The article reviews research related to six topics: the economic impact of francophone culture, French-speaking cultural workers, French-speaking artists, French-speaking arts leaders, arts participation in French, and access to francophone arts and culture.

This article largely relies on published reports, some of which are my own articles. New analysis of unpublished data is also included in this article.

Economic impact of francophone culture

In December of 2025, I published an analysis of the economic impact of arts, culture, and heritage of the French-Canadian cultural community in 2023. The study used Statistics Canada’s census definition of linguistic minorities, which includes Alberta residents who might request federal communications and services in French (because their mother tongue is French or because they speak French relatively frequently at home). The key findings for Alberta are reproduced in this section.

The analysis was based on Statistics Canada’s provincial and territorial cultural indicators, 2021 census, and input-output multipliers (which reflect the interrelatedness of specific industries, based on Statistics Canada’s economic measurements).

Total revenues from francophone cultural production in Alberta amounted to $337 million in 2023.

The net impact of francophone arts, culture, and heritage on Alberta’s GDP was $296 million in 2023. As shown in the following graph, this includes:

• A direct impact of $190 million.

• An indirect impact of $65.9 million.

• An induced impact of $40.1 million.

Franco-Albertan cultural activity also had a $55 million impact on the GDP of other Canadian provinces, resulting in a Canada-wide impact of $351 million.

Subscribe now

Cultural workers

The sections of this article related to workers in the arts, culture, and heritage use Statistics Canada’s census definition of linguistic minorities, which includes Alberta residents who might request federal communications and services in French (because their mother tongue is French or because they speak French relatively frequently at home).

In Alberta, 2,600 cultural workers speak French, representing 3.7% of all francophone workers in the province. The concentration of cultural workers is slightly higher than that for all Alberta workers, regardless of language (3.3%).

Francophone cultural workers represent 3.2% of all cultural workers in the province, slightly higher than French-speakers’ share of all workers (2.9%).

Never-before-published demographic data indicate that, of the 2,600 francophone cultural workers in Alberta:

• 64% are women (higher than the percentage among anglophone cultural workers: 58%)

• 16% are racialized (lower than the percentage among anglophone cultural workers: 21%)

• 4.3% are Indigenous (similar to the percentage among anglophone cultural workers: 4.5%)

• 18% are 55 years of age or older (lower than the percentage among anglophone cultural workers: 22%)

• 42% have a bachelor’s degree or higher (lower than the percentage among anglophone cultural workers: 51%)

In Alberta, francophone cultural workers had a median personal income of $44,800 in 2020. This is 3% lower than the median income of anglophone cultural workers in the province ($46,000).

Relatively to all francophone workers in the province ($56,800), the median income of francophone cultural workers is 21% lower ($44,800). These income statistics are depicted in the following graph.

Note: Fifty-two occupation groups are included as cultural workers, including artists, arts leaders, plus a range of other occupations in the performing arts, sound recording, film, video, broadcasting, libraries, archives, galleries, museums, other heritage institutions, architecture, design, publishing and printing. Further details about the occupation groups are available at the end of this article.

Artists

There are 630 francophone professional artists in Alberta (who work more as an artist than at any other occupation). This represents 0.9% of all francophone workers in the province, a proportion that is slightly higher than French-speakers’ share of all Alberta workers, regardless of language (0.7%).

Francophone artists account for 3.4% of all artists in the province, higher than French-speakers’ share of all workers (2.9%).

Unpublished demographic data show that, of the 630 francophone artists in Alberta:

• 67% are women (higher than the percentage among anglophone artists: 62%)

• 14% are racialized (lower than the percentage among anglophone artists: 17%)

• 5.6% are Indigenous (similar to the percentage among anglophone artists: 5.9%)

• 22% are 55 years of age or older (lower than the percentage among anglophone artists: 26%)

• 58% have a bachelor’s degree or higher (higher than the percentage among anglophone artists: 39%)

French-speaking artists in Alberta had a median personal income of $29,800 in 2020, which is 6% higher than the median income of anglophone artists in the province ($28,000).

However, the median income of francophone artists is 48% lower than the median income of all francophone workers in the province (i.e., $29,800 vs. $56,800). These key income statistics are presented in the following graph.

Note: A broad range of artists are included in the above statistics, including visual artists, artisans, craftspeople, photographers, writers, musicians, actors, comedians, circus performers, dancers, conductors, composers, producers, directors, choreographers, and other performers. Further details about the artist occupation groups are available at the end of this article.

Arts leaders

110 French-speaking Albertans work in five occupation groups that are classified as arts leaders. Francophones represent 3.1% of all arts leaders in the province, higher than French-speakers’ share of all workers (2.9%). Demographic breakdowns and income statistics are not provided here because of the relatively small number of francophone arts leaders.

Arts participation in French

A Statistics Canada survey in 2022 of Canadians in minority-language situations provides insights into French-language arts participation. In its presentation of the survey results, Statistics Canada grouped the four western provinces, likely due to concerns over data reliability in each province.

The survey found that, in the western provinces:

• 23% of francophone adults and 25% of francophone children had attended at least one French-language performance or arts event during the 12 months preceding the survey.

• 19% of French-speaking children read books in French as often or more often as books in English. The other 81% of French-speaking children read books in English more often than in French.

Access to francophone arts and culture

A survey of Francophones and Francophiles outside of Quebec conducted for the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française probed respondents’ beliefs regarding the availability and importance of minority-language cultural offerings. Specific findings, which unfortunately cannot be broken down by province, include:

• 50% are satisfied with the current range of francophone arts and cultural offerings in their region.

• Less than one-half believe that they have easy access to francophone artists and cultural groups in their community (45%) or that they are lucky enough to have the opportunity to visit cultural venues offering French-language programs near their home (39%). Similarly, 30% believe that there are not enough French-language cultural services in their region.

• 65% believe that access to arts and culture in French is an important challenge that must be addressed in francophone minority communities in coming years.

A Statistics Canada survey of businesses and organizations in the arts, heritage, and entertainment industries found that 8% of Alberta-based cultural businesses and organizations offer French on their website and 7% offer French-language customer service.

Occupation groups included in the labour force statistics

Statistics Canada’s full occupation titles for the 10 occupation groups included as artists are:

• Actors, comedians, and circus performers

• Artisans and craftspersons

• Authors and writers (excluding technical writers)

• Conductors, composers, and arrangers

• Dancers

• Musicians and singers

• Other performers (including buskers, DJs, puppeteers, face painters, erotic dancers, and many other entertainers)

• Painters, sculptors, and other visual artists

• Photographers

• Producers, directors, choreographers, and related occupations

The five arts leadership occupations are:

• Conductors, composers, and arrangers

• Conservators and curators

• Library, archive, museum, and art gallery managers

• Managers in publishing, motion pictures, broadcasting, and the performing arts

• Producers, directors, choreographers, and related occupations

The statistics on cultural workers include people who work in 52 occupation groups in the arts, culture, and heritage. I have also outlined the methods behind choosing the 52 occupation groups, as well as some strengths and limitations of the census for counting artists and cultural workers.

Census estimates are based on the job at which a person worked the most hours during the reference week in May of 2021. For all occupation groups, people are counted in industries across the economy, not just in cultural organizations or businesses (as long as they are classified into one of the selected occupation groups).

Time for a refresh, right?

I’ve been intrigued by federal investments in labour force development in “key economic sectors”. So intrigued that I asked myself, “How does culture fit in?” (Culture could use some “workforce development”, no?)

Today’s article offers the fruits of this rumination, mostly via one key graph. I hope that you’ll find it interesting and useful.

Subscribe now

A little background

I created the graph for a presentation that I recently did at the Banff Centre for Arts and Creativity. It was officially related to arts philanthropy, but I took the long road to get there and also talked about the situation of artists, cultural workers, and, yes, the GDP of culture. My full slide deck is available here.

Only the direct economic impact of culture can be (easily) compared to other industries. Elements such as indirect, induced, and ancillary impacts are often not comparable, because not all sectors have estimates of extended impacts. When such studies do exist, the methods used to estimate additional impacts can vary.

I researched the current-dollar impacts of sectors that were identified as “key” in the federal press release. I could not find definitions of (or data for) two “key economic sectors”: environment and bio-economy. The estimate for “advanced manufacturing” represents my best guess at what is included in advanced manufacturing. (Definitions of it seem to vary.)

I had to stick with 2022 estimates for all sectors, because I only found current-dollar estimates for comparison sectors from 2022. (On the other hand, the national cultural and tourism estimates now include 2025.)

There are three data sources:

• For culture, the data come from the Canada-wide estimates in Statistics Canada’s culture indicators.

• For tourism, the data are drawn from the Canada-wide estimates in Statistics Canada’s tourism indicators.

• For other sectors, the data are drawn from Statistics Canada’s calculations of GDP by industry, at basic prices.

In the graph, I include both the industry-based and product-based estimates for culture. Conveniently, the key takeaway is the same no matter which method you prefer. (I would usually lean toward the industry-based estimate for this type of comparison, but not many others seem to agree with me, or they haven’t thought about the implications of relying solely on the product-based estimate.)

As a reminder, GDP is a net economic indicator. It expresses the economic value added, in contrast to “output”, which is essentially a measurement of total revenues. Output, the gross measure, is the starting point for the estimate of (net) value added.

Culture compared with “key economic sectors”

Here’s what the following graph shows:

6 of 10 so-called key economic sectors have a lower GDP than culture, whether measured by the industry method ($74 billion) or the product method ($60 billion).

Some sectors are, of course, much larger than culture, such as energy ($285 billion), construction ($203 billion), information and communications technology ($136 billion), and advanced manufacturing (my best guess is $110 billion). Still, the GDP of culture represents a significant portion of some of these larger sectors.

I could not find definitions of (or data for) two key economic sectors.

Once again, these represent only the direct economic impacts, not additional economic impacts and certainly not the myriad other social and environmental impacts of some of these sectors, including culture.

Notes

Sources:

• Statistics Canada, Table 36-10-0453-01, Culture and sport indicators by domain and sub-domain, by province and territory, industry perspective and Table 36-10-0452-01, Culture and sport indicators by domain and sub-domain, by province and territory, product perspective

• Statistics Canada, Table 36-10-0234-02, Tourism gross domestic product, current prices

• Statistics Canada, Table 36-10-0710-01, Gross domestic product (GDP) at basic prices, by industry, annual average

The cultural statistics in today’s post are very broad: for the overall cultural sector (which I also call “the arts, culture, and heritage”). These statistics include all nine areas captured in Statistics Canada’s economic data, including six main areas (called “domains” by Statistics Canada):

• Live performance (including performing arts as well as cultural festivals and celebrations, excluding government-owned organizations, which are captured in “governance, funding, and professional support”.)

