By Peter Menzies
August 26, 2025
Introduction
It has been 75 years since the Massey Commission wrote the guidebook for Canada’s cultural policies.
Back then, 29 per cent of Canadians spoke French as their mother tongue. Overall, 32 per cent could speak French, despite it not being recognized as an official language. Slightly more than 59 per cent of Canadians spoke English as their mother tongue. Today, only 20 per cent claim French as their mother tongue while slightly less than 57 per cent claim English as their heritage language. Both of these numbers have been in decline since 1986, while the number of Canadians who speak neither official language has grown to close to one in eight, or 12.7 per cent. That’s 4.6 million people.
When the Massey Commission was doing its work, there were only 13.7 million people in Canada. There were fewer than a million in Alberta, where the Leduc oil fields had just been discovered, and the entire population of Ontario – 4.6 million people – would have fit comfortably into today’s Greater Toronto Area (GTA), where 6.7 million people currently reside.
When it comes to matters of faith, the predominantly Christian country and very Roman Catholic Quebec of 75 years ago could not have imagined a nation in which mosques and Sikh temples populate city skylines and former United Church buildings function as community centres, restaurants and offices.
In 1950, millions of families were mourning, for the second time in less than 36 years, the loss of a family member in war. The fear of nuclear Armageddon was part of daily conversation.
The nation’s racial and ethnic composition is much different in 2025 than it was in 1950, as is the role and profile of Indigenous people. Canada’s de facto national flag was the Red Ensign. Everyone read newspapers, and only the very privileged had television sets.
The contrasts could continue. Suffice it to say, much has changed.
Certainly, Canada’s cultural institutions have tried to keep pace with the nation’s evolution. For instance, the Canada Media Fund and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) have offered new funding to elevate the profile of Black Canadians, Indigenous people, LGBTQ2 communities, and other “underrepresented” groups.
Multicultural broadcasters have been licensed to serve communities in multiple languages from a variety of ethnic backgrounds. And, of course, the CBC has evolved into a platform that works to address all these developments in its own distinct fashion.
But it would also be fair to conclude that continuously amending a vision originally developed for the Canada of 1950 is not the way to go. The nation needs a stitched blanket in which to wrap itself, not one composed of patches.
This overview examines the wide range of federal, provincial, and municipal agencies involved with arts and culture funding. While these agencies are generally assumed to serve the public good, their collective efficiency raises important questions. Is greater coordination needed? Does the current structure serve the broader goal of enhancing the nation’s sense of itself as expressed through its creative communities? Is their work sustainable? And specifically, with regards to the CBC – is it capable of meeting the nation’s cultural ambitions?
Ultimately, it is time to accept that the fundamentals have changed, and the delivery risks and inefficiencies are clear. Canada needs a fresh, comprehensive look at how it supports its cultural sector – exploring what’s working, and what isn’t – to define a renewed, modern vision for the 21st Century.
US President Donald Trump’s talk of Canada becoming the 51st state has awakened many from their apathy and, perhaps, instilled a renewed sense of concern for the nation’s economic, military, and cultural sovereignty.
It is time for a Massey Commission 2.0.
Background
In 1949, the federal government, led by Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent, established the Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences.
The preamble to its terms of reference includes the following:
“That it is desirable that the Canadian people should know as much as possible about their country, its history and traditions; and about their national life and common achievements; 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, rural as well as urban.”
Vincent Massey, brother of well-known Hollywood actor Raymond Massey (who only once portrayed a Canadian in a film), was selected to chair the Commission. Following cross-country public hearings, it filed a final report in June 1951. It argued for the creation of a national agency to provide federal funding for the arts, social sciences and humanities in order to save the country from being overwhelmed by less expensive American pop culture. The commission also made a strong case for increasing funding for the CBC and for universities – recommendations that the St. Laurent Liberal government implemented.
Other recommendations didn’t fare as well, and critics complained that the report exhibited a poor understanding of francophone culture – a common theme in Canadian cultural debates. But the Massey Commission is today credited for inspiring the 1953 creation of the National Library of Canada and, two years later, the Canada Council for the Encouragement of the Arts, Letters, Humanities and Social Sciences, otherwise known as the Canada Council for the Arts (CCA).
In the years since, federal funding – both direct and through the CRTC – for the arts, literature, film, television, and other forms of expression has grown. Most of it is managed through the Ministry of Canadian Identity and Culture (formerly Heritage Canada) and the CCA.
