Wired to Win !
Canada’s Positioning Within The World’s Technological Revolution
III. TECHNOLOGY AND CONTENT
Content Criteria
Social Gains vs. Costs
Trend Toward Liberalization
Trade and Culture
Competition and Consolidation
Implications of Convergence
New Media Culture
Literacy skills
Promotional Role of Government
In Canada, the longstanding goal of cultural policy has been to encourage a supply of high-quality Canadian cultural products and to help ensure they are given prominence – or "shelf-space" – in the domestic market. These goals have been based on two beliefs: First, that Canada is too small in terms of population and its culture too fragile in the face of overwhelming influence of other nations not to have policies that nurture original Canadian content. Second, that Canadian artists are of such quality that, given adequate domestic distribution for their work, they – and Canada itself – have a very real opportunity to export their artistic products internationally.
Indeed the Subcommittee heard testimony from many Canadian artists and creators who are proud of their achievements. Nonetheless, they worried about their future and the independence of their country in the context of rapid technological change, especially the Internet which is dominated by American Web sites.
Before proceeding further, it should be noted that the Subcommittee’s definition of culture was viewed in as wide a context as possible. Culture certainly is a National Ballet performance, but it is also a fact that bank customers in Vancouver can access their ABMs in English, French or Mandarin. Culture is everything: from fine arts to fine foods. It is certainly more than a mere product that is bought or sold – or used as a bargaining chip in international trade negotiations. Indeed, Canadian culture is like no other, not only because it is "Canadian," but because "Canadian" by definition means diversity and pluralism.
As Yvon Thiec, director general of Eurocinéma, told the Subcommittee:
There is a great debate about the definition of culture. On the one hand, there are those who believe that culture is a sort of social practice of elites. And there are others who prefer a more anthropological definition of culture as a way of living, eating and reflecting. You know, in Europe, we do not reflect in the same way. Germans reflect in a certain way, and the British reflect in a different way from the French…For this reason, I believe that what we call culture is composed of a complex set of modes of expression. I realize that this vision of culture does not correspond to the purist vision of culture as made up of great works of art and literature. But in my opinion, culture is the shared conscience that links a population.
In Canada, our cultural expression has been promoted through a variety of public policy instruments.
The CRTC, for example, imposes minimum Canadian content quotas on radio and television broadcasters. The regulator also promotes the availability of domestic programming by requiring that Canadian channels – such as Radio-Canada, the CBC and CTV – be included in the "basic" package of channels offered by cable and satellite companies licensed in Canada. Similarly, cable and satellite services must offer one Canadian channel for every American or other foreign channel offered as part of a discretionary package of channels. In short, content regulations ensure that Canada’s cultural diversity is made available to Canadians.
The goals and practises of Canadian content regulation tend to be based on the distinction between the inputs and outputs of cultural production. The desired output, of course, is a cultural product that is both high quality and identifiably Canadian. Policy requirements, however, are almost always expressed in terms of the nationality of the inputs – Canadian producers, Canadian writers, Canadian actors and so on. Therefore, the nature of inputs has determined whether a cultural product is "Canadian." A musical selection, for example, qualifies as Canadian content if it meets certain criteria set out in the MAPL system (Music, Artist, Production and Lyrics), which assesses songs according to the nationality of the key creative contributors. Similar criteria apply to Canadian television programs, both for the broadcast of domestic programs and for access to public funding to produce Canadian programs.
There was some discussion before the Subcommittee of Canadian content requirements in promoting Canadian culture according to traditional input-based definitions. As the Canadian Motion Pictures Distributors Association (CMPDA) put it, Canada’s official policy defines Canadian content "not on the basis of cultural product, but… on the basis of nationality of the owner or the nationality of the producer/director."
The CMPDA added:
We find ourselves in the situation where a foreign producer could come into Canada and make a 13-week hourly TV series on Sir John A. Macdonald and it does not qualify as Canadian content. But a Canadian director can go and study the milk distribution system in Bosnia or Albania and it is deemed to be Canadian content.
