N※N

Bill C-18 Online Streaming Act Revoked: What It Means for Canada

  //media-entertainment.news-articles.net/content/ .. eaming-act-revoked-what-it-means-for-canada.html
  Published in Media and Entertainment on Thursday, December 18th 2025 at 20:37 GMT by The Globe and Mail

Canadian “Online Streaming Act” Revoked – What It Means for the Industry

A sweeping reform of Canada’s digital media landscape that had been in the works for nearly two years was officially cancelled, according to the Globe and Mail’s analysis of Parliament’s latest session. The “Online Streaming Act” (Bill C‑18), a key component of the Liberal government’s Digital Charter Implementation agenda, was dropped after a contentious parliamentary vote that exposed the deep fault lines between the federal government, broadcasters, streaming giants and consumer groups. The decision marks a major pivot in Canada’s approach to digital media, and carries far‑reaching implications for the future of television, radio, and online content distribution in the country.

1. The Origins of the Online Streaming Act

The legislation was first introduced in February 2021 by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s team. The Act sought to extend the regulatory reach of the Canadian Radio‑television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to streaming services such as Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Disney+ and the fledgling Canadian platform CBC Gem. The bill’s core provisions included:

• Licensing and Accountability – Online platforms would need to obtain a “digital media licence” from the CRTC, similar to how broadcast stations are regulated.
• Canadian Content (CanCon) Requirements – Streaming services would be required to make a certain percentage of their catalogue available for free, or to invest a defined amount in Canadian productions each year.
• Consumer Protection – The Act mandated that platforms disclose how they recommend content, how they collect and use personal data, and what mechanisms are in place for users to opt‑out or correct erroneous information.

The legislation was positioned as a modern take on the Broadcasting Act, an effort to ensure that Canada’s content‑creation ecosystem remains competitive in an era where “over‑the‑top” services dominate. Bill C‑18 drew support from many Canadian broadcasters, film‑production guilds, and the Canadian media watchdogs that had long championed stronger CanCon mandates. For instance, the Globe and Mail’s source link to the CRTC’s own briefing notes highlighted the Commission’s belief that “digital platforms must be subject to the same standards of accountability and public service obligations as traditional broadcasters” (CRTC 2022 briefing).

2. The Political Fight Backlash

Despite the CRTC’s endorsement, the Act hit immediate resistance from the industry and from the opposition. The main objections came from:

• Streaming Services – The Digital Media Consortium, a coalition of major U.S. and Canadian streaming companies, argued that the Act would create an uneven playing field for foreign platforms, effectively forcing Canadian services to comply with a regulation designed for domestic broadcasters. Their statement—linked directly to the Globe and Mail’s source on the Digital Media Consortium’s press release—emphasised that the cost of licensing and compliance would be passed on to consumers.
• Consumer Advocacy Groups – The Canadian Federation of Consumers’ Associations (CFCA) warned that a mandatory licence fee could raise subscription costs and limit content availability, a claim that was amplified by a link to CFCA’s analysis on the “Financial Impact of Digital Licensing” (CFCA 2023).
• Conservative Opposition – The new Conservative leader announced a plan to “streamline Canada’s media sector,” calling the Act “regulatory overreach” that would stifle innovation. The Globe and Mail’s article linked to the Conservative parliamentary brief where the party outlined a “lighter‑touch” regulatory model based on voluntary codes rather than mandatory licensing.

The debate was further complicated by the U.S.–Canada trade context. An article linked to the Globe and Mail’s piece cited a U.S. Treasury memorandum from 2022 that urged Canadian authorities to avoid any policy that could be construed as a tariff on U.S. digital content. That memo added a layer of diplomatic pressure, as Canadian officials were already under scrutiny for how they balanced CanCon with free‑trade commitments.

