PLANET OF THE ARTS vol.4no.2 Brian Mulroney is trying to convince Canadi- ans that the Free Trade Agreement is strictly economic, concerned solely with tariffs and trade. However, prior to signing the deal, he promised to “protect our cultural sovereignty”. If the F.T.A. is strictly economic, why do we need cultural protec- tion at all. The American perception of the implications of Free Trade differ gratly from that of our Prime Minister. No two countries in the world have negotiated as comprehensive and complex an agreement as have Canada and the U.S.A, not within the European Common Market, not between Australia and New Zealand, nor between Israel and the U.S.A. Clayton Yeutter, the U.S. trade repre- sentative for the F.T. negotiations, summed it up this way : “ Canadians don’t understand what they have signed. In 20 years, they will be sucked into the USS. economy.” (Oct. 13, 1987) According to Ronald Reagan (also on Oct. 13, 1987): “ The U.S. - Canada Free Trade Agreement is a new economic constitution for North America. “ Harmonization with the American economy, 10 times larger than ours, involves much more than a little economic dislocation. The long term conse- quences - political, economic and cultural, of embracing “continentalism” under Free Trade, mean that Canadians are facing the most impor- tant issue since Confederation. During the F.T. negotiations, intese lobbying by cultural leaders in Canada prompted Brian Mulroney to promise to protect our cultural inde- pendance. As a result Canadian “cultural indus- tries” were exempted from American ownership and control. This sounds fine until one reads the actual text of the F.T.A.. Indeed, closer examina- tion reveals there are serious inherent flaws within these “exemptions”. The most important point has to do with the definition of what is and what is not a “cultural industry”. The agreement singles out a mere 5 categories for exemption under the F.T.A. : tradi- tional publishing; film and video production;musical recordings; music videos; radio and television. This is tantamount to declaring any “other” activity in Canada as not cultural. “Other” activities would therefore be open to uninhibited, unregulated acquisition by American industry. The acceptance of these five categories by the Mulroney government is a dangerous limitation to Canadian culture and to the future of artists not involved in these five officially recognised industries. he | a § o | 4 Eileen Leier We should further examine some of our existing “cultural industries”. In Canada less than 5% of screen time goes to Canadian movies, while 97% of film profits leave Canada ( 95% of them to the U.S.A. ). Prime time T.V. dramas and sitcoms are just 2-3% Canadian. Canadian owned publish- ers have 20% of our literary market, while 77% of magazines are foreign, as are 85% of all records and tapes. Acase in point is the Canadian film distribu- tion system. Americans have 95% control of film distribution in this country. The unfortunate result is that a Canadian film must have had commercial success in the American market before it can be viewed in our own theatres. One of the first casual- ties of the F.T. negotiations was Communications Minister Flora McDonald’s film distribution bill. This legislation would have forced U.S. companies to distribute in Canana only those films for which they held world rights. Canadians would have been given the opportunity to distribute Australian, French, British, German films etc. therby increas- ing their portion of the Canadian market from 5% to 20% . However, President Ronald Reagan spoke against the bill, and Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, vowed an all out battle against it. After behind-the-scenes discussions with the Mulroney government the issue appears dead. Every independent country worldwide regulates a small portion (less than 15% ) of foreign content into their cultural industries. Canada , on the other hand, is the only country in the world which must fight to retain a small portion of Canadian content against the foreign majority. Protection of the status quo is not enough. We need aggressive expansion in the area of culture to ensure that Canadian artists of all kinds receive equal access to their own cultural industries. Brian Mulroney would have us believe that our cultural industries are exempt from the trade deal. But a “ Not Withstanding Clause” in the agreement allows the Americans to retaliate against Canadian industry should we decide to strengthen our cultural policies. The clause states that the U.S. government can retaliate “to equiva- lent commercial effect” if a Canadian cultural policy is viewed as taking business away from American corporations. Americans can act to an equivalent dollar value against their choice of U.S. bound Canadian exports — be it fish, steel , logs or autos. What future government would have the courage to strengthen cultural policy when faced with the threat of groups of angry steelworkers or fishermen who have lost their jobs due to American export retaliation ? The U.S. government has already threatened that any future Canadian cultural initiatives would be “regrettable”. Future governments would surely stay within “safe” cultural policies. Under the “Not Withstanding Clause”, the C.B.C. , Canada Council, and the C.R.T.C. ( Cana- dian Radio and Television Commission ) regula- tions can be challenged at any time. Washington would consider any new Canadian programming added to these areas to be interference with the profits of the network giants, C.B.S. , N.B.C. and AB.C.. In the words of Daryl Duke (Founder and President of CKVU Television, Vancouver): “Own- ership is programming. If free trade changes the ownership of Canada then free trade will change the way we speak to one another and what we know of ourselves. In