This Magazine‘s Hilary Beaumont posted an excellent editorial today, rewinding 67 years to the Massey Commission report, the very origin of Canada’s cultural policies.
A great read for culture-lovers and skeptics alike, Beaumont reminds why Canada originally chose to fund culture and asks whether it is time for a Massey Commission for the 21st century — one which can lay the groundwork for the next 67 years of cultural policy.
In light of recent debates in English and French media (see here, here, here, and here), it is important to re-examine our understanding of why funding culture is good policy.
Below, we’ve pulled some salient excerpts. Still, do take a moment to read the complete article on www.this.org/…/massey-commission. Or if you’re feeling particularly motivated, dive directly into the original 1951 Massey Commission report.
How to save arts and culture in Canada: a Massey Commission 2.0
by Hilary Beaumont for This Magazine(…)
Jeff Melanson, currently co-CEO the National Ballet School, and soon to be president of The Banff Centre, made a provocative suggestion at a talk in late May hosted by the Literary Review of Canada: a new Massey Commission.
Canada’s “Magna Carta of arts and culture,” as the commission’s report was nicknamed, was released in 1951. The detailed document gave advice on the state of Canada’s arts, sciences, humanities, and media based on three premises:
- Canadians should know as much as possible about their country’s culture, history and traditions
- We have a national interest to encourage institutions that add to the richness of Canadian life
- Federal agencies that promote these ends should be supported
(…)
Rewind 67 years. Canada was nearing the end of the Second World War, a key part of which was fought using propaganda. Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia needed to keep their populations confused and complacent; the U.S. and Canada wanted their citizens to buy liberty bonds and join the army. Information and creative expression were deployed against the masses.
Before the war, Canada’s government had no real investment in the arts. The turning point came when arts groups began calling on their government to support culture as a way of protecting democracy.
As a negative argument, stifling creativity is censorship’s equal. As a positive argument, the arts play a role in driving democracy through freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. (Thank you section 2(b) of the Charter.) Citizens who think critically and express their ideas creatively are a basic part of any healthy democracy — they hold government accountable.
(…)
Today many of the report’s recommendations are dated. (…) But technology is far from the report’s only concern. As Tom Perlmutter, chair of the National Film Board of Canada, told the Toronto Star:
“What we need now is not one particular policy patchwork fix but the new Massey-Levesque for the 21st century. We need to rethink the fundamental conceptual framework that can give rise to the cultural policies that will serve us for the next 60 years.”
Whether it is updated or started again from scratch, this not-yet-conceived report should be the brainchild of Canadian artists. They should review those ever-important premises about promoting the historical and cultural richness of our country. They should reassess how creative minds are using technology. They should research how Canada’s cultural policies compare to those abroad. And, most importantly, they must underline the fundamental reason that Canadians support the arts financially: the health and vibrancy of our democracy.
For many of ELAN’s student members their studies have come to a momentary stop: final assignments and papers have been submitted, final art critiques and performances have passed. Student members can now enjoy a well-deserved break but the search for summer employment has become the next priority. Did you know that the Government of Canada has set up the 
LOJIQ