The CMPDA, which represents the Hollywood studios in Canada, called for a re-evaluation of content and ownership regulations. The Association of Canadian Television and Radio Artists (ACTRA), which represents Canadian creators, took a different view. ACTRA recommended that the point-system criteria for "Canadian" be amended to provide additional points for Canadian creators. Clearly, the CMPDA favours a policy based on outputs, while ACTRA and other like-minded arts groups continue to advocate a policy based essentially on inputs.
In fact, the anomalies of input-based cultural policy are often cited as a reason for scrapping Canadian content requirements. This position neglects, however, the fact that Canadian cultural policy must endeavour to ensure an adequate supply of Canadian creators who can produce distinctively Canadian shows. It is fanciful to think that foreign producers will spend much of their money and effort on distinctly Canadian themes. On the other hand, a Canadian crew that might work on a documentary filmed in any foreign country will likely have the inclination to apply their talents to Canadian stories at some point. Also, a view of the world through Canadian eyes may be distinctively Canadian even if the subject itself is not, strictly speaking, Canadian. A documentary by Canadians on health services in the United States, for example, may bring out important dimensions of Canadian society, even if the nominal subject is not Canadian.
RECOMMENDATION 2:
Current Canadian content regulations should be amended to include increased points for Canadian creators.
The Subcommittee finds the argument that content regulations could infringe freedom of expression difficult to accept. In a world of scarcity, choices must be made, and not all of them will be made by the market. States make decisions based on the perceived good of the nation. The top of a flagpole has room for only one flag, and it is not surprising that each nation reserves that spot for its flag. Indeed, it would be strange to argue that maintaining the top of the Canadian flagpole for the Canadian flag violates the freedom of expression of Canadians.
Besides, Canadians are hardly lacking choices when it comes to cultural offerings. Most Canadians live near the U.S. border and can receive virtually all the major American television network signals off-air. For Canadians who subscribe to cable or satellite TV, the major American networks and many more U.S. channels are available in increasing numbers. Moreover, the non-Canadian choices are certainly not difficult to find or access, except for the tiny minority of Canadians who rely on off-air reception for their television and can only receive Canadian stations.
It could be argued that, faced with the realities of globalization, cultural regulation may well be the last prerogative of states in their effort to ensure some form of social cohesion within their borders. Yvon Thiec, of Eurocinéma, made this point when he related to the Subcommittee his experience promoting the interests of European filmmakers:
In Europe, national governments are increasingly surrendering legal authority to the European Union. In short, the traditional notion of state sovereignty is disappearing. The area that still belongs to national states, though, is the exercise of a language and the expression of a culture. It’s the fundamental element of a national consciousness.
In this regard, new technology will no doubt make some government policies less effective, but this does not mean governments should give up acting in the public interest. New policies may be needed, but traditional goals should not be jeopardized.
While the success of content regulations in Canadian broadcasting is often debated, their objective has always been to promote a sense of national belonging, in both English and French Canada, by ensuring shelf space for domestic programs. Critics of content regulations often claim they restrict free choice by mandating minimum levels of Canadian programs. These regulations constitute a possible restriction on choice only for those who rely on off-air reception of television and can receive only Canadian stations. A Canadian-content quota for prime-time means that viewers will not be able to watch a non-Canadian show during that time. In truth, most Canadians live near the U.S. border and thus can receive virtually all the major American television network signals off-air. For Canadians who subscribe to cable or satellite TV, the major American networks and many more U.S. channels are available.
In fact, Canada is one of the most open countries in the world in terms of the availability of non-Canadian cultural products. Whatever the level of Canadian content quotas for radio and television, Canadians have traditionally enjoyed a wide selection of American and other foreign programs with very few limitations.
A legitimate question might be why Canadian broadcasters use such large blocks of their schedules to "simulcast" American programs when these programs are readily available directly on U.S. network signals. The answer is usually that Canadian broadcasters channel profits made from airing American programs toward the financing of domestic television programs. However, the actual benefits of these cross-subsidies have been widely debated in Canada over the past two decades.
