Six in ten Canadians attended an arts or cultural event in person during the past year. That's a substantial audience, particularly at a time when cultural organizations are continually asked to demonstrate their relevance. Yet the same national survey that reports strong participation also identifies cost as the leading barrier to attendance. Those findings belong together. People can value an experience, want to share it with friends and still decide that they can't afford to go.
The Arts and Heritage Access and Availability Survey 2025–26, published by the Canada Council for the Arts on July 31, was conducted by Leger for Canadian Heritage in partnership with the Council. Its principal online survey reached 5,000 people aged 16 and older. Leger also conducted telephone interviews with 150 respondents in Canada's territories to support geographical representation. The report provides a national view of how people engage with artistic and heritage activities and what they think those experiences contribute to their lives.
In-person attendance was reported by approximately 60% of respondents, while 47% said they'd participated online. Those aren't two exclusive groups. A person can visit an exhibition, attend a concert and watch a performance online during the same period. The distinction matters because digital access hasn't made gathering in public irrelevant, but neither does a physical attendance figure tell us how widely cultural opportunities are shared among those who cannot attend.
Among people who attended an event, 79% reported a performing arts experience, 52% a local art or cultural festival and 40% a visual arts exhibition. Another 35% went to a festival beyond their own community, while 18% attended a First Nations, Inuit or Métis arts event. Those are percentages of attendees, not of the entire Canadian population. Presenting them without that denominator would overstate the reach of particular activities. The numbers also describe categories of events attended, not judgments about their artistic quality or cultural importance.
Enjoyment and social connection were the main reasons people gave for attending in person. That seems obvious until cultural policy is discussed almost exclusively in terms of tourism receipts, jobs or economic multipliers. An evening shared with a friend has value even if it doesn't create a hotel booking. A community theatre performance may matter because it offers a place to recognize neighbours or experience a story together. The survey doesn't quantify every dimension of that value, but it offers a useful reminder that the people who attend aren't only economic units.
Cost, however, was the leading barrier reported by respondents. The finding shouldn't be interpreted as proof that admission prices alone explain every missed opportunity. Transportation, childcare, travel distance and other expenses can be part of the practical price of participation, although their relative importance would require examination of the underlying survey detail. It does tell cultural organizations that an enthusiastic audience isn't necessarily an audience with unlimited capacity to pay.
This tension is especially familiar to smaller organizations. The people building an exhibition or performance must pay artists, technicians, venue costs and other bills. Reducing ticket prices may help audiences, but doing so without replacement revenue may simply move the burden onto the people making the work. A sensible access discussion has to take both sides seriously. Public support, subsidized programs, community partnerships and different ticket structures may all have a role, depending on what a particular institution can sustain.
The survey also recorded broader attitudes. Seventy-one percent agreed that arts and culture make communities better places to live, and 67% considered them important for local economies. Seventy percent said cultural activities help bring together people from different languages and cultures. Fifty-six percent viewed performances and events as important to their quality of life. Those opinions aren't proof that any one event produced those effects, but they're useful evidence of how respondents understand culture's place in society.
It's also worth noticing what the findings don't establish. The survey is a picture of reported participation and attitudes, not a randomized test of a particular funding program. We can't infer that an increase in one budget would automatically produce a proportional increase in attendance. Nor should we assume that online participation means someone has enjoyed the same experience as an in-person visitor. The methods, wording and respondent categories matter when comparisons are made over time.
For Binder Humanities, this is a finding that crosses disciplines. A gallery, an independent cinema, a festival, a literary event and a local heritage institution all face the challenge of welcoming people while paying fairly for creative work. Their circumstances aren't identical, and a single national attendance percentage can't describe every place. But the tension between interest and access is shared.
The useful question for cultural leaders is therefore more specific than whether Canadians care about the arts. The survey provides considerable evidence that many do. The question is how people who want to participate can actually reach the work, and how that access can be supported without diminishing the value of the people who create it.
Primary source: Canada Council for the Arts, Arts and Heritage Access and Availability Survey 2025–26, published July 31, 2026, based on research conducted by Leger for Canadian Heritage and the Canada Council. Survey percentages are reported with their stated respondent groups and should not be interpreted as demonstrated causal effects.