Content uploaded by Mariane Bourcheix-Laporte
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mariane Bourcheix-Laporte on Jun 11, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
19-06-11 15(53Creative Canada: A Critical Look at a "New" Cultural Policy Framework | CRTC
Page 1 sur 10https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/acrtc/prx/2019laporte.htm
Home
About Us
Our Organization
CRTC Prize for Excellence in Policy Research
Creative Canada: A Critical Look at a "New" Cultural Policy
Framework
Author: Mariane Bourcheix-Laporte
Home university: School of Communication, Simon Fraser University
Education level: PhD Student
In September 2017, the Department of Canadian Heritage launched Creative Canada, a new policy framework that positions the creative industries at the core
of Canada's cultural identity and economy. Produced as an outcome of the 2016-17 #DigiCanCon consultations (Canadian Content in a Digital World), which
polled Canadians on the future of the cultural and creative industries in a context of digital disruption, the Creative Canada Policy Framework (CCPF) provides
a preliminary roadmap to revise the federal cultural policy toolkit in light of policy gaps created in the wake of the digital turn in ICTs and an expressed mandate
to anchor the creative sector at the heart of Canada's immaterial economy. In an introductory video posted on the federal government's Creative Canada
webpage¾it is not incidental to note, via Youtube ¾Honourable Mélanie Joly presents Creative Canada as a national cultural policy review that promises to
remix the ways in which culture shapes Canadian identity and contributes to the national GDP:
Over the last 18 months, we’ve embarked on a unique, pan-Canadian conversation about an issue that affects nearly every country in the world – the
fate of our creative industries in the digital world. Why take this on? […] Because Canadians understand the value of diverse voices at home and
abroad. And because Canadians care deeply about our culture. It is a reflection of the different places that we’ve come from, of our stories and
identities, of who we are.
As hinted at above, Creative Canada recycles much of the identity-based discourse that has served as political bedrock to justify the state subsidy and
regulation of the cultural industries in Canada from the mid-twentieth century onwards. Effectively, as will be discussed below, in some regards the CCPF
testifies to a continued use of pro-Canadian discourses to frame new initiatives undertaken under the Creative Canada umbrella. However, as will be argued,
this new framework crystalizes a neoliberal turn in Canadian cultural policy that has been taking place since the 1980s. As such, it testifies to an ideological
shift in the valorization of culture¾one that emphasizes culture's potential to bolster economic growth by harnessing the promises of digital and creative
economies. This shift has significant implications for "market-failure" cultural activities that have historically developed under protectionist policies, and which
find themselves nested within the creative industries in the context of Creative Canada. Bearing in mind the larger implications of the Creative Canada Policy
Framework and the doors it has opened for research in the area of Canadian cultural policy studies, this paper aims to trace the historical developments of the
CCPF through an analysis of the parallel emergence of neoliberal ideology and creative industries discourse. Further, it offers a critical analysis of the CCPF in
light of contemporary communication and media scholarship concerned with studying the present digital culture. Doing so, this paper contributes to existing
scholarship documenting the gradual neoliberalization of Canadian cultural policy by considering the implications of this shift in light of the correlation drawn
between creativity and digital culture in the CCPF.
Creative Canada Policy Framework
The Creative Canada Policy Framework positions the creative industries as centrepiece of Canada's creative economy, which it correlates with Canada's future
economy. The first sentence of the sleekly designed 38-page document sets the tone and leaves little room for doubt as to the framework's intentions:
"Creative Canada is a new vision and approach to creative industries and to growing the creative economy by the Government of Canada." Rather than
presenting a new set of policies and regulations, Creative Canada outlines key principles and elements of the federal government's response to the digitally
disrupted environment in which Canadian cultural and creative industries find themselves. Much like a strategic plan, the CCPF maps a course for action to be
undertaken over the coming years premised on a set of assumptions about the current digital climate, the value of culture, and the foundation of Canadian
identity:
Creative Canada charts the course for federal policy tools that support our creative industries. It strengthens our existing cultural policy tools, sets out a
path to renew the ones that require updating, and introduces new initiatives that will help Canada’s creators and creative industries succeed in a global,
digital marketplace.
Effectively, the CCPF is built along three pillars (1. Invest in Canadian Creators, Cultural Entrepreneurs and Their Stories, 2. Promote Discovery and Distribution
at Home and Globally, and 3. Strengthen Public Broadcasting and Support Local News) that support a vision of culture, broadly defined, as engine of
economic growth. In this approach, an equally broad definition of the term "creator" is positioned as conduit for the exploitation of digital markets, at home and
abroad¾"the talent, skill and imagination of our Canadian creators and cultural entrepreneurs is the raw material [sic] of our creative industries." The use of
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications
Commission
1
2 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
19-06-11 15(53Creative Canada: A Critical Look at a "New" Cultural Policy Framework | CRTC
Page 2 sur 10https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/acrtc/prx/2019laporte.htm
terms such as "creative industries" and "creators" as opposed to "cultural industries" and "artists" is not benign for, as argued by Ira Wells, "the problem with
Creative Canada is not that it devotes money to artists. It's that it treats those artists as tech entrepreneurs." Effectively, it can be argued that this discursive
shift is symptomatic of a larger socio-economic project that re-signifies the meaning of culture by positioning creativity as a pillar of the immaterial economy. In
this context, we may be tempted to ask if the CCPF is only paying lip service to Canada's "creators" to the benefit of the "new economy's" ideological project.
