Is There a Good Date With Stephen Harper?

HAHA! That video was pretty great.

This is my first Canadian election and it's just so very obvious how Harper is changing the political discourse into the American model of cultural partisanship.

political wedge issues are fun aren't they?

Starting through the list of cut programs...

Culturescope.ca appears to be a 4.5million/yr "web portal". Very confusing site to navigate, full of meta, not much content. Did they ever do anything worthwhile? Who knows? Doesn't seem that any of this $4.5 million was going to any artists. (Beyond all that, 4.5 million per year to run a web portal?? Where do I sign up??) Good riddance.

Trade Routes Program ($9 million/year) - "We work together to promote culture, the arts, heritage, official languages, citizenship and participation, multiculturalism, Aboriginal, youth, and sport initiatives." Hmm, apparently not purely an arts cut. Interesting. In fact, the objectives seem spread so thin I wonder how they managed to accomplish anything useful, beyond paying the salaries of a bunch of bureaucrats. If anything, it looks exactly like one of those programs that pays elitists to go to wine and cheese parties.

PromArt (4.7 million/year) - Apparently the National Post already did an expose on this "gravy train". Doesn't sound like more than a bit of loose change ever went to any actual artists. I know how any mention of the National Post instantly sends leftists into convulsions, but good luck finding anyone else in the media to investigate.

That's all I've got time for right now. I'll try to look into this more later, at least to satisfy my own curiosity.

re: But your comments demonstrate this having-your-cake-and-eating-it-too attitude that seems so popular with the Conservative party. You want artists and you want art, but you don't want to have any responsibility for fostering its growth, or even making sure working artists have any kind of standard of living."

Are you saying art can't exist without government subsidies? The argument you are making, namely, (1) art is worthwhile; therefore (2) government should fund it, is a non-sequitur.

While I'm here, if, as the artists claim, the ROI re: arts funding is a healthly multiple , then why should there be any limit on government funding of the arts at all? I will conjecture you will agree that there must be a limit. The argument re: these funding cuts is whether the government got the limit right.

(I think these cuts are lamentable and clearly motivated by animosity towards the recipients of the grants, but that doesn't change the underlying principles of the argument).

The Atwood article is a piece of trash. I do wish artists would avoid embarassing themselves like this because it inevitably taints their creative output.

If Harper had presented the cuts as an overhaul of inefficient programs (as he tried with Mansbridge in a cover-his-ass interview) instead of writing off the entire arts and culture community as a bunch of greedy welfare recipients at lavish parties with nothing in common with "ordinary" people, he wouldn't be in this mess. Add to that the $15 million cut earlier in the year, and then C-10 and you have a government openly hostile toward the arts and promoting a specific and very narrow moral agenda.

When you factor in how much arts and culture contributes to the Canadian economy — $85 billion a year according to the Conference Board of Canada — you have to wonder how he reconciles these cuts with his promise to steer Canada through the economic turmoil facing the rest of the developed world.

These are, of course, pages from the Republican playbook, and further evidence the Conservatives under Harper aren't contiguous with the (Progressive) Conservatives under Mulroney (who increased arts funding by 3.5% a year for 9 years). In the 80s and 90s tax payers funding "smut and blasphemy" was the hot topic in American politics, spearheaded by Jesse Helms and Rudy Giuliani. The other is the perennial favourite faux-populist tactic of the snooty "elite" and generally urban versus the common (or "ordinary"), and often rural, man.

Continuing with the list...

Canadian Independent Film and Video Fund (1.5 million) - the website looks fairly legit. It's not clear what effect the funding cut will have. It's a private organization, I don't know if they're struggling to stay afloat or if they have wealthy supporters and just don't need the money. If anyone has any more details, let me know.

National Training Program for the Film and Video sector (2.5 million) - Hard to say much about this. Is the training program still being used? Is modern digital video equipment actually all that hard to learn how to use? Has anyone been signing up? I don't know. Does anyone?

Audio-Visual Preservation Trust (150K). Wow, that's a pretty dusty website. If you dig around for any of the collections, the pages are all broken. Is the task of preserving Canadian video & audio being handled better elsewhere? Somehow I suspect it is.

Canadian Culture Online (5.64 million) - Only the vaguest of outlines of what this organization did. I don't see any money going to artists, it sounds more like a fund to put content online. Maybe it's accomplished its original goals. Maybe it was never needed in the first place.

Canadian Memory Fund (11.57 million) - "This program has clearly achieved its original objective to encourage federal agencies to digitize their collections and make them available online to Canadians. Developing Web sites and online documents containing digitized works is now common practice within these agencies." Any reason to keep spending here? Doesn't sound like it. Anyway, it's not like this was ever money going to contemporary artists in the first place.

