The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

commentary The Price of Fairness by Laurel Darnell On February 26, in the Arts Club Theatre, Darlene Marzari announced the formation of a new advisory committee to look at the status of the artist in our province. As the minister responsible for culture, she outlined the very laudable goal of "'recognizing and improving the status of the artist." In practical terms, she is suggesting changes in legislation with respect to employment standards, collective bargaining, health and safety, workers' compensation, taxation, education, training, unemployment insurance and pensions. These are all areas where most selfemployed artists have no access to current legislation and where they are totally unprotected. The advisory committee that has been struck is made up of articulate and experienced artists from all disciplines. Their goal is to present recommendations for draft legislation by the fall of this year, after consultation with the artistic community throughout the province. the implications, especially for small, performing arts organizations such as the theatre company I manage. To sum it up in a sentence: Who's going to pay for it? I did an informal survey of my colleagues (I wandered into a few offices of other general managers and asked them what they thought) and here is their response: "We're in big trouble if they introduce labour legislation and there's no money that comes with it. It's useless." And "it will only drive the artists underground and force companies to find ways to run around the rules"; "the artists who are good at filling out forms will benefit and the others will lose work"; and "artists don't want to be organized by legislation. They're the ones we count on to stand outside the status quo, to push the boundaries." Now before you jump on us bureaucrats, let me paint you a picture of the typical theatre administrator who is managing an operating budget of less than $35,000 a year; most of us started out as performers, or if not, as stage managers or technicians. Most of us continue to see ourselves as artists, because we freelance as directors or writers or designers. So it's not an us-andthem situation. In tough times, every general manager's motto is "pay the artist first" and let the bills from suppliers mount up. We empathize with the artists, but we are the people who have to answer to a board of directors, meet the weekly payroll, manage the budget by drafting endless grant applications to make sure the artists are employed. And we are the people who lay ourselves off in the summer if the operating budget goes bust (but we continue to run the company so there are grants for next year). At my company we employ three full-time staff who receive employee benefits and approximately 75 self-employed artists on a contractual basis. Canada Council has assured theatre companies of a 10% cut across the board this year. The thought of trying to provide employee benefits for those 75 people, with a shrinking revenue source, is horrifying. So, to the advisory committee and Ms. Marzari, I say, "give it your best shot." I would love to see actors and theatre technicians and designers and every one else who makes art happen achieve a better standard of living. But the people passing the legislation must not forget that the cultural sector operates as a closed circle. The hand that feeds us is the same hand that is proposing these new costs to our budget. There is no "profit margin" for added costs to come out of. You can't make a better workplace for the artist without providing the money to do it. Laurel Darnell is the general manager of The New Play Centre, a non-profit, professional theatre company that has been producing new Canadian plays for the last 20 years. This article originally appeared in Quarterly Commentary. Thanks to Laurel and the Assembly of B.C. Arts Councils for the permission to reprint it. I attended the press conference where the initiative was announced with a feeling of awe. How long have we waited in this province for a Minister of Culture whose stated goals arc "to craft legislation and tailor government programs so that they are relevant and supportive of this province's cultural community," let alone one who makes eye contact with you when ·*» rh<,,. · goMfan in front of the press? It seems like a dream come true... until you start thinking about some of fun d in Arts Cuts to Increase Public Debt by Vol Ross The Canada Council's recent 10% cuts in its performing arts grants will create a net increase in the public debt, according to a recently released study. Genovese Vanderhoof and Associates, a Torontobased consulting company, says the Canada Council's $2,021,934 cut in performing arts funding will cost the federal government $2.201,566 in lost tax revenue (GST and income tax no longer filed by performers who have been laid off) plus die cost of additional UI payments, for anet loss ofS179.632. "The arts represent a smalt investment for the amount of money they create," the study's author. Dory Vanderhoof. recently told 0 press conference. "Given the multiplier effect and the fact that for every 20c you invest in the arts they can come up with 80e of their own and more than repay the investment, we should be increasing spending on the arts right now. They'll pay more taxes than you're giving them." The study, done free of charge for the arts community. was the first ever case-by-case analysis of the effects of funding changes on arts groups. Vanderhoof s team telephoned 60 of the country's performing arts organizations, ranging from the Canadian Opera Company to the Vancouver Symphony, asking each how it planned to adjust to the latest round of Canada Council cuts. The study found that to cope, companies were reducing the number of performances and therefore remitting less GST on ticket sales; laying off performers, thereby reducing the income tax and GST they paid, and throwing them onto Unemployment Insurance two or three weeks earlier than before. The results have been sent to Communications Minister Perrin Beatty. "Officials arereviewingthe document," said Gerard Desroches, a spokesperson for the Department of Communications. "The minister knew there would be consequences for the arts community but it's always useful in policy analysis to get the best picture possible." "The terms of our study were as conservative as possible." Vanderhoof told the press conference, jointly hosted by the Association of Canadian Orchestras, the Canadian Association of Professional Dance Companies, the Professional Association of Canadian Theatres (PACT) and Professional Opera Companies of Canada. For example, instead of presuming that artists pay the usual 7% GST on their services, Vanderhoof assumed they paid 2%, the lowest rate that low-income service providers may claim. Nor did the study calculate the loss of spin-off revenues from sales of souvenirs, restaurant meals, parking and so on. "As hard-headed business people, politicians should ask themselves, "Why are we walking away from a growth industry?'" said Mallory Gilbert, president of PACT. Vanderhoof turned to the past for one explanation. In 1985, she said, the Ontario government polled the public about where it would recommend cuts in spending and a majority of respondents singled out the arts. "Cutting arts is always a way of grabbing headlines," he said. However, at the time, Ontario's Macauley Commission launched another poll, this time explaining that the province spent $24-million on the arts out of a total budget of more than $32-billion. "When people saw how little government spent, and how little arts spending contributed to the overall debt." Vanderhoof said, "they reversed their responses and said they'd be willing to spend more." Vai Ross is a reporter with The Globe & Mail. This article has been reprinted with the permission of The Globe & Mail. A m Accesi M.y'Junc 1993 3