The repurposing of culture, under the tentacular guise of creativity, can be read as a symptom and cog of the neoliberal reorganization of the social, with
correlating impacts on the conception of labour and of the role that artists play in this reorganization. On this note, following Michel Foucault's ideas, Aras
Ozgun posits: "neo-liberalism[sic], as the ideological component of post-Fordism, is not merely a corrupt economic formula but an advanced form of
governmentality that re-negotiates the social field through biopolitical interventions." Considering the fact that artistic labour has historically been
characterized by precarity and that, in the "new economy," artists have been positioned as post-Fordist workers par excellence, the normalization of precarity
as feature of participation in the creative economy has significant biopolitical implications, which Creative Canada anchors as part of official governmental
discourse.
Post-Digital Disruption
The CCPF unequivocally positions itself as a response to the disruptions brought about by the digital turn in ICTs, which has changed the ways in which
Canadians create, consume, and distribute cultural assets. Broadband Internet, social media, accessible prosumer technology, and "24/7" digital lifestyles have
necessarily altered the national cultural policy toolkit's playing field and the effectiveness of walled-garden-oriented cultural governance strategies. In the
Canadian Content in a Digital World consultations' framing document, the Department of Canadian Heritage notes that "times have changed and the tools the
government uses to support Canada's creators and cultural entrepreneurs must keep up with consumption habits and technological change." Effectively,
few would disagree that the national cultural policy toolkit needs a facelift to address the realities of contemporary digital culture. In an early version of a
forthcoming publication, Charles H. Davis and Emilia Zboralska, note the necessity of revising national policy instruments, particularly with regard to
broadcasting, in response to the shakeup exerted upon the cultural industries by the global domination of a small group of digital capitalist firms and the advent
of the audience-as-producer:
Online content distribution is growing by leaps and bounds, audiovisual consumption is shifting away from conventional broadcasting, and foreign
digital platform firms have become powerful new gatekeepers in the content distribution space. It has therefore become urgent to revise national cultural
policy goals and the instruments to attain them in the context of the digital shift.
Changes in the digital media landscape have preoccupied Canadian policy-makers for some time and, given the extent to which the pervasive qualities of
digital culture have effected change upon the social, it is not surprising that the Department of Canadian Heritage has launched a review of its policies. In 2011,
in a report titled Emerging and Digital Media: Opportunities and Challenges, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage noted the extent of changes
effected by digital technologies upon the cultural industries landscape and their implications in relation to, among other issues, preservation of digital heritage
in the face of information overload, media convergence on the Internet, the increased importance of interactive media, and the urgency of copyright reform.
In many ways, this report foreshadowed the CCPF and set the stage for an established need to revise the federal cultural policy toolkit. On this note, it is not
incidental to highlight the report's 19 recommendation which "encourages the Government of Canada to proceed as quickly as possible with the development
of a national digital economy strategy." In this sense, the CCPF can be qualified of "post-digital" in as much as the adjective, Florian Cramer posits, "refers
to a state in which the disruption brought about by digital media has already occurred." In the CCPF, there is no question as to the fact of digital culture as
dominant form of culture and economic engine; the question is how can Canada grab "a bigger piece of the global pie" that digital culture represents. In this
framework, creativity is positioned as a tool that can help ensure that Canadians participate in digital culture and therefore don't "miss out" on its promises¾in
this particular case, economic vitality, reinforced democracy, access to global digital citizenship, and a revitalized Canadian identity.
The CCPF's development is itself demonstrative of adherence to the ethos of the present-day participatory condition, which Darin Barney et al. posit is a
defining element of contemporaneity, whereby participation “has become a contextual feature of everyday life in the liberal, capitalist, and technological
societies of the contemporary West.” As noted above, the CCPF framework came out of the #DigiCanCon consultations, which the CCPF describes as "the
most transparent consultation process ever undertaken by the Department of Canadian Heritage." Effectively, the document states that "thousands of
Canadians took part online, in events in cities across the country, through social media, and in expert roundtable discussions. Hundreds submitted detailed
policy proposals that have helped shape the thinking behind Creative Canada." The government's broad strokes efforts to include the Canadian public in the
revision of its national cultural policy may be laudable in as much as the idea that "our culture reflects who we are and is one of the powerful ways that we
share our identities and values with each other" is a connective thread that runs through the Canadian Content in a Digital World document and the CCPF.
This vision of Canadian culture is coherent with the "'whole way of life'¾or anthropological¾concept of culture," which as Zoë Druick has proposed, "refers to
all meaning-making, symbol- and text-producing enterprises, many of which have become central to a digital economy based on information, knowledge, and
creation." If culture is all encompassing¾and recuperable under (digital) capitalism¾democratic consultation of the population that exerts culture through its
way of life appears to be a given. In fact, not consulting the population that produces the culture that will be affected by Canada's new cultural policy
framework could have been considered a terrible faux pas, especially given the ease with which the population can be consulted in the era of Twitter, Survey
Monkey, and Facebook polls. However, upon investigation, the #DigiCanCon consultations appear to be in line with what Mark Andrejevic has termed the
"pacification of interactivity" or "the ways in which participation is redoubled in the form of interactivity when it generates information about itself that can be
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
th
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
19-06-11 15(53Creative Canada: A Critical Look at a "New" Cultural Policy Framework | CRTC
Page 3 sur 10https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/acrtc/prx/2019laporte.htm
construed as feedback but not collaboration." Comparing Creative Canada's consultation process to the development of Québec's Plan culturel numérique,
which was developed and launched prior to the commencement of the #DigiCanCon consultations, Jonathan Roberge et al. note a lack of scientific rigour in
the former:
"fact-checked or evidence-based policymaking […] is a proven way to solidify the ground on which to decide the best way forward. But Joly’s ministry appears
to have decided to eschew this time-consuming method." When further compared to the exhaustive process that the 1949-1951 Royal Commission on
National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences entailed, the #DigiCanCon consultations appear to have served an interactive, rather than iterative,
purpose in the development of Creative Canada's framework, fulfilling their role as "leading tools of policy justification."
