By Sheila Copps

First published in The Hill Times on August 20, 2018.

OTTAWA—Most Canadians know little and care less about the tools that support cultural investment in the country. They do know what they like.

Newfoundland artist Mary Pratt, who passed away last week, found beauty and depth in the simplest of objects. A bowl of fruit, a crate of eggs, grapes in a colander are just some of the subjects she immortalized during her career as one of Canada’s most prolific and renowned women artists. The subjects she chose to immortalize are drawn from daily life, and many are not unique to her province or country.

But she is distinctly Canadian. This summer, the National Gallery of Canada is featuring “Impressionist Treasures”, an exhibition from the Ordrupgaard Museum in Copenhagen and its exquisite collection of French impressionists. The appeal of the artists, from Monet to Manet, from Pissarro to Sisley, is universal, just like Mary Pratt’s inspirational interpretation of everyday life.

But according to new rules surrounding art donations, Pratt’s work may be worth supporting but Monet’s may not. Government financial rules governing art policy are complicated but hugely important. They are probably the most crucial tools in expanding Canadians’ access to public art.

Government-secured insurance underwrites travelling exhibitions across the country. Tax incentives ensure that world-renowned oeuvres d’art by famous artists can be experienced by ordinary citizens in galleries across the country. But after a recent Federal Court ruling clipped the wings of the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board, the scope of that financial toolkit has been drastically reduced. As a result of the ruling, Canadians who wish to donate valuable foreign paintings to Canadian galleries may no longer get tax credits for doing so.

According to a Globe and Mail report last week, several major Canadian galleries have suspended discussions with potential philanthropists as a direct result of the ruling’s impact. The board was forced into this new tax interpretation even though the federal government is appealing the decision.

Over the decades, the board has exercised an important role in keeping important Canadian treasures in the country and in encouraging private donors to give their art over to public institutions. The courts ruled the Export Review Board went too far when it attempted to block a Canadian from selling a privately-owned, foreign-made painting to someone outside of the country. The Federal Court’s ruling that only Canadian-made paintings could be barred from export had the knock-on effect of altering the board’s tax credit policy, limiting it to only donations of Canadian-made works.

While it is certainly valid to question the refusal of an export permit for a painting that has no Canadian connection, the collateral damage in donation denials will be huge.

Hundreds of millions of dollars in rare and important artworks have found their way into the public domain because of the little known work of the board. Back in 2003, the Toronto-based Tannenbaum family decided to honour their matriarch’s hometown with a multi-million donation of more than 200 European paintings to the Hamilton Art Gallery.

Hamilton beat out the Louvre in Paris and the Art Gallery of Ontario, which were also trying to acquire the collection. In 2010, the Tannebaums followed with the donation of their African collection, and the paintings provided the catalyst for a major reconstruction project at the gallery in their honour.

Neither collection would likely have been tax creditable under the recently-revised rules currently being applied to foreign art donations. The wide-ranging negative impact on the Canadian art scene is enormous if this decision is not reversed, and quickly.

New Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez should clarify the government’s intention on this issue. If necessary, the minister should update the 41-year-old legislation which governs the board and its operations. At the very least, a regulatory amendment should permit the board to support European, African, and Asian artworks that have intrinsic value as well. They, too, should be eligible for tax credits.

As we celebrate the prolific life’s work of Mary Pratt, we should also recognize that Pissarro, Monet and the impressionists also speak to our collective being. Images that capture truth in life are universal.

Canadians find inspiration and solace in creativity from around the world. The artist’s brush has no national boundary. Nor should we.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

By Sheila Copps

First published in The Hill Times on September 10, 2018.

OTTAWA—Culture is a hill that the North American Free Trade Agreement should die on.

And those naysayers who have piled on to criticize the prime minister’s decision to hold firm on culture simply don’t know what they are talking about. The growth in cultural jobs doubled that of the overall economy, accounting for more than 650,000 jobs.

Our intricate system of cultural supports, subsidies, and licence requirements is an economic driver for the country. According to Statistics Canada, the cultural GDP in Canada totalled $53.8-billion in 2016, a 1.5 per cent increase from the previous year.

Culture also accounted for 2.8 per cent of Canada’s overall GDP. The importance of culture varied considerably across provinces and territories, ranging from a share of 1.3 per cent of GDP in Saskatchewan to 3.5 per cent in Ontario.

At the national level, cultural jobs were on the increase in most domains, led by sound recording with an increase of more than seven per cent.

The only decrease was in the publishing of written works which declined for the fourth consecutive year.

The audio-visual sector is certainly an important part of the cultural landscape but it is by no means the only sector influenced by a robust, and differentiated Canadian cultural policy, Canada’s intricate support framework is a job creator. But, more importantly, it is also the only way that Canadians can create and share their own stories.

The biggest cultural fight with the United States had nothing to do with television. The so-called “Magazine Wars” were actually about the written word.

That battle happened when the Americans tried to do an end-run around the cultural exemption Canada had negotiated in the initial free trade agreement with the United States.

The Americans went to the World Trade Organization to accuse Canada of unfair treatment because our tax system offered enhanced advertising credits exclusively for Canadian magazines. The Yanks wanted Time Magazine to get the same support as Maclean’s.

The WTO found in favour of the United States, taking the view that magazines are a commodity just like bananas or pork bellies. It ruled that no country could use the tax system to favour their own creative vehicles, like books, music, magazines, or film.