Still, as distribution capacity increases it can justifiably be asked how content regulations of any kind will apply in the new media environment.
The world-wide trend over the past two decades has been toward less regulation and more reliance on market forces in the media industries. The forces of globalization have also obliged governments to withdraw from tight regulation of their national media landscapes, especially in broadcasting. The most important factor, however, has been technological: with the advent of digital satellite TV and the Web, it has become difficult in practical terms for states to regulate new media.
In many countries, this trend has provoked a debate between pro-market neo-liberals and those in favour of government protections. In Canada, there is growing support for a more deregulated approach in the cultural sphere – or, at a minimum, a lighter-touch regulatory regime. Pressures from Canada’s trading partners have convinced some people that governments will increasingly lack the tools to impose protectionist cultural policies. At the same time, Canadians generally appear to support national institutions, such as the CBC, and incentives for producers of Canadian cultural materials and programming.
As governments cede some of their regulatory prerogatives to the marketplace, the focus of state attention has shifted toward issues related to competition. In other words, governments seek less to protect designated market players as part of a policy trade-off, but rather endeavour to ensure that the conditions of fair market competition exist between all players. In short, there seems to be a shift from cultural policy to competition policy.
As competition policy becomes increasingly applied to the communications industry, a priority will be placed on removing obstacles to the competitive forces that stimulate technological advances. These barriers include existing policies that produce anti-competitive outcomes – for example, the protection of domestic monopolies. However well-intentioned, policies can have unintended consequences. In a world of rapid technological change, more attention must be paid to these possible consequences. The European Commission, for instance, published a Green Paper on Convergence in which it argued that regulatory barriers must be avoided if Europeans can expect to enjoy the benefits of technological convergence.
On this same concern, several witnesses brought up the question of trade policy, especially the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) and the trend in recent trade agreements of treating culture as a commercial product and putting it on the table in global trade negotiations.
Certainly, the emergence of the Web is not likely to diminish the potential for multilateral trade conflicts, particularly as states attempt to seize the strategic benefits of asserting power in the Information Age. There has even been reference to "cyber warfare."
Professor Noam told the Subcommittee that, contrary to popular belief, the Internet could be the source of increasing global tensions:
There is still another way of looking at the Internet to see the various possibilities involved with it. People have been expecting some form of global brotherhood of man and have felt that information and communications would bring us together. … In some ways, the digital convergence – that is, the Internet – instead of creating bridges, which it does to some extent, could also create tensions, trade wars, cultural conflict, and so on.
Although trade was not a direct focus of Phase II of the Subcommittee's work, globalization is certainly part of the background to any discussion of technology and culture. Canada obtained a cultural "exemption" in the bilateral Free Trade Agreement negotiated with the United States in the late 1980s. Similarly, the European Union won a cultural "exception" in the Uruguay Round of the GATT completed in 1993. Despite the "exemption" and "exception," questions remain about how they will stand up as cultural notwithstanding clauses in trade treaties.
A hopeful sign is that in recent months the principle of cultural exemption has gained a number of adherents. For instance, in response to an invitation from the Department of Canadian Heritage, the culture ministers from a number of countries met in Ottawa in June 1998, to discuss cultural diversity. In order to continue their discussions, the ministers established the International Network on Cultural Policy, which by early 1999 had 25 members.
More evidence of the growth in popularity for cultural exemptions came in February, 1999, when the Cultural Industries Sectoral Advisory Group on International Trade prepared a report for Canada’s Minister of International Trade. The report, New Strategies for Culture and Trade: Canadian Culture in a Global World recognized two main approaches for Canada:
- the cultural exemption strategy used in the past, which takes culture "off the table" in international trade negotiations;
- a new strategy that would involve negotiating a new international instrument that would specifically address cultural diversity and acknowledge the legitimate role of domestic cultural policies in ensuring cultural diversity.
