[ad_1]
The United States Embassy in Ottawa said it was concerned that the federal Liberals’ controversial online streaming action could discriminate against American companies.
In a statement to The Canadian Press, an embassy spokesperson said U.S. officials are holding consultations with businesses about how Bill C-11 could affect their operations.
“We have…concerns it could impact digital streaming services and discriminate against US businesses,” Molly Sanchez Crowe said in a statement.
The bill aims to update Canada’s broadcasting laws to reflect the rise of online streaming platforms such as YouTube, Spotify and Netflix. If the bill passes, the platform will have to contribute to making Canadian content accessible to users in Canada — or face severe penalties.
The proposed legislation has come under intense scrutiny amid accusations from companies and critics that it leaves too much room for government control over user-generated content and social media algorithms.
The chairman of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), which would be given new enforcement powers under the bill, dismissed those concerns during a Senate committee hearing last month, although some lawmakers said they were still concerned about the bill’s vagueness. phrase.
YouTube, which is owned by Google, said it was not worried about further regulation. But it remains clear that the bill would involve promoting certain content and giving the government control over what users see.
Potential trade disputes
Under the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement on trade, or CUSMA, a country can challenge the law when it feels discriminated against.
U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai has previously expressed concern about the proposed legislation, but has stopped short of saying her country will start a trade dispute.
International Trade Minister Mary Ng stressed that the online streaming action is in line with Canada’s trade obligations.
Marc Froese, a political science professor at Burman University in Alberta, said a dispute could be launched against Canada.
“Is it impossible to do? No,” he said in an interview Tuesday.
He pointed to a cross-border dispute Canada faced 25 years ago over “split-run” magazines, or American magazines sold in Canada with the same content but with Canadian ads. The percentage of Canadian ads that can be included has been severely limited since the 60s, and in 1994, the government added a hefty excise tax.
The bill awaits a final Senate vote
Ottawa sees the policy as a way to prevent cultural swamping by Americans, Froese said.
But the US contested the policy through the World Trade Organization and threatened retaliation under the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA.
“We’re playing hardball. America is demanding us,” Froese said. “And we lost.”
The Liberal government of Jean Chretien was forced to resign, although some restrictions on imported magazines remained. Since then, Froese said Canada has learned a lot about trade disputes and cultural exclusion, and has become a user of dispute resolution mechanisms on the global stage.
“We are not babies in the forest when it comes to dealing with litigation. Canadians fear that: ‘Americans can sue us. They will not like what we do.’ Yeah, so what?” Froese said.
Even so, the updated broadcasting rules could be protected from trade violations by cultural exceptions written into trade agreements, he said.
Toronto-based trade lawyer Lawrence Herman, of Herman & Associates, said he doesn’t think the bill will face many other hurdles.
“The Canadian government will do whatever is necessary to ensure that these measures are taken in a lawful manner,” Herman said. “To avoid any suggestion that our trade commitments are incorrect.”
The Bill passed the House of Commons last June and awaits a final vote in the Senate.
[ad_2]
Source link