Artists who are out on the streets once again because of COVID lockdowns are lobbying furiously for a return to a full Canadian Emergency Response Benefit for their sector.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on January 6, 2022.

OTTAWA—Musical blockbuster Come From Away has already been seen by a million Canadians.

But if you missed the Canadian performance in Toronto, you won’t be able to see it in this country again.

The story of how the people of Newfoundland opened their hearts to passengers stranded by the downing of the World Trade Centre is reverberating around the world.

It is the most successful Canadian musical ever produced and has prompted a domestic theatre renaissance that has already spawned more live theatre offerings for the globe.

The numbers published by David Mirvish when he announced the shuttering over the Christmas week were indeed impressive.

The press release cited box office sales of $115-million, including over $15-million in HST.

Mirvish estimated the economic impact on the Toronto economy at $920-million.

Mirvish pointed a finger directly at government, “in other parts of the world, the government has stepped up to support the commercial theatre sector by offering a financial safety net for the sector to reopen and play during the pandemic, thus protecting the tens of thousands of good jobs the sector creates. That is the case in the U.S., the U.K., and Australia—where productions of Come From Away continue.”

But in Canada there is no such government support.

Mirvish’s holiday announcement provoked shock waves in Canada’s artistic community.

New Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez has been working feverishly to find a solution to the dilemma.

And artists who are out on the streets once again because of COVID lockdowns are lobbying furiously for a return to a full Canadian Emergency Response Benefit for their sector.

With all the theatres shuttered, it is impossible for the thousands of people who depend on live performance for their livelihoods to even feed their families.

Canada Council for the Arts CEO Simon Brault has emerged as a champion for those artists.

He has been working with unions representing the arts community trying to figure out the best solutions for support in these trying times.

But the question begs. If the city of Toronto garners almost a billion dollars in economic benefits from live performances, why are the arts treated like an afterthought in Canada’s COVID business support model?

For some reason, if you are manufacturing autos or pumping oil, your jobs are worth the full attention of governments.

If you are artists, bringing joy, perspective and global reach to the Canadian story, you are left picking up the scraps.

And it was always thus.

For some bizarre reason, commercial success in cultural industries has generally disqualified creators from government support.

There are government incentives and subsidies for book publishers, media content creators and community not-for-profit operations. But live commercial productions are generally left to their own devices as they are profit-making enterprises. However, governments help lots of industries in the name of economic development. Why exclude the cultural industries?

On the Hill, there is much discussion about how to turn this around. Not much is happening at Queens’s Park either even though the provincial capital is by far the largest beneficiary of commercial entertainment investment.

Some are discussing possible tax credits, which kickstarted a robust growth in Canadian film opportunities back in the nineties.

The tax credit introduced then has been replicated around the world, and it has been one of the best models for media content creation on the globe.

That credit was introduced by the Department of Finance, in tandem with Heritage, which begs the question. Where is Toronto-based Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland in this picture?

The cut to the CERB may have made some debt hawks on Bay Street happy. But it has devastated the creative sector, who continue to lobby for direct support for unemployed artists locked out of their places of employment by pandemic fiats.

Where, too, is the Department of Industry in this quest for solutions?

Francois-Philippe Champagne’s ministerial title is minister of innovation, science and industry. Surely the world of entertainment is built on innovation.

Before Come From Away, there was no real hope of developing a domestic theatre industry equivalent to London’s west end or Broadway.

But this magical story got Canada’s foot in the door for the creation of a whole new innovative industry, live theatre that actually makes money and entertains.

The brains behind innovation in Canada need to get together and find a solution to this gaping hole in public policy. All hands need to be on deck, including the prime minister’s office.

Come From Away should not have Gone Away.

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 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 multimillion 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.