We often talk about arts and culture as though they are the result of strong, prosperous communities. But what if the opposite is true? What if it is culture that creates community vitality?

Federal, provincial and municipal spending on arts and culture tends to be concentrated in major centres. Yet I’d argue that the economic and community vitality impact of cultural infrastructure may be even greater in small towns and rural regions.

Arts and culture accelerate economic growth. Culture attracts visitors, strengthens belonging, and supports talent attraction and retention.

Government spending on arts and culture is an economic force multiplier. According to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce’s Business Data Lab, for every federal dollar invested in arts and culture, the sector generates $29 in economic activity. Canada’s arts and culture sector contributed $65 billion in direct GDP in 2024.

• The arts and culture sector supports 13 jobs for every million in output, which is more than oil and gas, manufacturing, or agriculture. 
• Since 2011, the sector has outpaced growth in key industries including oil and gas, wholesale trade, retail trade, construction, and manufacturing. 
• The sector generates an estimated $17 billion in federal and provincial tax revenue. 

One example mentioned in the Artworks report is the Blyth Festival Theatre. Blyth is a town in Ontario with a population of about a thousand people. Over the last six seasons, the festival has generated almost $30 million in GDP impact and created 358 jobs that accounted for almost $20 million in labour income. It generated close to $10 million in tax revenue. They sell over 25,000 tickets a year — and every dollar spent on a ticket at the festival generated nearly $9 in economic activity.

We often debate cultural funding as an expense. These reports suggest it may be more useful to think of it as an investment.

If arts and culture generate the kinds of returns described in the Chamber report, then concentrating investment in major centres comes with an opportunity cost. Every dollar not invested in regional cultural infrastructure is a missed opportunity to impact economic, tourism, and community development elsewhere.

In Quebec, the lion’s share of provincial arts and culture spending goes to the regions of Montreal and Capitale-Nationale. Together, these regions represent about 60% of the total population, yet they receive 75% of culture spending. Monteregie is the second most populous region in the province, with about 18.5% of the population — yet it received only 4.5% of provincial culture funding.

In 2023-2024, the Québec government spent $494.56 per person on culture in the Capitale-Nationale region and $417.33 in the region of Montréal. In the other regions, per capita cultural spending ranged between $43.72 (Laval) and $212.63 (Gaspésie–Îles-de-la-Madeleine). Monteregie received $51.10 per person.

In 2024, a report produced for Culture Monteregie flagged that provincial and federal investment in this fast-growing region is far below the provincial average, and municipal investment was not compensating for the gap. At the same time, the report notes that cultural participation indicators lag behind what might be expected given the region’s population and economic strength.

Statistics can tell us where money flows. They don’t always reveal what cultural infrastructure looks like on the ground. As part of my ongoing research into presenting and touring ecosystems in Quebec, I’ve spent the past several months speaking with presenters, venue operators, volunteers, and cultural organizers in communities across the province. Again and again, I’ve encountered organizations doing remarkable work with limited resources.

La Fab sur Mill has transformed a former church into a vibrant performing arts centre, art gallery, and studio space in Chelsea. Arts Arundel brings professional touring artists to a town of just 500 people. Hudson (a town of around 5,500) sustains several live performance venues and many grassroots cultural organizations. All are sustained by the energy of dedicated volunteers, local donors, and community champions.

These examples are not important because they rival Montreal’s major institutions in scale. They are important because they provide access to high quality cultural experiences close to home.

One of the more interesting findings in the Chamber report is that distance is the primary barrier preventing Canadians from participating more often in arts and culture. If access matters, then regional cultural infrastructure matters.

Some of the organizations generating the greatest local cultural impact in small towns and rural regions are the least secure. A theatre, festival, arts centre, or presenter in a small community may play an outsized role in tourism, volunteer engagement, community identity, and social connection. Yet many operate with tiny staffs, volunteer boards, minimal project funding, and limited fundraising capacity.

Despite that fragility, they continue to create value far beyond the cultural sector itself.

This isn’t an argument against investing in Montreal, Quebec City, or Gatineau. Those cities are essential cultural engines for the province. But it is an argument for looking more seriously at what is happening elsewhere.

Roads connect communities. Broadband connects communities. Water systems connect communities.

Culture connects communities too.

We should ask ourselves what opportunities we are missing by not investing more intentionally in regions outside of metropolitan areas. What could happen if communities that are already creating remarkable cultural experiences with limited resources received sustained, strategic investment?

If we believe the evidence that arts and culture drive economic activity, tourism, belonging, and quality of life, then cultural infrastructure deserves to be treated as infrastructure. The question isn’t whether regions like Montérégie can afford greater investment in arts and culture.

It’s whether we can afford to leave that potential untapped.