government’s agenda.

Perhaps uncharacteristically, the response of Canada’s cultural sector to this month’s “consumer-friendly” Throne Speech has been quiet, almost to the point of being non-existent. The Arts Advocate surveyed news releases and statements of Canada’s leading national cultural organizations and found little.

What we did find though spoke of a sector looking to work with the federal government:

ACTRA is reaching out to the Canadian Government, calling on it to work closely with the creative sector in their consultation and implementation of plans to unbundle television channels. Their news release stated, “While we were disappointed to not hear a clear commitment to support the Canadian cultural industry, an important sector and job-creator, we were pleased to see that the government took this opportunity to specifically state they will protect Canadian jobs while implementing their plans for unbundling,” said Stephen Waddell, ACTRA’s National Executive Director. “We look forward to hearing more details of the Government’s plans to protect Canadians from unreasonable fees and we will be reaching out to offer advice and assistance on behalf of the creative community of performers in Canada.”

(On Friday, Canadian Heritage Minister Shelly Glover announced the launch of a CRTC dialogue, Let’s Talk TV: A Conversation with Canadians, to discuss the future of television. In her words, it responds to Canadians’ desire for “choice and flexibility” in television services and directly flows from commitments announced in the Throne Speech.)

The Canadian Museums Association (CMA), published backgrounder stated: “An encouraging statement in the speech is the government’s commitment to continue working with industry partners to promote Canada as a top tourism destination. Given that a large number of tourists visit cultural and heritage sites during their stay, this should directly benefit our sector.”

The CMA also said that it will be monitoring the proposed legislation creating a criminal offence prohibiting the non-consensual distribution of ‘intimate images’, noting that in the past such legislation has put serious and legitimate artists at risk of violating the law, even if posing no realistic threat of harm to individuals.

Not least, the Canadian Museums Association expressed concerns that not-for-profit and cultural organizations may be excluded from measures to support youth employment.

The Arts Advocate continually monitors the cultural public policy landscape. We will keep you posted.

What is the Children's Arts Tax Credit worth to Canadians?

noreply@blogger.com (mmckay@artsadvocate.com) — Mon, 21 Oct 2013 19:03:00 +0000

Last week’s Throne Speech was virtually silent on the arts, save a brief mention of the Children’s Arts Tax Credit. In the Speech, Governor General David Johnston cited the importance of the tax credit in helping Canadian families lower their tax burden.

This piqued our interest in learning more about the importance of this tax credit to Canadians.

The Children’s Arts Tax Credit, a budget measure introduced in 2011, is estimated to be a tax expenditure of $35 million a year. It allows parents to claim a 15% non-refundable tax credit, based on an amount of up to $500 in eligible expenses for children’s artistic activities, like music lessons.

Put another way, the children’s arts tax credit provides a cumulative tax savings of $35 million for all Canadians. It’s not clear how many Canadians claim the credit.

What is particularly interesting is that the federal Department of Finance states that the uptake on the Children’s Arts Tax Credit is less than projected. In the 2011 federal Budget, it was estimated the credit would cost the government up to $100 million, significantly more than the current projection of $35 million.

By contrast, the Children’s Fitness Tax Credit is currently projected to be worth $120 million.

This begs the question, why aren’t more Canadian kids engaged in arts activities? And what does it mean for Canada’s arts and cultural sector?

Harnessing the full power of culture

noreply@blogger.com (mmckay@artsadvocate.com) — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:57:00 +0000

At last month’s UNESCO gathering, the Hangzhou International Congress, delegates
called for a new approach to sustainable development in the world, one that places culture at the ‘heart of public policy.’ The “Hangzhou Declaration” urges governments, civil society and the private sector to harness the power of culture in addressing development challenges like environmental sustainability, poverty and social inclusion.

As Canada Council Director Robert Sirman addressed delegates at the Culture Days Congress in Toronto, he implicitly referenced to the objectives of the Hangzhou Declartion, pointing to the growing call for better incorporating culture into public policy. To achieve that in Canada though, we will need to enlarge our ‘civic footprint’, he suggested. More Canadians need to live, breath and engage in artistic pursuit and activity to achieve this, the underlying premise of Culture Days.