Canadian Arts and Heritage Sustainability Program (Stabilization Project) (627K) - "This program has achieved its original objective to strengthen the organizational, administrative and financial health of arts and heritage organizations benefiting from the program, through support provided through third parties. Since stabilization projects are established as an agent of longterm change, usually seven to ten years, applications to this component will no longer be accepted." OK, job done. Once again, no money here was going to current artists.

Canadian Arts and Heritage Sustainability Program (Capacity Building) - 6.1 million reduced to 4.3 million - Look at the site. Purely a bureaucratic entity.

Northern Native Broadcast Access Program (2.1 million) - A first on this list - a cut that actually sounds like it might cause some damage. Granted, it's not direct arts funding, but if it provided needed infrastructure to remote communities and there's no replacement lined up, then that would be unfortunate. But does anyone know the rationale for the cut? Is something going to replace it? Was it mis-managed? Who knows.

Book Publishing Industry Development Program (1 million) - yet another depressingly stalinist page from the Canadian Heritage site. However, it may have been doing some good with support for Canadian publishers. It would be nice to hear from anyone who ever benefitted from or worked with them.

Canada Magazine Fund (500K) - Not a huge cut, but how will it affect the magazine industry? Dunno.

Canada New Media Fund (14.5 million) - Ok, I'm sorry, but "new media" funding is the biggest bunch of bullshit ever. These funds attract the biggest wack-jobs you've ever met without the slightest technical background needed to actually build interactive content. They almost always end up "inventing" the choose-your-own-adventure game. Woe is you if you're a technie who ever gets hired to work for someone who's acquired "new media funding". Good riddance, the new media industry is all the better for this fund's passing and the wingnuts it has thrust upon us.

So what have we learned? That all the above anti-Harper articles, videos, opinion pieces and general vitriol are all based pretty much on COMPLETE BULLSHIT. Yet it's become the main rallying point for urban leftists in this election. And that's just sad.

On the upside, it does show how creative people can be without any funding whatsoever. The leftists have invented some pretty elaborate fictions to keep themselves feeling righteous.

rek, by the way, Harper's quote, as best as I can find online was actually this:

"I think when ordinary working people come home, turn on the TV and see … a bunch of people … at a rich gala all subsidized by taxpayers claiming their subsidies aren't high enough when they know those subsidies have actually gone up, I'm not sure that's something that resonates with ordinary people."

As an artist I don't find it offensive at all.

If you ever worked at the CBC you'd see a lot of exclusive galas happening in the main atrium. Black tie events, expensive catering... no one below upper management or celeb status were ever invited to. Just a bunch of pampered bureaucrats having a laugh on the taxpayer dime.

No, it didn't resonate with me.

What offends me as an artist is paying taxes toward the salaries of the middlemen and parasites working for or funded by the government, in the name of The Arts. (Yeah, CON-artistry!)

I'm pretty sure it's evident that's what Harper was targeting, both from his quote and what was cut.

But if anyone has better insights into these programs and specific effects of these cuts, by all means let us know.

Spacejack,

No, we don't know what was mismanaged. Because the Cons didn't do/reveal a formal assessment of the success of the programs. They did not provide any tangible evidence for the mismanagement of the programs when they made the cuts, they just cut them and made hostile comments about artists. Which is why the cuts are being interpreted as ideological. Which is the exact reason why artists are pissed off.

I feel kind of bad that you spent so much time breaking down the arts cuts for yourself in the comments here. The overall gyst was, "What's this program? I can't tell what it was trying to do or if it was successful. Does anyone here know? Nobody? Shit, just cut it then!"

Also known as, "I don't know what this means. It must be stupid."

And that National Post article you cited as a biting expose? That was an editorial that was basically ripped from the pages of the Conservative memo that announced the cuts, because the Post is up Harper's ass. So yeah, real awesome sourcing.

BPIDP funding is critical to the health (such as it is) of the Canadian-owned book publishing sector: it supports the infrastructure that individual authors need in order to be published.

BPIDP's Aid to Publishers program provides essential capital assistance to enable the publication of Canadian-authored books: printing, shipping, and distribution are costly; given the average salary levels in publishing, this money is hardly going toward lining anyone's pockets; without it, we would be pretty near reliant on foreign-owned publishers to publish our authors' voices.

BPIDP's Supply Chain Initiative program established and supports (for now) an organization called BookNet, which is, for the first time, collecting in one place the data that's needed so that the industry can become more efficient -- and therefore more profitable and ultimately less reliant on government assistance.

