Categories: Capital Read, Inside the Queensway

Lost in translation

by kadyomalley on Tuesday, September 23, 2008 1:29pm - 85 Comments

Speaking with reporters following a campaign event in Saskatoon earlier today, Stephen Harper was asked, in English, about his government’s decision to cut funding for the arts:

[...]You know, I think when ordinary working people come home, turn on the tv and see a gala of a bunch of people, you know, at a rich gala, all subsidized by the taxpayers, claiming their subsidies aren’t high enough when they know the subsidies have actually gone up, I’m not sure that’s something that resonates with ordinary people. Ordinary people understand we have to live within a budget. We have increased culture. We haven’t increased anybody’s budget without limit, so we’re not going to do this. I think this is a niche issue for some, but that’s my view [...]

Which, moments later, produced the following question, asked (and answered) in French:

Good afternoon, Mr. Harper. I was listening to you speak English earlier, and you said that artists do not attract much pity, when they wear long gowns at gala evenings. Could you perhaps repeat what you said in French, and do you believe that artists are spoiled, Mr. Harper?

HARPER: It’s always a mistake, I think, to generalize about any group [...]

Especially when counting on Francophone voters, some of whom may take great pride in seeing Quebec artists celebrated by their peers – provincial, national and international – even when it happens at a “rich gala”.

The rest of Harper’s response, during which he fails to answer the question about whether he believes artists are “spoiled” — possibly because he saw what happened to his Heritage Minister when she ventured down that path:

But, of course, as I have said a number of times, budgets for the arts went up by 8% during our mandate, and many Canadians did not get a wage increase of 8%. And I think that the vast majority of canadians understand that we have to be realistic, that we have to consider not only the demands being made by certain groups, but the entire economy, the entire budget, and the needs of all the population. And that is what this government is doing. This government has supported arts and culture, but it’s true that we did not increase them without limit. And that’s the reality for a government, and it’s the same thing with the other parties. If the other parties were in government, their policy would be the same, because the figures are a reality that you have to manage when you’re a government.

Tags: ahhhrts cuts, culture killers, knows what he likes, on the spot, saskatoon, Stephen Harper

More by kadyomalley

Chris R

Interesting, too, that Lauren Harper is co-hosting a “gala” at the NAC next week to support a National Arts Centre youth program.

I have never heard Harper use the word “gala” before. Interesting that it would come today.

Wonder if he and the Mrs. had some fighting words about her participation in the event!
Andrew

Is she wearing a ball gown? ;)
madeyoulook

Folks, as an angry taxpayer I don’t begrudge you your galas. Have a wonderful time. Really. BUT DON’T EXPECT ME TO PAY FOR IT DAMMIT!!!!

To the whine about other exporting industries also bloodsucking off my paycheque, I say you’re absolutely right: cut all the &%^&^%&$’s off the teat. Once, swiftly, severely, let all the whining happen at once. Then maybe the crybabies could go and find some honest work, and earn an honest buck.
DM

who asked for the statement en francais?
http://onebigumbrella.blogspot.com MK

madeyoulook, you’re not paying for the galas. That’s the point. Galas aren’t funded by the government.
http://onebigumbrella.blogspot.com MK

Oh, and if you cut off all the industries at once (and I agree, if we get cut off, they all get cut off), be prepared for the massive economic hit we’ll take afterward.

Because we are ALREADY making an honest buck doing honest work.
madeyoulook

Really? I’m not paying for the galas, eh? You mean none of the attendees derived any income from public sources, and none of the productions that hired them received a grant or an insanely rich tax credit, thereby permitting the attendees to afford whatever the price of attendance was. And no one is writing off the gala as a “legitimate” business expense.
And not a single government agency or crown corporation put an ad in the program, and the Canada Council did most certainly not pay for a table-of-ten at the banquet…
madeyoulook

Oh, and if you cut off all the industries at once (and I agree, if we get cut off, they all get cut off), be prepared for the massive economic hit we’ll take afterward.

You have soooo proved my point. If our economic survival is so bloody dependent on the government’s tentacles being abso-F-ingly everywhere, thereby really only being supported by honest taxpayers who are not so propped up, don’t you see this house of cards falling quite quickly when the last vestiges of an “honest” private economy no longer exists to provide the taxes to prop up everything else? And you want this death-spiral to continue only because we’ve gone down this far already? What, eastern Europe only failed because they didn’t believe in socialism <enough?
madeyoulook

I failed HTML 101, that “enough” was s’posed to be in italics. Oops.
http://onebigumbrella.blogspot.com MK

Ok, let’s cut subsidies to agriculture, for starters. Where do you think we’ll be then? Next, cut all that money going to the oil companies. I’m sure the Alberta government will be happy about that. Next, cut all money to the military. They provide such a vital function, they should be able to pay for themselves. And so on.

