The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has recently undertaken a consultation on defining Canadian programming in the film and television industry.
A longstanding focus has been to base the definition of Canadian programming on having Canadian citizens or permanent residents occupying key creative or ownership positions in film and television. Similar definitions are used in Canada for other cultural industries such as music, publishing and the arts.
However, the growth of online content has challenged longstanding approaches that were developed when national borders played a larger role in media markets. Today, a new generation of artists and online creators are less likely to see their markets or identities confined by national boundaries.
This has also highlighted barriers faced by others, long ignored, who don’t necessarily define their cultural identity by their nationality. This can include people from other countries who want to pursue arts and culture careers in Canada, Indigenous communities or anyone who defines their identity by anything other than their citizenship.
Systemic bias
An important reason for underrepresentation in cultural industries is the citizenship-based approach to Canadian content used by the CRTC in audiovisual policy and the federal and provincial governments in a variety of culture programs.
This approach creates preferential access to opportunities for people who are much more likely to be white.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission has stated that progress towards eliminating systemic racism and discrimination in a meaningful way will remain elusive as long as any doubt remains about the existence of systemic racism in Canada.
Canadian audiovisual policy illustrates that systemic racism does exist and remains embedded in Canadian culture policy.
The 2021 census indicated that around one-quarter of Canada’s population is racialized. That includes 69.3 per cent of immigrants and 83.1 per cent of non-permanent residents.
The census also shows that racialized people are underrepresented in all cultural industries, such as film and television, music, publishing and performing arts. Those who are able to work in cultural occupations often earn far less than their non-racialized counterparts.
As the Ontario Human Rights Commission has stated:
“Organizations must ensure that they are not unconsciously engaging in systemic discrimination. This takes vigilance and a willingness to monitor and review numerical data, policies, practices and decision-making processes and organizational culture. It is not acceptable from a human rights perspective for an organization to choose to remain unaware of systemic discrimination or to fail to act when a problem comes to its attention.”
Challenges in the immigration system
The relationship between immigration, underrepresentation and industry growth, success and cultural impact is particularly important for effective Canadian policy because almost all of Canada’s net population growth is due to immigration.
Today, Canada is increasingly using a two-step immigration system in which immigrants are selected from non-permanent residents already living in Canada. It is particularly difficult for a culture industry worker to settle in Canada because they don’t qualify for public funding programs in these industries prior to becoming a permanent resident.
In addition, relevant work they are able to find may not count toward their future immigration applications because it may be self-employment, contract or part-time work, which is the norm in these industries.
There is little effort to either attract foreign workers in these industries or help them integrate into a workforce in which self-employment and contract work is very common, and success is largely determined by access to established networks.
Improving creativity and productivity
Canada’s parochial approach that equates culture with nationality echoes a troubled history of cultural assimilation and discrimination.
The country does not appear to have learned important lessons about the impact of cultural nationalist assimilation from the Truth and Reconciliation process, restrictive immigration policies or the advancement of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
It says to some: your cultural identity is Canadian. It says to others: you’re not a Canadian citizen or permanent resident so anything you create has no cultural value.
Inclusive creative industries allow for the cultural contributions of more people and foster collaboration and new ideas, which are important drivers of a productive industry.
Productivity is significantly lower in Canada than in the United States. High human capital industries like the creative industries are primary drivers of productivity and are supported by the migration of skilled people.
A definition of Canadian content based on citizenship or permanent residency status is often promoted as a way to defend against the influx of American cultural products from Hollywood. However, Hollywood products currently have no citizenship focus. Like all highly successful culture centres, Hollywood has always founded its success on attracting talented people from around the world.
U.S. President Donald Trump’s proposal to impose film tariffs on foreign-produced films similarly does not reflect an understanding that this is a global industry. It is a short step from there to wanting only Americans in key creative and ownership roles. That would restrict Hollywood’s access to global talent and resources, undermine its primary advantage, and undermine the industry’s competitiveness.
Read more: Tax Canadian movies? Why culture has always been at the centre of trade wars
As a leading global destination for immigrants and with aspirations to be inclusive, Canada has the unique potential to become a leading global culture centre with thriving and diverse creative industries.
To achieve this potential, the CRTC and Canadian governments must reorient their policies to develop cultural industries that cultivate great art by talented people, regardless of their identity or where they are from.
John Schoales does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
