--- title: "Bill C-11 and Canadian creators in 2026: what the CRTC has actually imposed, and what is still a prediction" kind: "Article" topic: "Canadian media" date: "2026-10-10" url: "https://canopticon.com/articles/bill-c-11-and-canadian-creators-in-2026" author: "Chris Telford" license: "CC BY 4.0" --- Ask a Canadian YouTuber about the Online Streaming Act and you will often hear that it has already cost them their foreign audience. Ask what the regulator has actually required of YouTube, and the answer is: nothing yet. ## What the government said when creators objected The objection in 2022 was specific — that promoting Canadian videos to Canadians who had not asked for them would teach the recommendation systems that those videos do not hold an audience, and the damage would land abroad. The heritage minister answered by denying the premise: No users, no online creators will be regulated. No digital-first creators, no influencers, no cat videos. Only the companies themselves will have new responsibilities. He told a technology outlet he was confident that by the end of the parliamentary process on Bill C-11, [digital creators] won't be harmed in any way. A government source went further, describing the creators' campaign as tantamount to a foreign tech company partnering with a Canadian organization to misrepresent the government's policy positions and goals. The word usually attached to the government's response, "fearmongering", came from somewhere else. It was used most prominently by a senator about a different argument: the claim the bill amounts to censorship is 'fearmongering,' and she ultimately voted against C-11 because she believed user-generated content needed stronger protection. The government's own words were different: Officials' actual rhetoric was: "inaccurate," "hijacked," "we fixed it," and "cat videos." The regulator's chair used the same deflection at committee, provoking visible anger from Senator Simons, according to a contemporary account. ## The mechanism the critics describe is real Michael Geist, the academic most associated with the argument, has always put it as an exchange rather than a censorship claim: Bill C-11 trades prioritizing Canadian content for a market of 38 million people for de-prioritizing that same content for a global market that runs into the billions of viewers. The step in the middle is not controversial — The more a video is displayed but not watched, the stronger the signal that the content is not interesting to YouTube users. Shown to people who did not choose it, a video looks unwanted to a system that cannot tell a mandate from a preference. The ranking systems have shifted a little since the argument began, though not in a way that removes it. A senior YouTube engineer has described viewer-satisfaction signals as "the primary ranking input, with watch time acting as a supporting metric rather than the central one." Watch time still counts; it is no longer the only thing that does. The research's assessment of the core mechanism is unchanged: This causal mechanism is not contested by platform engineers, academic researchers, or independent creator analytics firms. ## What the 90% figure actually says The number everyone quotes comes from YouTube's own head of government affairs in Canada, testifying to a Senate committee: for many Canadian YouTubers, 90 per cent of their viewership comes from outside of Canada, and the bill really puts the international audiences of creators at risk. It is a figure about views, and it is often repeated as a figure about income — these are related but not identical, since YouTube revenue scales with views but at different CPMs across geographies. The warning is well sourced. It is also a warning, not a measurement. Creators gave the warning faces. The founder of a children's channel with tens of millions of subscribers told senators "the majority of our views and revenue come from outside of Canada". A Regina-born musician said that under the bill his career "never would have taken off", and another creator told MPs the bill could have "massive consequences" for his business. Their success abroad is real, and recent; the research notes YouTube's own year-end roundup highlighting Canadian creators achieving global breakthroughs. ## From royal assent in 2023 to a first framework in 2026 The sequence explains why nothing has happened yet. The Act passed in April 2023, and the regulator said the same day: "The CRTC has no intention to regulate creators of user-generated content and their content. We will share our detailed plan and launch the first public consultations shortly." The government's policy direction that autumn told it to "minimize" (not eliminate) algorithmic regulation. The money came first, and stalled: a 5% contribution from large streaming services was ordered in 2024, challenged in court, and stayed. The first discoverability framework arrived in May 2026, alongside a second policy raising online contribution to 15% of Canadian revenue. It set principles and deferred everything else. Even its dissent was about speed, not creators. Commissioner Bram Abramson wrote: "Later is now. The Commission has the tools. What has been