|
Cuts to the Canadian
Musical Diversity
Component
of the Canada Music Fund
Give a dog a bad name and hang him.
The Bloc Québécois wishes to thank all the
groups and individuals from Quebec and Canada who appeared before the Committee
with regard to the cuts to the Canadian Musical Diversity Component of the
Canada Music Fund.
It is essentially on the basis of a study
conducted in 2007[1] that Canadian Heritage officials appeared before the Committee[2] to explain the Conservative government’s decision to cut $1.3
million from the Canadian Musical Diversity Component and transfer it to a
(future) music digitization program.
The reasons given to justify these cuts
cannot be based on the 2007 report. To have it say what it wanted to hear, the
government had to change ideas, phrases and words when quoting the report (it
changed “increasing support for artists” to “increasing support for touring”).
It also contradicts statements made in the report (for instance, the government
“invented” program overlaps).
Give a dog a bad name and hang him … even if
nothing is wrong.
The report does not mention:
- Cutting the Canadian Musical Diversity Component
to invest in digitization. The report says that “no one had a clear version on
what the next version of the CMF
should look like,” page 12.
- Program overlaps: in fact the report says there
are no overlaps.
- Increasing support for touring, but the report
does mention increasing support for artists.
Let us look more closely at the differences
between the 2007 summative evaluation report and the Department’s presentation
(29 October 2009).
WHAT IT
SAYS IN THE 2007 REPORT[3] |
WHAT IT
SAYS IN
THE PRESENTATION
BY SENIOR OFFICIALS,
29 OCTOBER 2009[4] |
COMMENTS
BY THE BLOC QUÉBÉCOIS |
The Department changed the main recommendation |
“… no one had a clear version on
what the next version of the CMF
should look like‑nor is it the purpose of an evaluation study to re‑design
a program. For this reason, a main recommendation of this study is
that PCH should develop options for the next generation of the CMF and obtain
feedback on these options from stakeholders.”
Page 12 |
Main recommendation:
Canadian Heritage should restructure the CMC in order to:
- Simplify
its structure (…)
- Help the
industry … (…)
- Increase
support for touring (…)”
Page 3 |
Two things:
a) How can
the government determine how to restructure the CMF when the report says that
no one knew what to do with the Fund and since that was not the purpose of
the evaluation?
b) The main
recommendation is to obtain feedback on how to restructure
the CMF. |
The Department
cheated by changing “Increasing the level of support to the artist” to “increasing
support for touring” |
Page 14 :
“Increase the level of support to
the artist, including more funding for skills development (e.g.,
co-writing tours to major music centres in the US) and for marketing (e.g.,
support for international tours and showcases).” |
The Department states, on page 3:
“increasing support
for touring and international showcasing.” There is no reference
to a page number in the report. |
This is the most blatant example of
the Department manipulating the meaning of the report. This change to the
wording completely changes the meaning.[5] |
The
Department “invented” overlap |
“No
major duplication/overlap issues were identified.”
Page
12 |
“Eliminating
the Canadian Musical Diversity Component will also end program duplication.
About 60% of Canadian Musical Diversity recipients also receive support under
other CMF components or Canada Council music programs.”
Page
5 |
The
Canada Council for the Arts told the Standing Committee that same day, 29 October
2009:
“Without trying to be argumentative,
our own analysis of all funding – Canada Council’s, FACTOR’s, and MUSICACTION’s
– for the past three and a half years plus the findings of the summative
evaluation raise serious questions about this conclusion.” (significant
overlap)
“Our statistics show that the overlap
is about 15% (…) In looking at the last 18 months, our research showed that
of the 2,770 grant recipients from both FACTOR and MUSICACTION combined, only
79 of those recipients, or 3%, received sound recording funding from the
Canada Council in the same period.” |
The
Department cut one of the most effective components |
“Of
the three CMF
components covered by the survey of recipients, the CMD component (Grants for
Specialized Music Recording Production) had the largest incremental impact on the production of sound recordings.”
Page
6 |
The
Department said nothing about the program’s performance. |
…
To be expected! |
- The Department says it based its cuts to the Musical Diversity
Component on the feedback obtained and the 2007 report, yet the report itself
clearly does not say this.
- Feeling the need to justify an unjustifiable decision after the
fact, the Department quoted sentences from the 2007 report out of context and,
when it could not find what it needed, it changed words and thereby the meaning
and even contradicted statements in the report to justify the decision it had
already made.
- It is quite conceivable that because specialized music does not
meet the popularity criteria imposed by the Conservative ideology (“what
Canadians like”), the government decided to cancel this component of the CMF.
The Musical Diversity component was above all intended for “music whose intent
or content is not shaped by the desire for wide-market appeal.”
- If the Conservative government had wanted to act on the 2007
report recommendations, it should have increased support for artists since
there was no overlap and because this program had the greatest incremental
impact on the production of sound recordings.
For all
these reasons, the Bloc Québécois recommends:
- That the Department of Canadian Heritage increase its support for
specialized musical artists, starting with an additional $1.3 million in
funding to be allocated to the Canada Council for the Arts so that it can
create a funding program for the recording and distribution of specialized
music.
- That negotiations be undertaken with the Government of Quebec
towards an administrative agreement in order to transfer as soon as possible
jurisdiction for the arts, culture and communications to the Government of
Quebec, with the associated budgets.
Carole
Lavallée
Vice-Chair,
Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage
Bloc
Québécois MP for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert
Roger
Pomerleau
Member,
Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage
MP
for Drummond
|