You are on page 1of 12

Cultural Policy

JAMES MARSH and JOCELYN HARVEY


The Canadian Encyclopedia
01-01-2012

Table of Contents

Cultural Policy

Cultural policy in general refers to government measures taken to encourage or to protect


activities in areas defined as cultural. Much of the confusion over the objectives of cultural policy
derives from the term CULTURE itself, an omnibus word with distant origins in the Latin word
culturao, referring to cultivation of the soil. At one level, culture refers primarily to artistic
expression, and in this sense cultural policy is largely concerned with government funding and
promotion of the arts (see ARTS, HERITAGE AND CULTURAL INDUSTRIES FUNDING). All
societies have recognized the power of art and most have honoured and supported artists. In
the 20th century, governments came to fill the role played in previous times by the Church, by
royalty or by wealthy patrons.

At another level, culture is associated with COMMUNICATIONS and "mass culture" through
broadcasting, film, book and magazine publishing, television, sound recording and new media,
etc. Cultural expression is more and more bound up with the development of cultural industries,
which play a key role not only in disseminating works but in forming the way in which the culture
itself is perceived.

The idea of culture has an even broader usage, developed from philosophy but given its
greatest currency in the social sciences. These definitions of culture encompass nothing less
than "that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, law, morals, custom and any
other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society" - or, in the words of
UNESCO, "ways of living together." Viewed in this way, culture is seen as a public good and
cultural policies emphasize the need to preserve or to invigorate cultural identity, or at least to
create an environment in which a distinctive culture can emerge. Such policies are often
developed as an antidote to external pressures. In the case of Canada, this pressure has
traditionally come from the overwhelming presence of the United States.

While there is no official definition of culture and no single overriding cultural policy in Canada,
the many initiatives taken by Canadian governments to support culture contain elements of
each of these definitions. Governments provide funding and other measures of support to the
arts; they administer regulations and programs that assist the cultural industries; and, however
diverse its manifestations, their underlying purpose is to create an environment in which
Canadian creativity can flourish and Canadians can have access to the fruits of Canadian
imagination, heritage and history.
The Cultural Marketplace in Canada

Even in a world awash in the cultural products of the United States, the cultural marketplace in
Canada is uniquely unbalanced. Sharing a common language with the Americans and living
within easy reach of the border, Canadians are avid consumers of foreign, mostly American,
culture. The vast majority of books, films and records bought here is produced outside Canada
for foreign markets. Most of the revenues from the sale of these products in Canada flow
outside Canada rather than to Canadians, who might be inclined to help finance the
development of Canadian talent.

Foreign firms account for 46% of domestic book sales in Canada, 81% of the English-language
consumer magazines on the newsstands, 84% of total revenues in the sound recording
industry, and 98% of screen time in Canadian movie theatres. Canadian producers have limited
access to their own market while foreign firms, with formidable advantages of scale and cost,
profit greatly from their Canadian operations. Yet it is the Canadian-owned sector that is largely
responsible for bringing Canadian works to Canadian audiences. Foreign firms distribute
Canadian materials both domestically and abroad, especially once the creator or artist has
achieved commercial success, but Canadian-owned producers are the principal suppliers of
original Canadian works for the Canadian marketplace.

As a democracy whose borders are open to the products of many lands, Canada's challenge
has been creating conditions for the development of its own arts, heritage and cultural
industries. Equally challenging today is the task of formulating cultural policies that will reflect
the fundamental realities of the country - the co-existence of 2 official language communities
(and the consequent segmentation and differentiation of the cultural market), a geography
marked by vast distances that has bred powerful regional differences, a substantial Aboriginal
population dispersed across the country and representing numerous cultural traditions and
languages, the growing ethnic, racial and linguistic diversity of the Canadian people, and a
constitution that gives no level of government unique or dominant responsibility for culture.

These characteristics account for much of the distinctiveness and complexity of Canada and
help shape its cultural policy. Whatever cultural policy becomes in the future - it is still
unfinished business in this country - it is almost impossible to imagine it not grappling with these
basic realities.

History of Cultural Policy


The earliest form of government support for culture in Canada came in the 19th century with the
tentative funding of archives, museums and art galleries that accompanied an awakening
interest in the past. The archival tradition dates back to New France, although the NATIONAL
ARCHIVES OF CANADA was not formed until 1903. The National Museum of Canada, which
later became the CANADIAN MUSEUM OF NATURE, began with a grant of 1500 from Queen
Victoria in 1841. These measures were an acknowledgment of the worth of preserving heritage
through documents and cultural artifacts, but serious government involvement in the arts in
Canada did not really begin until after WWII, as part of the general growth of state involvement
in social life that accelerated after the Great Depression.