missing is the decision to use them. and concluded "Canadian content can clearly compete in global markets. The Commission should not, and cannot, attempt to centrally manage culture in such an environment." ## What the regulator has actually imposed Since royal assent, the framework has been built and the obligations have not. The regulator's own discoverability policy says so in its text: the Commission considers that it would be premature to impose standard industry requirements related to activities meant to improve discoverability, measurements to monitor discoverability, or discoverability targets to reach. Everything specific is deferred to the future tailored conditions of service proceeding. Even the money has not moved: a court grants stay on base contribution payments pending appeal, which the commission's own vice-president acknowledged — We do recognize there's a stay in place, but in the meantime we're going forward in establishing these policies. ## The fight that has started is about trade, not creators The visible conflict since the ruling is between governments and studios. The American tech industry's trade group said the requirements will cost U.S. firms almost $7 billion over the next five years, and the film studios' association called the ruling discriminatory. The critic most associated with the creators' argument has moved to the same terrain: his most recent post focuses on trade/CUSMA retaliation risk from the 15% contribution requirement, not on UGC algorithmic harm. An American congressman has introduced a bill requiring a USTR Section 301 investigation. ## Whether ordinary uploads will be covered is still open The question creators care about most has not been closed. The Act's text leaves room for it, the government's direction asked only for restraint, and the new framework does not exclude video platforms: BRP 2026-95 does not exclude UGC platforms. The regulator's stated intention is the main protection, and the research notes its limits: Geist and others note this language does not foreclose future regulation. What the eventual rules do will decide whether the forecast ever becomes an event: Whether eventual conditions of service will be designed in a way that triggers the algorithmic feedback loop creators warned about will depend on the specifics of future CRTC proceedings. ## So the harm is predicted, not recorded If the mechanism had fired, there would be data. There is none: No published creator survey, platform transparency report, or peer-reviewed study documents that Canadian creators' international watch time has actually dropped due to C-11 or CRTC action. The advocacy organisation for creators has published no measurement either. What exists points elsewhere — an industry-commissioned study found YouTube contributed more than $1.8 billion to Canada's GDP in 2024 … supported more than 35,000 full-time equivalent jobs across the country last year. And the critic whose argument this is has not claimed otherwise: Geist has not published, as of late May 2026, a piece claiming that the predicted algorithmic harm has materialized. Both camps in this argument have stakes. The research is direct about it: YouTube Canada and TikTok are not neutral parties. The creators' advocacy group's funding from YouTube and TikTok was disclosed only after some parliamentary appearances, and on the other side the music and broadcasting lobbies are not neutral on the other side. Reader skepticism is warranted toward both sides. > **Objection: Nobody has looked, so of course there is no evidence** > > That is a fair reading of a thin literature, and it cuts both ways: the claim that reach has been suppressed is just as unmeasured as the claim that it has not. What can be checked is the chain the harm would have to travel down. It needs orders in force against the platforms, platforms changing their global behaviour in response, and a visible effect in creator analytics. The research puts the status of all three plainly: As of May 28, 2026, none of these conditions has been demonstrated to have occurred. The research also says what would change its verdict. The first trigger is regulatory: If a CRTC condition of service is imposed on YouTube or TikTok requiring Canadian content prominence in feeds for Canadian users, claim #2 becomes operative rather than predictive. The second is evidence: a published transparency report or study showing a measurable global watch-time decline for Canadian creators temporally linked to such an order. ## What this explains It explains how both sides of this argument can sound certain. The critics are describing a mechanism that platform engineers do not dispute, aimed at a market where most Canadian creators' audiences are foreign. The government is pointing at a rulebook that so far requires nothing of anyone. Both are right about what they are talking about, and they are not talking about the same thing. It also marks where the argument stops being speculative: the proceeding that sets each platform's actual commitments. Until that produces an obligation a platform has to act on, every claim about what C-11 has done to Canadian creators is a forecast wearing the grammar of a finding.