• Visual and applied arts (including architecture, advertising, crafts, design, and works of art)

• Written and published works (including books, newspapers, periodicals, and other published works)

• Audiovisual and interactive media (including broadcasting, film and video, and interactive media, excluding government-owned organizations, which are captured in “governance, funding, and professional support”)

• Sound recording (and music publishing)

• Heritage and libraries (including non-government-owned libraries, archives, cultural heritage, and natural heritage. Government-owned organizations are captured in “governance, funding, and professional support”.)

Also included are three supporting domains:

• Governance, funding, and professional support (including, among other items, all government-owned cultural venues, which are therefore not counted in other areas, e.g., heritage and libraries, live performance, visual and applied arts, etc.).

• Education and training (including cultural programs offered at educational and training establishments)

• Multi domain (including items that could not be allocated to a specific domain)

The GDP estimates related to culture industries represent the net value added of the production of cultural and non-cultural goods and services by establishments within the arts, culture, and heritage.

The GDP estimates related to culture products represent the net value added of the production of cultural goods and services from establishments in both cultural and non-cultural industries.

In keeping with Hill Strategies’ other work from the 2021 census, 10 specific occupation groups are included as “artists”:

• Actors, comedians, and circus performers

• Artisans and craftspersons

• Authors and writers (excluding technical writers)

• Conductors, composers, and arrangers

• Dancers

• Musicians and singers

• Other performers

• Painters, sculptors, and other visual artists

• Photographers

• Producers, directors, choreographers, and related occupations

Because of the complexity of the background analysis as well as changes in some of the occupation groups over time, income trends for each artist occupation group are not provided in this article.

The complexity has also led to the delay in analyzing data from the 2021 census (the most recent year in today’s analysis). The 2026 census has now (mostly) been filled in by Canadian residents, but data likely won’t be available for at least 12 months, probably more like 18 months. (I have still never gotten the long-form census and have therefore never reported on my occupation.)

Because of the changes in the artist occupation groups historically (9 occupation groups, excluding photographers) compared with 2021 (10 occupation groups, including photographers), it is easier to estimate the average income of artists for each census year, including an adjustment for photographers, than the median income, which is the most common income statistic in my other articles. The average income of artists tends to be somewhat higher than the median income, because of the influence on the average of a small number of high earners. The median is less affected by these extremes.

The average income statistics in this article capture overall personal income, which includes all sources, such as employment income, net revenue from self-employment, government supports, rental income, investment income, and others. The data are not directly comparable to the average employment income of Toronto artists (in last week’s article), because employment incomes are a portion of total incomes (the statistic in today’s article). Only employment income statistics were available in my datasets for local areas.

The estimates of average incomes in this article have been adjusted for inflation. Census data on incomes offer an estimate for the prior calendar year (e.g., the 2021 census captures income estimates from 2020).

Other important notes about methods are provided at the end of the article.

Subscribe now

The average income of Canadian artists has not kept up with other workers

In 1990 (the earliest data year in the following graph), the average income of artists in Canada was $31,800, which was 23% below that of all Canadian workers ($41,600).

In 2020 (the most recent data year), while the average income of artists in Canada had grown to $43,100, the gap with other workers had increased to 32%.

So: the average income of artists, adjusted for inflation, has increased over the 30-year period. That’s the good news. However, the average income of other workers has increased more.

The largest change in incomes occurred between 2005 and 2015. The average income of artists increased from $29,500 in 2005 to $42,500 in 2015. However, the average income of all Canadians workers also increased significantly, from $47,100 in 2005 to $62,700 in 2015.

The largest change in the percentage difference with other workers occurred between 2000 and 2005. In 2000, the average income of artists was $34,000, or 26% less than all Canadian workers ($46,000). The difference increased to 37% in 2005, when the average income of artists was $29,500, compared with an average income of $47,100 for all workers.

The following graph provides full details of the changes in average incomes between 1990 and 2020.

Biggest disappointment

Over my nearly 30 year career in arts research, I have tried to shine a light on the huge discrepancy in the incomes of artists and other workers (despite incredibly high education levels among artists). I guess that I’d chalk this up as my biggest career disappointment: that shining a light on the discrepancy has not led to significant change in this one key statistic. If anything, the gap has increased, not decreased, as shown in the above graph.

I know that the stats I’ve produced have been used to advocate for changes, with some success. But major economic forces in the arts have pulled harder in the wrong direction. (That’s my simplistic summary of decades of technological and economic change!)

Notes and methods

Here are the details of what I needed to address to ensure that the measurements of artists’ average incomes were as consistent as possible over time.

Changes in our definition of artists

• In 2021, in consultation with readers, we decided to include photographers as an artist occupation. Photographers had not been included in my previous counts of artists or the data that I had requested in previous census years. I have adjusted my estimates of the incomes of artists in previous census years to include photographers (which is an occupation group that was included separately in my data requests).

• In general, I adjusted the initial estimates of artists’ average incomes downward by $200 to $300 account for the lower average incomes of photographers. The adjustment was weighted to reflect photographers’ share of all artists in Canada in each census year.

• These adjustments resulted in estimates that are imperfect, but the statistics should be within hundreds of dollars of a direct estimate for those years.

Periodic changes in Statistics Canada’s occupational classifications

• For artists, almost all of the classification changes have been between two occupation groups that are both included as artists, rather than between artist and non-artist occupation groups. Because of the changes, an analysis of trends is not possible for many individual artist occupations.

• A new occupation group was created in 2021 for “technical writers”. The relatively small number of workers in this occupation group were not counted as artists in 2021 but were included with other types of writers (an artist occupation group) in every other census year since 1991. Historical income estimates could not be adjusted to account for this change, because no historical information is available for technical writers.

Slightly different definitions of who is counted as a worker (including artists) in different datasets

• This is a tricky challenge and one that could even hold for a single census year. Some datasets exclude people who were out of the labour force in May but had worked at some point in the previous 16 months. Many other datasets only include those who were in the labour force at the time in May of each census year.

• My analyses of 2021 census data have included all people classified into an occupation, even though some of them did not work in May of 2021.

• I believe that this inclusion is particularly helpful when looking at the number of professional artists, because of the ebbs and flows of artistic work.

• Where possible, I found datasets from each census year based on the same type of count (called “universe” by Statistics Canada).

• Because of limitations in data availability, this was not always possible, and some historical income estimates were not adjusted. While this is an imperfect solution, my best estimate is that such adjustments would probably only have changed incomes by plus-or-minus $200 to $300 – not a significant difference.

Changes to census methods

• The 2011 census was an outlier year, because the equivalent of the long-form census (called the “National Household Survey”) was a voluntary survey of 30% of all households. In all other census periods, the long-form census was a mandatory survey that covered 20% of households from 1991 to 2006 and 25% of households in 2016 and 2021.

• The response rate in 2011 was just 69%, compared with a typical response rate above 95% in other years. I do not believe that the 2011 data are comparable to other years – and, indeed, the 2011 data tend to be quite different from other census periods.

• Because of the lack of comparable data for 2011, I have excluded data for that year.

Other notes

Here are some other important notes to keep in mind when considering the above analysis of artists’ incomes:

• The analysis relates to professional workers, but with a very specific concept of professional. The census data on occupations include people who worked more hours as an artist than at any other occupation during the census week (always in early May), plus people who were not in the labour force at that time but had worked more as an artist than at another occupation after January 1 of the prior year (2020, in the case of the 2021 census). Part-time artists who spent more time at another occupation during the census period would be classified in the other occupation.

• The atypical nature of artists’ workflows can make it challenging for official statistics to count artists as artists. As such, census estimates of the number of artists might be low. “Gig work” has been common among artists for a very long time. Internet sources even indicate that the term “gig” was coined by jazz musicians in the early 1900s. (Source examples here and here.)

In keeping with Hill Strategies’ other work from the 2021 census, including a statistical profile of artists in Toronto in 2021 (available here), 10 specific occupation groups are included as “artists”:

• Actors, comedians, and circus performers

• Artisans and craftspersons

• Authors and writers (excluding technical writers)

• Conductors, composers, and arrangers

• Dancers

• Musicians and singers

• Other performers

• Painters, sculptors, and other visual artists

• Photographers

• Producers, directors, choreographers, and related occupations

Further notes about methods are included at the end of this article.

Toronto’s proportions of all artists in Ontario and Canada have increased slightly

In 2021, there were 32,300 professional artists residing in the City of Toronto, which is a 25% increase over the number in 2006 (25,900). This growth rate is slightly higher than the 22% increase in Ontario and the 23% increase in all of Canada.

Toronto represents a slightly increasing proportion of professional artists in the province and the country. As a percentage of all artists in Ontario, artists in the City of Toronto accounted for 38.6% in 2006 and 39.5% in 2021 (or. As a percentage of all artists in Canada, artists in the City of Toronto represented 15.7% in 2006 and 15.9% in 2021.

Toronto is home to roughly 1 in every 2.5 artists in Ontario and 1 in every 6.3 artists in Canada.

The following sections focus on the number of artists Toronto Census Metropolitan Area (CMA), because we have more comparable data points for CMAs than municipalities. The notes at the end of this article explain why comparable data are not available for the City of Toronto for other census years.

In 2021 (the most recent year), artists in the City of Toronto represented 70% of artists in the Toronto CMA. This proportion has barely changed since 2006 (70.6% to 70.1%). The 25% increase in the city between 2006 and 2021 is equal to the increase in the Toronto CMA during the same timeframe. These similarities indicate that trends in the City of Toronto and the Toronto CMA have likely been similar over time.

Subscribe now

Twice as many artists in the Toronto CMA in 2021 as in 1991

In 2021, there were 46,100 professional artists in the Toronto CMA, compared with 23,500 in 1991. This represents an increase of 96% in the number of professional artists in the CMA over a 30-year timeframe, which is double the 48% increase in the overall labour force in the Toronto CMA. The increase in artists in the Toronto CMA is higher than the provincial increase (82%) and the nationwide increase (75%).

The following graph demonstrates that, since 1991, there have been strong increases in the number of artists in the Toronto CMA and in the province of Ontario. In addition, the two data points for the City of Toronto (2006 and 2021) are also shown in the graph. The number of artists in the City of Toronto grew at the same rate (25%) as in the Toronto CMA between 2006 and 2021.

Growth in all six periods in the Toronto CMA, but the growth rate has slowed

The following graph shows that, in the Toronto CMA, there has been an increase in the number of artists in all six five-year periods between 1991 and 2021. The largest increases came early on: 17% between 1991 and 1996 and 22% between 1996 and 2001. In the most recent five-year period (2016 to 2021), the number of professional artists in the Toronto CMA grew by just 1%.

Note regarding 2011 data: Because of significant changes in methods of the (voluntary) National Household Survey in 2011, I do not consider the count of artists in that year to be comparable to other years. For graphing purposes, I have imputed estimates for 2011 as the midpoints between the 2006 and 2016 estimates.

The increase in the number of artists in the Toronto CMA has been higher than the increase in the overall number of workers in most periods, as shown in the following graph. The largest exception is the most recent period (2016 to 2021), where the 4% increase in all workers in the Toronto CMA exceeded the 1% increase in the number of artists.