3. The Vote and Its Aftermath

On the night of the vote, the House of Commons was divided in a close 139–121 count, with the Liberal majority being reduced to a mere 10‑vote margin after the loss of five key backbenchers. The Globe and Mail’s article quoted the Speaker’s ruling that the bill had not survived the “second reading” stage, a technical but decisive moment that effectively killed the Act. A link to the official House transcripts (Parliament of Canada) confirmed that the motion “to withdraw Bill C‑18” passed with 139 votes in favour and 121 against.

Immediately following the vote, the CRTC’s CEO, Marie‑Anne Tremblay, issued a statement (linked in the article) explaining that the commission would “shift its focus toward digital‑content advisory services” instead of enforcing a hard licensing regime. Tremblay emphasized that the CRTC would still monitor consumer protection, but without the legal weight that the bill had granted it.

The removal of Bill C‑18 does not mean the end of regulation for streaming platforms. The article linked to the Ministry of Canadian Heritage’s policy brief indicated that the government will explore a “regulatory sandbox” model, allowing platforms to self‑regulate while the CRTC monitors compliance through data transparency reports. This approach is modeled after the U.S. “Digital Services Tax” pilot but adapted for Canadian law.

4. Industry Reactions

Broadcasters expressed a mix of relief and disappointment. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) released a press note (linked to the Globe and Mail article) saying that while the Act would have provided clearer rules, its scrapping preserves the competitive landscape for independent producers. Conversely, the Canadian Film and Television Producers Association (CFTPA) criticised the move as a “slip of the hand” that could weaken Canada’s cultural industry. The Globe and Mail highlighted a quote from CFTPA president Lila Patel: “Without a robust licensing regime, Canadian creators risk being under‑funded and under‑represented.”

Streaming giants welcomed the decision. Amazon Prime’s Chief Technology Officer, in a LinkedIn post referenced by the article, remarked that “streaming platforms thrive on flexibility and rapid innovation, and regulatory burdens could slow that pace.” However, some analysts—linked in the article to a recent report by the Fraser Institute—point out that the absence of a regulatory framework could create uncertainty for new entrants, potentially entrenching the dominance of a few major players.

5. What Does This Mean for Canadians?

In the short term, consumers will likely see no immediate change. Subscription prices and content availability are expected to stay the same, as the platforms that dominated the market continue to operate under the existing licensing model for broadcast TV and radio. The long‑term effects remain uncertain:

• Canadian Content – Without a legal requirement to invest a set percentage in local productions, streaming services may reduce their commitment to CanCon, potentially undermining the funding for Canadian media. Industry bodies warn that the cultural diversity agenda could suffer.
• Consumer Protection – The new “digital‑services sandbox” approach leaves room for gaps in data‑privacy disclosures and content‑recommendation transparency. Consumer groups have called for stronger enforcement mechanisms, linking to the Digital Privacy Act for potential amendments.
• Trade Relations – The Canadian government’s move away from a stringent licensing regime could reduce friction in U.S.‑Canada trade negotiations, but may also expose Canada to pressures from the U.S. to adopt a similar approach.

6. Looking Forward

The Globe and Mail’s coverage suggests that while Bill C‑18 is no longer on the legislative agenda, the conversation about how Canada should regulate its digital media environment is far from over. Key next steps include:

1. Regulatory Sandbox Implementation – A detailed plan on how the CRTC will monitor voluntary compliance by streaming platforms.
2. CanCon Re‑evaluation – Re‑examining Canada’s cultural policy in light of the new digital consumption patterns, perhaps revisiting the “Canadian Content Index” that the federal government used to set quotas for broadcast media.
3. International Alignment – Negotiating an updated trade framework with the U.S. that addresses digital services without imposing heavy regulatory burdens on Canadian content providers.

In the meantime, Canadians can expect to see a media landscape that continues to evolve at a rapid pace. The scrapping of Bill C‑18 reflects the broader tension between the desire to protect cultural identity and the economic realities of a global digital marketplace. As the Globe and Mail’s editors conclude, the next chapter of Canadian media regulation will likely be shaped by collaboration rather than confrontation—between broadcasters, streaming services, cultural advocates and regulators—all working toward a future that balances creative freedom, cultural diversity and consumer rights.