All that Shines is Not New
In the English version of the Creative Canada Policy Framework, the word "new" appears 82 times on 26 of the document's 38 pages. The word "digital" is
also used on 26 pages and boasts 99 appearances throughout the document. Combined, "innovation" and its derivatives come up 39 times and are present
on almost half of the document's pages. Apart from suggesting that the Department of Canadian Heritage would benefit from using a thesaurus, this quick
overview of some of the CCPF's key words points to a deliberate effort to anchor Creative Canada within a framework that embraces "newness." In the CCPF,
the abstracted concept of "the digital" stands in for "the new" and is portrayed as imbued with unharnessed cultural and economic potential. The CCPF's one-
sided embrace of digital culture's ideals¾advocating for the harnessing of its potential through active participation in the creative economy¾is exemplified in
the following statement:
Today, we have an enormous opportunity in Canada: our creative industries can be a vital part of our future economic growth and our identity as a
country. To achieve this, we must act, just as deliberately as we have in the past, to ensure our policies remain relevant in an ever more interconnected
and digital world.
However, contemporary communication and media scholarship provides ample documentation of digital culture’s “failure” to uphold the utopian ideals of non-
hierarchical, direct, and self-organized democracy, for which technologically mediated participation has stood-in as a means and ends. Least of which is the
paradoxical nature of the very concept of new media that, following Wendy Hui Kyong Chun's arguments, involves built-in redundancy for “to call something
new is to guarantee that it will one day be old; it is to place it within a cycle of obsolescence, in which it will inevitably disappoint and be replaced by something
else that promises, once again, the new.” Following this logic, the self-proclaimed "newness" of the Creative Canada Policy Framework might be understood
as counterproductive and as self-prophesising as a policy framework in a perpetual state of becoming-obsolete. Effectively, Chun reminds us that “anticipation
coupled with knowing disappointment drives new media’s ephemerality and its endurance” and further discourages the use of the epithet "new" as she
observes:
To call X "new" is to categorize it, to describe and prescribe it, while at the same time insisting that X is wonderful, singular, without opposite or
precedent. This insistence more often than not erases X's previous existence (as a case in point, the "discovery" of the "new world").
The CCPF claims that it builds upon the foundation set by the cultural policy developments of the last decades, but it simultaneously rejects these by labelling
them "of the past" and labelling itself "of the future." This rhetoric diminishes the gradual build-up of contextual and policy developments that have shaped the
environment in which cultural production currently finds itself. The present paper is concerned with studying the ways in which this framework solidifies the
process whereby Canadian cultural policy has, over the last few decades, taken a neoliberal turn. This is particularly evident in a discursive shift that positions
culture as a constitutive element of the creative industries, which are themselves seen as constitutive elements of the creative economy. An investigation of the
development of this paradigm allows us to question the validity of Creative Canada's positioning as a "new" and "innovative" approach to cultural policy.
Rather, Creative Canada may best be understood as the most recent development within a continuity of cultural policy discourses and measures that have
gradually positioned culture as part of the economy, rather than in abstracto of it.
Neoliberalization of Canadian Cultural Policy
It should be noted that, while Creative Canada was launched in late 2017, few scholarly analyses of its implications have been produced to date. This is likely
due to the fact that many of Creative Canada's policy reforms are in their initial developmental stages or have yet to be implemented. Further, as Davis and
Zboralska propose, critical reception of the CCPF as a whole has in part been eclipsed by public outcry over the framework's reinforcement of asymmetrical
responsibilities imposed on international and domestic digital content distributors:
A controversial issue concerning the so-called "Netflix tax" has cast a shadow over public response to the CCPF, focusing attention on a highly
contentious aspect of Canadian cultural policy: partition of the domestic media ecosystem into a regulated conventional sphere and an unregulated
digital sphere.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
19-06-11 15(53Creative Canada: A Critical Look at a "New" Cultural Policy Framework | CRTC
Page 4 sur 10https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/acrtc/prx/2019laporte.htm
Effectively, this issue has monopolized much of mainstream media's coverage of the CCPF announcement and has notably ignited anxieties about the
extension of francophone linguistic and cultural sovereignty to the digital sphere. As a result, the province of Québec has retaliated with an announcement that
it would implement sales tax on foreign-owned digital distributor products.
Much could be written about the implications of asymmetries between traditional broadcasting and digital distribution that have been exacerbated, rather than
alleviated, by the CCPF. For the purposes of the current paper however, it suffices to say that the federal government's refusal to regulate the digital infosphere
and the public's subsequent reception of this decision testify to two interconnected ideas. On the one hand, the potential threat to Canadian digital content
producers and distributors posed by international firms with a monopoly-like grip on online content distribution highlights the necessity to update the national
cultural policy framework, which is arguably ill-equipped to respond to the now ubiquitous platform capitalism, the emergence of which constitutes a major
milestone of the digital turn in ICTs. On the other hand, the federal government's approach to the revision of the national cultural policy toolkit, as outlined in
the CCPF, testifies to an extent to a neoliberal ethos denoting a free-market approach to culture. Laissez-faire ideology is evidenced by the CCPF's positioning
of platforms such as Netflix and Facebook as "new players and new partners" that will "[help] grow our creative industries with investments in production and
distribution," and play a role in "promoting informed digital citizenship." It can be argued that this stance demonstrates allegiance to David Harvey's
definition of neoliberalism: "a theory of political economic practices that proposes that human well-being can best be advanced by liberating individual
entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institutional framework characterized by strong private property rights, free market, and free trade." Within this
context, Harvey notes that "the role of the state is to create and preserve an institutional framework appropriate to such practices," and that "state interventions
in markets (once created) must be kept to a bare minimum." It appears that the federal government's approach with regard to free enterprise online and
focus on marketability of Canadian content, i.e. "not attempting to regulate content on the Internet, but focusing on how to best support Canada’s creators and
cultural entrepreneurs in creating great content and in competing globally for both Canadian and international audiences," is attuned to Harvey's definition of
neoliberalism. Of course, it would be unjustified to qualify Creative Canada, in its entirety, as a neoliberal enterprise based solely on the controversial decision
not to even out the digital content distribution playing field by submitting international firms to the same restrictions as those faced by their domestic
counterparts. In fact, Creative Canada introduces a number of interventionist measures¾namely important subsidies to the cultural sector¾, which complicates
a reading of the CCPF as strictly aligned with free market capitalism. This effectively points to the fact that the Canadian context, as far as cultural industries
are concerned, is not one of complete political economic laissez-faire. Nevertheless, the CCPF stands in as evidence of the influence of neoliberal ideology on
Canadian cultural policy.
