TranslatePolitics.ca

Jacob Mantle

Conservative 3:50 p.m.

“I'm not afraid of American culture. Canadians can compete with the world. You use Netflix too. Have some confidence in Canadian creators.”

Yves Perron

Bloc Québécois 3:50 p.m.

“The real issue is fairness. I want to force web giants to pay new taxes and fees to fund my preferred culture programs. I control where the money goes, but I'll call it 'independent institutions.' You should pay up to protect democracy.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is not about being afraid of American cultural content. On the contrary, it is popular with plenty of people. That is not the issue. The issue is about levelling the playing field across the country, because the existing media outlets and institutions had to pay licence fees and infrastructure costs, while the web giants enter the market without any such costs. It is simply a matter of taking a small cut of the profits that they make and redistributing them to support our culture. Contrary to what the member seems to think, this is not about dictating content. The institutions will remain independent. However, one of the things that it will do is help maintain regional media outlets, which is very important for democracy. I would like to hear his comments on that.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Jacob Mantle

Conservative 3:55 p.m.

“I'm filling up space with good words about jobs and investment. The real issue is the government wants more control. It's not about protecting culture. It's about forcing tech companies to promote the government's message and pay for its programs.”

Steven Bonk

Conservative 3:55 p.m.

“I want to look serious about trade. I talk about these trade deals to sound smart. But really, why is the government risking a trade fight now?”

Jacob Mantle

Conservative 3:55 p.m.

“I'm piling on. The government must be asleep at the wheel to start a trade fight now. I want to look like I'm concerned about trade.”

Lisa Hepfner

Liberal 3:55 p.m.

“I want to look cultured by naming a lot of old books I read. The government must keep spending money on artists and rules that make Canadian content.”

Jacob Mantle

Conservative 3:55 p.m.

“I want to look like I support Canadian content too. But I don't want the government picking winners and losers. And I don't want the government forcing tech companies to only show some content.”

Sandra Cobena

Conservative 3:55 p.m.

