Supporters of the bill argue that it creates a level playing field between legacy and digital broadcast undertakings, and would allow the CRTC to compel foreign streaming services such as
Netflix and
YouTube to make expenditures towards the production of Canadian content in the same way as conventional broadcasters, and be required to prepare reports to the CRTC on the discoverability of Canadian content on their platforms. Federal officials estimated that mandating participation in the Canada Media Fund by major streaming services could generate up to $830 million in new funding per-year by 2023. Supporters of the bill also argue that it is designed to encourage the production of certified Canadian content, and discourage the practice of "foreign location and service productions" (FLSP) that extensively use Canadian resources and personnel, but do not include Canadians in specific key creative positions. Critics of the proposed legislation have argued that it gives broad power to the CRTC, who are unelected regulators and receive very little guidance from Parliament or the government, to enforce regulations on digital media platforms.
University of Ottawa professor
Michael Geist criticized the bill for removing a number of long-standing policies from the
Act that were intended to protect Canada's broadcasting system, including the requirement that all broadcasters be Canadian-owned and controlled, and the expectation that broadcasters make "maximum use, and in no case less than predominant use" of Canadian talent in programming.
Applicability to social media The bill originally contained a clause, Section 4(1), which explicitly excluded
programs that are
uploaded by users of social media platforms, who are not an owner, operator, or affiliate of the platform, as well as any
online undertakings that consist only of such content, from the scope of the
Broadcasting Act. Former CRTC commissioner Peter Menzies stated that "granting a government agency authority over legal user-generated contentparticularly when backed up by the government's musings about taking down websitesdoesn't just infringe on
free expression, it constitutes a full-blown assault upon it and, through it, the foundations of democracy." Conservative MP
Michael Barrett accused the bill of "silencing Canadians online", and argued that Trudeau was attempting to make "every aspect of Canadian life" conform to "his Liberal vision of Canadian society". In response, Trudeau argued that free speech is "not negotiable by our government", and commented that "the
tinfoil hats on the other side of the aisle are really quite spectacular." On May 3, Guilbeault stated that the bill would be amended to reinstate a more explicit exclusion of user-generated content from the bill, stating that it "is not about what Canadians do online. It is about what the
web giants do and don't do, which is to support Canadian stories and music." The amendment adds a statement establishing that the CRTC's powers over social media platforms would be limited to imposing conditions on "the discoverability of Canadian creators"; Geist criticized the amendment for merely confirming the CRTC's regulatory powers and "doubling down on [the government's] Internet regulation plans." In a May 9 interview with
CTV's political talk show
Question Period, Guilbeault stated that the
Broadcasting Act as amended by the bill "should apply to people who are broadcasters, or act like broadcasters", and suggested that social media users that have a large audience or derive a large amount of revenue (insofar that they have a "material impact on the Canadian economy") would also be classified as broadcasters. Concerns were raised over the comments, as they had contradicted Guilbeault's previous assurance that the
Act would not apply to individual users of social networks, and it was unclear what the threshold would be under this criterion. That night, Guilbeault shared a
Medium post on
Twitter which claimed that opposition to the bill was the product of "public opinion being manipulated at scale through a deliberate campaign of misinformation by commercial interests that would prefer to avoid the same regulatory oversight applied to broadcast media." On May 13, the
Department of Justice issued the new charter statement, finding that the current draft was compatible with the Charter, citing that the CRTC would not be able to impose the regulations on individual users, and would have to interpret the
Act "in a manner consistent with freedom of expression". Geist felt that the charter statement did not address the main concern of allowing the CRTC to regulate the presentation of Canadian content on internet platforms, stating that "suddenly now we're going to ask the CRTC to decide which cat video constitutes Canadian content, and which one doesn't." On May 19, the Heritage Committee voted in favour of an amendment by the
Bloc Québécois that ensures that the CRTC would only be allowed to enforce conditions on the promotion of Canadian content by social media platforms that are consistent with the Charter right to freedom of expression. Upon its reintroduction as the
Online Streaming Act, Section 4(1) was restored, but is now accompanied by an additional section stating that a
program could still fall under the Act based on CRTC regulations, based on whether the content is being monetized, was broadcast on a CRTC-licensed undertaking, or is "assigned a unique identifier under an international standards system". Geist also noted that some of the "safeguards" that had been added to the bill as Bill C-10 were removed, and concluded that "there was an opportunity to use the re-introduction of the bill to fully exclude user -generated content (no other country in the world regulates content this way), limit the scope of the bill to a manageable size, and create more certainty and guidance for the CRTC. Instead, the government has left the prospect of treating Internet content as programs subject to regulation in place, envisioned the entire globe as subject to Canadian broadcast jurisdiction, increased the power of the regulator, and done little to answer many of the previously unanswered questions." Canadian
YouTuber J.J. McCullough argued that changes to recommendation algorithms to promote Canadian content as proposed under the bill could impact the discoverability of Canadian creators. In August 2022, it was reported, based on documents from an
Access to Information Act request, that the removal of Section 4(1) from the original version of the bill was the result of lobbying by
Friends of Canadian Broadcasting and the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (CDCE). Friends was opposed to the regulation of users, but did support the regulation of social media companies themselves. In March 2023, Minister of Heritage Rodriguez and his caucus rejected multiple proposed amendments proposed by the Senate committee, including one that would have required online undertakings to "implement methods such as
age verification" to prevent minors from accessing
programs containing sexually explicit content,
International reception In May 2024, a bipartisan group of 19 members of the influential
Ways and Means Committee of the
United States House of Representatives wrote a letter to the
United States Trade Representative saying Canada's
Online Streaming Act discriminates against Americans. In March 2026, Republican congressman
Lloyd Smucker introduced the
Protecting American Streaming and Innovation Act, which proposes that
tariffs be levied against Canada for enacting "digital trade barriers targeting American streaming companies and content producers". == See also ==