The power of communications had been acknowledged in WWI as government attempted to


control how the war was perceived through widespread censorship and propaganda. WAR
ARTISTS were hired to depict Canada's participation in the war, but it was the advent of radio in
the 1920s that opened official eyes to the need for a domestic policy.

In 1928, when Canadian radio technology was still rudimentary, American stations were
beaming freely across an open border. As a result, the Royal Commission on Radio
Broadcasting (Aird Commission) was struck. In its report (1929) it recommended a state-owned
system capable of "fostering a national spirit and interpreting national citizenship." In turn, film,
television and other technologies raised the same concerns.

The lobbying of the Canadian Radio League (founded in 1930) had a major influence on the
realization of the Aird Commission's recommendations and on the establishment of the publicly
funded CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION in 1936.

Other voluntary groups emerged in the 1930s and 1940s. Among these, the Federation of
Canadian Artists, an association of several arts groups whose leaders included the Toronto
composer Sir Ernest MACMILLAN and Montreal architect Ernest CORMIER, was among the
first to call for active government support for the arts. The Turgeon Committee on
Reconstruction and Re-establishment (report 1944) was lobbied by arts groups to set up a
board to promote culture. These activities helped to create an awareness of cultural issues and
an environment in which later developments could take place.

The most comprehensive and influential document in the development of Canadian cultural
policy was the report (1951) of the Royal Commission on NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE
ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES (Massey Commission). The report focused on the extreme
vulnerability of Canada to American influences and drew attention to the American newspapers,
books and magazines flooding across the border. Furthermore, the commission noted with
embarrassment that whatever support there had been in Canada for the arts had come primarily
from American foundations, with $7.3 million alone from the Carnegie Foundation and another
$11.8 million from the Rockefeller Foundation. Canada had paid a heavy price for this easy
dependence, stated the report, in loss of talent, the impoverishment of our universities, and "an
uncritical acceptance of ideas and assumptions which are alien to our tradition."

Among the concrete results of the Massey report was the founding of the NATIONAL LIBRARY
(1953) and subsequently the CANADA COUNCIL (1957). But the report also eloquently raised
fundamental questions about the meaning of SOVEREIGNTY, the role of government in
fostering the creativity of its citizenry, and the peculiar problems created by the cultural barrage
from the United States.

Similar sentiments were expressed by the ROYAL COMMISSION ON BROADCASTING (report


1957), which emphasized the "need for a broadcasting system to help establish a Canadian
cultural identity, particularly in the face of American encroachments" (see BROADCASTING,
RADIO AND TELEVISION). The ROYAL COMMISSION ON PUBLICATIONS (report 1961) was
convened to investigate a troubled magazine industry, which it stated is "a part of our national
heritage, reflecting something else than our concern for the market place."

The Royal Commission on Book Publishing (Ontario, 1972) recognized that "the cultural
implications of book publishing far outweigh the economic implications to society." Further
support came from the Special Senate Committee on Mass Media (1970), the Royal
Commission on Newspapers (1981), and the report of the FEDERAL CULTURAL POLICY
REVIEW COMMITTEE (1982). The Task Force on the Status of the Artist led to federal
legislation on the status of the artist and on professional relations between artists and producers
in Canada (1992). The Task Force on the National Museums led to the abolition of the National
Museums Corporation and established the 4 national museums as autonomous crown
corporations in 1990 (see NATIONAL MUSEUMS OF CANADA).

A number of themes recur throughout these examinations. First among these is that Canadian
culture must be fostered with public money and protected by government regulation. In fact,
over time cultural expenditures did rise dramatically; in 1997-98, the total by all governments
was almost $5.6 billion. The reports recognized that Canadian cultural industries are at a severe
disadvantage because they lack the large market required for economies of scale, and because
so much income from the distribution of cultural products is drained from the country.

Secondly, most of these reports argued that cultural support should be given without political
influence and that key cultural agencies should be at "arm's length" from the political process.
Finally, there was an assumption in these investigations that cultural activity is of great
significance to the character and value of our very way of life and to the survival of a distinctive
Canadian society.

Needless to say, these principles have been contested, and the measures taken to implement
them have often created controversy, not the least of which have been disputes over
DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS.