the end the hand that holds the shares holds the pen, the camera, the printing press and the T.V. station.” Under the F.T.A. the Mulroney Government and all future governments in Canada will have given up the freedom to create new cultural policies in the national interest. Moreover we will be seriously restricting our ability to evolve culturally into a new century and a new age of media and technological advancements. A nation’s culture must include it’s value system and social framework. Multiculturalism, bilingualism, enviromental protection, universal medicare and daycare, strict fire arms regulation, publicly funded universities, mandatory auto insurance, unemployment insurance etc. are all es- sential elements of Canadian culture. Artists do not create out of a vacuum. Art is a reflection of the larger cultural context, in which we live, imagine and express ourselves. Whether we wish to admit it or not, the F.T.A. is entirely about culture. It involves Canadian culture in the narrow sense as it affects literature, visual art, film,t.v. ,design, dance, music, etc. But free trade is also about culture in a broader sense, affecting the way we live in social and national groupings and the diverse ways in which we perceive ourselves. The rhetoric of the pro-FreeTraders reflects imagery borrowed from old John Wayne and Rambo movies, full of taunts about cowardice and fear, of talk about being competitive and tough enough, of winners and losers. In fact it is these supporters of the F.T.A. who promote fear. They threaten that without greater dependence on the American market place, Canada simply cannot survive. However, there are many more of us who believe that Canada has the resources, the people and the initiative to succeed as a self-determined and independant economy. As it stands today the Canadian economy has the most foreign penetration of any country in the world. Between 1978 and 1985, Statistics Canada reports, U.S. firms took home 1/3 of all profits earned in Canada. These same U.S. companies created only .01% of new jobs in our country. The past performance of American companies in Canada indicates the cost of free trade and increased American ownership will be very high. The F.T.A. is a giant step towards greater depend- ence on the United States, with no guarantees for the future of Canadian interests in jobs, resources regional developement, energy, social services, and, by extention, culture. The F.T.A. was passed by American Congress in a record one-day session. The conservative majority in parliament passed the deal prior to calling an election. There will be no debate to educate Canadians. There will be no referendum to allow us a later choice. The federal election on No- vember 21, 1988 is your chance to say no to the Free Trade Agreement. Your vote will determine the future of Canada. Eileen Leier “Sale Lease MAKE WELLS JOUN GEE COLLIERS MACAULAY NICOLLS osaiii 7 FREE TRAD Brian Mulroney is trying to convince Canad ans that the Free Trade Agreement is strictly ‘economic, concerned solely with tariffs and trade. However, prior to signing the deal, he promised to ‘protect our cultural sovereignty” Ifthe FLA. is strictly economie, why do we need cultural protec tion ata ‘The American perception ofthe implications of Free Trade differ gratly from that of our Prime Minister. No two countries in the world have negotiated as comprehensive and complex an ‘agreement as have Canada and the U:S.A, not within the European Common Market, not between ‘Australia and New Zealand, nor between Israel and the U.S.A. Clayton Yeuttor, the U.S. trade repre- sentative for the F-T. negotiations, summed it up this way : = Canadians don’t understand what they have signed. In 20 years, thoy will be sucked into the US. economy.” (Oct. 18, 1987) ‘According to Ronald Reagan (also on Oct. 19, 1987) “The US. - Canada Free Trade Agrooment is ‘a new economic constitution for North America. © Harmonization with the American economy, 10 times larger than ours, involves much more than. alittle economic dislocation. The long term conse- quences - political, economic and cultural, of embracing “continentalism” under Free Trade, ‘mean that Canadians are facing the most impor- tant issue since Confederation. During the F-T. negotiations, intese lobbying by cultural leaders in Canada prompted Brian ‘Mulroney to promise to protect our cultural inde- pendance. As a result Canadian ‘cultural indus- tries” were exempted from American ownership and control. This sounds fine until one reads the actual text ofthe F-T.A.. Indeed, closer examina- tion reveals there are serious inherent flaws within these “exemptions”. ‘The most important point has to do with the definition of what is and what is nota “cultural industry”. The agreement singles out a mere 5 categories for exemption under the F-T.A.: tradi- tional publishing; film and video production;musical recordings; music videos; radio and television. This is tantamount to declaring any “other” activity in Canada as not cultural. “Other” activities would therefore be open to uninhibited, unregulated acquisition by American industry. The acceptance of these five categories by the Mulroney ‘government is a dangerous limitation to Canadian ‘culture and to the future of artists not involved in these five officially recognised industries. 