News

One of Stephen Harper's most vocal critics this election campaign has been author Margaret Atwood, who took the Conservative Leader to task for his government's cuts to arts funding.

"Mr. Harper's idea of an ordinary person is that of an envious hater without a scrap of artistic talent or creativity or curiosity, and no appreciation for anything that's attractive or beautiful," Ms. Atwood wrote in this essay for The Globe and Mail.

"Every budding dictatorship begins by muzzling the artists, because they're a mouthy lot and they don't line up and salute very easily. Of course, you can always get some tame artists to design the uniforms and flags and the documentary about you, and so forth - the only kind of art you might need - but individual voices must be silenced, because there shall be only One Voice: Our Master's Voice. Maybe that's why Mr. Harper began by shutting down funding for our artists abroad. He didn't like the competition for media space."

Last Friday, Ms. Atwood led the applause for Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe, saying she would — if she lived in Quebec — vote for the separatist party to stop Stephen Harper from forming a government.

"Yes, absolutely. What is the alternative?" she said.

We are pleased that Ms. Atwood joined us at globeandmail.com for a live discussion on Tuesday afternoon.

Ms. Atwood is one of Canada's most well-known contemporary writers. She was born in Ottawa in 1939, and studied at the University of Toronto and Harvard, and has taught English at a number of universities across Canada. Her most recent book, Payback: Debt and the Shadow Side of Wealth, was profiled in the Report on Business.

She is also the author of numerous novels, including: Oryx and Crake, The Robber Bride, The Blind Assassin, and The Handmaid's Tale, winner of the 1985 Governor-General's Award.

Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. HTML is not allowed. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.

Rebecca Dube, globeandmail.com:Welcome everybody, and thanks very much to Ms. Atwood for joining us today to answer questions from our readers. Ms. Atwood's excoriation of Stephen Harper and the Conservatives generated a great deal of interesting questions, so I'm going to get right to them.

Loki Wils from GTA Canada writes: I understand your frustration with Mr. Harper's Arts funding cuts (which I agree with, so let's get that out of the way). But do you really think it's a good idea to endorse a separatist? Aren't you worried about losing some of your fan base with such a public stance?

Margaret Atwood: Dear Loki: Endorsing the Bloc in swing ridings in Quebec that would otherwise go to Harper is in fact key to preventing a majority Harper government. You are right, from a selfish point of view it's not wise and may make some people mad at me. In fact it has. But I'm willing to risk that for something I believe in so strongly. As Mr. Duceppe has said, separatism will not be decided in the House of Commons. Meanwhile he stands ready to do his duty to the values Quebec and many other Canadians share.

Brad Reddekopp from Hazelton, British Columbia Canada writes: Muzzling the artist is not the same as declining to fund the artist. Why should art be dependent on my tax dollars? Are the artists not good enough to survive without my being coerced to pay for their efforts?

Margaret Atwood: Dear Brad: Why should tax dollars be used as a prime-the-pump stratagem for the arts? (Because that's what happens -- a little in, a lot out.) Good question. Why do we fund education? Partly to create future earners. The arts brings 84-5-6-7 billion to the economy -- I've heard all these numbers -- and creates 1.1 million jobs. So your tax dollars are used to create more wealth in the economy. Like -- for instance -- subsidies and tax breaks for oil and for businesses of other kinds.

"Good enough?" Alas -- quality and dollar quantity, in art, are not joined at the hip. There's good art that makes money, bad art that makes money, good that doesn't, bad that doesn't. Van Gogh? Never made a dime in his life. Made multiple millions afterwards.

Dead artists -- the gift that keeps on giving!

John Stanton from Vancouver Canada writes: What other evidence are you seeing of Canada becoming a 'budding dictatorship'? That seems like pretty strong language for an administration which just seems to be making funding cuts. I actually more comfortable with the arts and government being separated; the idea of state-sponsored art sounds too much like totalitarianism to me. Do you really believe that we're on the verge of dictatorship in this nation? And who would you count as the 'tame artists'?