We cannot remain complacent about cultural protection, though. Canada’s bilateral tensions with the United States over cultural issues -- such as the regulatory banning of a U.S. country music channel and the dispute over the split-run edition of Sports Illustrated magazine – have revealed the extent of pressures to extend free-trade principles to the cultural sector. Pressures in favour of increased liberalization of the cultural industries will likely continue.
RECOMMENDATION 3:
The Government should continue to reaffirm its position that Canada will not relinquish its cultural sovereignty in trade negotiations, or yield to competitive pressures that would jeopardize it.
Another important global trend has been the shift in telecommunications and broadcasting away from regulated monopoly to a competitive environment. The trend is particularly evident in telecommunications, where competition has led to a downward pressure on long-distance phone rates as Bell, Sprint and others battle for market share. In broadcasting, concern was expressed by some witnesses that competition could lead to a consolidation phase where, once again, a few major players would dominate the market. It is true that Canada’s foreign ownership restrictions, which impose a 33-per cent ownership ceiling on non-Canadians, have encouraged broadcasting and telecom companies to consolidate within the realm of a few major Canadian corporations. This practice underscores the need for particular vigilance by the Competition Bureau.
The situation outside Canada is different. In the United States, old media companies have been busy merging with new media companies. Disney, NBC and CBS have, in the last couple years, invested heavily to acquire a presence on the Internet. Also, Bertelsmann, the German publishing giant with extensive publishing interests in the U.S., has purchased a 50 per cent share in the website Barnesandnoble.com. The United States, of course, has a huge economy with numerous players in telecommunications and the media. All these players will continue to face stiff competition, even after the mergers and consolidations.
Canada has a smaller economy, which makes it difficult for domestic players to achieve critical mass in the home market and pursue strategies of vertical integration. A few large-scale Canadian companies, such as Rogers Communications and Videotron, have integrated both horizontally and vertically. But these Canadian companies, while protected from hostile takeovers and foreign competition by strict ownership restrictions, remain largely absent in the global marketplace.
In fact, the Canadian broadcasting and telecom marketplace has seen more consolidation than competition. This mirrors the worldwide phenomenon of consolidation and raises serious questions about applying effective competition policy at the multinational level. However, we believe the European example, in which the European Commission vigorously polices anti-competitive practises, offers a useful model for Canada.
RECOMMENDATION 4:
The government should work through the Competition Bureau to ensure that competition is not stifled through a process of mergers and acquisitions.
There can be little doubt that technological convergence is putting pressure on the current system of cultural regulation. Most countries with developed broadcasting and telecommunication systems have voiced concern about the implications of technological convergence on existing policies.
The European Commission’s 1997 Green Paper on Convergence focused on the regulatory systems that would be needed to cope with technological changes. The EC outlined three main options:
- build on current structures;
- develop a separate regulatory model for new activities that would co-exist with telecommunications and broadcasting regulation;
- progressively introduce a new regulatory model to cover the whole range of existing new services.
Comments on the EC Green Paper have, in general, supported an evolutionary approach in which the current system would be gradually adapted to cope with technological change.
During a visit by Subcommittee members to Britain, there was considerable discussion about the timing of any switch to a new system of regulation. The British House of Commons’ Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport and the satellite TV service BSkyB favoured a relatively quick switch to a new regulator. On the other hand, the Department of Culture, Media and Sport and the BBC seemed to favour a slower, evolutionary approach.
Canada may be fortunate in having regulatory oversight for both telecom and broadcasting within a single institution – the CRTC – even though the functions come under separate directorates. There are undoubtedly some advantages in having the regulatory functions under one roof, with a shared corporate culture and a single head of the institution.
That said, the approach chosen by regulators in the new media environment is critically important. One key question raised by several witnesses and other observers is whether, because of new media, protectionist policies must be replaced by a new approach.