"Culture" was not specifically assigned under the terms of the BNA Act in 1867, except for
EDUCATION, which was assigned to the provinces. In 1932 Qubec and Ontario contested the
federal government's right to control broadcasting. Federal jurisdiction was upheld in the courts,
but other challenges have arisen as each new technology has made an impact.

Qubec has always interpreted provincial powers, particularly those referring to education, as
including those necessary for the preservation of a French Canadian culture. With the
efflorescence of Qubec in the 1960s the issue of culture was increasingly politicized. Federal
institutions, such as the Canada Council, NATIONAL FILM BOARD and CBC, were often seen
as intruders in Qubec, eroding indigenous culture.

In the early 1970s, Grard PELLETIER, Secretary of State in the TRUDEAU government,
introduced a policy of "democratization and decentralization" designed to respond to the
divergent regional realities of Canada. Although the practical outcomes were largely limited to
the creation of a national museums policy and scattered programs in the arts and heritage,
Pelletier was the first (and some would argue, the only) federal minister to approach cultural
policy with a unified concept.

Qubec Premier Jean LESAGE created the province's Department of Cultural Affairs in 1961; it
began with a budget of $3 million. It became the Ministry of State for Cultural Development
under the PARTI QUBCOIS and its responsibilities grew to include language and
immigration. The department is now known as the Ministry of Culture and Communications of
Qubec. Qubec consistently expends more than any other province on culture. Of the nearly
$1.6 billion spent on culture by all the provinces and territories in 1999-2000, Qubec was
responsible for over one-third ($652 million). By contrast, the next biggest spender, Ontario,
lagged far behind at $380 million.

Saskatchewan set up the first provincial arts council in Canada in 1948 and Alberta established
a government branch responsible for culture in 1959, but the real explosion of provincial interest
in culture followed, gathering momentum in the 1970s. In rapid succession, provinces
established departments and councils with responsibility for culture - the Ontario Arts Council
(1963), the Manitoba Arts Council (1965), the Manitoba department (1970), the Saskatchewan
department (1972), departments in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland (1973), arts agencies in
Prince Edward Island and British Columbia (1974), and departments in Ontario and New
Brunswick (1975).

All the provinces and territories now have a ministry responsible for culture, sometimes in
affiliation with education, tourism, community development, or yet another field, and all
provinces also have arts councils, which are mandated to provide grants and services to the
arts. In the last year for which a breakdown is available (1997-98), the provincial and territorial
governments allocated 40% of their cultural spending to libraries and 27% to heritage.

For the most part Canadian municipalities came late to cultural support, but within the last
decade they have become major players. In the 1990s, as the federal and provincial/territorial
governments were cutting culture-related expenditures, the municipalities registered an
increase of nearly 20%. By 1997-98 they were collectively responsible for 27% of all
government cultural spending in Canada. Libraries are their biggest beneficiary.

At present, all 3 levels of government (4, where regional governments exist) are active in culture
in Canada, and, given Canada's constitutional realities, none is subordinate to the other. Culture
is a shared responsibility, and each level of government develops its own priorities and
programs within its own policy framework and budgetary constraints. Typically, arts, heritage
and cultural industries organizations find themselves dealing with 3 or 4 levels of government.
Programs for the same sectors (sometimes with similar, sometimes with different, criteria and
priorities) are often available from federal, provincial and local sources.

For the cultural community, this "system" of cultural support, with its multiplicity of sources, has
distinct advantages. It frees artists and cultural organizations from exclusive reliance on one
perspective or point of view and provides better protection for freedom of expression than would
a more "hierarchical" arrangement. Specific local and provincial needs can be recognized and
addressed while the federal government pursues national goals and standards.

At the same time, the Canadian "system" is inherently complex and diverse, with many
decision- making centres and, beyond the general objectives of enhancing creativity and
access, little singularity of purpose. It is subject to constitutional, regional and provincial political
tensions arising from fields unrelated to culture. To work, the system depends on cooperation
rather than dictation, and cooperation among the various orders of government is no easier to
achieve in culture than in any other field.

Instruments of Culture

A defining feature of Canadian cultural support - characterizing the federal and all provincial
governments - is the co-existence of government culture departments and arm's length arts
councils.