There are many funds supporting creators in Canada, not all of which are government-based. Provinces – and, in some cases, municipalities – also provide support.
A list of funding bodies has been provided in Appendix A. It includes 14 different federal funds and agencies that, while far from comprehensive, offer a general sense of the complexity of the system and areas where duplication of services is possible.
The Canada Media Fund, for instance, supports the production of television programs and films. The National Film Board and Telefilm Canada also both assist film production, raising the question as to whether it would be more efficient to have a single federal film-funding agency that could encompass the work being done by the existing agencies. This could reduce administrative costs for both applicants and funders, which should free up more money for filmmaking.
In terms of provincial arts agencies, the Société de Développement des Entreprises Culturelles (SODEC) describes itself as playing “a pivotal role in supporting cultural companies in Quebec. It works in tandem with Quebec and federal government departments and agencies, as well as with municipal and regional partners, to stimulate the economic development of companies and maximize the benefits of its actions.”
Coordinating funding across SODEC’s diverse areas – such as audiovisual, book publishing, crafts, the art market, music, entertainment and digital industries – appears to be an efficient way to manage these affairs. Yet the reference to multiple departments and agencies also serves to illustrate the complexity of the arts and culture funding ecosystem. Wouldn’t a single point of contact at the federal level be a more efficient method through which to deliver these services? Perhaps not. But it seems prudent to ask.
At the municipal level, the Toronto Arts Council provides about $29 million in annual funding to a variety of grants to Toronto-based organizations, arts collectives, and individual artists. Calgary Arts Development offers something similar with $16 million in local grants (including $1 million in “microgrants”) within a $20.5 million budget. Not all cities are willing or able to offer that level of funding, but many do. The question this raises is not whether arts and culture funding is a worthy goal. We can assume that it is.
But is municipal arts funding the answer? Or would it be more efficient to deliver grants via a provincial agency that coordinates its activities with the federal infrastructure?
Issues and challenges
The agencies described in Appendix A, along with other funding bodies, probably have a clear understanding of their purposes, their challenges and their successes.
But arts funding in Canada is not just a support network for the arts industries, it is an industry unto itself. And this raises several important questions.
Funding distribution often becomes contentious, with communities expecting their “fair share,” whether it’s appropriate or not. From a business standpoint, it makes sense, for instance, that more film funding goes to provinces like Ontario, British Columbia, and Alberta, where the industry is stronger, than to places with smaller film sectors, like New Brunswick. While access should be equal, allocation should prioritize merit over arbitrary formulas. At the same time, smaller provinces, like Prince Edward Island, may require greater per capita funding due to their relatively weaker local community and corporate resources. For instance, the Prince Edward Island Symphony simply can’t draw on the same levels of support as say, the Toronto Symphony Orchestra. The Canada Council has already recognized the legitimacy of some regional inequity concerns, particularly in the West. This points to the need for a broader discussion and possible biases within the governance of these agencies.
The issue of motivation also comes into play. In other words, what are the primary purposes of the agencies and their funds? Is it catalyzing production, as in the CMF’s claim that its funding led to $1.5 billion in economic activity? Providing employment for Canadian writers, actors, and other cultural content creators? Or is the raison d’etre to celebrate and share Canadian stories?
Then there is the broader issue of how to measure success. Should we measure the number of employment hours created by the industry, or the investment it stimulates? Can it be commodified by the number of songs produced or streamed, TV ratings achieved, or YouTube likes recorded? Is it by the number of hours of employment generated? The investment it stimulates? The number of songs recorded? Or is it TV ratings, box office success, or Spotify streams? Or, to put it in a more straightforward fashion: How does the Canadian arts funding industry make Canada better and how can we ensure there are accountability measures in place to ensure that the nation’s culture and sense of identity is continually strengthened? Why has no one yet made a major movie that tells the story of Vimy Ridge (the Australians found considerable success with Gallipoli) or the Plains of Abraham? Are there regulatory measures that should be taken to ensure Canadian innovators aren’t overwhelmed by American products or should a more market-based approach be embraced? If the latter, what will be the consequences?
As a country with two official languages, – but with a quickly growing multicultural population – we will also need to address the elephant in the room: how do we divvy up funding for cultural content in English, French, and other languages?
