https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4242-4755
![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Long concerned about its cultural identity in light of dominant American entertainment exports, when Canada concluded its first preferential free trade agreement (FTA) with the United States in 1987, cultural industries were exempted. This general exemption, albeit coupled with a retaliatory clause, was later incorporated into the North American Free Trade Agreement and recently updated into the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement. Such a cultural exemption, this time unconditional or without provisions for retaliation, has also figured in most Canadian FTAs. Yet, in the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement negotiated with the European Union, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement negotiated with the United States and ten other countries, and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership implemented with these ten countries, Canada does away with an outright cultural exemption. Instead, these FTAs provide for a more targeted exemption, applying only to the chapters or sectors for which such an exemption is sought. Although this marks a departure from a well-established practice, this move is not so radical, as some analysts of Canadian cultural trade policy claim. Such “chapter-by-chapter” approach may indeed be as efficient to preserve cultural industries from key international trade obligations.
RÉSUMÉ
Longtemps préoccupé par son identité culturelle à la lumière des exportations américaines dominantes dans le domaine des divertissements, lorsque le Canada a signé son premier accord de libre-échange (ALE) préférentiel avec les États-Unis en 1987, il n'y a pas inclus ses industries culturelles. Cette exemption générale, bien que couplée à une clause de rétorsion, a ensuite été intégrée à l'accord de libre-échange nord-américain, et récemment mise à jour dans l'accord Canada-États-Unis-Mexique. Une telle exemption culturelle, cette fois-ci inconditionnelle ou sans dispositions de rétorsion, figure aussi dans la plupart des ALE canadiens. Pourtant, dans l'accord économique et commercial global négocié avec l'Union européenne, l'accord de partenariat trans-Pacifique négocié avec les États-Unis et dix autres pays, et l'Accord global et progressif pour le partenariat trans-Pacifique mis en œuvre avec ces dix pays, le Canada supprime une exemption culturelle pure et simple. Ces ALE prévoient au contraire une exemption plus ciblée qui s'applique uniquement aux chapitres ou aux secteurs pour lesquels une telle exemption est recherchée. Bien que cela marque un changement brutal de pratique bien établie, cette démarche n'est pas si radicale que le prétendent certains analystes de la politique commerciale culturelle canadienne. Une telle approche, « chapitre après chapitre » peut en effet se révéler aussi efficace pour préserver les industries culturelles des obligations majeures du commerce international.
Correction Statement
This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
Acknowledgment
The author is grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their comments and/or suggestions.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes on contributor
Gilbert Gagné is Professor and Chair of the Department of Politics and International Studies at Bishop's University, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada. His teaching relates principally to international diplomacy and organizations, Canadian foreign policy and Canadian-American relations. His research pertains mainly to the treatment of cultural products in trade agreements; subsidies and trade dispute settlement, with a particular emphasis on the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber dispute; as well as the protection of foreign investment and investor-state dispute settlement.
Notes
1 These mainly revolve around the principle of non-discrimination, primarily national treatment, according to which states should treat imported products no less favorably than domestic products with respect to taxes and regulations.
2 These specific commitments relate to: the elimination of tariffs for cultural goods (Article 401); the requirement that any US investor having to divest him/herself of assets in Canada because of ownership restrictions in cultural industries is to receive fair market value (Article 1607.4); amendments to Canadian law so as to ensure authorizations from, and payments to, US copyright holders for retransmission of program signals (Article 2006); and the removal of the requirement for a Canadian magazine or newspaper to be printed or typeset in Canada in order for advertisers to deduct expenses for advertising space (Article 2007).
3 Unlike the GATT, market access and national treatment are not general obligations under the GATS and only apply if and to the extent that specific commitments are listed in a country’s schedule.
4 This number includes the CPTPP and the CUSMA, both revised versions of previous FTAs.
5 A revision is mentioned only when it relates to cultural industries.
6 The 2018 Canada-Israel Free Trade Amending Protocol is not yet effective.
7 The EU member states are: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (pending the “Brexit” negotiations).
8 The Canada-Korea FTA contains provisions on cultural cooperation, exchanges, and co-production. Canada’s cultural exemption leaves room for such cultural policy measures to be either maintained, modified or adopted.
9 In the Canada-Colombia FTA (Article 2208), the definition of cultural industries also includes: (f) production and presentation of performing arts; (g) production and exhibition of visual arts; or (h) design, production, distribution and sale of handicrafts.
10 The United States, on the other hand, has consistently opposed this UNESCO Convention. On Canada and the UNESCO Convention, see Gagné (Citation2005). Other instances where norms and provisions from non-trade treaties are used in Canadian FTA negotiations include those pertaining to tobacco and fur trade, the former having regard to health conventions and the latter to environmental ones (confidential interview).
11 With respect to government procurement, the exemption in Canada’s case is essentially limited to services. CETA also includes a very modest chapter on electronic commerce, with hardly any obligations, which, in any case, are subordinated to those under other chapters. This explains why each party’s cultural exemption does not refer to this chapter.
12 These Annex 15-D services pertain to: (1) the simultaneous substitution of signals, under which Canada is to rescind the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s regulations that stopped the simultaneous substitution of US with Canadian advertisements, therefore allowing Canadians to watch US commercials, during Super Bowl broadcasts; (2) the requirements for authorizations from copyright holders for retransmission of program signals (largely echoing CUSFTA Article 2006); and (3) US home shopping programming services to be authorized for distribution in Canada.
13 Yet, to the extent that the TPP was to co-exist with the NAFTA and prevail over it only when more liberalizing provisions were secured, the retaliatory clause would in all likelihood have continued to apply (Gagné, Citation2016, pp. 126–127).