W A R D   4   I S S U E S

A R T ,   M U S I C ,   &    T H E A T R E
In 2011, Mississauga City Council voted to cut $90,000 from the funding they give to the Mississauga Symphony Orchestra.
Mayor Hazel McCallion warned everyone in 2010, one year earlier, that Mississauga will go into debt in the next four years.  And now, five years later, we are in debt.
So, back then, they had to cut funds everywhere.
While art, music and theatre will attract tourists, if the tourist wonít pay, it really doesnít attract.  If audiences were big enough, grants would not be needed.
Iím an artist.  Iíve sold pieces.  Here is one example and here are others.
Iím also a musician.  Iíve performed in concerts and festivals.  And, I made money.
Additionally, I have performed as an actor many times.  In 1984, I was invited to perform in England.  I could not have gone unless my expenses were covered.
It would be wrong if I expected taxpayers to sustain me.  Iím not entitled.
Can you imagine if every artist, musician or actor on one street (any street) could force their neighbours to pay for their careers?  Latency would disappear and everyone who pays would be distressed financially.
Most people, now, are distressed by taxes alone.  Real talent never burdens people.
If one in five homes has an artist or a musician or an actor, their neighbours must get an extra job, wishing they had the talent to rely on taxes too.
Hey!  Let's fund plumbers, electricians and construction or steel workers?  How about mathematicians, pharmacists, architects or engineers?  Why not?  If an artist qualifies for tax dollars, why not a mathematician?  In FAIRNESS, everyone should qualify.
If politicians were wise, government would never be funding art, music or theatre.  It is a far higher priority to put those same dollars back into the hands of the tax payer.
If a taxpayer buys art or music or a ticket to a theatrical production, it means the artist or musician or actor will be genuinely validated.  Real talent will motivate people to spend hard-earned money.
In this case, the money garnered by real talent is hard-earned.  They actually deserved it.
If a talented person cannot survive without tax dollars, they are not good enough.  If they have fans, nobody is bragging (marketing) about that talent to all their friends.
Being good enough means motivating people (fans) to say: "Your talent is so good, it has a higher value than my money, which I choose to give you for that talent."
Any talented person who takes burdened taxes to pay bills is eroding their validation (if they have any) and ditching their integrity.
In closing, let me reinforce my point by repeating an earlier paragraph ó government should never be funding art, music or theatre.  It is a far higher priority to put those same dollars back into the hands of the tax payer.  People can choose, without the help of politicians, to invest in artists, musicians and actors who deserve their dollars.
Only if people give their money freely will the talent deserve it.

B R I A N   C H I A S S O N   ( 9 0 5 )   3 0 6 - 0 1 0 0
When you vote, look for one name only:   B R I A N
  (The second name from the top.)

Q U O T E S   A B O U T   V A L I D A T I O N
Most people, now, are distressed by taxes alone.  Real talent never burdens people.  ó Brian Chiasson

Real talent will motivate people to spend hard-earned money.  ó Brian Chiasson

Government should never be funding art, music or theatre.  It is a far higher priority to put those same dollars back into the hands of the tax payer.  People can choose, without the help of politicians, to invest in artists, musicians and actors who deserve their dollars.  ó Brian Chiasson

Only if people give their money freely will the talent deserve it.  ó Brian Chiasson
You can even reach this website if you spell my last name wrong at Brian Chaisson