Bill C-11 · 44th Parliament · Justin Trudeau
Online Streaming Act
An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedFeb. 2, 2022
- Debated in principleMay 12, 2022
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 21, 2022
- Passed the second chamberFeb. 2, 2023
- Became lawApril 27, 2023
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Justin TrudeauPrime Minister
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
What it set out to do
On 4 February 2022, the Minister of Canadian Heritage introduced Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts (Online Streaming Act) and it was given first reading. Bill C-11 amends the Broadcasting Act to, among other things, (a) add online undertakings — undertakings for the transmission or retransmission of programs over the Internet — as a distinct class of broadcasting undertakings; (b) specify that the Act does not apply in respect of programs uploaded to an online undertaking that provides a social media service by a user of the service, unless the programs are prescribed by regulation; (c) update the broadcasting policy for Canada set out in section 3 of the Act by, among other things, providing that the Canadian broadcasting system should (i) serve the needs and interests of all Canadians, including Canadians from racialized communities and Canadians of diverse ethnocultural backgrounds, socio-economic statuses, abilities and disabilities, sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions, and ages, and (ii) provide opportunities to Indigenous persons, programming that reflects Indigenous cultures and t…
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
48% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (18,986 words introduced, 15,122 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill kept its core structure and most policy goals but added new regulatory principles on innovation and privacy while refining diversity language. It also broadened official-language and community references and inserted creators into the interpretation clause.
- Expanded diversity reference in broadcasting policy.
Before: “Canadians from racialized communities”
After: “Canadians from Black or other racialized communities”
- Changed terminology for linguistic minorities throughout.
Before: “English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada”
After: “official language minority communities in Canada”
- Added new regulatory considerations for the Commission.
After: “(iv) promotes innovation and is readily adaptable to scientific and technological change,”
- Broadened interpretation clause on expression and added privacy.
Before: “the freedom of expression and journalistic, creative and programming independence enjoyed by broadcasting undertakings;”
After: “the freedom of expression and journalistic, creative and programming independence enjoyed by broadcasting undertakings and creators; (b) the right to privacy of individuals;”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: EasyDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill mixes narrow numerical rules with repeated grants of subjective power to the Commission. Most operative requirements turn on what the regulator considers appropriate or material rather than fixed, objective tests.
Open to argument
“on the terms and conditions that the Commission considers appropriate”
This phrase appears multiple times and leaves the content of obligations to the Commission's subjective judgment rather than statutory criteria.“if the Commission is satisfied that compliance with those requirements will not contribute in a material manner”
The exemption power hinges on the Commission's own assessment of materiality, an undefined and contestable standard.“in the Commission’s opinion, are efficient and necessary”
Expenditures can be required based solely on the regulator's opinion without further statutory guardrails.
Clear-cut
“to a fine of not more than $25,000 for each day that the offence continues”
Monetary penalties and daily multipliers are stated as fixed maximum amounts.“within, but not after, two years after the day on which the subject matter of the proceedings arose”
The limitation period is expressed as a clear calendar rule.“online undertaking means an undertaking for the transmission or retransmission of programs over the Internet for reception by the public by means of broadcasting receiving apparatus”
The core definition uses a functional, technology-specific test rather than a vague effects test.
Discretion. Extensive discretion is delegated to the CRTC to decide exemptions, conditions, fees, expenditures, and what counts as appropriate promotion of Canadian content, with only light statutory constraints.
Challenging the law itself. Broad phrases such as 'considers appropriate' and 'in the Commission’s opinion' engage the Charter doctrines of vagueness and overbreadth under sections 2(b) and 7 by leaving the scope of regulated speech largely undefined.
Disputing a charge under it. While due-diligence defences exist, many obligations rest on the Commission's discretionary orders, so disputes will centre on whether a given order was validly made rather than on simple factual compliance.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.