Margaret Atwood: Dear John: Thanks for your question. I didn't say Canada was already a budding dictatorship -- I said this is how they start. One-man top-down management is another clue, and taking vengeance on anyone who opposes you is another. But all dictatorships shut down the voices of dissent, and those are quite frequently artists. Yes, it would be nice if the arts and government were completely separate -- and that's why there's supposed to be an "arm's length" structure in place: politicians can't go in and dictate arts funding for their pals. But the Harper government has been trying hard to break this -- to make any funding dependent on their own choices. This was what was at issue in the attempt to put one minister in charge of which movies got funds, for instance. And this is one of the reasons all support for Canadian artists travelling abroad has been cut -- that wasn't under the Canada Council, where "arm's length" is still in place -- but Foreign Affairs, where it isn't. And remember Harper jumping over the head of his own minister (Oda) to fund a gallery in Winnipeg that he approved of?

Tame artists appear whenever the wild ones are excluded. You'll know them when you see them.

Ron White from Calgary Canada writes: Ms. Atwood, will all due respect, I don't think you have done your math homework. The cuts have been made to some programs so that funds could be allocated elsewhere and overall Arts funding has increased, not decreased. The math just does not support your questionable decision to support a separatist. Arts are important, but in my household they are a luxury, after the bills are paid; the same with sports. I expect my government to operate the same way...why don't you?

Margaret Atwood: Dear Ron: Yes, I know that's what we're being told -- that "overall funding" has been increased, and that money has been "re-allocated." But to where? Which shell is the pea actually under, in the shell game? Why has ALL support for artists travelling abroad to play Team World been cut? I'll say it again -- the arts generate 84-87 billion for the economy, and 1.1 million jobs. All those job-holders pay taxes. What I expect my government to do is to recognize the importance of that sector, the way it would if those were jobs in manufacturing -- not sneer and dismiss and portray these risk-taking and hard-working and mostly underpaid people as rich whiners who don't contribute anything. That just is not true.

What I really expect from my government is that they do their own math, accord due respect, and recognize where the tax dollars I pay to them actually come from.

I agree that my supporting of a separatist in a swing riding that would otherwise go to a Harper Conservative is questionable. That's why I did it -- so people would question. They would realize that if I did this, I must feel very strongly about the danger of a Harper majority to democratic values. I'm not supporting the separatism part, but the respect for values I share. NB as a voter I'm a freelance -- I've voted for all 4 of the parties in my time, including Dief. And I thought Mr. Manning had some good ideas about accountability and openness and transparency. Too bad they are not embodied in the Harper government.

Len E from St. John's Canada writes: Ms Atwood, Why do you think that many Canadians are so bent on following Mr. Harper, that they ignore the many problems his leadership has created for the Country?

Margaret Atwood: Dear Len: I think it's a matter of information. The Harper government is very secretive. They do things without consulting, and then they quietly introduce them or just spring them on people -- like the Income Trusts -- and voters have no time to inform themselves, and a lot of these things are things that can be done without voters voting on them. I do urge you to look up SPP on the web and read the fine print -- our health systems and all our other systems, including regulations governing businesses, will be levelled to make them them same as the Americans'.

But as people are becoming more informed, they are turning away from the Harper initiatives. I do hope so, because a lot of the things he wants to change will be very hard to change back.

Kenneth Yurchuk from Toronto Canada writes: Good Afternoon Ms. Atwood. While I share your sentiments about Mr. Harper and his government, I was a little surprised you would go so far as to support an avowed Separatist as an alternative. That being said, what do you feel would be an appropriate level and type of support for the arts by the Government?

Also, appreciation of the arts is, necessarily, subjective. What would you suggest is a fair system of selection of artists worthy of support that would not project the selectors' tastes (or lack thereof) onto the selection process?

Margaret Atwood: Hello Kenneth: Yes, it was a surprising thing for me to do. I was surprised by it myself. But it was such a relief to hear someone standing up to Mr. Harper and his sneering disparagement of the jobs of 1.1 million people.

Your other questions -- 1) Best kind of support is money going in at the "acorn" and "sapling" levels -- to grow talent -- and also at the "showcase abroad" levels -- which shows the world what we can do. At the "acorn" and "sapling" levels, you'll get the same ratio of success that you do in Venture Capital: support 10, 5 fail, 4 do okay, one does spectacularly and pays for all the rest.