In a recent article on the role of artistic labour in the "new economy," Marc-James Léger notes the global neoliberal tendency in contemporary cultural policy,
which testifies to a shift from protectionist to market-driven approaches to culture:
After the Depression and the Second World War, Western governments began to integrate the arts into the welfare state and to develop cultural policies
based on the belief that culture should not be sacrificed to free market principles. Since the 1990s […] the idea of protecting culture from market forces
has been almost completely reversed, with creative industry policies now leading the way in the development of new markets."
Léger's analysis provides an overarching narrative that situates culture as part of the shift that has occurred, in the global North, from Keynesianism to
neoliberalism. This account is coherent with that of others who have traced changes in the conception of culture, as far as its contributions to social life and to
the economy are concerned, with a discursive shift from "cultural industries" to "creative industries." Susan Galloway and Stewart Dunlop have argued that
this shift coincides with a parallel process whereby "culture is abandoned as elitist and exclusive, [and] 'creativity' is embraced as democratic and inclusive."
In this light, the CCPF's deliberate use of the term "creative industries" as opposed to "cultural industries" is notable for it anchors the policy framework within
a particular ideological mindset that obscures the distinctive¾symbolic and meaning-producing¾qualities of culture. Effectively, the CCPF states:
Our vision of a Creative Canada is based on this expanded view. It starts with heritage, the arts and the cultural industries – books, magazines,
newspapers, audiovisual (film and television), music. In our vision, we move deliberately to using “creative industries” to include a wider range of
industries that contribute to the creative sector: design, fashion, architecture, video games, digital media and multiplatform storytelling – transmedia.
The intent is to recognize their role as employers and producers in the creative economy.
As demonstrated above, and consistent with Galloway and Dunlop's aforementioned assessment, in the CCPF, the economic valorization of culture becomes
associated with a broadened definition of the activities that produce culture.
In "Continuity and Change in the Discourse of Canada's Cultural Industries," Zoë Druick asks scholars to consider the changing definitions of key terms
encompassed under "the cultural industries" and how they "have taken shape over time in relation to numerous economic and discursive struggles around
common-sense notions of the nature and value of creativity." Effectively, the very development of the creative industries discourse¾which post- Creative
Canada, has officially replaced that of the cultural industries in Canada,¾is demonstrative of a shift in the valorization of culture. In his analysis of the advent of
creative industries discourse in the UK, Terry Flew posits: "creative industries policies differed significantly from traditional cultural policy in their stronger focus
on economic wealth generation, and the significance given to creative entrepreneurs and the private sector rather than publicly funded culture." Creativity, as
must-have quality for the post-Fordist immaterial worker, finds a natural ally in creative industries discourse that dilutes the concept of culture as it transitions
from an anthropologically driven to an economically connoted definition. Effectively, as Galloway and Dunlop have argued, "conflating culture with other
creative activities […] fails to recognise the distinctive aspect of symbolic culture" in addition to flattening culture as "just one more 'knowledge economy
asset.'"
36
37
38 39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
19-06-11 15(53Creative Canada: A Critical Look at a "New" Cultural Policy Framework | CRTC
Page 5 sur 10https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/acrtc/prx/2019laporte.htm
As its name indicates, the concept of creativity is front and centre in Creative Canada. The same can be said of other creative industries policies that have been
produced since the term was first coined under Britain's New Labour government in the late 1990s and subsequently exported. Compared to its
counterparts in the global North, Canada appears to have lagged behind in terms of promoting a unified vision of a creative industries policy. In a 2008 Fuse
Magazine article, Kirsty Robertson noted Canada's reluctance to refer to the term "creative industries" in its cultural policies even though the economic
potential of culture had long been recognized and embraced. Robertson located the root of this reluctance to an internalized association of culture as an
essential element of Canadian identity that the government, through its policies, is meant to protect. This view, she posited, clashes with the market-focused
approach to culture that is characteristic of the "creative industries" mindset:
To privatize culture creates a rift directly through the state-funded culture that is often referred to as separating Canada from the United States and
giving Canada an identity in the global sphere. This isn't to say that culture and nationality aren't increasingly privatized in Canada. Rather, where
information technology and intellectual property meet notions of a protected national culture, the discourse of creative industries collapses under its
own weight.
Ten years after the publication of this article, Creative Canada has marked a shift within Canadian cultural policy discourse; it is now full steam ahead for the
creative industries. This said, if we consider that "the concept of creative industries is trying to chart an historical shift from subsidized 'public arts' and
broadcast era media, towards new and broader applications of creativity," we can follow the trail of the developments of a creative industries discourse in
Canada through breadcrumbs left behind by the influence of neoliberal ideology on cultural policy.