When queried about the federal government’s perspective on the Hanghzou Declaration, a spokesperson for the Department of Canadian Heritage responded: “The Government is aware that beyond its economic importance, the arts and the cultural industries are also an important tool to improve quality of life, human development, and create a national identity. This is why Canada was an active proponent to the adoption of the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (UNESCO 2005) and was the first country to ratify the convention.” They referred specific questions about the Declaration to DFAIT.

Lurching towards a possible Ontario election: What the parties are saying about arts and culture

noreply@blogger.com (mmckay@artsadvocate.com) — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 17:02:00 +0000

The prospect of an Ontario election continues to loom, the recent Throne Speech having failed to change the tone and tempo in the Legislature. PC leader Tim Hudak has made it clear that, in his view, "we need to change the team that leads this province". The NDP’s Andrea Horwarth argues the government’s Throne Speech was "vague and lacked details or concrete plans".

So where does arts and culture find itself within this environment?

The Liberals

Ontario’s recent Throne Speech positions arts and culture as part of the Province’s "bold vision" for a strengthened economy. It talks about stimulating productivity across all sectors, including film, music and digital media.

Earlier this year, Ontario’s Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport, the Honourable Michael Chan, also launched the Live Music Strategy. At the same time though, programs at the ministry are being consolidated or wound down, part of the fiscal restraint package put forward in the last budget.

The Progressive Conservatives

Word is that the PCs are developing their own arts and culture platform for the anticipated election.

In a February speech to the Toronto Board of Trade, Leader Tim Hudak said, “When it comes to creative talent, Toronto is blessed with deep bench strength. One in four Canadian arts and culture industry jobs are here in Toronto.”

Further on, he stated, “But over the years we have overburdened some of Toronto’s crucial economic and cultural industries to the point where businesses are starting to look to other jurisdictions …. too many of them are having to make tough business decisions. To go where business costs are lower, approvals happen faster and government treats them with respect, not suspicion.”

Mr. Hudak didn’t make any specific promises, but in the policy documents being tabled by the party, they make it clear that they want to “get out of the business of corporate welfare.” How this would affect cultural industry tax credits is not clear.

The NDP

If the past election is any indication, it’s likely that some policy on the cultural industries will be forthcoming. At this point though, there are no clear statements or positions available.

Canadians support the arts. Now let's ask how best to do this!

noreply@blogger.com (mmckay@artsadvocate.com) — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 22:19:00 +0000

The public opinion research on attitudes towards arts and heritage released by the federal government last week reaffirms Canadians’ longstanding belief that culture is important to us:

57% of Canadians say they were involved in at least one artistic activity in the last 12 months
66% of Canadians feel that arts and culture are important to their quality of life, and that of their families.

It follows that most Canadians believe in strong government support for arts and culture. Nine in ten of us feel that government should support the arts. 95% of Canadians agree that governments in Canada should help protect and preserve the country’s heritage.

Other similar reports, such as the Ontario Arts Council research commissioned from Environics on The Arts and Quality of Life, found similar trends.

With such strong support for the cultural sector, the conversation now needs to shift from ‘whether or not to support’ to ‘how best to support’ the sector.

The dialogue has started at the Canada Council for the Arts and other agencies. Going forward, let’s hope that we all contribute to it in meaningful ways.

Looking forward: Stories to watch in cultural policy in 2013

noreply@blogger.com (mmckay@artsadvocate.com) — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 19:14:00 +0000

A new year brings the opportunity to take the long view and see what’s ahead over the coming twelve months. These are some the issues and developments The Arts Advocate will be watching:

Federally

The EU free trade negotiations and their implications for cultural industries and commerce: If a trade deal is finally inked, it could set the tone for Canada’s negotiations in the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade talks also underway. Thoughts are that the TPP could be much tougher, as the US is not seen as likely to warm to any cultural exemptions.

Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore’s cross-country consultation on Canada’s 150th anniversary celebrations, if this goes according to a plan laid out in a recent story in the Ottawa Citizen.