“Canadians are struggling with rising costs. The CRTC tripled the streaming tax from 5% to 15%. This hurts ordinary Canadians, not wealthy corporations. It makes Canada an expensive and unpredictable place for streaming companies to invest and create jobs. This could drive away production studios and make it harder for our arts and culture sector to compete. The tax is unconstitutional - the CRTC doesn't have the right to impose it without Parliament's approval. The Liberal government should reject this decision that will make life more expensive for Canadians.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of Canadians who feel that every month brings yet another bill. However, they cannot afford it. Canadians are tired of opening their bills and finding them higher than the last month. Families are tightening their belts, reducing subscriptions, delaying purchases and working overtime, yet somehow their bills keep growing and they cannot get ahead. What frustrates Canadians most is that so many of these rising costs are not accidents. They are policy choices. Today, we are talking about the CRTC's decision to triple the streaming tax from 5% to 15% on online platforms like Netflix, Spotify, YouTube and others. However, let us be honest about what this really is. This is another example of a government and its agencies believing they know better than Canadians how Canadians should spend their own money. Let us be clear about what just happened. On May 21, the CRTC announced it was tripling the levy on online streamers, not increasing it modestly, not adjusting it to inflation, but tripling it, going from 5% to 15% in one announcement. Here is what makes that even more remarkable: The original 5% levy has not even cleared the courts yet. Streamers launched legal challenges against the original rate, challenges that are still before the courts today. The CRTC has not collected a single dollar from those original obligations, so what did the CRTC do? It tripled it anyway. That is a government agency operating without discipline, without accountability and without any apparent concern for the consequences its decisions have on real Canadians. Let us talk about those consequences. When we triple the tax on online streaming services, we do not hurt Netflix shareholders. We do not inconvenience executives in California. We do not stress out shareholders or investors. It is the single mother in Aurora, using Netflix at the end of a long day with her kids. It is the senior in Newmarket who cancelled cable years ago because streaming was more affordable. It is a young couple already wondering how they are going to manage rising rent and grocery prices in the dimming dreams of starting a family. For many Canadians, streaming is no longer a luxury. It is one of the few affordable forms of entertainment left. The government talks constantly about affordability. The Prime Minister himself campaigned on it, yet here we are: another tax, another cost, another burden placed on the backs of Canadians who are already carrying too much. Let us not pretend that this is the only one. It is the latest, in fact, in a long list of punitive measures from the Liberal government that, together, are squeezing Canadians in every direction. The cumulative weight of all these decisions lands on a family's kitchen table, and they feel it. Now let me turn to the longer-term damage, because this is where it truly gets serious. When we triple the tax on online streaming services, Canada becomes one of the most expensive operating jurisdictions in the entire world for streaming services; not the most expensive in the G7, not among the most expensive in the western world, but among the most expensive on earth. What does that signal to investors? What does that say to a company sitting in a boardroom in Los Angeles, London or Seoul, deciding where to put its next production studio, its next animation facility or its next regional headquarters? It says Canada is expensive. It says Canada is unpredictable. Canada is harder to do business in. I want to give the House a concrete example of exactly what is at stake here, because I think sometimes these debates can feel abstract. Let me make it tangible. Netflix recently opened Netflix Animation Studios in Vancouver. That facility created more than 450 good-paying jobs. It brought significant investment to British Columbia. It put Canadian artists, animators and storytellers to work doing world-class creative work right here at home. That is exactly the kind of investment we should be encouraging. That is exactly the kind of economic activity we should be competing to attract. The Online Streaming Act, combined with this triple levy, sends precisely the opposite message. It tells companies like Netflix to think twice before they build something here and to think twice before they hire here. If a company succeeds in Canada, we will tax it for it. That is devastating, not just for Vancouver and Toronto but for every Canadian who works in the film and television industry, and for every community that benefits from that investment. There is then the trade dimension. This may be the most reckless aspect of all. When one triples the tax on online streaming services, it is not in isolation. We are in the middle of a critical review of CUSMA, the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement. Our trading relationship with the U.S. is under more scrutiny than it has been in a generation. The Trump administration has been clear and consistent. It views the Online Streaming Act as a trade irritant. This is not speculation. This is not opposition talking points. The Americans have said so directly and repeatedly. Just recently, the United States Ambassador to Canada stated, and I am going to be careful to represent this accurately, that the “CRTC’s decision to triple the tax rate on leading streaming services is making a bad situation worse”, that it targets and taxes American companies, puts up new discriminatory trade barriers and worsens the investment climate for American businesses. That is a warning. What is the Carney Liberal government's response? Its response is silence, indifference and a shrug. At the exact moment when Canada needs to be demonstrating to our largest trading partner that we are a serious, reliable and competitive economy, the government is escalating a fight that nobody in the country asked for over a policy that helps nobody in the country. That is negligence. I want to address something directly because I know that the government will raise it. When one triples the tax on online streaming services, it is a tax on investment in the arts and culture. Conservatives believe in Canadian culture and have defended it for a decade, over a decade, from Liberal postnational attacks. We believe in Canadian artists, storytellers and creators. We are proud of what the country produces in music, film, television and literature. That pride is real and it is not a partisan position. It belongs to us all. One does not strengthen Canadian culture by punishing investment. One does not support Canadian creators by driving away the platforms and production companies that employ them. One does not build a vibrant, creative economy by making Canada one of the most expensive places in the world to operate a streaming service. Real support for Canadian culture means creating conditions where great Canadian content can be made, can find an audience and can compete with the best in the world on its merits. It does not mean turning a government agency into an Internet czar that picks winners and losers, removes choice from viewers and tells Canadians what they should be watching. That is not cultural policy. That is paternalism and Canadians deserve better. Let me say something about the constitutional dimensions, as well. For over 800 years, the parliamentary tradition we have inherited, the tradition that is the foundation of this very institution, has been clear. The power to tax belongs to Parliament, not to agencies and regulators, not to appointed officials who are not accountable to the people of this country at the ballot box. The CRTC does not have a mandate from Canadians to triple a levy on streaming services. It was not elected and cannot be defeated at the polls, yet here it is making decisions with real tax consequences for millions of Canadians. The Prime Minister and the Liberal government must reject this decision.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 3:55 p.m.

“Canada isn't the only country with streaming rules. France has them! I call the Conservatives cowards for wanting less regulation. They sound like Netflix shills. They don't care about Canadian arts.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight a couple of things. Canada is one of seven countries that make up the G7, but it is not the only one that deals with this streaming issue. A number of other countries in the G7 do, countries like France and others. I don't believe that they are going to allow themselves to be intimidated. The Conservatives are prepared to capitulate and say that we should get rid of any sort of streaming, that we should just stop it. They are advocating from an American perspective. They sound more like representatives of Netflix than members of Parliament advocating in the best interests of Canadians. When will the Conservatives start advocating for Canadians, in particular our arts community?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Sandra Cobena

Conservative 3:55 p.m.

“I'm connected to the film industry. I've financed projects. Filmmakers want opportunity and investment. This levy will chase away investment and shrink the industry. It won't help.”

Alexis Deschênes

Bloc Québécois 4:10 p.m.

“I agree with my colleague. The Conservative Party is being pathetic today. They are siding with American companies against our culture and media sectors. Our culture and media sectors are struggling. They need support. American companies will use our cultural products to make profits here. But the Conservative Party doesn't want to tax them. That's not fair.”