And then ask yourself, when a million people lose their job and have to go on welfare (or are you going to eliminate that too and have people die of starvation by the thousands since agriculture would have died?), how does that make you, an average taxpayer, better off. Assuming, that is, that you still have a job and can pay taxes.

The reality is that in the global economy, government subsidization is everywhere, in every country. You want to destroy this country in an attempt to buck the trend, go right ahead.
stewacide

In case anyone missed it, The National did a story tonight on where the truth lies re: culture spending. Their conclusion was it’s stayed about the same: not increased as the Tories claim, but not slashed as the opposition claims.

Much ado about nothing.
Toby

People who comment here and call themselves “average” or “ordinary” Canadians surely can’t believe they’re fooling anyone. I am fully aware that it takes a certain level of non-ordinary dorkiness to follow (and comment on!) a blog so inside politics it has the word “inside” in its name.
Sisyphus

Not quite accurate. The overall basket of “culture” is basically the same. But “culture” now includes sports, recreation, heritage, and
a general grab-bag of activities.
It’s safe to assume that with the 2010 Olympics alone included as “culture” that the mix of that basket is “flexible” and easy to hide.
madeyoulook

Cut subsidies to agriculture? Cool, let me buy you a beer. All WHAT money going to the oil companies — you mean the profit they earned supplying a product in demand at a price clearly marked before the consumer agreed to the transaction, and after the government skimmed off an obscene percentage of the price per litre in taxes? The profit money they are reinvesting in their business, or sharing with their taxpaying shareholders? That money? No touchy.

Ahem, the military IS a government function. Sez so right in the constitution. Milking cows, publishing newspapers, singing on a stage, swimming 100m as fast as possible, designing commercial aircraft, buiding garage doors, exporting widgets, providing high-speed internet to the boonies, paying Atlantic fisherpersons to stay home instead of hopping a non-stop to Fort McMurray, keeping alive any number of obviously essential *cough* grassroots community action organizations whose members won’t shell out a fifty buck annual membership, vetting musicians’ work and production companies’ movies for grants, not so much.

And note that I got sick of coming up with examples of how the Ottawa Politburo needs to have a finger in every frickin’ business pie in teh country. For more insanity, run through government expenditures in any recent fiscal year.

And if the argument for further tightening of the noose around the neck of the productive economy is that the noose is already there, and already pretty tight, heaven help us if you should convince a majority of Canadians of that point.
Austin So

Who’da thunk that MYL was an anarchist…

What you propose MYL (taken to its logical conclusion) is to simply have a Canada completely devoid of any industry, whose economy simply relies on selling its resources.

Wonderful vision, there…

Austin
madeyoulook

Poor Austin cannot conceive of an industry unless it is supported by the taxpayer. You need to push the reset button on that part of your brain that reaches logical conclusions, friend. You also need a lot more faith in the talents and energy of Canadians to compete and succeed without Ottawa’s hand shoved so far up their…
L’Outremontais

For those interested, here’s the part of the Téléjournal where they treat that double talk…
http://www.radio-canada.ca/audio%2Dvideo/#urlMedia=http://www.radio-canada.ca/Medianet/2008/RDI2/TelejournalSurRdi200809232100_5.asx&pos=0
Austin So

The question is whether you believe that Made in Canada products or services are capable of drawing in investments or whether it is easier for these products and services to go elsewhere.

In you proposed vision, what would be the impetus for any product or service to remain in Canada? And what does “talent and energy” have to do with maximizing profits?

Austin
seaandthemountains

yeah it is important to dissect what makes up an 8% increase

how much in inflationary?

how much is commitments made by the previous Liberal government?

What were the nature of the increased expenditures (internal GofC expenditures vs actual in artists hands expenditures)?

And do the recent cuts diminish the 8% margin?

I can;t afford the time right now but the basic information should be fairly accessible (the estimates, recent budgets etc)

the key will be classification.

a more crude starting point: did any of the Harper budgets announce increases in ‘arts’ spending?
madeyoulook

In you proposed vision, what would be the impetus for any product or service to remain in Canada?