Developments in the Canadian publishing: The industry was dealt some tough blows in 2012 with the downgrade of McClelland and Stewart to an imprint in January and then Douglas & McIntyre’s decision to file for bankruptcy protection in the fall. We’ll be looking to see what the status of Canadian Heritage’s consultation into a revised foreign investment policy for publishing is.

The results of the Canada Council for the Art’s ‘change agenda’ and the potential it holds for a fundamental long-term rethinking of the programs and approach at the Council.

The 2013 budget, where we will be looking to see if the feds respond to the request for a stretch tax credit charitable donations, a long advocated measure that will help arts organizations with charitable status.

Ontario

The political volatility in Ontario holds the potential for significant change, even upheaval:

- Ontario will see a new cabinet following the Ontario Liberal Leadership this month. That could mean a new Minister of Culture. Minister Michael Chan has been in the post since 2010.

- The prospect of a provincial election is all but certain. With all three parties viable contenders, according to polls, we could be looking at an entirely different government within a few months. Neither the NDP or the PCs have said much about their cultural policies, but we do know that work is underway on them.

The Ontario budget will essentially be a campaign platform. We’ll be looking to see where culture fits in it.

So, all in all, it looks like there will be an interesting and full year ahead.

All the best for 2013.

Top cultural policy headlines from 2012

noreply@blogger.com (mmckay@artsadvocate.com) — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 19:07:00 +0000

Here is The Arts Advocate’s list for the top cultural policy stories and trends of 2012:

- Passage of a revised Copyright Act, without a doubt one of the most significant results of the year.

- Sustained public funding to key cultural agencies, like national museums, the Canada Council for the Arts, the Ontario Arts Council, the Ontario Media Development Corporation and others, the result of effective advocacy throughout the cultural sector.

(We acknowledge that there were funding cuts to others, like the CBC, Telefilm, National Library and Ontario’s cultural attraction agencies. In the scheme of things, the overall view is that the cultural sector weathered relatively well in 2012, though there remains well-grounded fear for the future.)

- The establishment of the Canadian Museum of History.

- The demise of the Canadian Conference of the Arts, Canada’s longest-standing arts advocacy organization.

- The drive to make fundamental changes to the way cultural agencies support their clients. At its AGM, Telefilm Canada announced that it had completed a complete redesign of its entire range programs. The Canada Council for the Arts has made it clear that fundamental change to its programs is on the way, with a shift in focus from ‘supply’ to ‘demand’.

- The EU free trade agreement, something that has flown under the radar screen for the most part. In November, Canadian Heritage James Moore told a parliamentary committee that the deal would “genuinely protect our cultural communities and their needs.”

- An unstated but creeping sense that arm’s-length agencies are feeling the arm becoming shorter and shorter, something being talked about at the water cooler in all jurisdictions.

No doubt there are headlines we’ve missed. We look forward to your comments on what’s not here.

Onwards to 2013.

TAPA Stats Report reinforces need for a rethink of cultural policy objectives

noreply@blogger.com (mmckay@artsadvocate.com) — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 20:25:00 +0000

In our last issue of The Arts Advocate Report, we noted the shifting policy landscape for arts and culture in Canada.

This week, the release of the Toronto Alliance for the Performing Arts (TAPA) Stats Report reinforced why this is happening. The way that Canadians engage in cultural activity, like theatre, opera and dance, is changing. The TAPA Stats, presented by The Strategic Counsel, show a drop in audience attendance between 2004/05 and 2009/10, a trend that cultural organizations have been observing for a while. What is not so evident are the implications.

The shifting audience patterns mean that cultural organizations, together with the governments that support them, need to evaluate the policies and programs in place to support the arts in Canada. As the Canada Council for the Arts notes in its recently published discussion paper, there “is a shift from a focus on the art and the artist to the public as the central driver of cultural and arts policy and actions.”

In a related vein, the Ontario Arts Council specifically talks about “build(ing) actively engaged audiences who reflect the changing generational and cultural demographics of Ontario” in their current strategic plan.

