The cancellation of the tax was originally a concession to the U.S., with Ottawa promising to protect Canadian content through government funding. But those dollars would be taxpayer money, and their future uncertain depending on budgetary needs.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on August 31, 2026.

OTTAWA—Culture is on the front burner for the first time in modern trade negotiations.

In the aftermath of the breakdown of talks between Canada and the United States, Prime Minister Mark Carney cited attacks on the French language as a major reason for why the country walked away from the deal.

U.S. President Donald Trump attacked the prime minister’s claim with a bizarre statement on his social media platform claiming he loves French Canadians: “This lie was made up by a weak and ineffective prime minister in an attempt to gain political support, which he has totally lost, from the people of Quebec.”

Trump says he has no problem with people speaking French, but his negotiators signalled that Canada’s requirement for bilingual labelling was an irritant. The Canadian government also rejected an American demand to eliminate streaming requirements that make French and Quebec cultural content easily discoverable. Such requirements currently exist in the streaming sector.

Since the breakdown of talks, the U.S. government—through an interview provided by its Trade Representative Jamieson Greer to CBC News on Aug. 26—has indicated that discoverability was not a “red line.” In an X post on Aug. 27, Canada-U.S. Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc said, “Canada is pleased that the United States is now reversing its positions regarding discoverability,” and that his government is looking forward to other “contructive clarifications” on American positions on proposed free trade terms.

Carney’s decision to leave the negotiating table on Aug. 21, and promise dollar-for-dollar counter-tariffs has been widely applauded by Canadians, but his strong defence of the French culture came as a surprise.

It also spawned new demands on the culture front from the Bloc Québécois. In the lead up to the current round of negotiations, the Liberal government eliminated the implementation of a digital services tax.

The proposed tax was seen as an irritant to the Americans. The three-per-cent levy was cancelled in the 11th hour before its implementation, as the prime minister said it would not be worth implementing a tax that may be abolished in the upcoming trade discussions. He also defended cancelling the tax as a way of protecting affordability for families that are struggling with rising household costs.

At the time, Carney announced the tax revenue would be replaced by an annual direct investment of $600-million for Canadian content.

With the collapse of negotiations, Bloc Québécois leader Yves-François Blanchet is asking Carney to implement the digital tax that was originally introduced by the previous Liberal government. Blanchet says the replacement of the tax by a multi-million-dollar government investment is shifting financial responsibility from entertainment multinationals to taxpayers.

He also says the cancellation of the tax threatens the survival of French-language cultural production and Quebec jobs.

In outlining the government’s counter-tariff strategy, Industry minister Mélanie Joly specifically cited risks to the cultural sector, which she said employs 900,000 people across Canada.

Blanchet is also asking the prime minister to cancel the procurement of fighter jets from the U.S. as part of the Canadian response.

British Columbia Premier David Eby publicly reinforced the Bloc’s request to cancel jet procurement. He said the government needs to reinforce its plan to implement retaliatory tariffs with other measures, including the power of purchasing boycotts such as the fighter jet purchase.

For Carney, it was the first time that culture was front and centre in a positive way.

When the government cancelled the implementation of the digital tax, most Canadians were happy or neutral, assuming it would limit any digital streaming cost increases.

The Conservative Party had opposed the digital tax and lauded the cancellation.

But the move prompted major concern in the cultural sector that defends those 900,000 jobs.

The $600-million commitment by Ottawa would replace the tax, but it could also be subject to potential uncertainty as future budgets could reduce the payment.

More importantly, the change means that global web companies contribute nothing to the CRTC-mandated system that requires domestic broadcasters to pay their fair share.

Several European countries have implemented a digital services tax in amounts ranging from 1.5 to 7.5 per cent.

Carney’s call for Canadian cultural protection has awakened the sleeping cultural giant.

In the 1992 North American Free Trade Agreement, Canada vigorously defended a cultural exemption. The government of then-Progressive Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney insisted on a cultural carveout.

The second free trade deal, the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) Agreement—signed in 2018 and revised in 2019—involved the same exemption.

