The longstanding transparent criteria-based processes of arts grant decisions a great example to be showcased

The process around the federal government’s decision to award $33 billion in shipbuilding contracts to Seaspan and Irving Shipbuilding has been widely applauded.

In Ottawa, according to some Parliament Hill journalists, “the debate is over why future procurement contracts – such as that multibillion-dollar, fifth-generation, fighter-jet deal – cannot be structured the same way as the shipbuilding contracts.” Removed from the political realm, the process used was a points-based evaluation on an established set of criteria. It is seen as transparent and fair.

All of this sounds remarkably like the longstanding, well-established process of determining grants at the country’s arts councils:

Important cultural agencies, like the Canada Council for the Arts, or the Ontario Arts Council’s have a strong track record in making funding and granting decisions that are, for the most part, seen as fair and objective. In fact, in a ‘special examination’ of the Canada Council in 2008, the Auditor General of Canada commended it and said that ‘the Canada Council’s systems and practices have contributed to success in several areas.’

So why the sudden revelation in Ottawa and public policy circles that an objective set of criteria, administered through a process removed from political realm, renders good decisions? We’ll leave our readers to ponder that question.

Maybe though, those of us in the cultural sector, should blow our horns just a little louder when it comes to demonstrating the transparent administrative effectiveness and sound policies of the organizations that invest in Canadian arts and culture.