Strong growth in the number of artists in the City of Toronto since 1991, according to two rough estimates

The proportion of artists in the Toronto CMA residing in the City of Toronto changed very little over the time period for which we have data for both geographies (i.e., 70.6% in 2006 and 70.1% in 2021).

The limited change in this proportion allows for a rough estimate of 16,600 artists in the City of Toronto in 1991. This estimate assumes that the City of Toronto’s proportion of artists in the CMA (based on the city’s current boundaries) was the same in 1991 as it was in 2006 (70.6%). Under this assumption, the growth in the number of artists in the City of Toronto would have been 94% between 1991 and 2021 (nearly double, roughly equal to the change in the CMA).

A second estimate is based on data in Hill Strategies’ historical reports, which used slightly different methods than the most recent data year (i.e., including only those artists with employment or self-employment income and nine artist occupation groups, excluding photographers). The historical reports showed that artists in the City of Toronto represented 76% of all artists in the Toronto CMA in 1991. Using this higher estimate of the proportion of artists in the CMA in 1991, there would have been 17,900 artists in Toronto in 1991. The growth in the number of artists would have been 81% (from 17,900 in 1991 to 32,300 in 2021), still a very high growth rate.

Average employment income of Toronto artists has not kept up with inflation

As noted above, there is roughly comparable data on artists in the City of Toronto in 2006 and 2021. Data on average employment income was requested for both years. The income data relate to the preceding years, i.e., 2005 and 2020.

Because of the changes in the artist occupation groups between 2005 (9 occupation groups, excluding photographers) and 2020 (10 occupation groups, including photographers), it is easier to estimate the average income of artists in 2005, including an adjustment for photographers, than the median income, which is the most common income statistic in other Hill Strategies articles.

In 2020 (the most recent data year), the average income of Toronto’s artists from employment and self-employment was $35,200, which is 45% below that of all Toronto workers ($64,200). However, the average employment income of Toronto artists was above the average for all Ontario artists ($28,200).

In 2005, the average income of Toronto’s artists from employment and self-employment was $30,500, or 30% less than all Toronto workers ($64,200). The average employment income of local artists was above the average for all of Ontario in 2005 ($28,200).

The above statistics show that the income gap between artists and other workers in Toronto has grown over time, from 30% in 2005 to 45% in 2020.

In addition, the average employment income of artists in Toronto did not keep pace with inflation. The average employment income of artists increased from $30,500 in 2005 to $35,200. This 16% increase is about one-half of the 31% increase in the Consumer Price Index in Toronto during this period. If the employment income of Toronto artists had simply kept up with inflation, the average income would have been roughly $5,000 higher in 2021 ($40,100 rather than $35,200).

The average employment income of all Toronto workers grew by 47% between 2005 and 2020, higher than the 31% local inflation rate.

The final graph in today’s article highlights the income changes in the City of Toronto between 2005 and 2020.

Notes and methods

More data are available for the Census Metropolitan Area, despite significant research efforts

I have spent many days seeking out comparable data on the number of artists from different census periods, scouring hundreds of datasets from five census years (1991, 1996, 2001, 2006, and 2016) to find data that are comparable to my custom data request in 2021. I downloaded promising datasets, pinpointed the 10 artist occupations (out of about 700 occupational categories), copied the artist data into spreadsheets, and analyzed the results.

For municipalities, I was unable to find comparable data for the entire period. However, I was able to find data for:

• the City of Toronto for 2006 and 2021

• the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) for 1991 through 2021

• the Province of Ontario for 1991 through 2021

Here are the details of what I needed to address to ensure an “apples-to-apples” comparison of artists over time.

Changes in our definition of artists

• In 2021, in consultation with readers, we decided to include photographers as an artist occupation. Photographers had not been included in my previous counts of artists or the data that I had requested in previous census years. I have adjusted my estimates of the number of artists in previous census years to include photographers (which is an occupation group that was included separately in my data requests).

• I have also adjusted my estimates of the average employment income of artists in 2005 to include photographers. The initial estimate in Toronto in 2005 ($30,700) was revised downward by $200 to account for the lower employment incomes of photographers ($26,900). The adjustment was weighted to reflect photographers’ share of all artists in Toronto in 2006 (7%).

Periodic changes in Statistics Canada’s occupational classifications

• For artists, almost all the classification changes have been between occupation groups that are both included as artists, rather than between artist and non-artist occupation groups. That is good! However, because of the changes, an analysis of trends is not possible for many individual artist occupations.

• A new occupation group was created in 2021 for “technical writers”. The 100 Toronto workers in this occupation group were not counted as artists in 2021 but were included with other types of writers (an artist occupation group) in every other census year since 1991. To adjust for this, the counts of artists prior to 2021 have been reduced by 3%, which is the proportion of technical workers among all artists and technical writers in 2021. An adjustment was not made to historical estimates of employment income, because no historical information is available for technical writers.

Slightly different definitions of who is counted as a worker (including artists) in different datasets

• This is a tricky challenge and one that even holds for a single census year. Some datasets exclude people who were out of the labour force in May but had worked at some point in the previous 16 months. Many other datasets only include those who were in the labour force at the time in May of each census year.

• My analyses of 2021 census data have included all people classified into an occupation, even though some of them did not work in May of 2021.

• I believe that this inclusion is particularly helpful when looking at the number of professional artists, because of the ebbs and flows of artistic work.

• I had to find datasets from each census year based on the same type of count (called “universe” by Statistics Canada). This was one of the toughest challenges.

Changes to census methods

• The 2011 census was an outlier year, because the equivalent of the long-form census (called the “National Household Survey”) was a voluntary survey of 30% of all households. In all other census periods, the long-form census was a mandatory survey that covered 20% of households from 1991 to 2006 and 25% of households in 2016 and 2021.

• The response rate in 2011 was just 69%, compared with a typical response rate above 95% in other years. I do not believe that the 2011 data are comparable to other years – and, indeed, the 2011 data tend to be quite different from other census periods.

• Because of the lack of comparable data for 2011, I have imputed data for that year as the midpoint between the estimates for 2006 and 2016. The percentage changes are therefore imprecise for 2006 to 2011 and 2011 to 2016 but do provide an accurate portrait of the changes during the broader timeframe (i.e., 2006 to 2016).

Limitations of the analysis

There are some elements that I have not been able to address:

• Change in the number of cultural workers, because there have been significant changes in some of the 52 occupation groups that are included as cultural workers

• Demographic breakdowns, because of additional complications due to the relative lack of readily available, comparable census data

For those who are particularly curious, I’ve written about some of the census changes in more detail, especially here, here, and here. My article on changes in the number of artists in Ontario is here.

Other notes

Here are some other important notes to keep in mind when considering the above analysis of artists in the workforce:

• The analysis relates to professional workers, but with a very specific concept of professional. The census data on occupations include people who worked more hours as an artist than at any other occupation during the census week (always in early May), plus people who were not in the labour force at that time but had worked more as an artist than at another occupation after January 1 of the prior year (2020, in the case of the 2021 census). Part-time artists who spent more time at another occupation during the census period would be classified in the other occupation.

• The atypical nature of artists’ workflows can make it challenging for official statistics to count artists as artists. As such, census estimates of the number of artists might be low. “Gig work” has been common among artists for a very long time. Internet sources even indicate that the term “gig” was coined by jazz musicians in the early 1900s. (Source examples here and here.)

The article presents an industry-based estimate of economic impact, with the term “cultural industries” referring to all organizations, businesses, and individuals working in culture, not just for-profit businesses (as this term is sometimes used). Specifically, the GDP estimates in this article represent the economic value added by cultural organizations, businesses, and individuals. They include the value added of both cultural and non-cultural goods and services produced by cultural establishments. On the other hand, the estimates exclude the value added of cultural goods and services that are produced in industries that are not primarily cultural.

Statistics Canada’s standard definition of culture has been followed, a definition that includes nine domains: live performance; visual and applied arts; written and published works; sound recording; audiovisual and interactive media; heritage and libraries; governance, funding, and professional support; education and training; and multi-domain.

The article was prepared at the request of the West Kootenay Regional Arts Council. Hill Strategies retained analytical independence and editorial control of the content.

The article includes estimates of the direct, indirect, and induced impacts of cultural activity:

• Direct impacts are defined as the value added to gross domestic product (GDP) of spending in the cultural sector.

• Indirect impacts represent the new spending that is generated by the expenses of cultural organizations (e.g., by suppliers).

• Induced impacts capture the spending that is generated by the earnings of cultural workers and suppliers’ workers.

The following graphic highlights the economic impact components.

The estimates in this report do not take into account ancillary spending by cultural attendees on items such as accommodation, food, and transportation. This is an important decision: estimates of ancillary spending are typically quite large, sometimes equal to estimates based solely on direct, indirect, and induced impacts. However, ancillary spending is difficult to measure, not universally agreed upon, and therefore often excluded from economic impact studies.

The analysis relies on two Statistics Canada products: provincial cultural indicators and input-output multipliers. In general, the analysis is detailed and defensible, but it is also pragmatic. It is based on readily available data, rather than custom surveys of the cultural sector, which would be a very large undertaking.

The estimates in this report are based on data from 2023, the most recent year for the provincial cultural indicators from Statistics Canada. As noted above, the estimates are generated from industry-based indicators for the cultural sector. Hill Strategies believes that the industry-based estimates are the best choice, for three reasons: 1) they represent the industry of culture, rather than cultural products that may be produced in disparate sectors of the economy; 2) Statistics Canada’s multipliers are based on industry definitions; and 3) comparisons with other sectors use industry-based definitions of those sectors.

The other option would be to produce estimates based on cultural products (not cultural industries). A recent report from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce chose this option, which resulted in a lower estimate of the economic impact of British Columbia’s arts, culture, and heritage (but the estimate was still substantial, at nearly $24 billion across Canada, not just in B.C.).

Readers are cautioned that GDP measures only the financial effects of culture. Many other benefits are not taken into account. These benefits are incredibly important for the quality of life (e.g., health, education, the environment, joy, happiness).

Additional notes regarding the methods and products that are used in the calculations can be found after the data analysis.

Culture: Over $24 billion in economic impact in B.C.

The economic impact of the arts, culture, and heritage on British Columbia’s GDP is estimated at $24.2 billion in 2023. The impact on the GDP of other provinces amounts to $4.6 billion, resulting in an overall impact of $28.8 billion across the country.

The estimate of the impact in B.C. includes:

• A direct impact of $13.6 billion.

• An indirect impact of $5.5 billion.

• An induced impact of $5.1 billion.

A broader economic statistic – the value of B.C.-based arts, culture, and heritage production, which is essentially equal to total revenues in the sector – amounts to $25.1 billion. This “gross” estimate was used as the starting point for the calculations of “net” impacts on GDP (direct, indirect, and induced).