That decision so outraged Canada that we initiated a new world convention under the auspices of UNESCO. The 2005 Convention for the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions was a direct result of the magazine battle between Canada and the United States. It effectively replaced the WTO as the platform to arbitrate cultural disputes.

The United States was blindsided in their attempt to block the convention. Notwithstanding a full court press that included the intervention of then U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the final UNESCO Convention vote was 148 in favour and two against.

The only countries who voted against were the United Nations and Israel. Australia, Liberia, Nicaragua and Honduras abstained.

But the overwhelming majority of countries agreed on an important world precedent. They argued successfully that culture must be treated in a unique and different way from other commodities when it comes to the rules governing international trade.

Trudeau needs to stand firm on this position at the NAFTA talks. To do anything else would be folly for a country that shares the world’s largest border and a common language with the United States.

Can you imagine a Canadian broadcast landscape where Howard Stern and Fox News dominate the agenda? Under our system, Stern’s radio show lasted only weeks in Canada because his brand of misogyny violated our broadcast laws.

The cultural exemption ensures that we will have space and support for our own stories.

Canadians need shelf space for creations in print, music, museology, audio-visual and performance arts.

Each of those elements is an important part in defining who we are. Of course, some stories are universal.

A film version of Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale resonates in the global market. But her strength as a writer and creator was nurtured through multiple Canadian policies that should not be compromised.

Copyright laws, book publishing support, public lending right payments, international travel investment in the arts and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation have all played a part in Atwood’s impressive global trajectory.

The Handmaid’s Tale would not have been written without a strong Canadian cultural policy.

Some think that the cultural exemption is only there to support the few.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Trudeau needs to stand firm on this.

A NAFTA without the cultural exemption is not worth signing.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

Published on Monday, January 30, 2017 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—Donald Trump’s only venture into theatre was a bust.

So it stands to reason that one of his first acts as president could be to cut all funding to the only two federal agencies with a mandate for arts and culture. Last week The Hill, a congressional news source, reported on a plan to eliminate all funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB).

The NEA, established by an Act of Congress back in 1964, currently receives only $150-million in federal government funds. That represents a pittance of the $10.5-trillion in cuts proposed by the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing organization providing the blueprint for administration budget direction. As for the CPB, its total annual funding from public coffers is less than $450-million.

Both sums are chump change. By contrast, the Canada Council for the Arts is currently funded at a rate of $220-million Canadian dollars annually, almost $20-million more than the congressional allocation for the NEA, in a country with one-tenth the population. The last federal budget boosted the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation budget by $675-million over five years.
 
But it is obvious that Trump’s political agenda is not about simply balancing the country’s books. He is preparing to use an extraordinarily powerful bully pulpit to promote the Trump legacy as a blue-collar billionaire. What better way to drain the swamp than hitting out at left-wing media and cultural elites.

It may also be payback time for ancient grievances.

According to The New York Times, back in 1970, a 23-year-old Trump wanted to make his mark on Broadway. He offered to co-produce a play with David Black in return for equal billing and a chance to learn the ropes in New York’s theatre world.

The play Paris Is Out! was a dud and Trump lost all his money and, apparently, his Broadway interest. He subsequently reneged on a published promise to partner with Black in another show the following year. That turned out to be a wise withdrawal because W.C., a musical based on the life of comedian W.C. Fields, closed even before it made Broadway, notwithstanding the presence of Mickey Rooney and Bernadette Peters in lead roles.

More than 30 years later, Trump explored producing his own story on Broadway, entitled Trump. News reports quoted producer Barry Weissler announcing the proposed musical based on The Apprentice television series, and scheduled to open in the spring of 2006. “Donald Trump is a larger than life character and the Broadway musical stage may be the only medium large enough for him. We know Broadway audiences will embrace the drama and genuine intrigue of The Apprentice just as television audiences have. ”

The show was never launched. Trump obviously has a hate-hate relationship with the powerful world of American entertainment. His much-publicized feud with actress Meryl Streep is just one example of this. Why would a president-elect engage in a Twitter fight on the eve of his inauguration?

Perhaps the media-savvy president is simply changing the channel.

Social media is replete with posts by Trump followers loving the cuts. “They are like the thing in the back of your fridge that is really moldy and stinks but you haven’t wanted to touch to throw away. Well it is time to put on the chest waders and Drain the Swamp. Out! Out!” was a post linked to Breitbart News, the far right web news site of Trump chief strategist and senior counsellor Steve Bannon.
 
Trump believes his talent as a television pitchman was not sufficiently recognized. That was evident during presidential debates when, in the middle of a serious question, he tilted his head to complain that The Apprentice should have received an Emmy.

Snubs from the entertainment industry have rubbed Trump the wrong way. And killing public funding for the NEA and NPR are his way of getting the final word.

A groundswell of opposition is coming from the very people whom Trump loves to hate, the so-called liberal media elites who turned their backs on Trump. Even Sylvester Stallone reportedly spurned his offer to head up the NEA.

In revenge, the first victims of Trump’s promise to drain the swamp are the only two federal agencies with a specific arts and culture mandate.

This is the president’s first salvo in the war against the arts but it certainly won’t be the last. That swamp is just too appealing. Too bad his Broadway debut was such a bust.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien is cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.