Druick traces the development of Canadian neoliberal cultural policy back to the mid-1980s when, under the Mulroney government, the "Department of
Communication (DOC) undertook a full review of its mandate and embraced the principle of free flow information," which led to the development of
parliamentary acts that "worked to converge telecommunication infrastructure and cultural industries with a set of shifts to market-driven strategies for the
cultural sector, opening up the possibilities for the free trade agreements that followed." Discussing the aforementioned changes enacted at the level of the
Department of Communication, Druick notes: "this neoliberal direction offered to collapse cultural policy into the development of the cultural industries
themselves. This marked a shift from an earlier view of Canadian cultural institutions and industries as serving the common good as well as particular national
policy goals." This ideological shift is also noted by Sabine Milz in her study of the rise of neoliberal discourse in Canadian cultural policy. Citing David
Throsby’s Economics and Culture, Milz proposes that "the separation of autonomous high culture and the industrial aspects of culture that shaped postwar
Canadian cultural policy discourse started to weaken in the 1970s as the focus of cultural policy-making 'began to shift towards a more functional view of
culture with the emerging recognition of the cultural industries as engines of economic dynamism and societal transformation.'" Arguably, Creative Canada
represents the culmination of parallel discursive and ideological shifts that have taken place since the middle of the 20 century from high art, to cultural
industries, to creative industries, and from walled-garden to free flow information. On this note, it is important to highlight that, from the onset, Creative Canada
rejected the protectionist mind frame that characterized developments in cultural governance post Massey Commission. As noted by Robertson, this
mindset continued to mark the popular imaginary well into the 21 century even though neoliberal approaches to culture had in effect started to erode
protectionist ideals. Creative Canada marks a clean break from this ambiguous position. The document issued by the Department of Canadian Heritage as a
way to frame the Canadian Content in a Digital World consultations is unequivocal on the matter. Recognizing that the 21 century digital conjecture calls for a
renewed cultural policy mindset, the document states:
Our thinking is evolving from:
protecting Canadian culture [sic] promoting and supporting Canadian culture
focusing on growing the domestic market [sic] capturing a greater share of global markets
[…]
seeing culture primarily as a social phenomenon [sic] embracing culture’s unrealized potential as a driver of economic growth, both in the creative
sector and more broadly
Indeed, we have come very far from the expressed need to "defend" Canadian ideals through culture advocated by those at the helm of the Royal Commission
on the National Development in the Arts, Letters, and Sciences.
However, it is important to note that protectionist-like rhetoric still lurks in the background of Creative Canada. On this note, the following statement included in
the Creative Canada Policy Framework is of particular relevance: "Creative Canada affirms the core responsibilities of the Government to protect and promote
Canadian culture and identity in a digital environment." It is interesting to highlight the continued use of a pro-Canadian identity discourse within the Creative
Canada framework given that, as remarked above, it is illustrative of neoliberal ideological tendencies. Effectively, while the CCPF discourse prioritizes
marketable culture, as opposed to the market-failure orientation of post-war Canadian cultural policy, Creative Canada goes hand in hand with the Trudeau
government's announcement in 2016 of $1.9 billion in new funding to the creative sector. These subsidies may appear at odds with the neoliberal free market
ethos but, as Sabine Milz's study of the emergence of neoliberal discourse in Canadian cultural policy demonstrates, are coherent with an ideological shift from
the valorization of culture for its intrinsic worth, to the valorization of culture as an agent of economic growth:
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
th
61
st
st
62
63
64
65
19-06-11 15(53Creative Canada: A Critical Look at a "New" Cultural Policy Framework | CRTC
Page 6 sur 10https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/acrtc/prx/2019laporte.htm
In the context of “Canadian culture,” policy attempts to create a strong national culture by means of an interventionist system have protected domestic
cultural industries from direct market dependency while creating dependency on the state, whose itineraries at present are neoliberal and oriented in
particular toward competitiveness with the United States. Canada’s protectionist cultural policy approach is now part of the discourse of Canadian
neoliberalism, of the latter’s attempt to profitably incorporate the ideological and aesthetic potential of culture and cultural production into its economic
potential while simultaneously decreeing as “public interest” the commercialization of cultural goods, policies, and functions.
The economic justification argument for the support of arts and culture is not new. In fact, it has arguably been on Canadian cultural policy's radar from the
onset of neoliberal discourse, which Monica Gattinger and Diane St-Pierre have linked to "emphases on the economic dimension of culture and the cultural
industries." While usefulness and adequacy of approaches to justifying cultural subsidies based on economic impact models are questionable, it remains
that measuring culture's economic benefits has been, and continues to be, a much used discursive and ideological method to push the cultural subsidy agenda
forward.
Conclusion
As a cultural policy framework, Creative Canada is in its early days and it is too soon to empirically study its impacts. However, given the significance of
discursive and ideological changes enacted through the Creative Canada Policy Framework, it will be an essential task of cultural policy scholars to monitor the
impact of the revisions to the federal cultural policy toolkit that it entails. This monitoring is particularly relevant given the fact that the CCPF is overtly driven by
neoliberalism's embrace of creativity as panacea of the immaterial economy. As this paper has demonstrated, the shift from protectionist to market-driven
approaches in Canadian cultural policy, paralleled by a transition from cultural to creative industries discourse, has been in the works for decades and has only
been solidified by the CCPF. As such, we may question the extent to which the framework offers a "new" approach to cultural governance and highlight the fact
that it adopts a single-sided perspective on digital culture's potential. While it is not surprising that, in this framework, culture is instrumentalized as vector of
economic growth, there are significant implications of its subsumption under the neoliberal cult of creativity and its reorganization as contributing not to the
social but to the economy. In this context, it will be particularly important to monitor the effects of the CCPF on the various fields of cultural activity that,
whether traditionally or not, now find themselves folded into the creative industries. Effectively, the extent at which market-failure cultural activities are
compatible with creative industries policies is an open question. This brings to light the necessity to pay attention to dynamics of failure in the revision of
Canadian cultural policy frameworks, which have historically been tied to the support of market-failure activities. In the digital age, cultural policy measures
might similarly be understood as serving a counterweight function; that is, as a way of addressing digital culture's "failed promises."