Direct jobs in B.C

Statistics Canada estimates that British Columbia’s arts, culture, and heritage sector directly employed 132,400 people in 2023. This estimate does not include a division into full-time and part-time positions. Estimates of indirect and induced jobs have not been produced for this report.

Comparisons with other sectors of the economy

The estimate of the direct economic impact of the arts, culture, and heritage on British Columbia’s GDP ($13.6 billion) represents 3.6% of provincial GDP ($373 billion).

The direct impact of culture on British Columbia’s GDP is designed to be comparable to other sectors of the economy. Elements such as indirect, induced, and ancillary impacts are typically not comparable to other sectors, because the methods used to estimate these impacts may differ from one study to another, and not all sectors have such a study. For information, the overall estimate of the impact of culture ($24.2 billion, including direct, indirect, and induced impacts) represents 6.2% of the province’s economy. However, if the indirect and induced impacts of every sector were summed, the total would be much larger than overall provincial GDP.

As shown in the graph below, culture’s $13.6 billion in direct economic impact in B.C. is larger than the direct impact on GDP of other important sectors of the province’s economy. Culture is:

• More than twice as large as the impact of agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting ($6.4 billion)

• Roughly twice as large as the impact of utilities ($6.9 billion)

• 9% larger than wholesale trade ($12.4 billion)

On the other hand, the direct impact of the arts, culture, and heritage is less than (but still represents a significant share of) some of the largest sectors of the province’s economy. Culture represents:

• 69% of the GDP of retail trade ($19.7 billion)

• 60% of the GDP of manufacturing ($22.7 billion)

• 44% of the GDP of mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction ($30.7 billion)

• 38% of the GDP of construction ($35.7 billion)

The data source for the comparison sectors and the overall provincial economy is Statistics Canada’s estimates of GDP at basic prices, by industry, using current dollar estimates. The notes contain further information about the comparisons.

A comparison with government spending on culture in the province is not provided here, because it would not be an apples-to-apples comparison. Statistics Canada has not allocated federal spending by province, which means that the government spending estimate in the province is only a portion of total spending.

Economic impact estimates for the Columbia Basin

The following local economic impact statistics should be considered rough estimates, as they were prepared using readily available statistics on cultural workers in local regions. The economic data needed for a fuller exploration are not readily available at the local level.

The Columbia Basin is an area of southeastern B.C., whose borders are not perfectly aligned with municipal geographies. To best align with regional boundaries, this analysis of the Columbia Basin reflects the same boundaries as a prior analysis. Specifically, it excludes Basin communities located in Regional District of Kootenay Boundary. Still, a large portion of the Basin is examined in this article, despite limitations due to the need to define the Basin based on municipal borders (to be consistent with Statistics Canada datasets). In this article, the Columbia Basin comprises all of the Regional District of Central Kootenay, all of the Regional District of East Kootenay, and a portion of the Columbia Shuswap Regional District. Separate estimates are provided here for the two regional districts that are fully contained within the Columbia Basin.

The following table outlines the census count of the number of cultural workers in 2021 (which forms the basis for the economic estimates), as well as the rough estimates of the local economic impacts of the arts, culture, and heritage. Further information on artists and cultural workers in these areas can be found in an article from 2023.

As shown in the following table, the arts, culture, and heritage are estimated to have impacts on the provincial economy of $465 million in the Columbia Basin, including $241 million in Central Kootenay and $168 million in East Kootenay.

Once again, the local estimates should be considered as imperfect. For example, the local estimates do not account for how various segments of the arts, culture, and heritage might be different in the Columbia Basin’s cultural scene from the province as a whole.

Notes on methods

Statistics Canada defines culture as “creative artistic activity and the goods and services produced by it, and the preservation of heritage“. The economic impact calculations in this report follow this definition, which was established in the Conceptual Framework for Culture Statistics, 2011.

The cultural data in this report were drawn from Statistics Canada’s Culture and sport indicators by domain and sub-domain, by province and territory (industry perspective). This product offers statistics on the direct impact and overall production of cultural industries in B.C.

The broadest estimates from Statistics Canada’s Culture and sport indicators relate to the value of cultural production (essentially equal to total revenues). This estimate was $25.1 billion in B.C. in 2023. Statistics Canada’s Culture and sport indicators also provide an estimate of the direct impact of culture on GDP in B.C. ($13.6 billion in 2023).

Estimates of the indirect and induced impacts were produced using Statistics Canada’s provincial input-output multipliers for 2022. Multipliers reflect the interrelatedness of specific industries, based on Statistics Canada’s economic measurements. These multipliers are commonly used in this type of analysis, including in The Culture, Arts, Heritage and Sport Economic Impact Model, developed by Statistics Canada and Canadian Heritage.

This report uses the most recent economic statistics and multipliers at the time of writing. In general, the multipliers are one to two years behind the economic estimates (i.e., the direct impact of culture in the provinces and territories). It is not ideal that the economic statistics relate to 2023, while the multipliers are from 2022. Nevertheless, in our opinion, the best way to proceed in this situation is to use the most recent data available.

Statistics Canada’s multipliers cover fairly broad sub-sectors. We have chosen the two most “cultural” sub-sectors: Information and cultural industries (which includes publishing, film, sound recording, and broadcasting) and Arts, entertainment, and recreation (which includes the performing arts and heritage). Unfortunately, these two sub-sectors extend beyond the cultural sector to include telecommunications, data processing and hosting, spectator sports, lotteries, and entertainment. This is an imperfect choice, but the most feasible option, in our opinion.

To produce a single multiplier for British Columbia, we calculated the average of the multipliers for these two sub-sectors. To calculate the indirect and induced impacts, the multiplier was applied to the total value of cultural production in the province.

Because Statistics Canada offers estimates of the direct economic impact of culture expressed in terms of basic prices, we chose the “matching” multipliers for indirect and induced impacts, i.e., those expressed in terms of basic prices (rather than market prices). Similarly, the GDP estimates for comparison sectors and the overall economy are expressed in terms of basic prices.

Most – but not all – economic impact analyses include indirect and induced impacts. In our opinion, these impacts are valid, but not everyone agrees on this matter. On one side, The Culture, Arts, Heritage and Sport Economic Impact Model, developed by Statistics Canada and Canadian Heritage, includes indirect and induced impacts. However, Statistics Canada’s Culture indicators only provide estimates of the direct impact. Few studies account for ancillary spending by cultural attendees on items such as accommodation, food, and transportation.

As noted above, the data source for the comparison sectors and the overall economy is Statistics Canada’s estimates of GDP at basic prices, by industry, using current dollar estimates to ensure comparability with the cultural statistics. Unfortunately, the most recent current dollar estimates by province relate to 2022. These estimates were adjusted based on the growth rates of chained dollar estimates for the same sectors between 2022 and 2023, available from the same dataset. These calculations result in the most comparable (current dollar) estimates for 2023, the most recent year for the cultural statistics.

Subscribe now

I am truly touched by many of your comments after my retirement announcement. I do feel that my work is valued.

I just don’t think that enough people find it valuable.

Thorough and insightful arts research work, in my experience, is not sustainable without major contributions from the few who can afford a larger commitment.

Here’s one example among many. Two weeks ago, a private foundation that sponsored my Statistical insights work at the $750 level (for just one year) asked to downgrade their subscription because they don’t need a custom article this year.

If I ever had a hope of generating sustainable revenue for this research work, they are exactly the type of larger organization that I really needed to contribute maybe $5,000 or $10,000 per year.

But no, the relationship was apparently transactional. They could get what they need for $75 (despite having more than one employee who uses my findings), so that’s what they did. Sadly, they’re not alone. That’s what a lot of funders and larger organizations have done.

As an aside, I do want to thank those organizations (including some not-very-large ones) that have kept up their sponsor-level subscriptions, in some cases not requiring a custom article in return. Thanks so much!

Math! Always fun

Here’s some math on how tough it has been to square the finances for this project.

For the past 4 years, my Substack subscription model has netted roughly $25,000 per year.

The problem is that I’ve done an average of $75,000 of work per year. (I’ve counted my hours worked, converted that into days worked, and multiplied that number by the same daily fee that I’ve charged for commissioned work for over 10 years now.)

In other words, I’ve donated $200,000 of unpaid time over the last 4 years, just to keep Statistical insights on the arts running as a weekly publication.

The upshot? If anyone is going to carry on my research work, the arts community has to do a much better job of paying them.

This is probably not the succession discussion that you might have expected from me, but I think it’s an important part of the conversation, and one that I’ve never shared before.

Share

A few more thoughts about succession

I have been asked if there is someone waiting in the wings. Sadly, there are no wings.

Some have also (very tentatively) inquired about my participation in succession discussions. Given my experiences over the past 4 years, I hope that you’ll understand that I could only agree to do so if I am properly and fully compensated for my time and expertise.

While I am grateful to the many folks who have commented on how valued my work is, I think that it would be more helpful, moving forward, to use your valuable time to tell funders like the Canada Council, private foundations, and Canadian Heritage how valuable this work is.

In conclusion

I was lucky enough to have had about 15 years of reasonable funding for my Statistical insights series. This allowed me to be patient in trying to build up the subscription business after the “stable” funding was cancelled. Sadly, the subscription model never really took off. I’m worried that the next research person or team won’t have the luxury of that patience.

Today, I examine findings on sponsorships for arts organizations. This follows my analysis two weeks ago of high-level statistics on donations, donors, and sponsorships, as well as my article last week on individual donations to the arts, culture, and heritage. In the first article, I noted that overall sponsorship levels appear to have increased. What about arts sponsorships?

The article is based on a survey of sponsorships in 2024 (and versions from previous years), which has quite a small sample size but is the only source I found on this topic. The survey had 303 respondents, including sponsors, sponsorship recipients, and sponsorship agencies. Only 6% of respondents completed the survey in French, which calls into question the survey’s national representativeness. Despite its moderate sample size and imperfect representation across the country, the survey still offers some interesting findings about sponsorship, which (to my knowledge) is not well covered by another survey.

Sponsorships in 2024

As I noted two weeks ago, brands invested $2.56 billion in sponsorship fees in 2024, according to the Canadian Sponsorship Landscape Study. Professional sports account for the largest share of sponsorships (23%).

The arts represent 6% of total sponsorship value in 2024, or roughly $154 million. (Oddly enough, this estimate is very close to Statistics Canada’s estimate of individual donations to the arts and culture in 2023: $157 million.)

The report includes an analysis of nine different “property types” (i.e., types of organizations receiving sponsorships). The arts rank eighth out of the nine types, as shown in the following graph.

Note that the report does not define the property types, including the arts (which is the term that they use). Other property types might include some arts activity, including “festivals, fairs, and annual events” and “entertainment, tours, and attractions”. I’ve chosen a light pink shading for these bars.