The CRTC recognizes the need for change. It told the Subcommittee:
The old Commission was protectionist in its approach – which fit the requirements of the time. The new CRTC will be much more focused on promoting opportunity, to let Canadians build on their successes, and demonstrate they can thrive in a new, more competitive environment…From a regulatory perspective, we see our responsibility as creating the right environment that will allow convergence and competition to become everyday facts of life, but where Canadian ideas and values are also reflected…We need to nurture the efforts of our creative artists and business people in such a way that they will be able to build a cultural industry with the necessary strength to be competitive and capable of featuring our products, here in Canada and throughout the world.
The CRTC recently held public hearings to review its role in the emerging media landscape. On May 17, 1999, the commission announced it would not try to regulate the Internet. It went so far as to state that the commission would propose that on-line broadcasts from traditional broadcasters – radio and TV stations – would be exempt from regulation. Thus, it appears that for the time being, the commission has distinguished between conventional broadcasting and on-line communications by indicating a hands-off approach to whatever is transmitted on-line.
Less than a decade after its creation, the Internet is already an important distribution network for the sale of cultural materials. The spectacular success of the on-line bookseller, Amazon.com – now rivalled in Canada by ChaptersGLOBE.com – has shown how innovative forms of electronic commerce are challenging traditional intermediaries. In the compact disc market, on-line companies, such as U.S.-based CDNow, offer similar examples of how the Internet is being used as a mass marketer of cultural items that, until now, have been sold through bricks-and-mortar retail chains.
The success of Web-based wholesale operations is due largely to the efficient bypassing of conventional intermediaries – the increasingly pervasive phenomenon known as "disintermediation." A distinction must be made, however, between on-line services, such as Amazon.com, and owners of intellectual property who distribute their products digitally directly to consumers via the Internet.
Buying a book or a CD on the Internet is no different from buying a shirt or a computer from a consumer catalogue. These products are hard goods that, once ordered, are delivered to your door. To employ the familiar distinction of U.S. telecommunications guru Nicholas Negroponte, Amazon.com sells "atoms," not "bits." Buying or renting a downloadable movie or song on-line is a different, more direct, form of disintermediation. The transaction is immediate and digital delivery is made at virtually no additional cost.
Disintermediation can also have effects on the incomes of artists. A SOCAN representative mentioned that composers often find themselves at the end of the queue with respect to getting payment after a sale or performance. The payment, if it comes, moreover, may occur months, at times even longer, after a consumer has enjoyed the composition. With disintermediation, the process leading to a payment to the artist could be compressed. Instead of a consumer going to a record store to purchase a pre-recorded disc, the consumer could download a piece of music to a blank disc. All the details of this new form of commercial transaction – a transaction without the traditional middle step of going to a record store – are not yet known. But it is possible that the composer could secure more financial compensation and get this money sooner.
At present, digital delivery of cultural products, such as books, recordings, movies and television programs, faces a number of major obstacles. Most Hollywood studios, major record companies and other players in the entertainment industries have established "new media" divisions and are testing their products largely through games and promotions on Web sites. Still, these same companies remain reluctant to start selling, or renting, their intellectual property as digital products on the Internet.
There are two main reasons for their reluctance. First, owners of intellectual property are worried that their products will be copied, at no marginal cost, and distributed in millions of units throughout the world on the Internet. Most copyright holders will not start selling digital cultural products on-line until a fail-safe encryption system for encoding and decoding digital signals is universally adopted. Second, critical technical obstacles must be overcome. For example, downloading video and music takes a long time and the quality is often erratic. Therefore, networks must be expanded to increase bandwidth capacity.
It is only a matter of time, however, before these problems are resolved – the copyright issue by international treaty and the market adoption of reliable encryption systems, and the technical issues by the build-out of digitized networks. It can be confidently predicted that the sale and rental of cultural works on-line will become a billion-dollar industry within the next decade.
