The Canada 150 logo is an official symbol of the Canada 150 celebration. Symbolically, each segment represents each of Canada’s provinces and territories and the maple leaf shape is distinctively Canadian. The logo was the winning design in a national competition aimed at students. Officially, this corresponds with the theme of youth engagement, as “young Canadians had the opportunity to participate and contribute in an original way to [an] important milestone in Canadian history” (Canadian Heritage 2016). However, this competition also drew significant criticism. For example, Stuart Ash, the creator of the 1967 centennial logo, criticized the design and the former Harper government for not commissioning design concepts from professional graphic design firms (CBC News 2015: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-150-logo-called-confusing-by-centennial-logo-creator-1.3154959). Kevin Mar, principal of Blue Planet Design, considered the contest exploitation and the equivalent of using unpaid interns instead of paying for professional work (Toronto Star 2015: https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/04/28/controversial-canada-150-logo-design-contest-won-by-university-of-waterloo-student.html). Two main takeaways can be drawn from this artifact. On one level, it represents a rhetoric-reality gap with respect to youth issues. While the initial iteration of this logo was designed and chosen during the Harper government, it (understandably) remains in use. However, given the paltry award of $5,000 for the winning design, the winner and other entrants are arguably not being properly compensated for graphic design work. The competition overall can be seen as diversionary: under the guise of youth engagement, entrants (especially runner-ups) are effectively designing logos without proper compensation - especially galling due to the current youth issue of unpaid internships. This also reflects the overall politics of neoliberalism and austerity. Evoking Ninijean, the challenges of globalization and neoliberalism create a complex policy environment where expectations of government increase, but “the resource capacity and influence of the federal government would decrease” (2005, 32). While there are genuine expectations of well-funded festivity planning and youth engagement, neoliberal governments oriented against excessive public spending may seek alternative solutions (such as a competition) to save money. Given that the logo is also used in promotional material to generate tourism revenue, the private sector is benefiting from the public who participated in the competition. While there is not much that the Liberal government can do in response, they could have decided to properly compensate the winner given the logo’s continued widespread use.
Personally, the process of the competition and initial iterations of the final logo are both disappointing. The competition reflects attitudes that devalue the work of younger Canadians, and a devaluation of creative work generally. The priority statement reflects tapping into the creativity of all Canadians, though this assumes another meaning where significant work (used for domestic and international marketing) for is done for a paltry sum. The process itself seems like there were a few wasted opportunities: as Matthew Hayday notes, employees of the federal government and state organizers sought to use festivities to foster a sense of national community given a vast geographic distribution (2010, 312). Rather than having internal boards assess the designs, there could have been a online survey that allows Canadians to vote for their favourite design. This would be a good way of using the internet to easily engage Canadians. While online surveys can be a superficial mode of engagement, this topic is fairly low stakes in comparison to a topic like electoral reform. This artifact can be contrasted with the 4Rs Youth Movement (artifact nine), which represents a more genuine attempt at fostering youth engagement through cross-cultural dialogue. Unlike the competition, where the end product of “engagement” is used for the government’s own ends, the 4Rs movement fits into the long-term goal of reconciliation and dialogue with Indigenous Peoples. This also highlights the different methods in which cultural activities can be promoted, with 4Rs representing a civil society organization partially funded by government rather than a direct government program.