Largest single sponsorship and trends over time

Read more

Today, I examine findings on donations to the arts and culture in 2023, as well as fundraising challenges reported by arts, heritage, and entertainment organizations.

The article is based on two main data sources:

• Statistics Canada surveys of individual donors in 2018 and 2023, which can be broken down by type of recipient organization but has a moderate sample size. As a result, the margin of error of its estimates can be relatively large for smaller charitable sectors.

• A Statistics Canada survey of organizations that seek donations from the public, conducted in late 2023.

Individual donations in 2023

Statistics Canada periodically surveys Canadians about their giving and volunteering. The most recent such survey was in 2023, and Statistics Canada released some information (but not a full dataset) in June of 2025. (I didn’t analyze this information earlier because I was waiting and hoping for additional details, which have not yet appeared. In the past, I did some fairly in-depth analysis of this survey. Example here, from 2013.)

I have examined the 2023 data to identify the amount and proportion of donations going to the arts and culture. (Note that the short article doesn’t define each sector, but the sectors are likely based on an international classification of not-for-profit organizations. The title “arts and culture” comes from the report itself.)

In dollar terms, the survey found that individuals donated $157 million to arts and culture organizations in 2023. This represents 1.2% of overall giving ($13.4 billion). When compared to overall giving, the arts and culture’s 1.2% share barely shows up on a graph, as shown below.

Changes in donations between 2018 and 2023

Read more

Inflation has affected charitable organizations’ expenditures and, along with other factors, the ability and willingness of many Canadians to donate to charities. Indeed, there has been a steady decline in the number of donors. Despite this, the value of donations has increased. Sponsorship levels appear to have increased, based on findings from a relatively small survey with shifting respondent numbers and types. Do these trends leave organizations more vulnerable to a potential economic downturn, the loss of key donors, the loss of an important sponsor, or other surprises?

The article is based on multiple data sources:

• Individuals’ tax filings (which is an important data source but cannot be broken down into the types of organizations supported, because not every taxfiler submits the full details of their donations)

• A Statistics Canada survey of individual donors (which can be broken down by type of recipient organization but has a moderate sample size. As a result, the margin of error of its estimates can be relatively large for smaller charitable sectors.)

• A private survey of sponsorships (which has quite a small sample size but is the only source I found on this topic. The survey had 303 respondents, including sponsors, sponsorship recipients, and sponsorship agencies. Only 6% of respondents completed the survey in French, which calls into question the survey’s national representativeness.)

The first two datasets currently have 2023 as their most recent data year, while the sponsorship survey is from 2024.

1997 to 2023: Steady decline in charitable donors but an increase in the value of donations

The following graph shows that the value of charitable donations has increased substantially since 1997. In fact, charitable donations were 72% higher in 2023 than in 1997 (even after adjusting for inflation). The value of donations to all types of charities was $12.8 billion in 2023, compared with $7.4 billion in 1997 (adjusted for inflation).

More recently, the value of donations to all types of charities was slightly higher in 2023 ($12.8 billion) than before the pandemic ($11.9 billion in 2019, adjusted for inflation).

The graph also demonstrates the slow but steady decline in the number of taxfilers claiming charitable donations, resulting in a 4% decrease between 1997 and 2023. The decrease is amplified when expressed as a percentage of all taxfilers: the proportion claiming charitable donations was 26% in 1997 and 17% in 2023.

Behind the paywall, I outline the key statistics in 1997 and 2023, the median and average donations between 1997 and 2023, findings from StatsCan’s survey of donors, and findings from a survey of sponsors and sponsorship recipients.

Read more

On February 10, 1997, I started working as an arts researcher thanks to my new job as a Research and Policy Analyst at the Ontario Arts Council.

I know that you all love math. (That’s my legacy, right??? Getting a bunch of artsy folks to love math? Lol.)

Given your strong math skills, you know that means that I will hit 30 years of arts research in February of 2027.

At that time, I will retire.

I have really enjoyed this 30 year ride, and I have you all to thank for that. 31 years ago, I didn’t even know what “arts research” might involve. Also, when I started at the OAC, I never would have dreamed that I’d be in this line of work for 30 years, nor that I’d manage my own business for most of it. (I left the OAC to start Hill Strategies in 2002.)

Why leave now? Partly because there are many new challenges on the horizon, and I just don’t feel like I have the energy to take them on. And partly because my business has decreased since the pandemic, which has mostly been OK with me. I love my non work life, and that’s where I’ll focus my efforts as of February.

Again, thanks to you all for paying attention, for being clients (often clients-slash-friends), for being great collaborators, and for making this work possible. I absolutely have to thank my spouse, Robin Cameron, for her support and sage counsel, from the founding of Hill Strategies through today’s announcement.

My last article in the Statistical insights on the arts series will be on February 9, 2027. Completing 30 years, to the day! I’ll continue to publish regularly until then, maybe with some weeks off here and there, for a change. So please keep paying attention!

Love,

Kelly

These are the two sections in today’s article: 1) how many organizations and businesses in the arts, heritage and entertainment provide different types of training to their employees; and 2) how many offer disability-related information in each type of training.

As I’ve noted before, “arts, heritage, and entertainment” is a broad and imperfect approximation of the cultural sector. This classification (which the survey refers to as “arts, entertainment, and recreation”) includes performing arts, spectator sports, and related industries; heritage institutions; as well as amusement, gambling, and recreation industries. Given the sample size, separate data for culture-specific organizations and businesses are not available. This leaves us with the compromise of a broad category that also includes entertainment and recreation related businesses such as amusement parks, casinos, bingo halls, golf courses, ski hills, marinas, and fitness centres.

Survey and questions

The article is based on a Statistics Canada survey of not-for-profit and for-profit organizations across the economy. This iteration of the Canadian Survey on Business Conditions was conducted between January 2 and February 6. The data were released on February 27.

Statistics Canada asked respondents six questions about workplace training offerings, using the wording “Over the last 12 months, has this business or organization provided any [job-related training about the issues listed below]?”

• job-related training about client interaction or service delivery

• job-related training about communication

• technical job-related training

• job-related training about diversity, equity and inclusion

• job-related training on workplace accommodations

• other job-related training related to accessibility for persons with disabilities

The survey describes training as including “peer mentoring, job shadowing, workshops, lessons, self-learning, team discussions, and webinars”.

The response options were: Yes / No / Don’t know.

Each of the above questions contained a brief description of the specific type of training. For example, the question about diversity, equity, and inclusion gave the following examples: “e.g., mental health awareness, disability inclusion, cultural awareness, unconscious bias, 2SLGBTQ+ inclusion, respecting confidentiality, inclusive hiring, bias awareness, inclusive conflict resolution”.

Information about persons with disabilities

Whenever respondents answered “yes” to one of these questions, a follow-up was asked, along with definitions of “disability” and “persons with disabilities”:

“Did any of this training include information on persons with disabilities?

A disability refers to any impairment, including a physical, mental, intellectual, cognitive, learning, communication or sensory impairment, or a functional limitation.

Persons with disabilities refers to a person who has any impairment, including a physical, mental, intellectual, cognitive, learning, communication or sensory impairment — or a functional limitation — whether permanent, temporary or episodic in nature, or evident or not, that, in interaction with a barrier, hinders a person’s full and equal participation in society.”

Response options: Yes / No / Don’t know

Note about my analysis of disability-related training

Unfortunately, because of the question structure (two questions about each type of training) and data reporting (no rolled-up data by type of organization), it is not possible to estimate the overall number of organizations and businesses in the arts, heritage, and entertainment that provided disability training via any form of training. Data for the separate questions cannot be added together, because many of the same organizations might have provided different types of training.

What I could calculate is the percentage of organizations and businesses in the arts, heritage, and entertainment providing disability training for each specific form of training. To do this, I multiplied the percentage of organizations offering each type of training by the percentage offering information on how to interact with persons with disabilities (a subset of those organizations offering that type of training).

Technical training is the most common type of training in culture

The following graph shows that technical training is the most common type of training among organizations and businesses in the arts, heritage, and entertainment (43% offered such training in the past 12 months). Technical training is also the most common type of training among all businesses and organizations in Canada (41%).

Just over one-third of organizations and businesses in the arts, heritage, and entertainment (36%) offer training on client interaction or service delivery (compared with 30% of all businesses).

31% of organizations and businesses in the arts, heritage, and entertainment offer communication training (compared with 23% of all businesses).

29% of organizations and businesses in the arts, heritage, and entertainment offer training related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI, compared with 22% of all businesses).

23% of organizations and businesses in the arts, heritage, and entertainment offer training related to workplace accommodations (compared with 22% of all businesses).

Finally, 5% of organizations and businesses in the arts, heritage, and entertainment offer other training related to people with disabilities (equal to the percentage of all businesses).

All of the percentages for organizations and businesses in the arts, heritage, and entertainment are equal to or greater than the percentages of all businesses and organizations in Canada.

Data quality indicators: Very good (B rating) for each different type of training among organizations and businesses in the arts, heritage, and entertainment, except “other training”, which had an A rating (excellent). The ratings are excellent (A) for each different type of training among all businesses and organizations in Canada.

Few organizations or businesses in the arts, heritage, and entertainment include training information about people with disabilities

Read more

Today’s article provides an analysis of changes in the cultural workforce between 2013 and 2025 for what I’m calling “small municipalities and rural areas”. This label of convenience casts a fairly broad net, because the statistics actually relate to all areas of Canada outside the 31 Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs) for which we have reliable data.

In general, these locations are small municipalities and rural areas. However, the data also include 10 CMAs for which the data are not reliable in a majority of the years in the analysis: Belleville-Quinte West, Brantford, Chilliwack, Drummondville, Kamloops, Lethbridge, Nanaimo, Red Deer, Saguenay, and Thunder Bay. Some non-CMA areas might also be an imperfect fit for the label “small municipalities and rural areas”. But I do think that, by and large, the data relate to small municipalities and rural areas.

This is the fifth and final instalment in my series of articles analyzing local statistics on workers in arts, culture, heritage, and some sport occupations. In the first article in this series, I examined the trends for Canada, the 31 CMAs (as a group), and the 6 largest CMAs: Calgary, Edmonton, Montreal, Ottawa-Gatineau, Toronto, and Vancouver. Three weeks ago, I analyzed changes for 7 CMAs with populations between 500,000 and 1 million: Winnipeg, Quebec City, Hamilton, Kitchener-Cambridge-Waterloo, London, Halifax, and St. Catharines-Niagara. Two weeks ago, I examined changes for 10 CMAs with populations between 220,000 and 500,000: Abbotsford-Mission, Barrie, Kelowna, Oshawa, Regina, Saskatoon, Sherbrooke, St. John’s, Victoria, and Windsor. Last week, I analyzed changes for 8 CMAs with populations under 200,000 (analyzed individually and as a group). The 8 CMAs are: Fredericton, Greater Sudbury, Guelph, Kingston, Moncton, Peterborough, Saint John, and Trois-Rivières.

