New U.S.-Canada Privacy Pact Raises Censorship Concerns

By Lawson Faulkner

Last Wednesday, FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Canada’s Privacy Commissioner Philippe Dufresne, signaling an intent to “strengthen information sharing and enforcement cooperation between the two regulators.” However, the vague nature of the agreement has raised questions about the implications of this information-sharing pact.

With the enactment of the Online Streaming Act, widely known as Bill C-11, in 2023, the Canadian government has dramatically restricted the rights of online streaming platforms, setting new rules about which type of content should be promoted instead of allowing the audience and algorithm decide. In the midst of this threat to freedom of speech, Americans ought to know whether increased “enforcement cooperation” with Canada’s Privacy Commissioner would allow the FCC to impose this misguided legislation on U.S. soil. If so, this importation of foreign censorship would potentially be a violation of the First Amendment.

According to the agreement, the FCC and the Privacy Commissioner aim to “exchange information in order to enforce compliance with laws in both countries.” This goal would involve the sharing of “knowledge and expertise on regulatory policies and technical efforts related to applicable laws.” While innocuous on a surface level, the vague language of the agreement leaves room for broad interpretations. Notably, the agreement offers no clear boundaries for “enforcement cooperation,” nor does it define which laws are applicable or if the Online Streaming Act is one of them.

Enacted in February 2023, the Online Streaming Act imposes sweeping controls on online content creators, placing them under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. Unlike the FCC, the CRTC operates with executive, legislative, and sometimes judicial authority, wielding unchecked power over Canadian telecommunications. Its stated goals include promoting content that aligns with Canadian values, suggesting that it is the sole arbiter of what constitutes “Canadian” content.

Under the OSA, the CRTC can dictate the content that online platforms distribute, adhering to a nebulous set of standards that the commission itself defines. This influence has set a dangerous precedent, allowing the CRTC to regulate what Canadians see on YouTube under the guise of patriotism. 

Nor is Canada the only country that has recently imposed an online censorship regime. In Brazil, the refusal of X to block certain posts as demanded by a Supreme Court justice has resulted in a nationwide ban of the service. Across the Atlantic, British citizens have been arrested for posting speculative content in relation to a brutal July stabbing. In an Orwellian X post, the Crown Prosecution Service warned users to “think before you post! Content that incites violence or hatred isn’t just harmful — it can be illegal.”

These developments should serve as a strong warning against the importation of foreign censorship standards that directly contradict American free speech ideals. As this partnership unfolds, the FCC must tread carefully. If the FCC intends to play a role in enforcing the OSA on American soil, it risks importing Canadian censorship practices into the United States. The potential affront to free speech protections will only further build the case for censorship here.