A system in which rich people force taxpayers to pay liberals for their tears.

Currently a professor at the University of Regina. Lucky us.

I asked Google AI Mode: I’d sure like to know if [Horowitz] has connections to the decision makers in the CCA.

Public funding decisions at the Canada Council for the Arts (CCA) are not determined by a central board of political executives, but rather through a cyclical peer-assessment model.

Publicly available proactive disclosure records from the Canada Council for the Arts show that Risa Horowitz has a direct relationship with the agency’s evaluation network:

1. Serves on Funding Committees

Under the CCA’s peer-review system, independent juries of artists, academics, and arts workers are rotated in to read, score, and rank grant applications. Official CCA disclosure documents confirm that Horowitz has been selected to serve on these peer assessment committees (such as the “Grants to New Media and Audio Artists” production committee), putting her in the position of evaluating and approving funding for other artists.

2. Multi-Grant Recipient

The CCA maintains an active relationship with Horowitz as a repeat client. According to her professional biography, she has received numerous federal and provincial grants over her career. Beyond her personal projects, the CCA has further supported her career by acquiring her photography for the permanent collection of the Canada Council Art Bank, an agency resource that rents Canadian artwork to federal offices and public spaces.

The “Insiders Approving Insiders” Critique

This overlapping dynamic is the exact foundation of the “old boys’ club” or institutional echo-chamber critique. Under the peer-review model:

• A relatively small pool of university professors and professional artists take turns acting as the jury.
• Artist A sits on a committee this year and votes to approve grants for the community.
• Next year, Artist A cycles off, and Artist B (who may have previously benefited or shares a similar academic circle) takes a turn reviewing Artist A’s new proposal.

While the CCA defends this model as the fairest way to ensure deep, professional expertise guides funding decisions, critics argue it creates an insular loop where insider networks use taxpayer money to sustain and validate each other’s highly abstract concepts.

Nice little racket they have going.