So far, most federal agencies seem content to ignore that the nation’s linguistic demographics have changed. While there are more Canadians than ever who speak French, how can agencies continue to justify a two-thirds English, one-third French funding model when the percentage of people speaking French in the home has fallen below 20 per cent? Should the percentage decline? Or, as was suggested by the Trudeau government, should the French percentage of arts funding be enhanced to 40 per cent? Clearly, we need a calm, rational debate about fairness when it comes to funding distribution based on language – but we also need to protect the French language in Canada.
Finally, we need to address the maze of red tape that significantly raises administrative/regulatory expenses for cultural producers in Canada. We need to simplify costs and complexity when it comes to filing grant applications – especially for a creative industry that often struggles to balance the books.
Risks
The full state of the nation’s finances are, at the time of writing, unknown. Prime Minister Mark Carney has announced considerable investments, including an immediate $9 billion for the military.
All that is known at this stage is that the necessary “savings” to finance that spending will come from “elsewhere.” This represents a risk to federal arts and culture funding.
The creative sector also faces the risk that corporate support and sponsorships will decline during downturns in the economy.
In terms of film and television productions, the Canada Media Fund has always relied upon a 5 per cent levy applied to cable and satellite company revenues. The decline in cable subscriptions puts that at risk. The Trudeau government attempted to address this through the Online Streaming Act by expanding the burden of that funding to offshore streaming companies. The CRTC, in part by trying to make Netflix, Spotify, and others fund news, is now having its decisions challenged by major streaming companies in court.
Additional risk involves the likelihood that the considerable investments offshore streaming companies have been making in Canada prior to the Online Streaming Act will simply be shifted to regulated funds or reduced. There is also a strong possibility that the intent of the Online Streaming Act – the shifting of fund obligations and Canadian content obligations to US-based companies – won’t survive a new trade deal. Should President Donald Trump’s musings about putting 100 per cent tariffs on films produced outside the US ever become manifest, it would devastate the Canadian film and television production industry. According to the Canadian Media Production Association, the industry’s value in 2023 was $7.86 billion.
Stakeholders within the industry are well aware of these risks, as are the boards of the funding agencies, many of whom have been preparing contingency plans in the event that a Conservative government was elected.
Finally, it should be considered that while current funding structures appear to have succeeded in strengthening Quebec’s sense of cultural identity, that may not be the case in the rest of the country. The risk that it represents is self-evident.
The role of the CBC
The CBC’s news wing has faced sharp criticism in recent years, largely due to its poor political relationship with the Conservative Party of Canada and its supporters who, based on the most recent election results, constitute more than 40 per cent of voters.
This author examined that dilemma in a recent paper titled Changing the Channel – a bold new vision for a subscription-based CBC. The paper recommended several major changes to improve both the CBC and the competitive landscape for private news media in Canada. It also noted that the CBC’s non-news role needed examination within a broader, arts-based context. So, here we are.
While CBC’s news division gets all the headlines, it actually spends more on arts and culture ($315 million annually on drama/comedy, films, animation, music/variety, game shows, human interest, reality TV, award shows and other categories) than it does on news, analysis/interpretation, and long-form documentary – $284 million, according to an analysis by David Clinton, publisher of The Audit (Clinton’s review is based on the CBC’s annual report).
Clinton’s review reveals that, in terms of its contribution to the profile of Canadian content (Cancon) the CBC is over-performing. While the CRTC (inexplicably, in the author’s view) set the bar for the CBC’s Cancon carriage at a mere 60 per cent, ICI Tele hit 90 per cent and CBC television 87 per cent. This performance is an encouraging trend for Canada’s creative sector, which saw the CRTC’s expectations for other broadcasters drop to 54 per cent in 2011. (An expectation that TV broadcasters spend 30 per cent of revenue was also put in place although that is currently under review by the CRTC as it tries to implement the Online Streaming Act.)
Assuming Prime Minister Carney follows through on his campaign promise to increase CBC’s annual Parliamentary funding by $150 million, it will have a budget of more than $1.5 billion. Should Carney move further forward with his ambition for the CBC to be funded at the same level as other “public” broadcasters, that total could exceed $2.5 billion in the short term and grow close to $3 billion within a decade.
Much depends upon how CBC/Radio-Canada decides to spend that potential windfall. If it is spent on news, it could have a devastating impact on the private sector news industry, at least unless subsidies for the latter keep pace with funding for the CBC. That in turn would lead to a most unusual scenario in which the overwhelming majority of the nation’s news producers are co-dependent on the governments that fund them.