Despite this inevitability, policymakers remain uncertain about how – and, indeed, if – digital cultural products should be regulated. The CRTC, for example, does not regulate Internet radio stations and other forms of audio on-demand, but has decided to license and regulate video-on-demand. The regulator also has defined video-on-demand (VOD) as "broadcasting," yet remains silent on the definition of on-line music.
In Canada, the dispute over video-on-demand and multimedia services has been part of the ongoing debate over what exactly the CRTC means by "broadcasting" and "telecommunications." Established players in the Canadian broadcasting system have argued for a broad definition of "broadcasting" in order to capture on-demand services and thus limit the impact of competition by imposing regulation and market-entry barriers. The phone companies and computer industry – both new players in the provision of cultural content to homes – are calling for a restrictive definition so they can exploit VOD and other multimedia services with no fear of onerous regulations and other market-entry barriers.
The European Commission considers video-on-demand to be telecommunications, not broadcasting. In its "Television Without Frontiers" directive, it stated: "VOD services, like all genuinely interactive services, are classed as telecommunications in that transmission is in response to individual demand." In other words, VOD is switched, point-to-point communications – not point-to-multipoint broadcasting.
In the United States, the federal Court of Appeals ruled – in the case of ACLU v. Reno – that the Internet is not broadcasting. The U.S. court based its distinction between "broadcasting" and "telecommunications" on the fact that, on the Web, users search Web sites and "pull" down what they are interested in viewing. Broadcasting, on the other hand, is "push" transmission, according to the court, which also determined that the Internet is characterized by low entry barriers, non-scarcity of capacity and protection of freedom-of-speech rights. No Canadian court has yet ruled on this issue.
The CRTC itself, however, has recommended a legislative amendment to exclude from the Broadcasting Act services such as "commercial on-line multimedia services," "interactive courses" offered by accredited schools and "educational multimedia materials." While this definition could seem restrictive, it could be argued that AOL, Microsoft Network, Yahoo! and any other Internet-based service are "commercial on-line multimedia service." This would mean that domestic VOD services in Canada would require a licence, while the regulator could do little to regulate the activities of other VOD services beyond Canada’s borders.
The CRTC’s recent report on the new media appeared to exclude Internet video-on-demand from broadcasting regulations, thus raising the possibility of confusion over its previous position.
RECOMMENDATION 5:
The Government should issue a policy statement clarifying the precise distinction, if any, between "telecommunications" and "broadcasting."
As emphasized in the interim Wired to Win! Report, the government must be vigilant in promoting universal access to the new media.
The Subcommittee stressed at the outset of this report its concern that new communications technologies do not create a gap between technologically privileged "haves" and marginalized "have-nots." Universality must extend both to the ability to use the products of new technology and to the ability to contribute to Canada’s production of these products. No Canadian should be excluded from having the opportunity to be either a user or a producer of new media.
The Subcommittee notes that the federal government, in its 1999 budget, devoted some $1.8 billion over four years to address this concern. In particular, the funds – earmarked for the "creation, dissemination, and commercialization of knowledge" – will help ensure that all Canadians have a chance to learn and profit from the Internet. The federal budget includes a three-year $60 million "Smart Community" initiative that provides for technology-demonstration projects in Canada's 10 provinces, plus one each in the Arctic and in a Native community. Similar government initiatives should be encouraged in the future.
RECOMMENDATION 6:
The government should continue to survey through Statistics Canada the ownership of computers and use of the Internet to help ensure there is an equitable opportunity throughout society to utilize the new media.
RECOMMENDATION 7:
The government should also continue its efforts to bring the Internet into all Canadian schools so that all students have the opportunity to take part in the world of new technology and ultimately contribute to Canada's place in the world.
An interesting phenomenon of the information era has been the degree to which children have embraced technology. It is not uncommon to find them far more skilled in using computers than their parents. In particular, youth have fully embraced the new media, especially interactive video games and the entertainment that is available on the Internet.
However, computer literacy is not by itself the benchmark of success. The burgeoning number of computers in the home and in the workplace, which allow for e-mail transmissions instead of telephone calls, underscores the necessity for superior reading and writing skills. Without them, analytical thought and comprehension suffer, making it more difficult to function in the wired world.
