3.5 billion? That is a lot. That is around as much as is spent on beer in Ontario annually, by the way. But some programs are being cut for reasons explicable by the voice of government, the press secretary of the PMO:

Kory Teneycke, the Prime Minister's press secretary, declined yesterday to address the decision to close Trade Routes, but noted that Ottawa "spends $3.5-billion on arts funding ... and is spending more on arts than did the previous [Liberal] government. In the case of PromArt, we think the [funding] choices made were inappropriate ... inappropriate because they were ideological in some cases, with highly ideological individuals exposing their agendas or [money going to] wealthy celebrities or fringe arts groups that in many cases would be at best, unrepresentative, and at worst, offensive."

Is it just me or is art laced with ideas which sometimes are tied to ideology? And doesn't a marketplace of ideas assist in the promotion of free discourse? Now, don't get me wrong - the idea that there are celebrities involved certainly raises the stakes and the cavalier injection of that reference needs to be taken with perhaps greater seriousness than Mr. Teneycke's passing reference might imply...given that celebrity is this year's new accusation.

Isn't the real question whether the administration of programs - and the article names at least six arts funding programs - is efficient and worthwhile? For a political appointee to suggest something is ideological is a little rich as that is the entirety of his or her concern. But had they said that we are seeking to review the operations of the programs, their interrelation, their effectiveness, well, who can have an issue with that? Surely, art is not immune from good governance.