Julianna Yau’s blog

Here are my summary notes from today’s Heritage Committee meeting.

Position on the budget cuts

• these are not “cuts” because the money is being reallocated
• comments about balancing books
• criticism of the 1995 budget cuts was that they were not done fast or deep enough
• funding was cut to programs (a) which met their objectives, (b) where similar programs were providing similar services, and/or (c) the program had high operating costs
• the cuts were part of an overall strategic review of all departments
• this is a changing world where art is changing (????)
• “ensure we are getting results”
• added $30m to festival programs
• funding provided to Quebec’s 400th anniversary celebration
• government is interested in protecting artists, for example through C-61
• mentioned multiple times that copyright protection is important to artists, which resulted in C-61

Criticisms (most of which were unaddressed)

• the cuts have been devistating to the arts community
• arts community fearing this is the tip of the iceberg
• government should not decide who gets funding — this should be done at arms length
• why were the reviews not made public?
• why was the arts community not involved? there should be public hearings & consultations, esp. involving arts organizations
• why did the changes bypass Parliamentary approval? why were the reallocation of funds not taken to Parliament?
• were changes an option before cuts were made?
• although there were cuts in 1995, new programs were also being created while others were cut
• why are programs which have previously been reviewed as being useful being cut?
• keep mentioning that money is being reallocated, but where? the office confirmed, then denied, that the money is being reallocated to the Olympic torch relay
• why were the announcements made in the middle of summer, during peak vacation time and around the time of the Olympics?
• the current government seems to love heritage but afraid of modern art, as shown through C-10
• festivals are important, but so is sending artists abroad
• with the Sustainability Program, the arts organizations are counting on Canada to be a full partner
• if there is good reason for cutting the programs, there should be transparency
• although they decided that copyright was important, the bill was delayed numerous times

At the end of the meeting, they decided that the committee members would submit lists of witnesses for a hearing by Friday at noon. After much verbal jossling, they decided to set a date for the next meeting once the list of witnesses was compiled.

My questions (some overlap with the critiscms above)

• why was the arts community not involved in the review for the usefulness and need for the programs?
• where is the reallocated money going?
• which programs which were cut had, according to their review, met their objectives?
• which programs which were cut had, according to their review, similar programs? what are those programs?
• which programs which were cut had, according to their review, have high operating costs? why was adjustment to the budget or operation not considered before the program was closed?
• if the government is concerned about arts & culture, why is the art & culture sector not part of a formal consultation and review process of either federal arts spending or copyright legislation changes?

Tags: art, Canada, culture, heritage committee, meetings, politics