Profit.

And what does “talent and energy” have to do with maximizing profits?

A helluva lot more than massaging the annual grant renewal application.
http://onebigumbrella.blogspot.com MK

James Bradshaw did a good job following the money on the funding issue here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080919.wbudget20/BNStory/Entertainment/home

As for funding for the oil industry, they get $1.4 billion in tax breaks.
Austin So

Then I wonder if you really understand this thing called the USA, or the concept of “scale”.

Why bother trying to provide a service for a market of 1 million from Vancouver, when with that same cost in distribution, you could be servicing a market of 100 million from LA?

As far as the original thread, I wonder what your attitude is towards investment. Government investment into an industry is used to create returns of taxable revenue/income, is it not?

So this manner of “making profit”, just doesn’t sit well with you because it is an enterprise of the state rather than the individual (and despite the simple fact that it ends up being an enterprise of many individuals), right?

Austin
Jack Mitchell

MYL, you are such an idealist, but one has to give you credit for consistency.

Even granting that government subsidies of any kind, including those to the arts, are detrimental to particular sectors – which I’m certainly prepared to ponder – how can Canada give up its subsidies (to agriculture or the arts or whatever) unilaterally? I mean, our unsubsidised wheat couldn’t compete with subsidies American or Russian wheat on the world market; and certainly pro-arts-subsidies people would point to what France, or Spain, or Mexico does for its artists.

Moreover, some sectors of the economy do suck in massive amounts of government money and turn that money around to keep whole regions flourishing; it can also pay unexpected bonuses. Look at the defense budget in the States, to which we owe the Internet itself, and without which whole cities would more or less vanish.

The same, IMHO, would apply to arts funding, if it were done right and not in the half-assed democratic manner as it is at present. Augustus spent maybe $10M/year in today’s money on supporting a dozen poets, and he has to say the very least reaped the benefits: we still know who he was, for one thing, and they helped establish the legitimacy of his rule after the civil wars. Obviously that’s like the single biggest success story in the history of arts patronage, like the Internet with defense subsidy, but I believe that’s the principle: taxpayers, by putting money into the arts, can hope their own epoch will go down as more than a footnote; our descendents, walking through our cemetary, will notice “2011″ on our tombs and say, “Man, that dude lived during the fourth season of ER! Take my picture by it!” Meanwhile, we are hopefully spared the indignity of being considered less cultured than the Croats.

What do you say?
madeyoulook

Why bother trying to provide a service for a market of 1 million from Vancouver, when with that same cost in distribution, you could be servicing a market of 100 million from LA?

You provide it to both markets. You have heard of free trade, I trust? It was in all the papers a few years ago. Remarkable contributor to our current prosperity. Forced us to compete a little more strongly once some protectionist barriers exposed us to the competition. Lowers the barriers to supplying markets across borders. Funny you should mention Vancouver, which happens to have mucho distribution advantages as a conduit between much of North America and Asia. Surprised? Pull out a globe, you’ll see it.

Government investment into an industry is used to create returns of taxable revenue/income, is it not?

Nope. Look past the press release and the ribbon cutting. It’s a way to buy votes with everybody’s money. Businesses invest where the due diligence tells them they stand a reasonable chance to make a profit. They get financed by private bankers whose due diligence says the capital provided will likely be paid back with interest. Governments invest when the private businesses choose not to, to help their cronies and to pander for votes. See the difference?

So this manner of “making profit”, just doesn’t sit well with you because it is an enterprise of the state rather than the individual (and despite the simple fact that it ends up being an enterprise of many individuals), right?

In light of the above comments, and for the simple MORAL (yes, moral) reason that the state has no business taking everyone’s tax dollars to *cough* pick winners, especially given the history of failures and corruption scandals, and the promise of more of the same. Oh, and for the MORAL (yes, moral) reason that if they ARE making a profit, they are squeezing out any honest business that might have tried to make the same profit without the risky allocation of public treasure. So indeed, you might conclude that it does not “sit well” with me.

And with that, I surrender the last eloquent words to others, I am off to Z…Z…z…
Austin So

You provide it to both markets.

Now you are being disingenuous.

There are more profitable reasons to locate to LA (and employ all those locals) and distribute to Vancouver, than the other way around. This is the result of FTA: the tanking of our manufacturing base.

If you can’t see it, then you can’t see it (the starry eyed capitalist).

Austin