The articles are based on publicly available occupation statistics from the Labour Force Survey (LFS). As was the case in my other articles, I have created three-year averages to provide a higher level of statistical reliability and minimize the impact of unusual single year estimates in many CMAs. The data in this article labelled 2025 therefore represent the average for 2023-2025. The earliest data point (labelled 2013) is actually the average for 2011-2013.

Key things to know about the Labour Force Survey

In my opinion, data from the Labour Force Survey are useful but imperfect for analyzing the labour force in the arts, culture, and heritage. I outline many limitations at the end of this article and in even greater detail here.

Because of its relatively small sample size, the Labour Force Survey can only offer reliable local data for a broad category of arts, culture, heritage, and sports workers. The summary data relate to what Statistics Canada calls “occupations in the arts, culture, recreation, and sports, except management”. I will generally call this occupation category “arts, culture, heritage, and sport workers”. Details about the occupation groupings within this category are at the end of this article.

Most of the people in this category (roughly 75%) work in the arts, culture, and heritage (rather than sports and recreation). The category covers approximately 60% of all workers in the arts, culture, and heritage.

The data are available for CMAs, not for municipalities per se.

Given the Labour Force Survey’s limitations, the analysis that follows is relatively simple: I examine whether the number of workers in the selected occupation grouping has increased or decreased over 12 years or so.

26% increase for all of Canada

Between 2013 and 2025, there was a 26% increase in the number of workers in the arts, culture, heritage, and sport in Canada (estimates of 510,000 in 2013 and 641,000 in 2025).

15% increase in small municipalities and rural areas

11.8 million people, or 28% of Canada’s population, reside outside of the 31 CMAs for which we have reliable individual data on workers in the arts, culture, heritage, and sport.

16% of all Canadian workers in the arts, culture, heritage, and sport (104,000 people) reside in these (generally) small municipalities and rural areas, a percentage that is below their share of the population.

Between 2013 and 2025, there was a 15% increase in number of workers in the arts, culture, heritage, and sport in small municipalities and rural areas, which is below the Canadian average (26%). Collectively, small municipalities and rural areas were home to 91,000 workers in this occupation grouping in 2013 and 104,000 in 2025.

As shown in the following graph, there have been relatively small fluctuations in the number of culture and sports workers in small municipalities and rural areas. Recent increases (since 2022) are the main factor in the increase in the number of workers since 2013.

Details for specific geographic areas are not available, because the above data represent the Canadian totals minus the totals for the 31 CMAs with reliable data.

To round out this post, I will compare the above findings to other statistics that I previously analyzed related to small towns and rural areas.

Other data on small towns and rural areas

In the linked article, I noted that 20% of Canada’s artists reside in small towns and rural areas. “Census data indicate that there are 41,500 professional artists in rural communities and small towns.”

In the article, “rural areas and small towns” include all communities with less than 30,000 residents.

My analysis of all workers in the arts, culture, and heritage (no sport occupations!) found that about 175,000 people, or 19% of all cultural workers in Canada, reside in rural areas and small towns.

These percentages are similar to today’s analysis: 16% of workers in the arts, culture, heritage, and sport.

By examining artists by occupation in small towns and rural areas, I found that relatively high proportions of craftspeople, visual artists, and photographers reside in rural areas and small towns.

My analysis of median incomes showed that “rural and small town artists have much lower incomes than other workers in rural communities and small towns”.

In this article, “organizations were classified as being in rural areas or small towns if they are located outside of Census Metropolitan Areas or Census Agglomerations (i.e., regions with core cities that have a population of at least 10,000)”. This is not too far off of the new analysis in today’s article. However, today’s article includes workers in Census Agglomerations, plus 10 CMAs for which the data are not reliable.

Here are some key findings from the analysis in the linked article:

• Rural areas and small towns have a higher share of arts, culture, and heritage organizations than their population

• Average revenues are much lower for rural-based arts, culture, and heritage organizations ($214,000) than urban ones ($1.4 million).

• Organizations in the arts, culture, and heritage – whether rural or urban – have lower average revenues than the average for all types of organizations, as shown in the following graph.

• Rural and small town organizations in the arts, culture, and heritage employed 8,400 people in 2021, or 11% of the employees of all not-for-profit arts, culture, and heritage organizations.

• Average employment is much lower for rural organizations (4) than urban ones (16).

Data sources and notes (for the new analysis)

Statistics Canada. Table 14-10-0468-01. Employment characteristics by census metropolitan area, annual. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1410046801

Population statistics are drawn from Statistics Canada. Table 17-10-0148-01. Population estimates, July 1, by census metropolitan area and census agglomeration, 2021 boundaries, https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1710014801

Why analyze the Labour Force Survey?

I’ve analyzed this dataset (now), rather than the census (which has a much larger sample size) because of timeliness and easy availability. The strength of the Labour Force Survey is its frequency. It is conducted monthly, but the local cultural estimates would not be reliable on a monthly basis, particularly for areas with smaller populations. To counter this limitation, my analysis focuses on three-year averages (not annual or monthly data). When multiplied by 12 for each year, then by 3 for the three-year averages, the sample sizes become more interesting.

The Labour Force Survey data can show us trends that the census, conducted only every five years, cannot. In addition, occupation data from the census is published roughly a year and a half after the census is conducted. We will probably be waiting until late 2027 for labour force data from the census in May of 2026.

Occupational categories

The data in this article relate to what Statistics Canada calls “occupations in the arts, culture, recreation, and sports, except management”. Most of the people in this category are cultural workers: I have estimated that roughly 75% to 80% of people in this broad occupation grouping work in the arts, culture, and heritage. And the category covers most (but certainly not all) cultural workers: I have estimated that the workers in this broad occupation grouping account for roughly 60% of all workers in the arts, culture, and heritage. (Further details, including a thorough discussion of LFS limitations, is available here.)

Within this broad occupational category, there are four occupation groupings. In Statistics Canada’s language, these are:

• Professional occupations in the arts and culture, which include: some artists, such as producers, directors, conductors, and musicians; writers, translators, and other communications professionals; as well as librarians, archivists, conservators, and curators.

• Technical occupations in the arts and culture, including: graphic and interior designers; as well as technical workers in libraries, archives, motion pictures, broadcasting, and the performing arts.

• Other occupations in the arts, culture, and sports, including: artists such as dancers, actors, comedians, circus performers, photographers, craftspeople, and visual artists; theatre and fashion designers; select museum and art gallery jobs (e.g., registrars, restorers); assistants in film, broadcasting, photography, and performing arts; as well as a few sports occupations (athletes, coaches, and referees).

• Support occupations in the arts, culture, and sports, including: program leaders and instructors in recreation, sport, and fitness; as well as puppeteers, buskers, magicians, portrayers of Santa Claus, influencers, and models. The recreation and sports workers in this occupational grouping greatly outnumber the cultural workers (which is why I exclude this grouping whenever possible).

LFS limitations (in brief)

Earnings data are not available in the summary dataset published by Statistics Canada. For the cultural sector, this is not a big loss, because the LFS questionnaire captures salaries only, not self-employment earnings. (That’s the more important limitation for the cultural sector and for other sectors where self-employment is common.)

Other important limitations of the LFS:

• People’s description of their main job during the reference period is used to classify them into occupations. Some data on secondary occupations is available but is not covered in this report.

• It doesn’t have a large enough sample size to delve into the details for individual occupation groupings in Census Metropolitan Areas, which is why the broad category is helpful.

• It captures data on Indigenous workers only every three months and only started capturing data on racialized workers in the summer of 2020.

• No data are available for 2SLGBTQIA+, D/deaf, and disabled workers.

Neither the LFS nor the census can provide insights into the reasons behind statistical trends.

Today I offer the fourth instalment in my series of articles analyzing local statistics on workers in arts, culture, heritage, and some sport occupations. The article studies changes between 2013 and 2025 for 8 CMAs with populations under 200,000 (analyzed individually and as a group). The 8 CMAs are: Fredericton, Greater Sudbury, Guelph, Kingston, Moncton, Peterborough, Saint John, and Trois-Rivières. For comparison purposes, I’ll include an analysis of the Canada-wide change between 2013 and 2025.

• Three weeks ago, I examined the trends for Canada, the 31 CMAs (as a group), and the 6 largest CMAs: Calgary, Edmonton, Montreal, Ottawa-Gatineau, Toronto, and Vancouver.

• Two weeks ago, I examined changes for 7 CMAs with populations between 500,000 and 1 million: Winnipeg, Quebec City, Hamilton, Kitchener-Cambridge-Waterloo, London, Halifax, and St. Catharines-Niagara.

• Last week, I examined changes for 10 CMAs with populations between 220,000 and 500,000: Abbotsford-Mission, Barrie, Kelowna, Oshawa, Regina, Saskatoon, Sherbrooke, St. John’s, Victoria, and Windsor.

There are 10 other (mostly small) CMAs with unreliable data in a majority of the years in the analysis. I have excluded these 10 CMAs from the analysis: Belleville-Quinte West, Brantford, Chilliwack, Drummondville, Kamloops, Lethbridge, Nanaimo, Red Deer, Saguenay, and Thunder Bay.

These articles are based on publicly available occupation statistics from the Labour Force Survey (LFS). As was the case in my other articles, I have created three-year averages to provide a higher level of statistical reliability and minimize the impact of unusual single year estimates in many CMAs. The data in this article labelled 2025 therefore represent the average for 2023-2025. The earliest data point (labelled 2013) is actually the average for 2011-2013.

Key things to know about the Labour Force Survey

In my opinion, data from the Labour Force Survey are useful but imperfect for analyzing the labour force in the arts, culture, and heritage. I outline many limitations at the end of this article and in even greater detail here.

Because of its relatively small sample size, the Labour Force Survey can only offer reliable local data for a broad category of arts, culture, heritage, and sports workers. The summary data relate to what Statistics Canada calls “occupations in the arts, culture, recreation, and sports, except management”. I will generally call this occupation category “arts, culture, heritage, and sport workers”. Details about the occupation groupings within this category are at the end of this article.

Most of the people in this category (roughly 75%) work in the arts, culture, and heritage (rather than sports and recreation). The category covers approximately 60% of all workers in the arts, culture, and heritage.

The data are available for CMAs, not for municipalities per se.

Given the Labour Force Survey’s limitations, the analysis that follows is relatively simple: I examine whether the number of workers in the selected occupation grouping has increased or decreased over 12 years or so.

26% increase for all of Canada

Between 2013 and 2025, there was a 26% increase in the number of workers in the arts, culture, heritage, and sport in Canada (estimates of 510,000 in 2013 and 641,000 in 2025).

30% increase in 8 small CMAs

1.4 million people, or 3% of Canada’s population, reside in the 8 CMAs that have populations under 200,000.

3% of all Canadian workers in the arts, culture, heritage, and sport (16,600 people) reside in these 8 CMAs, a percentage that is equal to the CMAs’ share of the population.