In addition to these entities, governments in Canada use a broad range of instruments to


support culture. They include public institutions like archives, libraries, museums and arts
centres; legislation such as copyright and status of the artist laws; direct financing in the form of
grants, contributions and loans; financial incentives, including investment and tax credits; tax
measures for charitable donations and the donation of cultural property; services such as those
provided to the museum community by the Canadian Conservation Institute and to film
producers by municipal film offices; Canadian ownership rules; Canadian content requirements;
and international agreements. While public and media attention usually focuses on grants to the
arts, indirect measures can have as great an impact as direct financing. Effective, modern
copyright laws, for example, help ensure appropriate payment for intellectual property and
therefore income for creators.

The federal Department of Canadian Heritage is currently responsible for establishing overall
policies on cultural issues of pan-Canadian importance. Created out of the former Department
of Communications in a government reorganization in 1993, it has responsibility for policies and
programs related to arts and heritage, broadcasting, cultural industries, Canadian identity,
multiculturalism, official languages and sport. But some cultural responsibilities that were
combined in DOC are now part of the mandate of the Department of Industry. Jurisdiction over
copyright is divided between the 2 departments, and traditional broadcasting lies within the
sphere of DOCH while telecommunications belongs to Industry. While DOCH is concerned with
the cultural impact of international trade agreements, the lead department on that subject is the
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. As a result of divided mandates, the
Heritage Minister can easily end up in conflict with other, more powerful departments.

A great deal of Canada's cultural policy has been carried out by the federal cultural agencies,
most of them created over the past 50 years, and many at arm's length from government. In
1936 the CBC began to provide Canada with a public broadcasting system, but the corporation
has had a confused and sweeping mandate that it has struggled to fulfill, particularly on
television. The 1991 revisions to the Broadcasting Act, which expanded the responsibilities of
the CBC, were rapidly followed by government budget cuts that made fulfilment of those
responsibilities especially difficult. The Canada Council is the central granting agency for the
arts, but some politicians have had difficulty dealing with the independence that is essential to
the Council's granting process.

In Ottawa, the NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION was created in 1958 with a mandate to
maintain a capital region in accordance with its national significance. The NATIONAL ARTS
CENTRE, created by an Act of Parliament in 1966, was built to be a showcase of Canadian
performance; it houses a resident orchestra and is one of Canada's largest co-producers of
dance and theatre.

In the fields of film, television and radio, TELEFILM CANADA, the National Film Board of
Canada, and the CBC support Canadian productions. Also within the portfolio of the DOCH are
the NATIONAL GALLERY OF CANADA, the CANADIAN MUSEUM OF CIVILIZATION
(including the War Museum), the Canadian Museum of Nature, the NATIONAL MUSEUM OF
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, the National Archives, and the NATIONAL LIBRARY OF
CANADA. Many of these agencies suffered budget cuts during the 1990s as a result of the
government's program review and spending curbs.

Most governments involved in cultural support provide direct financing, in the form of grants or
contributions, to arts and cultural organizations and, in some cases, individual artists. Typically,
funding for organizations involves partnerships: support comes from the federal, provincial and
local governments, as well as earned revenues, donations and sponsorships. In fact,
partnerships between public sources and private enterprise are characteristic of Canadian
cultural support.
Governments also directly fund the cultural industries, but their "toolbox" of measures for these
entities also contains a variety of regulatory or structural instruments. These include loans,
investment and tax credits, and Canadian content and ownership requirements.

Canadian-content regulations somewhat limit the play of foreign programs on television.


Canadian stations are permitted to substitute their own signals on CABLE TELEVISION when
showing the same program as an American station.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission issues licences and


monitors performance to regulate the country's broadcasting system. To ensure that the system
will carry Canadian products, it sets Canadian-content requirements. These rules apply to the
radio and TV programming services that broadcast programs and to the distribution systems
(cable television, direct-to-home satellite, and multipoint distribution systems) delivering
broadcast services to homes.

Radio and TV stations are required to devote a specific amount of airtime to Canadian content.
In some cases, the CRTC also requires that minimum expenditures and/or numbers of hours
per year be devoted to the broadcast of certain categories of Canadian programming such as
drama, music, variety and children's programs. Beginning in 1989, conventional private
broadcasters were required to show a specific number of hours of Canadian drama, music or
variety programming each week during prime viewing time.

Since 1971, Canadian-content regulations have also been applied to music played on radio.
Currently, except for stations playing primarily instrumental music, the quota requires that at
least 35% of popular music selections be Canadian. As technologies evolve, however, the
applicability of regulatory measures may be reaching its limit. The CRTC has already decided
against efforts to regulate the Internet.

