In recent weeks, Canada’s federal government has taken seemingly contradictory stances on the protection and promotion of Canadian culture. On the one hand, after years of efforts to legislate and regulate online streaming, the government slashed the royalties imposed on foreign digital streaming platforms operating in Canada in order to facilitate trade negotiations with the United States.Then, in a dramatic turn of events, the government called off those very negotiations, arguing that U.S. demands regarding Canadian cultural and linguistic sovereignty went too far.Particularly at issue was the relaxation of rules imposed on major streaming platforms aimed at increasing the visibility of French-language Canadian content.How can we explain this double standard? The federal government’s shifting stance highlights the central dilemma of trying to exercise cultural sovereignty under free trade.Gains and concessionsOttawa’s double standard regarding cultural sovereignty is nothing new.When negotiations for the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) began in 1986 — with more than 120 countries at the table — services joined goods as a subject of free trade agreements for the first time.Although the GATS did not enter into force until 1995, trade liberalization in cultural industries became a key focus for the U.S. during negotiations for the Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement concluded in 1987, a precursor to subsequent agreements between Canada, the United States, and Mexico.By definition, free-trade agreements require the countries involved to make concessions, sometimes crucial ones, in certain sectors in order to gain advantages elsewhere. By entering into negotiations for a free trade agreement, a country gives up some measure of absolute sovereignty. Canada’s cultural sovereignty has therefore been curtailed in certain respects since the Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement came into force.For example, as part of the negotiations for the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), Canada had to amend the Copyright Act to extend the term of copyright from 50 years to 70 years after an author’s death, after which the work enters the public domain. This change was made at the request of the U.S.This example illustrates how trade negotiations can lead to legislative changes that are not directly related to trade agreements, but that affect local creators and access to Canadian content.Since the Canada–U.S. Free Trade Agreement, Canada has partially protected the cultural sector by shielding it from free-trade agreements under the “cultural exemption” principle. As a result, Canada has been able to continue implementing protectionist cultural policies, such as imposing quotas for Canadian content in broadcasting. However, this exemption includes a retaliation clause stipulating that the U.S. may impose retaliatory trade measures in response to measures that favour Canadian cultural industries.An existential issueCultural sovereignty is a major issue for Canada, given that the majority of the population lives near the U.S. border and speaks English.Since the introduction of the first Broadcasting Act in 1932 — which at the time applied only to radio and was one of the main pillars of Canadian cultural policy — broadcasting legislation has aimed to counterbalance the influence of American culture and to promote a shared Canadian identity and culture from coast to coast to coast.Today, the protection and promotion of the French language and Canadian culture in all its forms — including Indigenous cultures — remain an existential issue for the Canadian nation-state.In 2023, the Online Streaming Act) amended the Broadcasting Act to expand the Canadian broadcasting system’s mandate. It now must promote cultural diversity and support French-language and Indigenous content through targeted funding and measures that make that content easier to find. Promoting minority cultures and languages other than English fits into a broader,UNESCO-led movement to champion cultural diversity. Canada notably acceded to the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions in 2005, but the U.S. is among the few member countries that have not acceded to it.The line has been drawnCanadian culture is caught between a rock and a hard place in free-trade negotiations with the U.S. Canada is trying to safeguard its distinct identity, culture and language while standing up to American economic power, which has been building its cultural and technological hegemony for decades.Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government made significant concessions by eliminating the digital services tax and asking the CRTC to review the contribution of online streaming platforms to the Canadian broadcasting system. The cultural sector has condemned these measures, which set back efforts to preserve Canadian culture and cultural industries.These concessions not only create a funding shortfall for cultural industries but also signal another setback for Canadian cultural sovereignty. A necessary evil? When considering the historical rationale behind Canadian cultural policies, it becomes clear why a red line was drawn when the requested concessions posed an existential threat to Canada.Mariane Bourcheix-Laporte ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d'une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n'a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.