In the more recent CUSMA negotiations, culture was not a major issue in the discussion. The decision to cancel the digital tax preceded the talks, leaving the impression that the Canadian government would be willing to sacrifice culture in favour of a trade agreement.

Carney insists that one of the main reasons for the talk’s breakdown was Canada’s vow to protect French language and culture.

Digital tax implementation would strengthen his position.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

Performing arts groups have been lobbying the government to create a new live performance tax credit. Let’s hope the finance minister mentions this proposal in his economic statement because it truly is an investment for all, not just one gender or one region.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on April 27, 2026.

OTTAWA—A little-known study published last year by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce laid to rest the myth that cultural spending is a drain on federal finances.

On the contrary, the report, entitled Artworks: The Economic and Social Dividends from Canada’s Arts and Culture Sector, reported that, in 2024, the arts and culture sector contributed $65-billion in direct gross domestic product to the Canadian economy.

Conducted by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce’s Business Data Lab, and commissioned by Business/Arts along with the Canada Council for the Arts, Artworks also pointed out that, from 2022 to 2025, spending in arts and culture increased at a rate almost double the general Canadian sectoral growth.

On the international scene, this country sold almost $25-billion in goods and services globally.

According to the report, since 2011, arts-sector spending growth has outpaced all other sectors, including oil and gas, construction, wholesale and retail trade and manufacturing.

Most important for the Department of Finance is that the sector generates $17-billion in federal and provincial taxes.

So why is it, that when the conversation turns to the economy, our attention is focused not on this growth sector, but on other sectors like fossil fuels, auto, and construction?

Principal economist for the Canadian Chamber of Commerce Andrew DiCapua had this to say about government investment in the sector: “The arts and culture sector generates $29 in economic activity for every dollar in federal investment—that’s an extraordinary return in addition to the social benefits that the sector generates. Yet, we’re seeing concerning trends in both public and private funding. If we want to maintain Canada’s cultural competitiveness and harness this sector’s full economic potential, we need sustained, strategic investment.”

Prime Minister Mark Carney has a chance to advance cultural investment in the economic update that his government will be tabling this week.

The Build Communities Strong funding is definitely intended to boost jobs and grow the economy in infrastructure projects with a budget of $27.8-billion over the next decade. Those jobs will primarily go to men.

These investments tie in with Canada Strong, which was the government’s mantra until a new logo was launched at the recent Liberal national convention in Montreal.

The new mantra is Canada for All. This vision ties in beautifully with the Chamber of Commerce call for more investment in arts and culture.

Unlike other investments, government spending in arts and culture reaches out to almost every community in the country.

Festivals and Major Events Canada, the national organization representing everyone from Carnaval de Quebec to the Calgary Stampede, represents more than 500 festivals in communities across the country. That doesn’t include live theatre and music performances that multiply across the country during the summer season.

A coalition of performing arts organizations have been lobbying the government to create a new live performance tax credit. The credit is modelled after the wildly successful Canadian Film or Video Tax Credit which was launched by the government of Jean Chrétien back in 1995.

That 25-per-cent credit on the hiring of Canadian talent was the first of its kind in the world. It has been so successful that similar models have been launched in more than 40 countries around the world. It generates $3.40 in revenue for every dollar spent by the government.

A similar performing arts credit would generate $23 in local economic impact, so its accelerator value is huge. Why? Because when people attend performances, they often spend money in the community, with dinner or drinks before or after.

The government price-ticket on this live performance accelerator tax credit is $100-million annually over three years.

Government officials at multiple levels have been reviewing the proposal, but say it is too rich.

In comparison, the government uptick in military spending to meet NATO targets is $81-billion over five years.

A price tag of $300-million over three years is modest in comparison to the jobs and spending impact it will have on every community in the country.

Canada for All should mean that jobs are not happening only be in male-dominated sectors like the military and infrastructure construction.

A modest arts investment would reach out to every region and every community, with jobs for youth and women who are underrepresented in Canada Strong investments.

In the 10 years of conservative economic statements, the word ‘culture’ rarely appeared.