BPIDP's Collective Initiatives program assists industry associations in support their members with business planning, professional development, internship support and the like. Private sponsorship for these efforts is, I can personally ensure you, hard to obtain, at least to the point of actually producing material and events that people in this low-paying industry can afford to attend. Without this support, the industry would have considerable difficulty remaining competitive into the future.

Finally, BDIDP's International Marketing Assistance helps smaller Canadian-owned publishers get their books outside of Canada -- it's a big world, but an author whose press can get her book available and selling outside Canada has a much better chance. The market intelligence that the program provides is as critical as the funds.

Many of the authors who benefit from these programs may never, ever have applied for a grant themselves. But that doesn't mean they haven't benefited from government support.

[disclosure: I'm a director and vice-chair of the Book and Periodical Council, umbrella association for the Canadian book and magazine publishing industry)

"Canadian Arts and Heritage Sustainability Program (Capacity Building) - 6.1 million reduced to 4.3 million - Look at the site. Purely a bureaucratic entity."

What is "purely a bureaucratic entity" to you? Capacity Building means assisting organizations to improve their internal functions in order to make them more effective and efficient, better focused, more financially self-sufficient, and better able to shift with the times as needed. Would you respond to a fundraising call from a major heritage organization looking for funds to hire a governance consultant to facilitate bylaw revision? No, I didn't think so. Neither will banks and other lenders. There are things that other economic sectors have an easier time funding but for which the cultural sector really does need government support, precisely because it's not as sexy as the individual artist.

Below is the e-mail being circulated by Convergence Threatre that Johnnie mentioned above. Apologies for the length.

Hello,

If you are getting this e-mail it is because you are family, a friend, a peer, a colleague or a lover…of the Arts (!) who has recently attended one of our plays.

In light of the upcoming election, we've have had a number of conversations with people over the last month who do not work in the Arts sector and are concerned and/or confused (or maybe just confused) about Prime Minister Harper's recent announcement of cuts to important Arts programs, and about the Conservative Government's overall take on the value of the Arts & Culture in this country.

-----

IF YOU ARE AN "ORDINARY CANADIAN" WHO IS CONCERNED AND/OR CONFUSED ABOUT ARTS FUNDING CUTS IN CANADA, HERE ARE A FEW POINTS TO HELP YOU BETTER UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION FROM AN ARTS-WORKERS' PERSPECTIVE…

· OUR PERSPECTIVE AS TWO YOUNG THEATRE ARTISTS WORKING IN CANADA IN 2008: It is our experience that we live in a society that often does not value the work of Artists. If that were not the case, many artists would not be forced to work at jobs outside of our skill set nor live below the poverty line. The two of us are lucky – 95% of the jobs we do are within our field – we act, we write, we direct, we teach, we produce. We make an average of $12,000 a year each. And we work all the time - on average 6 days a week, sometimes 12 hours a day. And we have no benefits. This is the norm for an Arts Worker in Canada. And why do we do it? Because it is a VOCATION not a HOBBY.

· HOBBY VS. VOCATION: In the English Leaders' Debate, Harper, in defense of his appreciation of the Arts, proudly declared that he has a very artistic family. In fact, his daughter plays the piano, he himself is a member of the dad-band "Stephen and the Firewalls" and his wife and wife's family have Artistic abilities. Yeah, so does EVERYONE. And when we take music lessons or draw a picture, or write a song, it's called a hobby, and we do it for the fun of creating something and because it feels good to learn a new skill and access parts of ourselves that we don't get to access much of the time. He also declared that his government was going to provide a $500 tax credit for any family who enrolls their child in an Arts activity, therefore sustaining the Arts in Canada. Harper used private music lessons as an example. Three thoughts: One: most families who can afford private music lessons do not need the tax credit – what about the families who can't afford these lessons? Two: What message are we sending when we take away funding from one area where there IS a need and give it to an area where there is not? Go, kids, become a musician, but don't get so good that it becomes a career, because once it's your career there's no money in it for you. Three: It struck us as funny that most Artists who teach do so to supplement their income – what about giving the music teacher the tax credit? What about giving working Artists a decent standard of living?

· ARTS VS. SCIENCE: Many people do appreciate Art, but if it's not what they do for a living, it can be hard to understand the skills required to create it. So, it's easy to write it off as being cute or elitist or self-indulgent and IRRELEVANT, as Harper's government continues to do. Ironically, the average person may not understand the nitty-gritty of what an Artist does any more than they understand what a Research Scientist does. We may not see the tangible effects/results of Scientific Research for decades; "the value of advanced intellectual inquiry that may not appeal to large numbers of people but which may well last for centuries…" (Russell Smith, The Globe & Mail). AND YET, we fund it because we deem it IMPORTANT. Like Science, Art may not always be tangible, but IT IS RELEVANT. THIS IS HOW SOCIETY ADVANCES!!!