Bibliography
Albornoz, Luis A., and Ma. Trinidad García Leiva, eds. Audio-Visual Industries and Diversity: Economics and Policies in the Digital Era. 1st edition. New York:
Routledge, 2019.
Andrejevic, Mark. “The Pacification of Interactivity.” In The Participatory Condition in the Digital Age, edited by Darin Barney, Gabriella Coleman, Christine Ross,
Jonathan Sterne, and Tamar Tembeck, 187–206. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2016.
Barney, Darin, Gabriella Coleman, Christine Ross, Jonathan Sterne, and Tamar Tembeck. “The Participatory Condition: An Introduction.” In The Participatory
Condition in the Digital Age, edited by Darin Barney, Gabriella Coleman, Christine Ross, Jonathan Sterne, and Tamar Tembeck, vii–xxxix. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 2016.
Charnley, Kim. “Art on the Brink: Bare Art and the Crisis of Liberal Democracy.” In Delirium and Resistance: Activist Art and the Crisis of Capitalism, by Gregory
Sholette, 1–16. edited by Kim Charnley. London: Pluto Press, 2017.
Chun, Wendy Hui Kyong. “Somebody Said New Media.” In New Media, Old Media: A History and Theory Reader, edited by Wendy Hui Kyong Chun, Anna
Watkins Fisher, and Thomas Keenan, 2nd edition., 1–16. New York: Routledge, 2016.
Cramer, Florian. “What Is ‘Post-Digital’?” In New Media, Old Media: A History and Theory Reader, edited by Wendy Hui Kyong Chun, Anna Watkins Fisher, and
Thomas Keenan, 2nd edition., 689–702. New York: Routledge, 2016.
Davis, Charles H, and Emilia Zboralska. “Cultural Policy in the Time of Digital Disruption: The Case of Creative Canada,” June 20, 2018.
https://munkschool.utoronto.ca/ipl/files/2018/08/Davis-Zboralska-Creative-Canada-20-June-2018.pdf.
Department of Canadian Heritage. Canadian Content in a Digital World: Focusing the Conversation Consultation Paper. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Heritage, 2016.
---. Creative Canada: Policy Framework. Documents Collection. Gatineau, QC: Canadian Heritage, 2017. http://www.deslibris.ca/ID/10095115.
---. “Video - Creative Canada - Minister Joly.” Government of Canada, October 3, 2017. https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/campaigns/creative-
canada/video-transcript-minister-joly.html.
66
67 68
69
19-06-11 15(53Creative Canada: A Critical Look at a "New" Cultural Policy Framework | CRTC
Page 7 sur 10https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/acrtc/prx/2019laporte.htm
Druick, Zoë. “Continuity and Change in the Discourse of Canada’s Cultural Industries.” In Cultural Industries.ca: Making Sense of Canadian Media in the Digital
Age, edited by Ira Wagman and Peter Urquhart, 131–46. Toronto: James Lorimer & Co, 2012.
Flew, Terry. “From Culture Industries to Cultural Economy.” In The Creative Industries: Culture and Policy, 59–82. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2012.
---. “Origins of Creative Industries Policy.” In The Creative Industries: Culture and Policy, 9–32. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2012.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446288412.
Galloway, Susan, and Stewart Dunlop. “A Critique of Definitions of the Cultural and Creative Industries in Public Policy.” International Journal of Cultural Policy
13, no. 1 (2007): 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286630701201657.
Gattinger, Monica. The Roots of Culture, the Power of Art: The First Sixty Years of the Canada Council for the Arts. Montreal, QC; Kingston, ON: McGill-Queen’s
University Press, 2017.
Gattinger, Monica, and Diane Saint-Pierre. “The ‘Neoliberal Turn’ in Provincial Cultural Policy and Administration in Québec and Ontario: The Emergence of
‘Quasi-Neoliberal’ Approaches.” Canadian Journal of Communication 35, no. 2 (2010): 279–302.
Harvey, David. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Leblanc, Daniel. “Mélanie Joly Draws Lessons from Her Cabinet Demotion.” The Globe and Mail. September 14, 2018.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-melanie-joly-draws-lessons-from-her-cabinet-demotion/.
Léger, Marc-James. “Neither Artist Nor Worker.” esse arts + opinions, no. 94 (2018): 18–25.
---. “The Non-Productive Role of the Artist: The Creative Industries in Canada.” Third Text 24, no. 5 (2010): 557–570.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09528822.2010.502774.
McRobbie, Angela. “‘Everyone Is Creative’: Artists as Pioneers of the New Economy?” In Culture and Contestation in the New Century, edited by Marc James
Léger, 77–92. Bristol, UK; Chicago, US: Intellect, 2011.
Milz, Sabine. “Canadian Cultural Policy-Making at a Time of Neoliberal Globalization.” English Studies in Canada 33, no. 1/2 (June 2007): 85–107.
Ozgun, Aras. “Creative Industries: Neo-Liberalism as Mass Deception.” In Culture and Contestation in the New Century, edited by Marc James Léger, 105–23.
Bristol, UK; Chicago, US: Intellect, 2011.
Roberge, Jonathan, Lyne Nantel, and Andreanne Rousseau. “Who Needs a Plan Anyway? Digital Cultural Policymaking as the Art of Navigating through
Uncertainties.” The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 47, no. 5 (2017): 300–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632921.2017.1366381.
Robertson, Kirsty. “Crude Culture: The Creative Industries in Canada.” Fuse Magazine 31, no. 2 (2008): 12–21.