Let’s hope the finance minister mentions this modest tax credit proposal in his economic statement because it truly is an investment for all, not just one gender or one region.

If the Canadian Chamber of Commerce is promoting cultural investment, the government should be listening.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

The last budget was silent on NAFC funding which is scheduled to sunset because the existing 10-year funding agreement ends in 2026

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on December 15, 2025.

OTTAWA—The minister of Canadian culture and identity has an almost impossible job. The idea of a monolithic Canadian culture is a challenge in itself.

Marc Miller is also responsible for official languages, minority language English support in Quebec, and French outside Quebec.

The focus on official languages overshadows support for Indigenous Peoples. When I became Canadian heritage minister in 1995, almost all funding was directed to activities promoting the languages of Shakespeare and Molière.

Indigenous applicants for cultural funding were redirected to the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, even though that department had no funding for culture.

The government claimed to be supporting Canadian culture, but was really financing European-based culture.

When it came to First Nations, there was no investment in promoting Indigenous identities though books, television, film, live performances, or any other artistic medium that supported self-identity.

In the last budget, the vast majority of Indigenous funding targeted infrastructure and investment within Indigenous territories.

It is very popular these days to open every ceremony with an acknowledgement that we, as colonizers, live on the ceded or unceded territory of various First Nations. Ceded territory signifies those lands where successive governments signed treaties with First Nations. Unceded territories includes lands where a treaty on land ownership was never concluded.

The Parliament of Canada was built on Algonquin land that has not been ceded to the Crown.

Most of today’s governance policies involve engagement of Indigenous Peoples living on those territories.

But the reality is that 60 per cent of Indigenous Peoples do not live on the lands that their ancestors inhabited. They migrate to cities, and are expected to be served via the same services available to all other citizens.

The recent budget outlined more than $16-billion in funding initiatives largely focused on Indigenous territorial investments.

But it was silent on any future funding for the National Association of Friendship Centres (NAFC).

The last budget under then-prime minister Justin Trudeau allocated $27.5-million in 2024 to the NAFC which administers more than 100 centres in small and large communities across the country.

When you compare the friendship centre budget to the investment on Indigenous territories, the contrast is already very stark.

For the majority of Indigenous Peoples living away from their homes, friendship centres are the first places of welcome that can help in their transition.

The centres offer housing, job-search assistance, mental-health programs, and addiction support.

Most provide a much-needed medical and social service link to the outside community.

The Nov. 4 budget was silent on NAFC funding which is scheduled to sunset because the existing 10-year funding agreement ends in 2026.

Leaders from dozens of friendship centres across the country descended on Ottawa last week for a summit on their continued existence.

Speaker after speaker made the case that survival is crucial to the reconciliation process that the government has committed to.

Miller attended the event, joined by Indigenous Services Minister Mandy Gull-Masty. Both spoke positively in support of funding friendship centres.

If anyone understands that the key to Canadian identity is Indigenous, it’s Miller.

He is still held in high regard for his work as minister responsible for Indigenous services, and minister of Crown-Indigenous relations.

On a personal basis, Miller was the first MP in history to make a statement in the Mohawk language, studying a community-based program developed by the Six Nations of the Grand River near Brantford, Ont.

Miller recently faced some criticism for his reaction to a question on the decline of French-language speakers in Quebec. Miller said he was “fed up” with the language debate, raising the ire of Quebec Premier François Legault, who called him a “disgrace.”

Miller’s exasperation stemmed from the fact that language is constantly used by politicians as a political weapon.

He won’t face that issue with Indigenous Peoples. But he will be challenged to put his historic support for them to the test by returning full funding to friendship centres from coast to coast to coast.

Meanwhile, centres are scrambling because they literally do not know what will happen in three months.

The NAFC’s interim CEO advised the government that March 31, 2026, layoffs are being contemplated because that is when budget certainty ends.

Deputy minister of Indigenous Services, Algonquin Gina Wilson, has confirmed that funding will be renewed, but no one knows by how much and when.

Millions of Indigenous Peoples are hoping Miller and Gull-Masty will deliver more than a lump of coal this Christmas.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.