· THE TRICKLE DOWN EFFECT: The recent Arts cuts include: $9 million from the Trade Routes Program, $4.7 million from the Department of Foreign Affairs PromArt Program, and a dozen others for a total of $45 million in cuts. So, if Harper can unilaterally cut funding from programs that he deems "ineffective", what's next? Cuts to Arts Councils and Artists-In-The-Schools programs, and Festivals??? Could you imagine if the government cut Festival funding from say, the Ashkenaz Festival or the Word on the Street Festival?! They would essentially be saying that these festivals are not important to the majority of Canadians, (or to "Ordinary Canadians, perhaps?) and if they ARE important, the Festivals should be able to find people who will fund them.

· SHOULD GOVERNMENT BE IN THE BUSINESS OF FUNDING THE ARTS? Yes, wealthy nations SHOULD pay for the development and promotion of Non-Commercial, Not-For-Profit Art. Hell, poorer nations all over Europe give more money to the Arts than Canada does. It is vital to understand that Arts council grants make up a small portion of Arts funding as it is. Decreasing government support makes it difficult, if not IMPOSSIBLE, for many projects to get off the ground. And since we are ARTISTS, not FUNDRAISERS, taking away government funding will leave us with three options, as we see it: 1) Turn to the private sector and rely on the kindness of philanthropists…but unlike the States we don't have a widespread tradition of Arts philanthropy, and even if we did, it should NEVER replace government funding…it is also not sustainable. 2) Take out a loan, go back to school and become a teacher; teach drama to kids (but dare not encourage them to actually become Artists themselves) and "do art" in the summer, as a hobby. 3) Throw in the towel and work in a restaurant full time – everyone's gotta eat.

· IF THE WORK IS GOOD IT SHOULD BE ABLE TO SUPPORT ITSELF: What, through its box office? Ha! People are way more likely to pay $11.95+ to see a crappy movie than go to a play that has gotten rave reviews. Why is this? Perhaps because it takes more effort to go see something live – live performances forces you to engage in Art in a different way, a more active way, and that can be (and should be) challenging, even on the best of days. Even if a play sells out every performance, in non-commercial and not-for-profit Art, the box office revenue would still be lower than the expenses of the production. That is just how it works. Failure to understand this is THE DEATH OF ART.

· ECOMONMIC SUICIDE: Arts are and should continue to be a central part of the economy. Culture and the Arts generate billions of dollars in revenue (The Conference Board estimates $46-billion, or 3.8 per cent of Canada's GDP, in 2007). More than 1 million people across the country are employed in the Arts & Culture sector (which is comparable to jobs in agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining, oil & gas combined). And yet, the government has no problem giving handouts to large corporations (like the GM Bailout), all the while failing to understand that when you invest in Arts & Culture, you invest in greater economic activity and the health of your community. As NDP Leader Jack Layton said in the English Leaders' Debate: "It is a mistake to think of the Arts only as a luxury and invest in it only when the economy is booming…"

To see the arts portion of the English language debate, go to CBC CanadaVotes

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/

and click on the "Leaders' English Debate" under Audio and Video clips.

The arts question is at minute 58:45 and lasts for 12 minutes.

· "FUNDING FOR THE ARTS MUST BE ADMINISTERED AT ARM'S LENGTH FROM THE POLITICAL ARENA, SO THAT A CRITICAL AND PROVOCATIVE STANCE WILL NOT DISQUALIFY AN ARTIST FROM RECEIVING SUPPORT FROM THE ADMINSTRATION OF THE DAY." ~ Russell Smith, The Globe & Mail

With regards to the recent cuts to vital programs that facilitate Artists taking their work abroad, a few people have said a couple of things to us: 1) "Well, yeah, but the government said they weren't happy with the kind of work that was going over there…" What Harper said was they were "Reallocating funds from programs they deemed ineffective." Let's examine the statement "deemed ineffective": Since when has it ever been the role of a democratically elected government to choose what Art is effective and what Art is not? What Art gets made and what Art does not? What Art is "desirable" and what Art is not? Harper's decision to unilaterally cut these programs reeks of Authoritarianism. And the decision to keep private the analytical data that led to his government's decision helps confirm the Conservative Party's agenda to cut off support for Artists who express ideas that might be "subversive" or contrary to the ideology of their party. IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S JOB TO CHOOSE. Artists are not enemies of the people when they go against your views or taste. (Shall we get rid of strawberry ice cream because nobody you know likes it? While we're at let's fire the person who invented it.) Simply put, this government does not like Artists who are not "mainstream" – whatever that means. And who are these subversive, controversial, crazy anti-government, non-mainstream Artists??? People like Avi Lewis & Gwynne Dyer…and Volcano Theatre. Which brings us to The Little People:

THE LITTLE PEOPLE: People like Margaret Atwood were not the ones getting these travel grants. The money was not going to host "galas for the rich". Volcano Theatre is a perfect example of an outstanding, award winning, internationally acclaimed independent Toronto based theatre company, who is directly impacted by the cuts to programs that facilitate Artists taking their work abroad. Volcano has received an invitation from the Rwandan government to represent Canada in their second annual Festival Arts Azimuts in Huye, with their award winning play Goodness, by Toronto's Michael Redhill. (The play won the 'Best of Edinburgh Award' at the 2006 Edinburgh Fringe Festival, received rave reviews in The New York times, among other accolades.) This festival commemorates the 15th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide; the play Goodness explores genocide. Festival Director Odile Gakire Katese wrote in a personal letter to Volcano Theatre: "By [bringing the play to the festival] you'll ... enable us to record Goodness for future generations and thus help to prevent conflict in the future." The Azimuts festival has offered to pay €20,000 ($30,500), an amount, ironically, PromArt has never provided in all of Volcano's years of touring, according to Artistic Director Ross Manson. And so, with these recent cuts, Volcano's trip to Rwanda has been jeopardized. "Can we as a country refuse this invitation, given what it stands for? Can we refuse Rwanda even this gesture?" asks Ross Manson. He goes on to say: "Harper's assertion that the 'market' should pay for art is absurd. Should the citizen of Rwanda pay $100 a ticket to see our show?"

To read more about this in a recent Globe & Mail article, go to: http://www.volcano.ca/Productions/goodness/GlobeArticleSept18.pdf

By the way…to donate Aeroplan air miles to help Volcano cover the air fare to Rwanda, e-mail: kevin@volcano.ca - say you want the aeroplan form, and they'll do the rest. OR you can donate money online here, and receive a charitable receipt:

http://www.canadahelps.org/CharityProfilePage.aspx?CharityID=s77345

WHAT CAN I DO? It may be that you are on the fence – that you've supported the Conservatives in the past and in recent times have become increasingly disaffected with their policies on day care, health care, education, the military, the economy…but are hesitant to change now because you've supported them for so long and such change is admittedly difficult. Well if there was ever an election to make a change, this would be it! Or, it may be that you really like the Conservative candidate in your riding. Unfortunately, the only way to get the Conservatives out or at least prevent them from getting a majority government is to vote strategically – which means voting for the candidate who is sure to beat the Conservative candidate in your riding. For information on how to do that and for info. about your riding go to: www.voteforenvironment.ca

WHAT CAN I READ TO BETTER EDUCATE MYSELF? WHAT ARE THE ARTISTS THEMSELVES SAYING?

If you go to The Wrecking Ball website at: http://thewreckingball.ca/ and scroll about a quarter of the way down to the section titled "OPINION: MAKE OUR VOICES HEARD", you will find important open letters to Prime Minister Harper written by some of Canada's finest, including:

Wajdi Mouawad - Artistic Director of the National Arts Centre's French Section. He wrote two open letters to Prime Minister Harper which appeared in the newspaper Le Devoir, on Tuesday September 9th and on Tuesday September 30th. You can also find the first letter here: http://summerworks.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/wajdi-mouawads-open-letter-to-stephen-harper/

Acclaimed Author Margaret Atwood wrote an open letter to Stephen Harper entitled: "In Defense Of The Arts", which appeared in The Globe & Mail on Thursday September 25th. You can also find it here: http://theomniscientmussel.com/2008/09/margaret-atwood-in-defence-of-the-arts/

An excerpt of the letter Yann Martell (author of Life Of Pi) wrote to Stephen Harper, included with gift book #36. (Every two weeks since he became PM, Martell sends Harper a novel after Harper declared that he does not read fiction.)

IN CONCLUSION: It may be that you are planning to vote Conservative in the upcoming election. We do not expect this letter to change your mind, nor have your mind be changed based on this one issue alone. BUT we do hope, at the very least, this letter has given you some insight on this issue from an Arts Worker-s perspective, and that you now more clearly understand the implications that your vote has on the LIVELIHOOD of people like us, as well as the trickle down effect it will have on you and your family, as "Ordinary Canadians".

See you at the polls,

Julie Tepperman & Aaron Willis

Actor, playwright, educator Actor, director, educator

Co-Founding Artistic Directors, Convergence Theatre