Srnicek, Nick. Platform Capitalism. Theory Redux. Cambridge, UK$; Malden, MA: Polity, 2017.
Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage (The Honourable Michael Chong, M.P., Chair). Emerging and Digital Media: Opportunities and Challenges. Report of
the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Ottawa: Canada Parliament House of Commons, 2011. http://deslibris.ca/ID/227502.
Wells, Ira. “Why Canada’s New Cultural Policy Will Be Terrible for the Arts.” The Walrus, January 30, 2018. https://thewalrus.ca/why-canadas-new-cultural-
policy-will-be-terrible-for-the-arts/.
Footnotes
See Department of Canadian Heritage, Canadian Content in a Digital World: Focusing the Conversation Consultation Paper (Ottawa, ON: Canadian
Heritage, 2016).
1
The federal government's use of Youtube to host its audiovisual content serves as a case in point to demonstrate the extent of the digital disruption
at play in the Canadian ICT landscape.
2
Honourable Mélanie Joly was Minister of Canadian Heritage at the time of Creative Canada's launch. She has since been, some may argue,
"demoted" to the Ministry of Tourism, Official Languages, and La Francophonie following the reception of Creative Canada. See Daniel Leblanc,
“Mélanie Joly Draws Lessons from Her Cabinet Demotion,” The Globe and Mail, September 14, 2018,
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-melanie-joly-draws-lessons-from-her-cabinet-demotion/.
3
Department of Canadian Heritage, “Video - Creative Canada - Minister Joly,” Government of Canada, October 3, 2017,
https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/campaigns/creative-canada/video-transcript-minister-joly.html.
4
Department of Canadian Heritage, Creative Canada Policy Framework, Documents Collection (Gatineau, QC: Canadian Heritage, 2017), 5,
http://www.deslibris.ca/ID/10095115.
5
19-06-11 15(53Creative Canada: A Critical Look at a "New" Cultural Policy Framework | CRTC
Page 8 sur 10https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/acrtc/prx/2019laporte.htm
Ibid.
6
Ibid.
7
Department of Canadian Heritage, Creative Canada Policy Framework, 3.
8
Ibid., 13.
9
Ira Wells, “Why Canada’s New Cultural Policy Will Be Terrible for the Arts,” The Walrus, January 30, 2018, https://thewalrus.ca/why-canadas-new-
cultural-policy-will-be-terrible-for-the-arts/.
10
See Kim Charnley, “Art on the Brink: Bare Art and the Crisis of Liberal Democracy,” in Delirium and Resistance: Activist Art and the Crisis of
Capitalism, by Gregory Sholette, ed. Kim Charnley (London: Pluto Press, 2017), 1–16; Angela McRobbie, “‘Everyone Is Creative’: Artists as Pioneers
of the New Economy?,” in Culture and Contestation in the New Century, ed. Marc James Léger (Bristol, UK; Chicago, US: Intellect, 2011), 77–92;
Marc-James Léger, “The Non-Productive Role of the Artist: The Creative Industries in Canada,” Third Text 24, no. 5 (2010): 557–570,
https://doi.org/10.1080/09528822.2010.502774.
11
Aras Ozgun, “Creative Industries: Neo-Liberalism as Mass Deception,” in Culture and Contestation in the New Century, ed. Marc James Léger
(Bristol, UK; Chicago, US: Intellect, 2011), 108.
12
See Isabell Lorey, "Governmentality and Self-Precarization: On the Normalization of Cultural Producers," translated by Lisa Rosenblatt and Dagmar
Fink, Transversal Journal (January 2006), http://eipcp.net/transversal/1106/lorey/en.
13
Department of Canadian Heritage, Canadian Content in a Digital World, 4.
14
Charles H Davis and Emilia Zboralska, “Cultural Policy in the Time of Digital Disruption: The Case of Creative Canada,” June 20, 2018, 1,
https://munkschool.utoronto.ca/ipl/files/2018/08/Davis-Zboralska-Creative-Canada-20-June-2018.pdf. This paper is an early version of a
forthcoming chapter in Luis A. Albornoz and Ma. Trinidad García Leiva, eds., Audio-Visual Industries and Diversity: Economics and Policies in the
Digital Era, 1st edition (New York: Routledge, 2019).
15
Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage (The Honourable Michael Chong, M.P., Chair), Emerging and Digital Media: Opportunities and Challenges,
Report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage (Ottawa: Canada Parliament House of Commons, 2011), http://deslibris.ca/ID/227502.
16
Ibid., 43.
17
Florian Cramer, “What Is ‘Post-Digital’?,” in New Media, Old Media: A History and Theory Reader, ed. Wendy Hui Kyong Chun, Anna Watkins Fisher,
and Thomas Keenan, 2nd edition (New York: Routledge, 2016), 696.
18
Department of Canadian Heritage, Canadian Content in a Digital World, 7.
19
Darin Barney et al., “The Participatory Condition: An Introduction,” in The Participatory Condition in the Digital Age, ed. Darin Barney et al.
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2016), vii.
20
Department of Canadian Heritage, Creative Canada Policy Framework, 6.
21
Ibid.
22
Department of Canadian Heritage, Canadian Content in a Digital World, 8.
23
Zoë Druick, “Continuity and Change in the Discourse of Canada’s Cultural Industries,” in Cultural Industries.ca: Making Sense of Canadian Media in
the Digital Age, ed. Ira Wagman and Peter Urquhart (Toronto: James Lorimer & Co, 2012), 132.
24
Andrejevic, Mark, “The Pacification of Interactivity,” in The Participatory Condition in the Digital Age, ed. Darin Barney et al. (Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press, 2016), 189.