What does all this mean? Clearly, there are no easy answers. It’s time for thoughtful analysis and reflection that goes beyond talking about the age-old ‘challenge’ of inadequate funds (not surprisingly among the top issues cited in the TAPA Stats Report).

Canadian Conference of the Arts & Creative Trust: Lasting legacies

noreply@blogger.com (mmckay@artsadvocate.com) — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 21:50:00 +0000

As October winds down, so do two of Canada’s leading cultural organizations. The Canadian Conference of the Arts (CCA) and Toronto-based Creative Trust each had a profound and important impact on the strength and vitality of arts and culture in Ontario and Canada.

With a 67-year history, Canadian artists and cultural organizations owe a debt of gratitude to the leaders and volunteers of the CCA. The Conference has been instrumental in the development and creation of important agencies like the Canada Council for the Arts and Status of the Artist legislation, measures which allow our artists to thrive today.

Without question, the CCA faced bumps as it worked to advance the place of artists and cultural workers in Canada. It’s equally clear that we’d all be in a poorer position if their board members and staff hadn’t so passionately championed the sector over the years.

Creative Trust, the brainchild of a dedicated volunteer group of arts managers in Toronto, has had an impressive and positive impact on the financial and organizational health of 21 mid-sized Toronto organizations, and helped a host of others. Focused on providing working capital, Creative Trust made important interventions that helped arts organizations put the structures in place to thrive. While good things must often come to an end, Creative Trust’s support and expertise will be missed.

Both the Canadian Conference of the Arts and Creative Trust have left indelible marks on our country’s cultural landscape.

Thank you to all those who persevered in realizing the vision that each held.

Passion and perseverance: Rita Davies’ Cri de Couer

noreply@blogger.com (mmckay@artsadvocate.com) — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 20:45:00 +0000

It’s nice to be catching up on The Arts Advocate (TAA) blog!

Perhaps because it was such a fantastic summer or maybe it was that there is so much to ignite the imagination, but fair to say the TAA blog was the victim of writer’s block! I certainly can’t blame it on lack of inspiration. As I took in a wide variety of plays, museums, art shows and other cultural offerings, I was struck by the richness of what Ontario has to offer. The creativity and originality evident in every corner of the province is remarkable.

I was equally struck by the perseverance and commitment of the people who make this happen. No-one personifies this more than Rita Davies, who has worked tirelessly to galvanize a city around the power of the creative sector. In her capacity as both the Executive Director of the Toronto Arts Council and more recently as head of the City of Toronto’s Culture Division, Rita has been a driving force behind the rich cultural tapestry that is now Toronto. On leaving her post at the City, Rita’s cri de coeur resonated with those that gathered to say thank you and good-bye in August. More important though, it was a call for all of us committed to a rich cultural life to persevere.

She said it best:

I started out by describing myself as an arts activist. Not an Executive Director, not a leader or even an advocate, though I have been all those things, but an activist.

Because that was the other catalytic ingredient in the transformation of Toronto into a creative capital: through the eighties and nineties the arts community, under the umbrella of the Toronto Arts Council, learned that together their voices were strong. …

We learned that when one voice was joined by hundreds, it was a force, a strong force that packed political clout. So our Mayors and politicians listened. Sure, they listened to the arguments – and they were and are good ones – about employment and economic impact – but they also noticed that this was a real constituency. And the dollars started to get invested.

And when that happened, the growth became exponential…

Thank you Rita. Your perseverance and passion live on, in Toronto and beyond.

A quick round up of response to yesterday’s federal budget

noreply@blogger.com (mmckay@artsadvocate.com) — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 13:39:00 +0000

Response and reaction to yesterday’s federal budget, and its implications for the cultural sector, have combined congratulations, appreciation, relief and regret. This post provides a quick round up.

Not surprisingly, the decision to sustain the investment in the Canada Council for the Arts is welcomed.

The Canada Council for the Arts

Canadian Arts Coalition

Magazines Canada

Fédération culturelle canadienne-française

Museums are pleased as well, particularly around the news that the budget strengthens the Canada Travelling Exhibitions Indemnification Program and maintains funding to national museums.