Subjectivity: yes, can't be avoided. There IS no "objective" way, once you are looking above a certain level of competence. But the situation can be helped by changing the selectors (jurors) often.Which is what the Canada Council does.

Scott Martin from Ottawa Canada writes: Ms. Atwood, thank you for being here today. I recognize that your accomplishments in the fields of art and writing are substantial and I commend you for that. However, I have rather adverse feelings towards any celebrity taking advantage of their profile to influence the very serious matter of federal politics. Art is but one issue in this election along with much graver ones such as Afghanistan, the financial crisis, and national unity. Respectfully, I feel that your intervention in this campaign is opportunistic and unqualified. As such, I would like to give you the opportunity to justify why you feel you have the credentials to make such broad pronouncements about a national election and our future government.

Margaret Atwood: Dear Scott: Well may you ask. Here are my credentials:
1) I'm a voter. This is (still) a democracy. My credentials in making statements are thus the same as yours in questioning those credentials. I have not asked you what qualifies you to pass judgment on me.
2) I'm old. I've seen them come and go for some time now. I read a lot of history. I recognize the danger signs when I see them.
3) Re: financial crisis: may I suggest my latest book, PAYBACK? It deals with the structures underlying debt. A system of fair and open regulation is needed or people lose faith in investing -- as they have just done. I also remind you that I saw this coming as early as 2003 -- see my piece, "Letter to America," which warns about the looming Great Hole O'Debt.
4) One thing about being a self-employed artist is that nobody can fire you. Therefore you can say things that a lot of other people are thinking but are afraid to say. This is a responsibility, and one I accept. It gets me in trouble (for instance, with you!)

Please note that it's not all about art. The treatment of the arts is a symptom of something much bigger that's going on -- the plan to level all structures distinctly Canadian, including health care and business regulation. Please go to the SPP website and read the fine print. See also the site voteforenvironment.ca.

My credentials on the environment have to do with my conservation work. See BirdLife International. It's scary out there, Scott!

My credentials on Afghanistan have to do with the fact that I was there six weeks before Daoud was assassinated, thus kicking off the chain of events that led to the present situation. I was there because of my interest in military history. It's a country no one has ever succeeded in conquering, due to the lack of one central entity you can conquer...

We could go on about my credientials, but they should not really be the issue. Yours aren't. What is at issue is: Am I saying the truth? And do you need some sort of a degree to do that? And is the secretive, non-transparent, non-accountable, Ontario-ignoring, deregulating Harper government the one we need for the situation we find ourselves in?

Keep on questioning, Scott. You're an indicator of democracy.

Jessica Lockhart from Calgary/Toronto Canada writes: Dear Ms. Atwood, First, I would like to thank you for presenting such a frank and much-needed response to Mr. Harper's depiction of Canadian artists. However, I would like your opinion as to whether or not this attitude represents a failing on the part of the Canadian artistic and musical community to reach (and move) their neighbours who may share Mr. Harper's opinion. What is the best way to ensure not merely the continued survival, but the flourishing, of creativity in Canada?

Margaret Atwood: Dear Jessica: Judging from the overwhelming response from people all over the country, I'd say a lot of those those neighbours have been reached. And artists have been reaching out. But it was a little late, as you say. Maybe that reaching out should continue.

There are also some people who will hate what you do no matter what. That comes with the territory.

As for surviving and flourishing -- we're entering hard times. A lot of sectors will flourish less. But Canadians ARE creative, and as they say -- build it and they will come. Make a space and that creativity will flourish somehow.

Rebecca Dube, globeandmail.com: That's all the time we have for today. I'd like to thank Ms. Atwood for being more than generous with her time, and thank you as well to everyone who sent in questions and participated in this discussion. Ms. Atwood, any parting thoughts?

Margaret Atwood: Thanks for your questions, everyone, and for participating in this discussion. Let's feel good about the fact that we live in a country in which speaking your mind does not land you in jail. I hope you will vote very thoughtfully. All best, Margaret Atwood