If, on the other hand, CBC/Radio-Canada were to invest the additional money in the production of more and better quality Canadian film and television production, the impact could be extremely positive for the nation’s creative sector. There are, of course, several caveats involved in this, including that Cancon definitions enhance not only the number of those employed in the production industry but ensure cultural value measured by the popular appeal of their work.
Still, the opportunity in terms of value to the film and television production industry and creators that make a genuine contribution to the culture is significant and has the potential to equal the financial benefit sought from foreign streamers through the Online Streaming Act.
In other words, as with the news industry, the CBC cannot be viewed as an entity separate from the Canadian cultural industry ecosystem. It currently represents one of the nation’s largest investors in Canadian cultural content. Should its size continue to grow as the current government’s leadership has outlined, it could become by far the largest single investment point in Canadian culture and the public’s access to it via radio, television and streaming.
Recommendations
Canada boasts a host of cultural funding agencies at the federal, provincial and municipal levels. However, to the uninitiated, the funding landscape might seem like a confusing maze. For instance, casual observers might note the overlaps between Telefilm, the National Film Board, and the Canada Media Fund, and question the need for three separate film funding agencies, each with subcategories. Certainly, there are historical reasons why the current funding system exists as is. But the profound changes in demographics and technology over the past century requires policymakers today to rethink what are essentially 20th-century funding models.
If we agree that promoting Canadian arts and culture is a worthy endeavour – particularly in an effort to counter the behemoth that is the American entertainment industry – then we will need to find better ways to pay for it. By launching a Royal Commission, the federal government, in co-operation with provinces and municipalities, must review the current funding framework with a goal of establishing a national cultural industry policy.
Our recommendations include:
- The Commission should examine ways to encourage Canadians to consume homegrown content that reflects Canada’s history, values, and aspirations. It should also consider how best to judge the merit of applications for funding.
- A key goal should be to simplify the application process for arts and culture creators. The current system can be especially intimidating for smaller organizations or individuals who produce content in “cultural subcategories,” from community events and pow wows to opera, independent film, visual arts, theatre, and more. The wide range of available funds – private, public, federal, provincial, municipal and blended – can be bewildering. The federal government, consistent with the government’s ambitions in terms of industrial development, should work with the provinces, municipalities, and private funders to establish a single point of content for organizations seeking funding.
Both the CRTC and CBC currently function as independent agencies. They each aspire to achieve cultural goals under legislation enabling their existence and mandates. However, given the significant changes wrought by the advent of the internet, and the explosion of online cultural and arts content in recent years, it is time to reassess the place and roles of both organizations within the larger funding framework.
Our recommendations include:
- The CRTC and the CBC should both be included within a new national cultural policy and have their mandates adjusted accordingly.
- For CBC/Radio-Canada specifically, it is time for it to focus solely on Canadian content. In addition, and consistent with the recommendations found in the previously mentioned Changing the Channel – a bold new vision for a subscription-based CBC report, CBC/Radio-Canada’s news division should be de-commercialized so that no longer sells advertising.
Conclusion
Few Canadians would dispute the value of promoting and supporting a uniquely Canadian cultural identity. That is certainly the definition of a “public good” – especially since our southern neighbour so thoroughly dominates the global arts, culture, and entertainment industries.
Nearly a decade ago, former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau notoriously told the New York Times: “There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada,” and that “makes us the first post-national state.” Thankfully, that misguided philosophy is waning, and Canadians today are increasingly vocalizing their desire for a new, more unifying vision of Canada, bolstered by uniquely Canadian arts and culture.
Ironically, this newfound Canadian patriotism was sparked by President Trump’s “51st state” annexation threats. Faced with an existential threat to Canada, many formerly complacent Canadians have been jolted into caring about their country’s culture, history, and sovereignty.
This presents a tremendous opportunity to rethink public support for the arts and culture sector. After a decade of shaming and denigrating Canada, we have a chance to re-instill nationwide pride in the history and purpose of Canada. A well-supported, vibrant arts and culture sector will play a crucial role in these efforts. Done right, we can help inspire Canadians to once again believe in Canada.
About the author
Peter Menzies is a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. A commentator and consultant on media and communications policy, Menzies is a past vice-chair of the CRTC, and a former publisher of the Calgary Herald.