Canadian Museums Association

On the other hand, there is regret about reductions to agencies like Telefilm and the CBC.

ACTRA

Ottawa's 29 March Budget: What will austerity mean for the cultural sector?

noreply@blogger.com (mmckay@artsadvocate.com) — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 13:06:00 +0000

Now that the federal government has announced 29 March as budget day, everyone can look forward to some indication of what austerity is going to mean for the cultural sector (and public services generally). The rampant speculation about the nature and extent of program funding cuts has everyone on edge so the announcement of the government’s decisions will be a relief.

The cultural sector has weathered funding restraint in the past, so no-one is expecting the sky to fall in. All the same, it’s clear that the models of public investment in the arts are likely to change. While the Harper government has expressed support for the funding mechanisms of agencies like the Canada Council for the Arts, there are indications that changes, including reductions, to other programs at the Department of Canadian Heritage, are in the air. There could be revised program criteria and program objectives designed to both tighten the availability of public support and foster more private investment.

There is no doubt that changes such as the ones anticipated hold the potential to strain the cultural sector.

Like everyone, we will be looking forward to Finance Minister James Flaherty budget speech on 29 March so we can move beyond guesswork to begin to fully understand what is in store for arts and culture in Canada, and how the sector will respond.

The Drummond recommendations – pluses and minuses for Ontario’s cultural sector

noreply@blogger.com (mmckay@artsadvocate.com) — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:06:00 +0000

With the release of the long awaited Drummond report, Ontarians can now see some options for how their provincial government might move from the generalities of fiscal restraint to the specifics of what it means for them and the services they count on. In its own words, the report paints a ‘profoundly gloomy’ future if Ontario preserves the status quo. It argues that thoughtful, fundamental reforms can change this.

The Report does not address the cultural sector specifically, but recommendations around overall spending, the relationship with the non-profit sector and the merit of refundable corporate income tax credits have direct and meaningful implications for Ontario’s arts, heritage and creative industries.

For the non-profit sector, including many arts and heritage organizations, the prospect of a re-defined relationship with government holds promise and opportunity. While resources can be expected to be reduced no matter which recommendations the Ontario government accepts from the Drummond Report, the recognition that more nimble, flexible non-profits can deliver service better and more efficiently is welcome news. There is the potential that administrative burdens will be lightened.

The biggest unknown for the cultural sector going forward is the Commission’s recommendation to sunset all refundable tax credits, including the array that supports the cultural and creative industries. Worth $268 million in 2009-10, these tax expenditures are central to the business model of the film, music and publishing industries in Ontario.

Stay tuned for interesting days ahead.

MInister Michael Chan has opportunity to make his voice heard on importance of culture to Ontario

noreply@blogger.com (mmckay@artsadvocate.com) — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 18:34:00 +0000

One can’t miss the fact that Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore is working hard to strengthen the relationship between the cultural sector and the federal government, one that has clearly had its rocky moments. Tonight’s launch of the Minister’s first Music Night on Parliament Hill is further evidence of his efforts to garner support for the sector.

It follows that Minister Moore is calling on all governments to come together to recognize the importance of the creative economy. Recently, at the International Institute of Communications Conference in Ottawa, he said

In challenging economic times, all governments have to come together to recognize the importance of the creative economy, … not for its own sake, not as a boutique element in government investment, but as a central pillar in maintaining our cultural communities, our quality of life, and supporting a central piece of Canada’s economic infrastructure.

With the prospect of difficult times ahead for Ontario (and many cities in the province) Ontario Tourism, Culture and Sport Minister Michael Chan has the opportunity to take up the federal minister’s suggestion and add heft and substance to what are now the Province’s well-worn statements on the importance of the creative economy.

With culture absent as an issue in the recent provincial election, and concern about the watering down of its importance the undercurrent of many conversations, the sector would welcome Minister Chan becoming a stronger advocate.

Later this week, he may have that opportunity when he joins Toronto’s Creative Trust and the Professional Arts Organizations Network for Education for the launch of the Performing Arts Education Overview.