The Federal Govemment and the Politicbation of the Canada Council: Exploring the Fine Line Between Accountability and Interference By Mary M. Johnson, B.A. A thesis submitted to The Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research in partial hilfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Mass Communication Program School of Journalism and Communication Carleton University Ottawa, Ontario Aprü 3,2000 copeght 2000, Mary M. Johnson National Library Bibliothéque nationale du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliogiephic SbMces se~vicesbibliographiques The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sel1 reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique. The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts firom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. Abstract During the course of its history, the Canada Council for the Arts has struggled to maintain its independence. Three themes surface in the story of the politicization of the Coud: interference, complicity and accountability. This gradua1 politicization has occurred not only as a result of government incuzsions but also at times through the Council's own complicity. The government has rarely seen its relationship with the Canada Codas one of interference. The role that the Council has played in this politicization has often been in the name of securing funding and its compiiaty has fallen under the guise of becoming more accountable to the federal government. The major dispute between the Codand the federal govemment has been over who should deude the poliaes and pnorities of the Council. Although the Cound has become increasingly politicized, it continues to play an important role and must maintain its legislated autonomy. iii My gratitude goes out to my husband Leo Brooks for his support and encouragement, to my supervisor Ross Earnan for his guidance, advice and dose editing, to the National Archives of Canada for th& help as 1 conducted my research, and to ail those who kept my spirits high. Table of Contents Acceptance Form i i Abstract iii Introductory Overview 1 Chapter 1: THE ORIGINS, CREATIONS, AND EARLY YEARS (1957-1965) OF THE CANADA COUNCIL IO Federal Government Involvement in the Arts before 1950 10 The Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts, Letters, and Sciences 13 The Geation of the Canada Council The Endowment Fund Years at the Council Chapter 2: SECRETARY OF STATE, UNIRED CULTURAL POUCY AND THE CANADA COUNCIL (1966-1980) 43 The Canada Codand Secretary of State under Maurice Lamontagne: A New Relationship and Open Dialogue 43 The Beginning of Annual Appropriations 45 The Canada CounQl and Seuetary of State under Gerard Peletier: Toward a Unified Cultural Poky 50 Beyond Accountability: The Use of Earmarked Funds 58 The Separation of the Social Sciences and Humanities fiom the Canada Council 67 Chapter 3: INCREASED GOVERNMENT INTERFERENECE, LEGISLATION, LEADERSHIP AND ADMINISTRATIVE RESTRU-G (1980-1998) 74 Bill C-24: Accountabiüty or Interference The Dismissal of Tiothy Porteous The Council Under Alan Gotlieb 91 Administrative Restnicturing: Re-uniting the Canada Council and SSHRC 94 Administrative Restructuring Revisited: Roch Carrier, Donna Scott and the Strategic Plan 99 Conclusion Bibliograp hy Introductory Ovemew "1 will never interfere; the Canada Codis independent."l - Prime Minister John Diefenbaker "Have 1 ever interfered with the Canada Council?"2 - Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau The Canada Council for the Arts was established in 1957. The Act of Parliament that established it dearly states that the Council is not "an Agent of Her Majesty." It was to operate as an m's length institution, independent of government direction and interference. The Cound's mandate was to foster and promote the study, enjoyment, and the production of works in the arts, humanities and soaal saences. The Council was granted independence in order to ensure that federal support would be available to the arts, without govemment control over the dtural development of the nation. During the course of its history, there has been a struggle to maintain this independence. The gradual politicization of the Codhas occurred not only as a result of govemment incursions but also at times through the Council's own complicity. The government has rarely seen its relationship with the Canada Council as one of interference and is not, in fairness, solely responsible for the gradual politicization of the Cod. Over the years, the Cound, appointed members and staff alike, have been cornplicit in the politicization process. A small but revealing example of this gradual politicization occuned in 1981. For some tirne, the Department of Communications had expressed a desire that the Canada wordmark, the little red maple leaf and the bar that appears on all federal documents, be induded on ail Canada Council reports, press releases and cheques. This policy was viewed as a way to assert a beneficent federal presence in al1 the places that the Council touches. The Council's staff had resisted, but in the spring of 1981 both the Councii's staff and its Executive, induding chair Mavor Moore, relented and agreed. However, when the issue came before the appointed Board of the Councii, it ran into fierce opposition. %me argued that adopting the wordmark would indicate that the Council had become part of the federal ad service. Mer intense debate, the Board defeated the Executive's proposal nine votes to eight and in the words of Robert Fulford remaineci "independent of government, at least symbolically."3 While this particular episode was not particularly threatening to the independence of the Canada Council, it typifîed the way in which gadual federal politicization of the Council has at times been supported by the Council's own members. In prinaple, the Codcould not lose its independence except through an Act of Parliament. In truth, the initiatives oves the years that have threatened the Cound have rarely originated in Parliament; they have been made within govemment departmentsr in Cabinet, or arnong the two 3 groups of avii servants who operate the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister's office? It has been these groups that over the years have formulated the key policy decisions that sought to politicize federal patronage of the arts and broaden govemment power over the Council. Although the federal govemment has no explicit right to influence the Council, over time it has changed its attitude toward the nature and extent of the Councii's independence. For its first eight years, the Councii maintained a high level of independence. Its operations were fïnanced solely out of an endowment fund, and though the governent maintained fodties with the Councii, it rarely interfered with its operatiom. In 1965, however, the Councii began to receive Parliamentary appropriations to supplement its endowment income. The endowment hind eventuaüy became a minor factor in the funding of the Cound. Indeed, the Council now relies almost entirely on the money it receives from Parliament to fuifil its mandate. The role that the Codhas played in its own politicization has often been in the name of securing this funding. Generally speaking, the Council's complicity has fallen under the guise of becoming more accountable to the federal govemment. The Coud has felt pressure to incorporate certain govemment goals into polify in order to ensure continueci funding. The Council's independence has been threatened not oniy for reasons of finanaal austerity but also because of goverrunent cultural policy issues. Although the federal govemment has not successhilly intwened in the awarding of Council grants, it has interfered with the Councii's autonomy, that is, its ability to set its own poliues and priorities. Over the years, the major dispute between the Cound and the federal government has been over who should deude the pnorities of the Council and the policies upon which its choices will be made? The am's length relationship that existed between the Councii and the govemment began to change as the govemment's approach to cultural policy changed. From the mid-1960s onward, the federal governent has tried to aeate a unified cultural poky over all arts funding, and to set priorities for arts funding in line with that policy. This federal goal to aeate a unifieci cultural policy has, in part, led to the politidzation of the Council and the compromising of its arm's length status. In some situations, the priorities set by the govemment have decreased the Counâl's power to fulal its own mandate and set its own priorities. Prime Minister Trudeau believed that control of the nation's dtural Me was essential for the consolidation of political power. In 1968, Seaetary of State Gerard Pelletier, responsible for the Cod,emphasized that cultural policies were to be dùected towards support of the govemment's overd prinaple aims. One of these aims was said to be democatization. When Charles Lussier, a Trudeau appointee, became director of the Councii, he initiateci his km with a waniing that perfonning arts groups were to make their programs accessible to a "wider public" in order to receive Council funding. The implication was that a politicaiiy requued "democratization" might become a condition for artists to continue receiving public funds.6 This is an example not only of the govemment's desire to inaease its control over cultural policy but also of the Council's participation in its own politickation.