25
19-06-11 15(53Creative Canada: A Critical Look at a "New" Cultural Policy Framework | CRTC
Page 9 sur 10https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/acrtc/prx/2019laporte.htm
Jonathan Roberge, Lyne Nantel, and Andreanne Rousseau, “Who Needs a Plan Anyway? Digital Cultural Policymaking as the Art of Navigating
through Uncertainties,” The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 47, no. 5 (2017): 306, https://doi.org/10.1080/10632921.2017.1366381.
26
Monica Gattinger notes the extent of the process: "the group commissioned forty research studies, held public hearings in sixteen major cities across
the country, and reviewed over four hundred and fifty written briefs from groups." See Monica Gattinger, The Roots of Culture, the Power of Art: The
First Sixty Years of the Canada Council for the Arts (Montreal, QC; Kingston, ON: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2017), 27.
27
Jonathan Roberge et al., "Who Needs a Plan Anyway?," 303.
28
Excluding reference to geographical locations such as New York and New Zealand.
29
These include "innovative," "innovator," and "innovate.
30
Department of Canadian Heritage, Creative Canada Policy Framework, 8.
31
Wendy Hui Kyong Chun, “Somebody Said New Media,” in New Media, Old Media: A History and Theory Reader, ed. Wendy Hui Kyong Chun, Anna
Watkins Fisher, and Thomas Keenan, 2nd edition (New York: Routledge, 2016), 1.
32
Ibid., 2.
33
Ibid., 4.
34
Charles H. Davis and Emilia Zboralska, Cultural Policy in the Time of Digital Disruption, 1.
35
See Ibid., 13-15 for a detailed account of the CCPF's reception.
36
See Nick Srnicek, Platform Capitalism, Theory Redux (Cambridge, UK$; Malden, MA: Polity, 2017).
37
Department of Canadian Heritage, Creative Canada Policy Framework, 26.
38
Ibid., 34.
39
David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 2.
40
Ibid.
41
Department of Canadian Heritage, Canadian Content in a Digital World, 7.
42
Marc-James Léger, “Neither Artist Nor Worker,” esse arts + opinions, no. 94 (2018): 20.
43
See Terry Flew, “From Culture Industries to Cultural Economy,” in The Creative Industries: Culture and Policy (London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2012),
59–82; Susan Galloway and Stewart Dunlop, “A Critique of Definitions of the Cultural and Creative Industries in Public Policy,” International Journal of
Cultural Policy 13, no. 1 (2007): 17–32, https://doi.org/10.1080/10286630701201657.
44
Susan Galloway and Stewart Dunlop, "A Critique of Definitions," 18.
45
Susan Galloway and Stewart Dunlop, "A Critique of Definitions," 19.
46
Department of Canadian Heritage, Creative Canada Policy Framework, 12.
47
Zoë Druick, "Continuity and Change," 132.
48
Terry Flew, “Origins of Creative Industries Policy,” in The Creative Industries: Culture and Policy (London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2012), 9–32,
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446288412.
49
See Angela McRobbie, "'Everyone is Creative.'"
50
19-06-11 15(53Creative Canada: A Critical Look at a "New" Cultural Policy Framework | CRTC
Page 10 sur 10https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/acrtc/prx/2019laporte.htm
Date modified:
2019-06-05
Susan Galloway and Stewart Dunlop, "A Critique of Definitions," 25.
51
Ibid., 16.
52
Ibid., 25.
53
See Terry Flew, "The Origins of Creative Industries Policy," 9–32 and Susan Galloway and Stewart Dunlop, "A Critique of Definitions," 18.
54
Kirsty Robertson, “Crude Culture: The Creative Industries in Canada,” Fuse Magazine 31, no. 2 (2008): 16.
55
Stuart Cunningham cited in Terry Flew, "From Cultural Industries to Cultural Economy," 59-82.
56
Effectively, in his discussion of Robertson's text, Marc-James Léger has posited that, even though the term "creative industries" had not been
adopted by policy-makers per se pre- Creative Canada, Canadian national cultural policy has nevertheless demonstrates adherence to the creative
industries ethos. See Marc-James Léger, "The Non-Productive Role of the Artist."
57
Zoë Druick, "Continuity and Change," 141.
58
Ibid., 142.
59
Sabine Milz, “Canadian Cultural Policy-Making at a Time of Neoliberal Globalization,” English Studies in Canada 33, no. 1/2 (June 2007): 91.
60
Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences (Vincent Massey et al.), Report of the Royal Commission on National
Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences, 1949-1951 (Ottawa: E. Cloutier, Printer to the King, 1951).
61
Department of Canadian Heritage, Canadian Content in a Digital World, 4.
62
See Monica Gattinger, The Roots of Culture, 28-29.
63
Department of Canadian Heritage, Creative Canada Policy Framework, 6.
64
Ibid.
65
Sabine Milz, "Canadian Cultural Policy-Making," 92-93.
66
Monica Gattinger and Diane Saint-Pierre, “The ‘Neoliberal Turn’ in Provincial Cultural Policy and Administration in Québec and Ontario: The
Emergence of ‘Quasi-Neoliberal’ Approaches,” Canadian Journal of Communication 35, no. 2 (2010): 281.
67
See Terry Flew, "From Cultural Industries to Cultural Economies," and Susan Galloway and Stewart Dunlop "A Critique of Definitions."
68
For example, Monica Gattinger has noted the Canada Council for the arts' use of this rhetoric in the 1990s when facing budget cut threats in the
context of neoliberalism-inclined "lean-government" priorities (see Monica Gattinger, The Roots of Culture, 62-65). It should also be noted that the
CCPF makes ample use of this rhetoric as it boasts statistics of the economic impact of culture (See Department of Canadian Heritage, Creative
Canada Policy Framework, 7).
69