With the advent of cable and US television signals entering Canada in the 1970s, advertising
revenue began to shift from Canadian stations across the border. To protect this source of
income, amendments to the Income Tax Act made the cost of advertising with a Canadian
broadcaster fully tax deductible while limiting the deduction for ads placed with US border
stations. Similar legislation applies to advertising in newspapers and magazines.

Like other governments, Canada imposes rules on foreign ownership in certain cultural sectors.
Under the Investment Canada Act (1985), any foreign investment in a cultural industry is
reviewed. In book publishing, new businesses are required to be Canadian-controlled, and the
foreign acquisition of existing Canadian-controlled business is allowed only in extraordinary
circumstances. In 1988 guidelines were developed for film distribution that prohibit foreign
takeovers of Canadian-owned film distribution firms. While existing foreign distributors were
"grandfathered" under the guidelines, there are certain limits placed on new foreign investors
and foreign takeovers of foreign-owned firms.

In 1996, given the growing convergence of telecommunications and broadcasting and Canadian
broadcasters' need for capital, the federal government increased the maximum allowable
foreign investment in a broadcasting company. Now up to 46.7% of such a company and 100%
of its non-voting shares can be foreign-owned, providing that de facto control is not exercised by
non-Canadians. This change brought the rules for broadcasting into closer accord with those
applying to telecommunications.

Current Issues and Goals

Canadian cultural policy in the 21st century is engaged with a number of international and
domestic issues.

The Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States came into effect in 1988
and in 1994 was transposed into the North American Free Trade Agreement with the inclusion
of Mexico (see FREE TRADE). These agreements contain an "exemption" for cultural
industries. However, they also incorporate a "notwithstanding clause," which allows one of the
countries the right to assess the equivalent commercial impact of new measures in culture
adopted by another and impose a countervail against any part of that country's economy. In
practice, this could mean that the United States could respond to a new Canadian cultural
initiative by imposing an economic penalty against another Canadian industry.

Concerns that international trade agreements may deter Canadian cultural initiatives were
heightened in 1997 as a result of the success of the US government's complaints to the World
Trade Organization about a Canadian tax on revenues from magazines with an editorial content
of less than 80% Canadian entering the Canadian marketplace and Canada's postal subsidies
for magazines. The WTO rulings were a dramatic demonstration of how international trade
agreements can constrain the actions of sovereign states intent on supporting and protecting
their own cultures.

Continuing to achieve Canada's cultural policy objectives within the globalized environment of
international trade and corporate concentration has been a key goal of the Canadian
government in the late 1990s and the 21st century. The government is actively pursuing the
development of an international agreement that will recognize the importance of cultural
diversity and enable countries to pursue polices that promote it. This "new international
instrument," the particulars of which are as yet undefined, would seek to guarantee that cultural
goods and services are treated differently from other types of products in international trade
regimes.

To this end, Canada initiated the International Network on Cultural Policy, a group of ministers
of culture from around the world, in 1998. Approximately 44 nations have joined the network,
which aims to put cultural sovereignty and cultural diversity at the top of the public agenda. To
engage citizens' groups in this endeavour, the Canadian government has supported an
emerging network of non-governmental organizations from around the world - the International
Network on Cultural Diversity, led by the CANADIAN CONFERENCE OF THE ARTS, Canada's
major arts and cultural advocacy body.

In 1995 the government of Canada officially identified culture as the third pillar of Canadian
foreign policy (along with security and economic prosperity). The cultural community believes
that this declaration has yet to be translated into tangible improvements in Canada's
international cultural relations, which remain an underutilized instrument of cultural policy. The
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade administers a grant program for
Canadian groups and individuals promoting, marketing, exhibiting and touring outside Canada,
and also offers guidance for cultural exporters entering the international market. In addition,
Canadian missions abroad, particularly where there are officials charged with cultural
responsibilities, work to promote Canadian culture. Canada has entered into a number of
international cultural agreements, especially for film production. But Canadian cultural activity
abroad is constrained by its low priority within Foreign Affairs.

Joining these global issues are several domestic policy considerations. Perhaps the most
important of these is the need to create conditions for the full participation in cultural life of
culturally diverse and Aboriginal Canadians. At the federal level, this objective has been a
strategic priority of the Canada Council since the early 1990s. Northrop FRYE's prescient
comment that "Canada must now preserve its identity by having many identities" is particularly
appropriate to the goal of full inclusion.

