Barry Appleton: Trump's demands to change our laws must be rejected - National Post
Canada's streaming regulations, whether ill advised or not, should not be part of a trade agreement, argues Barry Appleton. Photo by CHRIS DELMAS /AFP via Getty ImagesArticle contentThe United States pressed Canada on the protection of the French language and our culture until the very last minute of negotiations. That is Prime Minister Mark Carney’s account. Reporting on the leaked terms adds that Ottawa was asked to scupper its digital legislation. Not amend it. Not delay it. Drop it.
The American side disputes the characterization. Trade representative Jamieson Greer calls Canada’s streaming rules “the farthest thing from the red line,” and Canada’s minister for trade with the U.S., Dominic LeBlanc, has welcomed Washington’s withdrawal of its positions on language and culture. Take Greer at his word. He still confirms that American negotiators had questions about online streaming rules, and he listed “digital trade alignment” among the things a deal would contain. A demand that can be withdrawn can be made again.
Quebec’s Bill 109, An Act to affirm the cultural sovereignty of Quebec, was adopted unanimously by the National Assembly last December and will require streaming platforms and device makers to surface French-language content for Quebec users. Its constitutionality is contested, because broadcasting has long been federal ground; that argument belongs to Canadian judges applying the division of powers.
The National Post newsletter that doesn’t hold back, giving readers the unvarnished truth on media, politics and culture.
A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.
The next issue of Right? will soon be in your inbox.
We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again
A foreign government put the repeal of Canadian statutes on a tariff schedule and came close to getting it. That is the logical end of a bargain Canada has been making quietly, and without argument, since the first free trade agreement.
Whether our laws survive is a question for our courts.
I spent my career on the free trade side of it. I advised Ontario’s cabinet committee during the original NAFTA negotiations and the government of British Columbia during its implementation. Open markets made Canadians richer, and I would make that case again tomorrow. Having sat through those early trade rooms, I can tell you we never intended free trade to mean regulatory surrender.
Somewhere along the way we confused two things. Neoliberalism was an argument for restraining our own government. In the digital economy we turned it into an argument for not governing at all, and assumed a rulebook we declined to write would stay blank. It filled with somebody else’s.
