I am not a big fan of the current administration in Ottawa. That has nothing to do with my political persuasion. Or theirs. I wouldn’t be a fan of ANY administration that continued to ignore our sector, other than to make pointless cuts to programs that were already underfunded. I wouldn’t be a fan of any administration that fails to see the value our sector brings to the country. Just for balance, I have to say I was taken aback (that’s the polite phrasing) when Michael Ignatieff tried to position himself recently as a struggling freelancer in the arts and culture sector. I appreciate his support but I think his rhetoric carried him off into some strange territory. Jack Layton hasn’t said too much about us recently but he has been battling some serious health issues and so gets a free pass for awhile on this one. I would be happy if the Conservatives at least recognized the economic impact of the arts and culture sector; even if they don’t entirely subscribe to the other benefits we believe we bring to our society. The statistics from the Conference Board of Canada show that there are more of us employed in arts and culture than in forests, fisheries and mining combined. That surely should translate into some amount of political clout. But the Heritage portfolio does not have the same prominence in this government as it did in previous administrations.

With that in mind, off we go to Ottawa several times a year to meet both with elected officials and with the bureaucrats in various departments. When we tell them “There are more of us employed in the arts than in forests, fisheries and mining combined” they get this slightly perplexed look on their faces. They figure that we must be telling the truth (why would we make up an easily verifiable statistic?) but it just doesn’t jive with their world view. In the interests of fairness, I do want to say that the senior bureaucrats that I have met in Heritage all know that stat (for at least as long as Statistics Canada can collect those kinds of numbers, but that is another post!) and are all dedicated, committed and very knowledgeable about our industry.

“Well” we say to ourselves “they didn’t give us any stimulus money but hey! At least they didn’t really cut anything!” Sadly, this passes for success these days.

When the government cut the Trade Routes and PromArt programs before the last election, the initial reasons cited were that these programs weren’t efficient and besides, there were problems with the kind of people who were getting the grants. Several prominent left-wing folks were identified by both named and unnamed government officials in newspaper articles. Here was a glimpse of an unpleasant ideology at work.

That event and the restrictions put on artists participating in the Cultural Olympiad this past winter were the impetus for a recent issue of “EQ” where we examined censorship in the theatre. The last few days, the papers in Toronto have been full of discussion about a particular play appearing at the Summerworks Festival, a piece called “Homegrown”, based on 18 months worth of conversations between lawyer/playwright Catherine Frid and Shareef Abdelhaleem , a young man jailed for his role in a failed terrorist plot. The “Toronto 18”, as they have come to be called, were allegedly planning to plant truck bombs in parts of downtown Toronto, target key buildings (including the CBC) and then go after the Prime Minister in Ottawa.

  Obviously, this is going to be a controversial subject. I think violence as a response to a situation you don’t like (personal, political, whatever) is completely unacceptable. But that doesn’t mean that it isn’t suitable fodder for exploration or that there is nothing to be learned from looking to figure out what makes people respond that way, at the very least in order to try to find ways to make sure it doesn’t happen again. All of our systems (legal, airport security, etc) are obviously having a challenging time responding to these threats, both real and perceived. And is it not important for us as a society to look at our own responses – legal and political (not to mention emotional) - when the situation isn’t a half a world away but possibly right here in the downtown core of Canada’s largest city?

Andrew MacDougall, a spokesperson for the Prime Minister’s Office was quoted this week as saying, “We are extremely disappointed that public money is being used to fund plays that glorify terrorism.” Frankly, that disturbs me far more than anything the play itself could possibly have to say. Does this mean we can’t take a look at anything controversial because to portray it in anything less than stark black and white/good guys vs. bad guys is to “glorify” something? And no, as far as we all know, Mr. MacDougall has neither read nor seen the play in question. For the record, yes - I have read the play.

Is a play like this only acceptable if it succeeds? (The reviews in general have not been overly enthusiastic about the work for reasons that have nothing to do with the subject matter) Is there no room for an exploration that fails? Is there only financing for work that hews to the received wisdom? That toes some kind of party line? And if so, which party?