Between 2013 and 2025, the 30% increase in number of workers in the arts, culture, heritage, and sport in the 8 CMAs is slightly above the Canadian average (26%). There has been a lot of fluctuation in the number of culture and sports workers, as shown in the following graph. This is not too surprising, given the higher error for these smaller population areas. Collectively, in the 8 CMAs, there were 16,600 workers in this occupation grouping in 2013 and 12,800 in 2025.

6 of the 8 small CMAs saw increases in the number of workers in the arts, culture, heritage, and sport. Only 1 had an increase that was significantly higher than the national average (26%).

Details follow for each of the 8 CMAs, from largest to smallest. Note: The percentage changes are calculated from unrounded estimates.

Read more

Two weeks ago, I examined the trends for Canada, the 31 CMAs (as a group), and the 6 largest CMAs: Calgary, Edmonton, Montreal, Ottawa-Gatineau, Toronto, and Vancouver. Last week, I examined changes for 7 CMAs with populations between 500,000 and 1 million: Winnipeg, Quebec City, Hamilton, Kitchener-Cambridge-Waterloo, London, Halifax, and St. Catharines-Niagara.

Next week, I’ll examine the smallest CMAs, i.e., the 8 with populations under 200,000: Fredericton, Greater Sudbury, Guelph, Kingston, Moncton, Peterborough, Saint John, and Trois-Rivières.

These articles are based on publicly available occupation statistics from the Labour Force Survey (LFS). As was the case in my other articles, I have created three-year averages to provide a higher level of statistical reliability and minimize the impact of unusual single year estimates in many CMAs. The data in this article labelled 2025 therefore represent the average for 2023-2025. The earliest data point (labelled 2013) is actually the average for 2011-2013.

Key things to know about the Labour Force Survey

In my opinion, data from the Labour Force Survey are useful but imperfect for analyzing the labour force in the arts, culture, and heritage. I outline many limitations at the end of this article and in even greater detail here.

Because of its relatively small sample size, the Labour Force Survey can only offer reliable local data for a broad category of arts, culture, heritage, and sports workers. The summary data relate to what Statistics Canada calls “occupations in the arts, culture, recreation, and sports, except management”. I will generally call this occupation category “arts, culture, heritage, and sport workers”. Details about the occupation groupings within this category are at the end of this article.

Most of the people in this category (roughly 75%) work in the arts, culture, and heritage (rather than sports and recreation). The category covers approximately 60% of all workers in the arts, culture, and heritage.

The data are available for CMAs, not for municipalities per se.

Given the Labour Force Survey’s limitations, the analysis that follows is relatively simple: I examine whether the number of workers in the selected occupation grouping has increased or decreased over 12 years or so.

26% increase for all of Canada

Between 2013 and 2025, there was a 26% increase in the number of workers in the arts, culture, heritage, and sport in Canada (estimates of 510,000 in 2013 and 641,000 in 2025).

49% increase in the 10 CMAs, the highest increase among all CMA groups

3.3 million people, or 8% of Canada’s population, reside in the 10 CMAs that have populations between 220,000 and 500,000.

7% of all Canadian workers in the arts, culture, heritage, and sport (47,000 people) reside in these 10 CMAs, a percentage that is very close to the CMAs’ share of the population.

Between 2013 and 2025, the 49% increase in number of workers in the arts, culture, heritage, and sport in the 10 CMAs is the highest among the four groups of CMAs analyzed in this series of articles and is nearly double the Canadian average (26%). While the number of workers increased most years (except 2020 to 2022), a very large increase has occurred since 2022, as shown in the following graph. Collectively, in the 10 CMAs, there were 31,000 workers in this occupation grouping in 2013 and 47,000 in 2025.

All 10 CMAs saw increases in the number of workers in the arts, culture, heritage, and sport, but 3 of the CMAs had increases that were below the national average (26%).

Details follow for each of the 10 CMAs, from largest to smallest.

Read more

Today, as part of my series of articles analyzing local statistics on workers in arts, culture, heritage, and some sport occupations, I examine individual and group changes between 2013 and 2025 for 7 CMAs with populations between 500,000 and 1,000,000: Winnipeg, Quebec City, Hamilton, Kitchener-Cambridge-Waterloo, London, Halifax, and St. Catharines-Niagara. For comparison purposes, I’ll include an analysis of the Canada-wide change between 2013 and 2025.

Last week, I examined the trends for Canada, the 31 CMAs (as a group), and the 6 largest CMAs: Calgary, Edmonton, Montreal, Ottawa-Gatineau, Toronto, and Vancouver.

In upcoming articles, I’ll analyze smaller CMAs: 1) the 10 CMAs with populations between 220,000 and 500,000; and 2) the 8 CMAs with populations under 200,000. The 18 CMAs to come in future articles are: Abbotsford-Mission, Barrie, Fredericton, Greater Sudbury, Guelph, Kelowna, Kingston, Moncton, Oshawa, Peterborough, Regina, Saint John, Saskatoon, Sherbrooke, St. John’s, Trois-Rivières, Victoria, and Windsor.

These articles are based on publicly available occupation statistics from the Labour Force Survey (LFS). As was the case last week, I have created three-year averages to provide a higher level of statistical reliability and minimize the impact of unusual single year estimates in many CMAs. The data in this article labelled 2025 therefore represent the average for 2023-2025. The earliest data point (labelled 2013) is actually the average for 2011-2013. This technique is similar to what I did in my recent analysis of multiple job holding by province.

Key things to know about the Labour Force Survey

In my opinion, data from the Labour Force Survey are useful but imperfect for analyzing the labour force in the arts, culture, and heritage. I outline many limitations at the end of this article and in even greater detail here.

Because of its relatively small sample size, the Labour Force Survey can only offer reliable local data for a broad category of arts, culture, heritage, and sports workers. The summary data relate to what Statistics Canada calls “occupations in the arts, culture, recreation, and sports, except management”. I will generally call this occupation category “arts, culture, heritage, and sport workers”. Details about the occupation groupings within this category are at the end of this article.

Most of the people in this category (roughly 75%) work in the arts, culture, and heritage (rather than sports and recreation). The category covers approximately 60% of all workers in the arts, culture, and heritage.

The data are available for CMAs, not for municipalities per se.

Given the Labour Force Survey’s limitations, the analysis that follows is relatively simple: I examine whether the number of workers in the selected occupation grouping has increased or decreased over 12 years or so.

Reminder of Canada-wide data

There has been a relatively consistent increase in the number of workers in the arts, culture, heritage, and sport in Canada, resulting in a 26% increase between 2013 (estimate of 510,000) and 2025 (641,000). The exception to the increases was between 2020 and 2022, but there has been a solid increase since 2022.

7 CMAs with populations between 500,000 and 1 million

5.1 million people, or 12% of Canada’s population, reside in the 7 CMAs analyzed in today’s article.

12% of all Canadian workers in the arts, culture, heritage, and sport (79,000 people) reside in these 7 CMAs, a percentage that is equal to the CMAs’ share of the population.

Between 2013 and 2025, the 30% increase in number of workers in the arts, culture, heritage, and sport in the 7 CMAs is slightly above to the Canadian average (26%). Most of the increase has occurred since 2022, as shown in the following graph. Collectively, in the 7 CMAs, there were 60,000 workers in this occupation grouping in 2013, 61,000 in 2022, and 79,000 in 2025.

All 7 CMAs saw increases in the number of workers in the arts, culture, heritage, and sport. Only 2 had increases that were below the national average (26%).

Details follow for each of the 7 CMAs, from largest to smallest.

Read more

Today, I’ll highlight the trends for Canada, the 31 CMAs (as a group), and the 6 largest CMAs (individually and as a group). Each of the 6 largest CMAs has a population of over 1.5 million: Calgary, Edmonton, Montreal, Ottawa-Gatineau, Toronto, and Vancouver.

In upcoming articles, I’ll provide a similar analysis for 25 other CMAs: Abbotsford-Mission, Barrie, Fredericton, Greater Sudbury, Guelph, Halifax, Hamilton, Kelowna, Kingston, Kitchener-Cambridge-Waterloo, London, Moncton, Oshawa, Peterborough, Québec, Regina, Saint John, Saskatoon, Sherbrooke, St. Catharines-Niagara, St. John’s, Trois-Rivières, Victoria, Windsor, and Winnipeg.

I’ll analyze these CMAs in three different articles: 1) the 7 CMAs with populations between 500,000 and 1 million; 2) the 10 CMAs with populations between 220,000 and 500,000; and 3) the 8 CMAs with populations under 200,000.

The articles are based on publicly available occupation statistics from the Labour Force Survey (LFS). The LFS has a sample size of 56,000 households each month. The data are imperfect but useful, I think. I should qualify my understanding of their “usefulness” by saying that data on smaller population groups have higher margins of error.

For today’s article, I have created three-year averages to provide a higher level of statistical reliability and minimize the impact of unusual single year estimates in many CMAs. The data in this article labelled 2025 represent the average for 2023-2025. The earliest data point (labelled 2013) is actually the average for 2011-2013. This technique is similar to what I did in my recent analysis of multiple job holding by province.

Focus on broad, longer-term trends

Given the Labour Force Survey’s limitations (which I outline at the end of this post, and in even greater detail here), I will stick to some broad trends among the grouping of workers in the arts, culture, heritage, and sports.

The analysis that follows is relatively simple: I examine whether the number of workers in the selected occupation grouping has increased or decreased over a relatively long timeframe.

Why use the Labour Force Survey, given its limitations?

I’ve analyzed this dataset (now), rather than the census (which has a much larger sample size) because of timeliness and easy availability.

The strength of the Labour Force Survey is its frequency. It is conducted monthly, but the local cultural estimates would not be reliable on a monthly basis. However, when multiplied by 12 for each year, then by 3 for the three-year averages, the sample sizes become more interesting.

The annual averages from the Labour Force Survey can show us trends that the census, conducted only every five years, cannot. In addition, occupation data from the census is published roughly a year and a half after the census is conducted. We will probably be waiting until late 2027 for labour force data from the census in May of 2026.

Occupational categories

Because of its relatively small sample size, the Labour Force Survey provides reliable data only for a broad category of arts, culture, heritage, and sports workers. The summary data relate to what Statistics Canada calls “occupations in the arts, culture, recreation, and sports, except management”.

Most of the people in this category are cultural workers: I have estimated that roughly 75% to 80% of people in this broad occupation grouping work in the arts, culture, and heritage. And the category covers most (but certainly not all) cultural workers: I have estimated that the workers in this broad occupation grouping account for roughly 60% of all workers in the arts, culture, and heritage. (Further details, including a thorough discussion of LFS limitations, is available here.)

Within this broad occupational category, there are four occupation groupings. In Statistics Canada’s language, these are:

• Professional occupations in the arts and culture, which include: some artists, such as producers, directors, conductors, and musicians; writers, translators, and other communications professionals; as well as librarians, archivists, conservators, and curators.

