Two cents...

image via

I can't help it. Every time I start writing one of these posts, I think of The Simpsons, Kent Brockman, and "My Two Cents". So while I've been hibernating in the scholarly wilderness for the past little while, it's time to lob a few pennies into cyberspace.

This actually came up at the recent "How Canadians Communicate" symposium I attended a few weeks ago in Banff (which was terrific, by the way). Someone pointed out that for all of the talk about the importance of cultural policy in Canada, the subject hasn't come up as a political issue during the recent elections. While I had realized that point before, and others have noted that you had to dig far and wide to get some idea from the various political parties where they stood on arts and culture issues, it does seem on the surface to have taken a backseat politically. Or maybe its a case where politicians believe that Canadians don't care too much about the subject enough that it would affect their voting. If this is true, the question is, why?

Here are four possibilities:

1. The simple answer is that cultural policy has long been about the development of cultural industries and that many Canadians can see through the rhetoric about "telling Canadian stories" and realize that since the cultural industries are such an important part of the economy now, the discourse around cultural issues has become an economic matter and is better understood when it is treated that way.

2. Another reason might be that the Conservative government doesn't care too much about the cultural agenda unless it serves to contribute to winning ridings in the next election. That is the thinking behind the naming of Josée Verner as the new Heritage Minister. Some have observed, since she is from Quebec and can be the government's "face" for the celebration of Quebec's 450th birthday, then this may pay off whenever the LIberals decide to hold an election. So it is possible that if the Conservatives have their way, the Heritage department will be more politicized than it ever has been. So even if cultural policy issues aren't on the political agenda, Canada's cultural policy may end up serving one.

3. The third answer may be that, particularly in the case of broadcasting, no one has any really good ideas about what to do next. The torrent of new technologies and the various legal wrangling over copyright issues and intellectual property, along with the back and forth on whether or not Canada has become a haven for piracy has left many people scratching their heads. What will be the rationale for cultural policies in a time of media abundance? Remember how much discourse around Canadian cultural policy relies on lack of access to resources (like frequencies) or lack of shelf space (hello, Canadian content). So what is there to do?

Two interesting voices have emerged in this in-between state. The first are the broadcasters, most notably Jim Shaw of Shaw Communications. Shaw (and Quebecor honcho Pierre-Karl Peladeau) decided that they weren't going to support the Canadian Television Fund, a responsibility that is usually a condition for receiving a broadcasting license. After much ink was spilled (including a lot of it on the Intenrret), Shaw agreed to re-start the payments after meeting with the CRTC. However, he hasn't stopped ratcheting up the rhetoric, suggesting that the fund supports programs that don't work and that they money is not properly accounted for. The Canadian Television is currently undergoing a review by the CRTC, so it should be interesting to see how Shaw's antics play out in the policymaking.

Speaking of which, the CRTC is the second group to watch here. Why? Because they are trying to figure out how to get involved with the Internet. Remember back in 1999 when the CRTC announced boldly that it would not regulate the internet? Here it is.

Compare this with the recent comments of the CRTC's chief, Konrad von Fickenstein at a conference in London last week. Or those of vice-president of the CRTC, Michel Arpin, who told Playback magazine today that back in 1999 "there was nothing to regulate". The subject, as it were, is back on the table.

So what happens next? We probably won't know until the end of next year, which is when the CRTC is planning to hold hearings on the subject. One thing is for sure, this probably isn't going to affect people who post videos to Youtube. It will, however, affect those broadcasting organizations who already fall under the CRTC's regulatory rubric. How will this happen? Still not sure, but a couple of suggestions might be a) forcing broadcasters to stream Canadian shows online (although many already do) or b) forcing broadcasters to commit to support online content.

There is one other scenario --- this one would force Canadian ISP's to give priority to Canadian content sites. This is the argument of ADISQ (the organization representing the Quebec recording industry) as well as many other cultural groups (thanks again for this, Michael Geist). They argue if broadcasters have to make some contribution to the development of Canadian culture through provisions for Canadian content, they why shouldn't Internet Service Providers? So, once again, issues of access and content return to the fold. And, as Geist correctly points out, if such an argument were to take hold, ISPs, American content holders and Canadian cultural producers will coalesce against net neutrality regulations - since each perceives that it has something to lose from a more open Internet. What I can't figure out is exactly what that would look like if Canadian content got better "shelf space" online -- maybe someone can give me a better idea.

4. The fourth answer may be that there has never been a groundswell of political support for cultural policy issues. Were the cultural parts of NAFTA part of the Mulroney/Chretien election? I don't think so. Were there other election campaigns in which political parties could gain traction by hitching their wagon to the issue of the support -- or lack thereof -- to Canadian creative communities? Also highly doubtful. Maybe what have here is that cultural policy issues in Canada operate in a parallel universe to other political concerns, only occasionally mixing with one another in more subtle ways.

Perhaps it will take another election to get these issues on the front burner. One of the great things about the current political climate in this country is that one of those seems to be always looming around the corner.