Second, after emphasizing the contribution culture makes to the Canadian economy during the
1980s and early 1990s, policy-makers have recently turned their attention to the social impact of
culture - on children and young people, on neighbourhoods and communities, on the civility and
safety of urban settings, on the ties that create common bonds among citizens. Research and
studies are underway on the subject, and it is beginning to emerge as a theme in the policy
frameworks of governments.

Third, another prominent policy issue is the somewhat belated recognition of the value of the
arts in early childhood learning, following the widespread reductions in spending on the arts in
education that accompanied government cutbacks in the 1990s. Research on the impact of the
arts on learning is underway within education and governments, but there has as yet been no
upturn in spending. As education is a provincial responsibility, federal programs have only
limited impact in this area.

Fourth, while developments are incomplete, cultural policy is increasingly being treated from a
multidisciplinary, holistic perspective. From the 1950s to the1970s, when cultural organizations
were "professionalizing" in Canada, the emphasis in programs and policies was discipline- or
sector- based. Now, however, cultural activities are being examined as part of a "continuum" -
the full range of human activity in culture, from training and creation to production,
dissemination, preservation, conservation and consumption. The cultural continuum is useful as
a means of identifying the similarities and dissimilarities of cultural activities and judging where
on the spectrum cultural policies and programs are weak or non-existent and where they are
strong. As a unifying concept, the continuum has the added value of integrating the public (the
audience or consumer) as a full participant in cultural processes.

Finally, citizen participation in cultural life - what is sometimes called "the democratization of
culture" - is a developing interest in Canada and in a number of other nations around the world.
Intent on creating stronger and deeper relationships between cultural producers and the
audience, bridging the divide between "the arts" and "the people," governments are increasingly
emphasizing participation in culture as a prominent goal of their cultural policies. In particular,
the cultivation of new, younger and more diverse arts audiences is a common objective among
Canadian arts councils and culture departments in the 21st century, and on the ground, in the
trenches, this goal is being actively pursued by many companies and groups in the arts,
heritage and cultural industries.

Preserving Culture in Mass Society

In rejecting the revolutionary traditions of the American and French revolutions as well as its
own republican outbursts of the 1830s, and in the unique compromise of region and nation
inherent in Confederation, Canada emerged from its colonial past with a distinctive political
culture. Ironically, at a time when Canadians have the most confidence to make a virtue of their
diversity, their cultural environment is rapidly becoming a fragment of the American
"entertainment" market. The order-in-council through which the Massey Commission was
formed stated that "it is in the national interest to give encouragement to institutions which
express national feeling, promote common understanding and add to the variety and richness of
Canadian life." The COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY that has offered a great opportunity to
achieve such goals has as often been used to subject Canadians to the myths, anxieties and
values of a foreign society.

The ultimate goal of cultural policy is the creation of conditions that will encourage all forms of
creative expression. The values of the "free-market" economy - the profit seeking and
competition for gain that most economists and business people claim should govern culture as
much as any consumer product - are often anathema to art, which values challenge, risk,
experiment and criticism.

For those who believe that artistic expression is critically important to society and for those who
acknowledge that the potential of communications technology lies beyond expanding the market
for consumer goods, it is unacceptable to leave culture to a "free market" that is overwhelmingly
dominated by foreign corporations. The disparities between the production, distribution and
marketing capacities between the US and Canada would, in a "free market," quickly reduce the
smaller nation to passive consumers.
Any attempt to limit the flow of cultural products or ideas can appear to be narrow minded. But
the purpose of cultural policy is to promote tolerance of all forms of artistic expression while
ensuring that a creative community will have access to its own audience.

Modern consumer society has brought a high material standard of living, but undoubtedly
anxiety as well. The creative spirit, which probes the ethical and aesthetic meanings of life, is as
crucial now as ever. In referring to our society's commitments to expend large sums of money
on defence, the Massey Commission commented, "What, we may ask ourselves, are we
defending? We are defending civilization, our share of it, our contribution to it. The things with
which our inquiry deals are the elements which give civilization its character and its meaning. It
would be paradoxical to defend something which we are unwilling to strengthen and enrich, and
which we even would allow to decline." The words still stand.

Copyright (c) 2012 The Canadian Encyclopedia, Historica Foundation of Canada

"Cultural Policy." The Canadian Encyclopedia. 2012. eLibrary. Web. 14 Nov. 2016.

(2012). Cultural Policy. The Canadian Encyclopedia. Historica Foundation of Canada. Retrieved

from http://elibrary.bigchalk.com

You might also like