Open letter

Allô, dear community,

We’re sharing the AGAVF’s open letter in response to recent Ontario Arts Council’s funding cuts.

These disproportionate cuts to Francophone visual arts have resulted in a funding reduction for the GNO. The open letter also raises broader questions about the role of economics in arts funding that we think are important to share throughout and beyond Ontario.

Please consider signing the open letter and sharing it with your networks.

La GNO vous aime! <3

OPEN LETTER

The Future of Francophone Visual Arts in Ontario Threatened — An Urgent Plea for Equity, Transparency, and the Upholding of Peer Assessment Principles

October 2026

A HISTORIC SETBACK FOR VISUAL ARTS IN ONTARIO’S FRANCOPHONE COMMUNITIES

We—organizations, artists, cultural workers, and allies of visual arts and Francophone minority communities—express our highest concern regarding the decisions rendered by the Ontario Arts Council (OAC) regarding operating funding for Franco-Ontarian visual arts organizations. The implementation of the Ontario Arts Operating Fund’s updated financial model destabilizes the entire sector, reducing support levels for organizations previously recognized as high-performing back to amounts reminiscent of two decades ago.

In August 2026, AGAVF and four of its members in Ontario received the results of their 2026-2029 multi-year funding application to the Ontario Arts Operating Fund (OAOF). Announced nearly six months after the start of the fiscal year, these results reveal budget cuts ranging from 25.6% to 62% in operating grants for all visual arts organizations in minority Francophone communities. A comparative analysis of the OAOF results obtained by organizations in the Francophone visual arts sector shows that the decisions made by the OAC systematically and overly affect this artistic discipline and official language minority communities.

100% OF VISUAL ARTS ORGANIZATIONS CUT DESPITE EXCELLENT EVALUATIONS

While overall program statistics show 27% of applicant organizations received increases, 45% maintained, 11% cut, and 12% refused, the outcome for all five Francophone visual arts organizations is unequivocal: 0% increases, 0% maintained, and 100% budget cuts. Neither the general Visual Arts categories (Anglophone and Allophone) nor Francophone Arts (despite an envelope reduction of 4%) experienced such systematic cuts. These results wipe out progress made toward catch-up funding in a discipline historically underfunded, worsen the systemic gap between disciplines, and re-establish barriers for Francophone organizations. Over three decades of collaborative efforts between Franco-Ontarian visual arts groups and OAC’s Francophone Arts department have been erased.

Even more troubling, some of these organizations suffered severe cuts despite earning performance marks of A or B+ from peer review panels. How can an organization receive an A grade—indicating that peers recognized its excellence across all program criteria—and still face a 30% cut? Why did peer artist-run centers in the majority-language community, assessed within the general Visual Arts category, gain 20% increases with an identical A grade? The OAC maintains that peer committee evaluations are not the sole mechanism for final allocation and that specific funding amounts are finalized post-panel—unprecedentedly overriding peer panel assessments this year.

THE ONTARIO ARTS COUNCIL’S AUTONOMY CALLED INTO QUESTION

This marks the first instance where such a severe disconnect between panel recommendations and actual financial distribution has occurred. This disconnect calls OAC’s autonomy into question and casts doubt on the integrity of the peer review evaluation model within decision-making—a deeply alarming development for the broader Canadian arts ecosystem.

DISCRIMINATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR GENERATED REVENUES

The OAC informed organizations that their earned revenue figures were used as a benchmark to determine grant amounts. Although this criterion represented only one element of the program’s evaluation grid published two months prior to the submission deadline, it proved decisive for organizational funding six months later, without organizations having been informed.

In artist-run centers, free public access is standard practice, artwork sales are not part of the mandate, and the operational model relies on experimentation, community engagement, and supporting emerging or equity-deserving artists. Self-generated funds for artist-run spaces consist largely of membership fees, and while they are proactive in fundraising to diversify income, Francophone organizations operate in communities where philanthropic infrastructure is far less developed. Imposing such a criterion effectively excludes the visual arts discipline upfront, or at least certain types of organizations essential to its ecosystem.

CALLS TO ACTION

We deplore the use of an evaluation criterion that is not suited for assessing visual arts organizations, as well as the application of a model not established in advance for decision-making in a program as critical as core funding for organizations. We condemn the disregard for peer advisory panel rankings, the lack of procedural transparency, and the absence of adequate Francophone representation in OAC’s both staff and governance structures.

Standing with AGAVF and its members, we call upon the OAC to:

1. Restore 2026–2027 operational funding levels for Francophone visual arts to amounts allocated in 2025–2026.
2. Provide full transparency surrounding OAOF decision protocols, true assessment criteria, and comparative benchmarks.
3. Uphold peer assessment authority so financial allocations directly reflect advisory panel rankings and recommendations.
4. Conduct a thorough evaluation of the OAOF framework to measure its impacts and ensure no discipline or group is inequitably affected.
5. Immediately appoint a Francophone representative to the OAC Board of Directors.
6. Explicitly define expected self-generated revenue thresholds within the OAOF framework and clarify their exact weight (should this metric remain prioritized following model reviews).
7. Adjust program schedules to ensure core funding decisions are released prior to the start of organizations’ fiscal years.
8. Establish advance notification procedures to provide an adjustment period for organizations before imposing major reductions, particularly for equity-deserving communities.