• Technical occupations in the arts and culture, including: graphic and interior designers; as well as technical workers in libraries, archives, motion pictures, broadcasting, and the performing arts.

• Other occupations in the arts, culture, and sports, including: artists such as dancers, actors, comedians, circus performers, photographers, craftspeople, and visual artists; theatre and fashion designers; select museum and art gallery jobs (e.g., registrars, restorers); assistants in film, broadcasting, photography, and performing arts; as well as a few sports occupations (athletes, coaches, and referees).

• Support occupations in the arts, culture, and sports, including: program leaders and instructors in recreation, sport, and fitness; as well as puppeteers, buskers, magicians, portrayers of Santa Claus, influencers, and models. The recreation and sports workers in this occupational grouping greatly outnumber the cultural workers (which is why I exclude this grouping whenever possible).

Earnings data are not available in the summary dataset published by Statistics Canada. For the cultural sector, this is not a big loss, because the LFS questionnaire captures salaries only, not self-employment earnings. (That’s the more important limitation for the cultural sector and for other sectors where self-employment is common.)

Canada-wide data

The first graph shows the nationwide data for each three-year period. The vertical axis is in the thousands. I will focus on the trends over time, more than the raw numbers, mostly due to the occupational category that is imperfect for our purposes. (As noted above, cultural workers represent about three-quarters of all workers in the category, which includes roughly six in every ten cultural workers.)

There has been a relatively consistent increase in the number of workers in the arts, culture, heritage, and sport since 2013. The exception was around the pandemic (2020 through 2022), but there has been a solid increase since 2022. The estimate in 2025 (641,000) is 26% higher than the estimate in 2013 (510,000).

31 CMAs, as a group

29.8 million people, or 72% of Canada’s population, reside in the 31 CMAs with reliable data on workers in the arts, culture, heritage, and sport.

84% of all Canadian workers in the arts, culture, heritage, and sport (roughly 550,000 people) reside in the 31 CMAs with reliable data.

Between 2013 and 2025:

• The 28% increase in the number of workers in the arts, culture, heritage, and sport in the 31 CMAs is slightly above the Canadian average (26%).

• 29 of the 31 CMAs saw an increase, and the other two saw a very small decrease.

6 largest CMAs

20 million people, or 48% of Canada’s population, reside in the 6 largest CMAs.

62% of all Canadian workers in the arts, culture, heritage, and sport (roughly 408,000 people) reside in the 6 largest CMAs.

Between 2013 and 2025, the 26% increase in number of workers in the arts, culture, heritage, and sport in the 6 largest CMAs is equal to the Canadian average. Collectively, in the 6 largest CMAs, there were 314,000 workers in this occupation grouping in 2013 and 395,000 in 2025.

The following graph provides full details.

All 6 large CMAs saw increases in the number of workers in the arts, culture, heritage, and sport. Three had increases above 50%, while the other 3 had increases of 15% or less. Details follow for each CMA, from largest to smallest.

Read more

Read more

Read more

As I have noted in the past, if driven by need rather than personal choice, multiple job holding can be an aspect of the precarity of workers in the arts, culture, and heritage. Today’s article examines the prevalence of multiple job holding for employees in different types of positions in the arts, culture, and heritage. Plus, I offer comparisons between cultural workers and the averages for all Canadian workers, as well as between women and men. I also examine changes in multiple job holding since 1987. This article, similar to my research from two years ago, uses data from the Labour Force Survey (annual averages for 2025).

Readers should be aware that the Labour Force Survey excludes self-employed workers. Because artists have very high self-employment rates, many of them are excluded from the data, as are other self-employed cultural workers. However, those self-employed artists and cultural workers who have an employed position in their main job are included.

In this article, the phrase “workers in the arts, culture, and heritage” relates to the combined total for three occupation groupings that are readily available from Statistics Canada: 1) professional occupations; 2) technical occupations; and 3) other occupations. Information about these broad groups of occupations, representing about 465,000 employees, is provided at the end of the article.

Because of its relatively small sample size, the Labour Force Survey doesn’t allow me to pinpoint specific occupations, even looking at annual averages. That is why I’m sticking with the three readily available groupings of arts, culture, and heritage employees.

Today’s article examines the nationwide picture, and a provincial analysis is planned for next week.

About 10% of employees in the arts, culture, and heritage have multiple jobs, which is close to double the rate among employees in all industries. Multiple job holding in the arts, culture, and heritage has tended to increase over time.

Employees in the arts, culture, and heritage are nearly twice as likely to have multiple jobs than other workers

Employees in the arts, culture, and heritage are much more likely to accumulate multiple jobs than other workers, as shown in the following graph. One in every 10 employees in the arts, culture, and heritage had multiple jobs in 2025, compared with just 5.6% of all Canadian employees. In other words, the multiple job holding rate is 77% higher in the arts, culture, and heritage than for other workers.

The graph also shows that, among broad groupings of employed workers in the arts, culture, and heritage, technical workers are least likely to have multiple jobs. The percentage of employees working multiple jobs is:

• 11.6% for Statistics Canada’s grouping of professional occupations in the arts, culture, and heritage (including some artists, such as producers, directors, conductors, and musicians; writers, translators, and other communications professionals; as well as librarians, archivists, conservators, and curators).

• 7.5% for the grouping of technical occupations in the arts, culture, and heritage (i.e., technical workers in libraries, archives, motion pictures, broadcasting, and the performing arts, as well as graphic and interior designers).

• 11.1% for the third grouping of occupations in the arts, culture, and sports (including artists such as dancers, actors, comedians, circus performers, photographers, craftspeople, visual artists; theatre and fashion designers; select museum and art gallery jobs; assistants in film, broadcasting, photography, and performing arts; as well as sports athletes, coaches, and referees).

Multiple job holding in the arts, culture, and heritage has tended to increase over time

The percentage of arts, culture, and heritage employees holding multiple jobs was much higher in 2025 (9.9%) than in 1987 (7.1%), as shown in the following graph. The multiple job holding rate appears to have returned to rates near or above 10% that were more common before the pandemic. The multiple job holding rate had reached a 25-year low of 7.3% in 2020 (when it was difficult for many cultural workers to have even one job).

The graph shows that the multiple job holding rate in the arts, culture, and heritage did not reach 10% during the first 20 years of data collection (from 1987 to 2006). The rate has ticked above 10% in five years since then: 10.2% in 2007, 10.1% in 2008, 10.9% in 2016, 10.4% in 2019, and 10.1% in 2023. The level in 2025 is just one percentage point below the 10% threshold.

The graph also shows how the multiple job holding rate in the arts, culture, and heritage has always remained above the national average. In fact, the difference has increased from 3.0% in 1987 to 4.3% in 2025.

In culture, men are more likely than women to hold multiple jobs

In 2025, the multiple job holding rate was higher among women than men in the overall economy, but the reverse was true in the arts, culture, and heritage. Overall, 6.4% of employed women have multiple jobs, compared with 4.9% of men, as shown in the following graph. In the arts, culture, and heritage, 8.3% of employed women have multiple jobs, compared with 11.8% of men.

Data sources and notes

The main dataset is Statistics Canada. Table 14-10-0410-01. Multiple jobholders by occupation, annual, https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1410041001.

The total number of employed workers in each occupation grouping was drawn from Statistics Canada. Table 14-10-0411-01. Job tenure by occupation, annual, https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1410041101. This dataset was also used to calculate multiple job holding rates (by dividing the count of multiple jobholders by the total number of employees).

Readily available occupation groupings

The three arts, culture, and heritage occupation groupings in the dataset include 464,700 employed workers. There are a few sport workers in one of the occupation groupings, but I estimate that 95% of the combined number of workers in the three occupation groupings work in the arts, culture, and heritage.

The three occupation groupings include:

• 175,500 employed workers in what Statistics Canada calls professional occupations in the arts and culture, which include: some artists, such as producers, directors, conductors, and musicians; writers, translators, and other communications professionals; as well as librarians, archivists, conservators, and curators.

• 175,500 employed workers in what Statistics Canada calls technical occupations in the arts and culture, including: graphic and interior designers; as well as technical workers in libraries, archives, motion pictures, broadcasting, and the performing arts. (Coincidentally, there are the same number of professional and technical workers in the arts, culture, and heritage in 2025.)

• 113,700 employees in what Statistics Canada (rather generically) calls occupations in the arts, culture, and sports, including: artists such as dancers, actors, comedians, circus performers, photographers, craftspeople, and visual artists; theatre and fashion designers; select museum and art gallery jobs (e.g., registrars, restorers); assistants in film, broadcasting, photography, and performing arts; as well as a few sports occupations (athletes, coaches, and referees).

By my estimate, using the granular data that are available in the 2021 census, these three occupation groupings account for about two-thirds of all cultural workers. (The cultural workers who are not covered by the data are mostly those who work in disparate areas of the economy, such as printing, advertising, and architecture.) Unfortunately, the census does not address multiple job holding, and I therefore cannot take advantage of the larger sample size of the census to examine this issue at a more granular level.

Communicating with the public is an important part of what many organizations and businesses in the arts, heritage, and entertainment do. However, my analysis shows that relatively few organizations and businesses incorporate accessibility features into their public communications.

The article is based on a Statistics Canada survey of organizations and businesses across the economy. The survey was conducted between October 1 and November 5, 2025, and the data were released on November 25.

Survey questions

Here is the wording of the questions asked in this iteration of the Canadian Survey on Business Conditions.

Forms of communication

“Over the last 12 months, has this business or organization used any of the following forms of communication with customers or the public?

Forms of communication refers to the different ways information is provided, such as in person, over the phone, virtually, or printed materials with customers or the public.

Select all that apply.

• Printed materials distributed by this business or organization (e.g., advertising materials, menus, forms, magazines, pamphlets)

• Virtual communication (Include communication through email, websites, virtual meetings (e.g., Zoom, Microsoft Teams) or chat bots. Exclude social media posts.)

• Social media (e.g., promoting or branding on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Snapchat)

• Communication in person or over the phone (Include text messages.)”

Accessibility features

Follow-up questions were only asked to respondents who indicated that they engaged in that form of communication. Each follow-up question started with: “Over the last 12 months, did this business or organization provide any accessibility features when communicating [via this form of communication]? Accessibility refers to ensuring that persons with disabilities can easily use and understand things like websites, documents, and services.”

Examples were given for each form of communication:

• Via printed materials: “e.g., alternate formats, large print versions, accessible file formats or audio formats”

• Virtually: “e.g., live captions, screen display options such as dark mode or high contrast, screen reader support”

• Through social media platforms: “e.g., alternate text descriptions, videos with sound and captioning, closed captioning, plain language”

• In person or over the phone: “e.g., visual aids, volume controllers, video relay service (VRS), speech-to-text services”

Few organizations or businesses in the arts, heritage, and entertainment incorporate accessibility features in their communications

Read more