It is, therefore, essential that governments, through their educational systems, ensure students are not only computer literate, but that their ability to read and write well is a bottom-line requirement for graduation.
There is no incompatibility in achieving these goals. Indeed, the fascination children have with computers and the apparent ease with which they embrace technology can be used to strengthen their reading and writing skills. Indeed, it is also an approach that could be taken for teaching our official languages to allophone immigrants.
RECOMMENDATION 8:
Canada’s educational systems are encouraged to harness the interest children have in computers as a means of enhancing reading and writing skills.
Promotional Role of Government
One way to protect and promote Canadian culture, of course, is through government intervention, whether in the form of public funding, content regulations, or the role of public institutions such the CBC, the National Film Board, the Canada Council and Telefilm Canada. The Canadian government has also promoted Canadian culture in markets outside Canada, largely through its own cultural attaches.
Chief among national cultural institutions is the CBC, created in 1936 to offset the pervasive presence of American radio stations whose signals were available in Canada. By the second half of this century, television had become an integral part of the CBC and the mandate included social and cultural goals. Today, the CBC has established a significant presence on the Web, which has facilitated the global distribution of Canadian information and programming.
In the past, the Canadian government has, with the support of cultural agencies, devoted resources to initiatives that promote Canadian culture in foreign markets. Yet these initiatives seem to have diminished at the very time that other nations are more actively promoting trade and diplomacy through exports of their culture.
The Canadian Association of Publishers, for example, told the Subcommittee:
Three years ago (in 1995) the Government of Canada launched a new foreign policy that called on the promotion of Canadian cultural values and goods as one of the three pillars of Canada's foreign policy. But, to date, we have seen far more action in the negotiation of the MAI (Multilateral Agreement on Investment), and that could undermine those very values that we are trying to promote and preserve.
In the emerging new media environment characterized by rapid globalization of the entertainment industries, government policy and institutions could play an important role in the promotion of Canadian cultural products around the world.
Indeed, it is through the important avenues of expression offered by the CBC, the National Film Board, Telefilm Canada and the Canada Council that we have developed a rich cultural heritage. Despite the onslaught of foreign materials, Canadian culture has not only survived, it has thrived on many stages and many pages. Our writers are household names in Canada. But more and more, their books are best-sellers around the world – a trend that their screenplays are beginning to duplicate. Our performing artists are every bit as good as our computer artists. And the sight of Canadian new media developers marketing their software to the world is exceeded only by the sound of four Canadian singers nominated at this year’s U.S. Grammy Awards – Shania Twain of Timmins, Alanis Morissette of Ottawa, Vancouver’s Sarah McLaughlin and Celine Dion of Montreal. They, and others before them, overcame benign indifference at home and ruthless competition abroad.
But something is happening that makes it essential for the government and our cultural institutions to renew their commitment to promoting our homegrown talent. It is the threat brought on by technology, especially the convergence of old media with the Internet and new media. Our entire cultural defence mechanisms, whether regulatory policies or technological limitations, are under siege. One initiative the government might consider is a "cultural foreign policy" to ensure Canadian cultural products benefit not only from pride-of-place in their domestic market, but in foreign markets as well. In addition to the recommendations outlined in this report, Canada must increase its marketing and promotional efforts – in new media and old media, live and in colour – throughout the world. The idea of a single trading organization or a cultural trade agency, whose mandate would be to create Canadian jobs by marketing Canadian cultural products, is worthy of exploration.
RECOMMENDATION 9:
The government should re-examine the feasibility of creating a national cultural trading agency that would consolidate current international marketing activities and provide a one-stop venue for Canadians engaged in producing content or cultural products for export.
Canada’s problem has never been a lack of creativity or artistic talent; it’s been enabling Canadians – and then the world – to access that creativity, something other nations seem to find easy, yet we find difficult.