The CRTC’s Online Streaming Act ruling, which triples the mandated payments for large Internet streaming services, has attracted widespread criticism given fears the approach could result in higher consumer fees and a trade backlash from the United States. Culture Minister Marc Miller’s response to the ruling was somewhat muted, saying the government was reviewing the changes and assessing their impact. The reluctance to take a stronger public position may stem from concerns about the ruling’s trade implications, as it appears to violate Canada’s trade obligations. The violation can be saved by invoking CUSMA’s cultural exemption, but that triggers the U.S. right to apply dollar-for-dollar retaliation. In other words, if the Online Streaming Act generates hundreds of millions in mandated expenditures, it will also spark matching tariffs targeting high-value Canadian economic sectors.
Latest Posts
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 269: Inside the Bill C-22 Committee Hearing for the Case Against Government’s Lawful Access Plans
The government’s lawful access bill has been the target of criticism for weeks, with companies, governments, and experts on privacy and security all sounding the alarm. Much of the momentum against the bill began to build once the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security held hearings on the legislation, providing an opportunity for critics to voice their concerns. Those hearings continue this week with both Google and Apple scheduled to appear.
For this episode of the Law Bytes podcast, I go into the hearing room for my appearance on Bill C-22. The appearance was a rerun of the podcast episode featuring a roundtable on the bill with David Fraser and Robert Diab. This episode features my opening statement and exchanges with MPs from all parties on a wide range of issues.
The Online Streaming Act Bill Comes Due: Why the CRTC’s Latest Ruling Guarantees Years of Trade and Legal Battles
The CRTC yesterday released its much-anticipated Online Streaming Act decision that has been years in the making. Given the likely opposition from many stakeholders, it is virtually certain to lead to protracted trade and legal battles. From the moment the government introduced Bill C-10 in 2020, its goal was to impose regulatory obligations on Internet streaming services, treating them as online broadcasters and mandating that they pay into the Canadian system. This week’s ruling puts a number on the payments, building on an earlier 5% interim levy with an additional 10% in expenditure requirements. The combined 15% places Canada among the most expensive operating jurisdictions in the world for streaming services, with consequences that will undoubtedly affect consumer streaming prices. Moreover, with the streaming services already challenging the interim 5% levy in court, they will undoubtedly challenge this one as well. In fact, the battle will not be limited to Canadian litigation. The U.S. government, which has become increasingly vocal in its opposition to the Online Streaming Act, will view this decision as a provocation and escalate pressure on Canada to drop the legislation altogether. Culture Minister Marc Miller appeared to hedge in his reaction to the decision, suggesting that the government sees the headaches that lie ahead.
The Government Tries to Make the Case for Bill C-22: Why Its Own Use Cases Reveal Disproportionate Overreach
Faced with growing criticism of Bill C-22, the government this week mounted a coordinated defence, with senior officials from CSIS, the RCMP, and Public Safety Canada sitting for on-the-record briefings with the Globe and Mail, the CBC, and others. While officials tried to make the case for lawful access, they failed to make the case for Bill C-22, as their use cases reveal a consistent pattern of overreach. Indeed, whether the issue is metadata retention or the technical capabilities the bill would mandate, the powers it would grant extend well beyond the targeted needs the officials describe, resulting in a disproportionate bill in need of significant amendment.
Tech Exodus: Why Bill C-22’s Privacy and Security Risks Will Drive Digital Services Out of the Country
Over the past week, a growing number of tech companies have warned that they may be forced to leave Canada if Bill C-22, the lawful access bill, remains unchanged. The government’s response to warnings from Signal, Windscribe, NordVPN, Apple, and Meta is that the companies are misreading the bill. But the prospect of a tech exodus from Canada rests on clear-cut privacy and security risks that do not apply in the U.S. or Europe. When Yegor Sak, the Toronto-headquartered CEO of Windscribe, told the Globe and Mail last week that he is actively looking at moving the company out of Canada or when Signal’s Vice President of Strategy and Global Affairs Udbhav Tiwari told the same paper that Signal “would rather pull out of the country than be compelled to compromise on the privacy promises we have made to our users,” those statements are a direct response to the government’s legislative choices in the Supporting Authorized Access to Information Act (SAAIA), the second half of Bill C-22, that will have serious economic implications for the future of the tech sector in Canada.
Recent Posts
From Levy to Liability: Why Canada Risks Facing Hundreds of Millions in Retaliatory Tariffs Due to the CRTC’s Online Streaming Act Ruling 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 269: Inside the Bill C-22 Committee Hearing for the Case Against Government’s Lawful Access Plans 
The Online Streaming Act Bill Comes Due: Why the CRTC’s Latest Ruling Guarantees Years of Trade and Legal Battles 
The Government Tries to Make the Case for Bill C-22: Why Its Own Use Cases Reveal Disproportionate Overreach 
Tech Exodus: Why Bill C-22’s Privacy and Security Risks Will Drive Digital Services Out of the Country
