“This miserable rout” - A Brief Review of the Canadian Advisory Committee on the Status of the Artist

When the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) met at its twenty-first session in 1980 to consider and adopt the Recommendation concerning the Status of the Artist, it was the end of a long process of consultation with civil society organizations and debate among governments about issues of critical importance to the world's artists and creators. The Recommendation was welcomed by artists and their associations since it contained substantive recommendations to governments for concrete actions on a range of issues:

"The word 'status' signifies on the one hand, the regard accorded to artists in a society, on the basis of the important role they are called upon to play therein and, on the other hand,
recognition of the liberties and rights, including moral, economic and social rights, with particular reference to income and social security, which artists should enjoy."
The education and training of artists and the importance of arts education.
Social status, such as measures to ensure equivalent status to other workers, protection of freedom of expression and protection of intellectual property rights.
Employment, working and living conditions of artists and recognition of the rights of their professional and union organizations.
Measures related to income, support during periods of unemployment, and retirement issues.

Canada reacted to the UNESCO Recommendation by creating the federal Siren-Gélinas Task Force on the Status of the Artist which reported in August 1986. In response to its 37 recommendations, the federal government appointed the Canadian Advisory Committee on the Status of the Artist (CACSA), comprised of artists and officials from associations and guilds, which drafted and recommended adoption of a Canadian Artists Code. This led to the enactment of the federal Status of the Artist Act, which was proclaimed into law in June 1992.

The Act was divided into two parts. Part I (General Principles) set forth the government's recognition of artists' contributions and their rights; it also called for the establishment of the Canadian Council on the Status of the Artist, to give voice to the concerns of the artistic community and to recommend appropriate action by the government. Part II (Professional Relations) called for the creation of the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal (CAPPRT or the Tribunal), responsible for implementing the statutory framework governing professional relations between artists, as independent entrepreneurs, and producers in the federal jurisdiction.

The Act has now been in effect for more than a decade. CAPPRT has certified 25 arts organizations as collective bargaining units for artists working in federal jurisdictions; it reports to the government through the Minister of Labour but has a special relationship to the Department of Canadian Heritage. It is directed by a panel of up to 6, currently chaired by David Silcox.

Although the Tribunal and its functions have followed the path set out for it in the Act, the Canadian Council on the Status of the Artist has not enjoyed the same level of development. In fact, despite the fact that its existence is mandated by the Act, the Council disappeared when the last of its appointed members' terms were left to expire.

In June 1995, then Chair, actor Albert Millaire, wrote a frustrated letter of resignation to the Honourable Michel Dupuy, then Minister of Canadian Heritage: "When you read what I shall call my humble chairman's report, you will understand why I can no longer continue working at this task….. It is now the spring of 1995 and I hear the Tribunal is finally about to begin operations after 4 years of ferocious opposition from senior civil servants, hesitation on the part of the Departments concerned …We defended our legislation all the way up to the Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and we are proud to see our efforts have been rewarded at last. …After the elections, we were pleased when you were appointed. The first thing you discussed with me during our one and only meeting was the desire rife in your entourage to wipe us out. I could not understand this as we are enshrined in the Act. ..I do not want to be a party to this miserable rout and owe it to myself to devote all my energies to ensuring that my profession survives".

The letter and report, which signaled the demise of CACSA, were written in the context of the round of cuts to the arts now known as "program review", when many of DCH's programs of support to the arts were cut along with the funding to Canada Council, the CCA, and many others. The fact that the Act was passed just three years' previously is fortunate, as the window of opportunity for legislation favouring support for artists was certainly closed by the mid-90s.

Throughout this period, the CCA, Equity, ACTRA and other arts groups continued to press DCH to re-appoint the Council, knowing that a review of the Act after 7 years was required and that the Council would be the perfect steering mechanism for the consulting firm hired to perform the review. In spite of the fact that Minister Sheila Copps publicly announced her intention at re-appoint the Council to a UNESCO meeting in Sweden in 1998, no progress in that direction was made and the review process went ahead in the winter of 2002. Many of the leaders of arts organizations who participated in the review felt that the result would certainly have been more comprehensive and analytical had an expert Council been steering the consultants charged with producing the document for DCH and HRDC.

Among the key findings of the review were the following:

While the Act serves a useful purpose, "the Department of Canadian Heritage may wish to explore other policies and programs to improve the socio-economic circumstances of self-employed artists." It notes that in the perception of most artists and arts administrators, a perception which appears to be confirmed by the available data, the Act has not improved the economic status of professional Canadian artists. (CCA emphasis)
Since other organizations funded by the government provide advice on behalf of artists, there may be no role for a Council. The report actually suggested the Canada Council or the CCA might take on this role.
There was also a series of comments on CAPPRT relating to its procedures, its powers in the case of first agreements, and its continuing independence.

In responding to the second recommendation, the CCA contemplated providing secretariat services for the Council, but concluded that the Council must be able to operate independently since it might take positions that would compromise the CCA's Board and membership (which is composed of both labour and producer groups, among others). The CCA Board has formed a committee to articulate the rationale for re-appointing the Council and to work with DCH, HRDC and the arts stakeholders to push the issue forward. Here are some of the arguments:

The Council should be re-appointed with special attention to professional independent artists (rather than producers or distributors), whose interests it is mandated to serve. It should always act in the best interests of independent artists, regardless of discipline, geography, or language.
No other organization in Canada has this specific mandate at present. The Council would be in a position to take a proactive stance and deal with all economic, social and legal issues on behalf of independent artists in Canada. Each organization which has a mandate to deal with the issues that affect the working lives of artists is limited in one way or another in its scope and capability to address all of the issues.
The Council would assist the Minister of Canadian Heritage in high profile cases which are not appropriate for the Minister's direct involvement but where expert mediation is required.
The Council would be the best place for developmental work on amendments to the existing Status of the Artist legislation. The Council could act as a non-partisan clearing house for recommendations to the government.
There is a need for an independent body to guide the evolution of the SofA legislation. Many measures which were outlined in the Canadian Artists' Code, such as tax provisions and access to social benefits, remain to be implemented and will require considerable orchestration with related, existing legislation.
DCH has recently established similar national advisory panels for the music and sound recording industry, and for the film industry. These are high profile industries which bring hundreds of millions of dollars into the Canadian economy - but they wouldn't exist without the individual artists. The same importance should be accorded to a legislated council that serves the needs of individual creators who are at the core of the industries.

The CCA's 2004 annual policy conference, entitled From Act to Action: Moving Forward with Status of the Artist, will engage participants in a strategic discussion to elaborate the arguments for the Council and to develop tactics which would help to strengthen political will to take this important next step in the evolution of the federal legislation. The original visionaries who set the Act in place saw it as a way of improving the ability of artists to support themselves through the income from their work. In spite of the difficulties in the path, their wisdom and foresight should be validated by implementing their vision for the sake of the upcoming generations of artists.