3 We should further examine some of our ‘existing “cultural industries”. In Canada less than, 156 of screen time goes to Canadian movies, while {97% of film profits leave Canada ( 95% of them to the US.A. ). Prime time TV. dramas and sitcoms are just 2-8% Canadian. Canadian owned publish- cers have 20% of our literary market, while 77% of magazines are foreign, as are 85% of all records and tapes. ‘A case in points the Canadian film distribu. tion system. Americans have 95% control of film distribution in this country. The unfortunate result is that a Canadian film must have had commercial ‘success in the Ameriean market before it ean be viewed in our own theatres. One of the first easual- ties ofthe FT. negotiations was Communications. Minister Flora McDonald's film distribution bil ‘This legislation would have forced U.S. companies to distribute in Canana only those films for which they held world rights. Canadians would have been given the opportunity to distribute Australian, French, British, German films ete. therby increas- ing their portion of the Canadian market from 5% to 20% . However, President Ronald Reagan spoke against the bill, and Jack Valenti, president of the “Motion Picture Association of America, vowed an all out battle agains it. After behind-the-scenes discussions with the Mulroney government the issue appears dead. Every independent country worldwide regulates a small portion (less than 15%) of foreign content into their cultural industries. ‘Canada , on the other hand, is the only country in the world which must fight to retain a small portion of Canadian content against the foreign majority. Protection of the status quo is not enough. We need aggressive expansion in the area of culture to ‘ensure that Canadian artists of all kinds receive ‘equal access to their own cultural industries. Brian Mulroney would have us believe that cour cultural industries are exempt from the trade deal. But a “ Not Withstanding Clause” in the ‘agreement allows the Americans to retaliate against Canadian industry should we decide to strengthen our cultural policies. The clause states, that the U.S. government can retaliate “to equiva- lent commercial effect” if a Canadian cultural policy is viewed as taking business away from ‘American corporations. Americans can act to an. ‘equivalent dollar value against their choice of US. ‘bound Canadian exports —be it fish, steel , logs or autos. ‘What future government would have the courage to strengthen cultural poliey when faced ‘with the threat of groups of angry steelworkers or fishermen who have lost their obs due to American export retaliation ? The U.S. government has ‘already threatened that any future Canadian cultural initiatives would be “regrettable”. Future governments would surely stay within “safe” cultural policies. Under the “Not Withstanding Clause”, the B.C. , Canada Council, and the C.R.T.C. (Cana- dian Radio and Television Commission ) regula tions ean be challenged at any time. Washington would eonsider any new Canadian programming ‘added to these areas to be interference with the profits of the network giants, CBS. , N.B.C. and ABC. in the words of Daryl Duke (Founder and President of CKVU Television, Vancouver): “Own- ‘ership is programming. If free trade changes the ‘ownership of Canada then free trade will change AND THE PLANET OF THE ARTS vol.4no.2 ARTS the way we speak to one another and what we know of ourselves. In the end the hand that holds ‘the shares holds the pen, the camera, the printing press and the TV. station.” ‘Under the F.T.A. the Mulroney Government ‘and all future governments in Canada will have ‘given up the freedom to create new cultural policies, in the national interest. Moreover we will be seriously restricting our ability to evolve culturally into a new century and anew age of media and technological advancements. ‘Anation’s culture must include it’s value system and social framework. Multiculturalism, bilingualism, enviromental protection, universal ‘medicare and daycare, strict fire arms regulation, publiely funded universities, mandatory auto insurance, unemployment insurance ete. are all es- sential elements of Canadian culture, “Artists do not create out of a vacuum. Artis a reflection of the larger cultural context, in which we live, imagine and express ourselves. Whether we wish to admit it or not, the F-T.A. is entirely about culture. Itinvolves Canadian culture in the narrow ‘sense as it affects literature, visual at, film, tx. jdesign, dance, music, ete. But free trade is also ‘about culture in a broader sense, affecting the way we live in social and national groupings and the diverse ways in which we perceive ourselves. ‘The rhetoric ofthe pro-FreoTraders reflects, imagery borrowed from old John Wayne and Rambo movies, full of taunts about cowardice and fear, of talk about being competitive and tough ‘enough, of winners and losers. Tn fact it is these supporters of the F.T.A. who promote fear. They threaten that without greater Gependence on the American market place, Canada simply eannot survive. However, there are many ‘more of us who believe that Canada has the resources, the people and the initiative to succeed as 1 self determined and independant economy. ‘As it stands today the Canadian economy has ‘the most foreign penetration of any country in the world, Between 1978 and 1985, Statistics Canada reports,U.S. firms took home 1/3 of all profits ‘earned in Canada. These same U.S. companies created only .01% of new jobs in our country. ‘The past performance of American companies in Canada indicates the cost of free trade and {increased American ownership will be very high. ‘The F.T.A.is.a giant step towards greater depend- ‘ence on the United States, with no guarantees for the future of Canadian interests in jobs, resources: regional developement, energy, social services, and, by extention, culture. ‘The F-T.A. was passed by American Congress in a record one-day session. The conservative majority in parliament passed the deal prior to calling an election, There will be no debate to educate Canadians. There will be no referendum to allow us a later choice. The federal election on No- vernber 21, 1988 is your chance to say no to the Free Trade Agreement. Your vote will determine the future of Canada, Eileen Leier Sale Lease COLLIERS