Appendix
- Explore and Create: Funds Canadian artists, artistic groups, and organizations for the creation and dissemination of innovative and diverse art.
- Engage and Sustain: Funds organizations that are “dedicated to developing excellence in arts practice, advancing the arts through programming, and exposing a diverse public to a range of artists and creative works.”
- Supporting Artistic Practice: Encourages professional development and innovation.
- Arts Abroad: Promotes Canadian artists internationally by supporting tours, exhibitions, and global market development.
- Indigenous Arts Programs: Supports “a self-determined approach that respects and appreciates First Nations, Inuit and Métis artistic expression, cultural protocols, rights, traditions, and worldviews.”
- Composite Grants: Allows eligible organizations with a history of project grants to combine multiple projects into a single proposal for 1 to 3 years.
Canada Arts Presentation Fund (CAPF):
Provides financial assistance to close to 700 festivals and performing arts series in more than 270 communities. In 2024, an additional $31 million was announced over two years to enhance funding for “Indigenous, Black, racialized, and 2SLGBTQI+” groups.
Canada Arts Training Fund (CATF):
Supports not-for-profit arts organizations (a priority stated in the Massey Commission report) in training artists. Prioritizes Indigenous and equity-focused arts training.
Canada Cultural Spaces Fund
Funds infrastructure projects for arts and heritage organizations, such as building or renovating museums and other cultural facilities.
Canada Cultural Investment Fund
Provides financial assistance for projects involving multiple partners that will help arts and heritage organizations improve their business practices and diversify their revenues
Provides funding to museums and heritage organizations for preserving and presenting collections.
The fund “ensures that a diversity of Canadian music artists connect with audiences everywhere.”
Aids publishers and booksellers in promoting Canadian authors.
Building Communities Through Arts and Heritage Program:
The program “increases opportunities for local artists; local artisans; local heritage performers or specialists; and local First Nations, Inuit, and Métis cultural carriers to be involved in their community through festivals, events and projects.”
Supported by CRTC levy on cable/satellite revenues, funds Canadian content film and television production. The CRTC is working to expand the funding base to offshore streaming companies. In its own words, “We serve as the spark that ignites the sharing of a truly Canadian culture. Our stories. Our triumphs and struggles. Our complex identity.”
The CMF’s key programs are separated into its “Convergent Stream” aimed at television and digital media projects traditionally made available on multiple platforms including drama, documentary, children’s programming and other.
It has specific set asides for Indigenous programming, diverse languages, a pilot program for “racialized” communities and a POV program.
In 2022–23, $198.6 million went to English language projects and $99.3 million to French in keeping with the traditional two-thirds, one-third allocations created when that represented the nation’s linguistic reality (with a small bump for the minority language).
There is also an “Experimental Stream” that supports digital media and web content. In 2022–23, it allocated $29 million for English projects and $14.8 million for French projects.
The new Changing Narratives Fund “focuses on equity, diversity, inclusion, and accessibility in the audiovisual sector,” while international co-productions and export programs also find support.
The Foundation Assisting Canadian Talent on Recordings is a public-private partnership that distributes about $50 million through 13 different programs annually to help musicians launch careers. It is common for CRTC-licensed radio broadcasters to contribute to FACTOR in order to meet their Canadian Content Development obligations.
A Government of Canada Crown corporation, Telefilm Canada has offices in Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver and works to finance, support and promote the national film industry.
THE CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
The Broadcasting Act mandates that the CBC, which was formed on November 2, 1936, must “provide a wide range of programming that informs, enlightens and entertains” and:
- Be predominantly and distinctively Canadian.
- Reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the special needs of those regions.
- Actively contribute to the flow and exchange of cultural expression.
- Be in English and in French, reflecting the different needs and circumstances of each official language community, including the particular needs and circumstances of English and French linguistic minorities.
- Strive to be of equivalent quality in English and in French.
- Contribute to a shared national consciousness and identity.
- Be made available throughout Canada by the most appropriate and efficient means and as resources become available for the purpose.
- Reflect the multicultural and multiracial nature of Canada.
- Be predominantly and distinctively Canadian.
- Reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the special needs of those regions.
- Actively contribute to the flow and exchange of cultural expression.
A federal agency, the NFB has a history that goes back more than 100 years and works to produce and distribute documentary films, animations and what it describes as alternative dramas. It has received 12 Academy Awards.