Sandra Cobena

Conservative 4:10 p.m.

“I don't like how you framed that question. That framing is unacceptable. This is not about American companies. This is about Canadian creators and artists. I want investment and opportunity for Canadians and Canadian content. I want that chance for Canadian creators and artists. It does not matter where the investment comes from.”

Fred Davies

Conservative 4:10 p.m.

“I want investment in Canada. I think this decision will hurt investment. When the government picks winners and losers, capital flees. Capital goes to certainty. This proposal doesn't have that. The CRTC doesn't understand economics, trade, or capital flow. I want my colleague to say how this will negatively impact investment in Canadian production and Canadian culture.”

Sandra Cobena

Conservative 4:10 p.m.

“I know an entrepreneur who tried to sell to Europe. They were the same quality and price as an American company. But they lost the contract. The buyer said Canada is hard to do business with. That's why they bought from the American company instead of the Canadian one.”

Tatiana Auguste

Liberal 4:10 p.m.

“I want global streaming companies to give money to Canadian broadcasting and production. This motion is bad because it doesn't recognize the importance of investing in Canadian stories and production capacity. Contributions to Canadian programming are investments in jobs, infrastructure, intellectual property, skills development and economic activity across the country. The Online Streaming Act is important because it ensures that foreign streaming platforms contribute to Canadian production like traditional broadcasters do. If we don't maintain Canada's production capacity, jobs will disappear and we will become dependent on foreign-produced content. This is not just a cultural issue but an economic one. Weakening our production ecosystem would make us more economically dependent.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise for the first time since the recent election to represent my constituents and to speak on their behalf. I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of a broadcasting system that continues to invest in Canadian workers, Canadian creativity and in Canada's economic growth. Despite the rhetoric we have heard, this debate is not really on a so-called online streaming tax. This is about whether global streaming giants that generate substantial revenue from our Canadian audiences should make a fair and reasonable contribution to the Canadian broadcasting and production ecosystem from which they benefit. This principle is neither radical nor new. For decades, companies participating in the Canadian broadcasting system have contributed financially to the creation and presentation of the Canadian programming on which they depend. These contributions have helped build one of the most respected production sectors in the world. Today, Canada is internationally recognized as a major centre for film, television, animation and documentary production, as well as digital and interactive media. Talented Canadians work on productions that are being watched all over the world. Our studios are full, we have world-class crews and our creators are winning international awards. This success did not happen by chance. It happened because successive governments and regulatory bodies understood that Canadian stories and Canadian production capacity matter just as much economically as they do culturally. The motion before the House fails to take this reality into account. It frames contributions to Canadian programming as though they were merely a burden or a penalty, but these contributions are investments in jobs, infrastructure, intellectual property, skills development and economic activity across the country. Furthermore, spending on Canadian programming is not a punishment. We are not asking companies to throw money down a bottomless pit. We are asking them to invest in some of the best programs in the world. We are asking them to continue making The Glass House, Shoresy, Heated Rivalry and North of North. They cannot claim that Canadian-produced programs are not worthy of their services. The film production sector supports hundreds of thousands of direct and indirect jobs in Canada. These are not abstract jobs. These are good-paying, highly skilled jobs, filled by Canadians in every region of our country. They include camera operators, lighting specialists, sound engineers, visual effects artists, editors, costumers, set carpenters, studio managers, caterers, truck drivers, musicians, actors, writers, producers, translators, production specialists, and the list goes on. The economic impact extends far beyond the film set itself. When productions are shot in a community, people rent hotel rooms, eat at local restaurants, use transportation companies, rent facilities, hire local workers and generate interest in tourism and regional economic development. Entire local economies benefit from a strong production sector. In cities like Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal, the production industry has become a major economic driver, but production has also created opportunities in small rural communities across the country, including in the Atlantic provinces, the Prairies, northern Canada and indigenous communities. That is why the framework established under the Online Streaming Act is important. The world has changed dramatically since the first Broadcasting Act was drafted. Traditional broadcasters continue to contribute to Canadian content obligations while facing growing competition from major foreign content streaming services that now dominate audience share and subscription revenue. The problem the legislation set out to solve was simple: The regulatory system had not kept pace with technological change. Canadians are consuming more and more programs online rather than on legacy broadcasting platforms, but the contribution framework traditionally applied primarily to Canadian broadcasters. That imbalance was unsustainable. If Canadian broadcasters are required to contribute to Canadian programming while foreign streaming platforms generating significant Canadian revenue are exempt, the financial foundation supporting Canadian production will begin to erode. However, contributions to the broadcasting system are not new and they are not unique to Canada. Many countries around the world require streaming services to contribute to national production ecosystems. Governments across Europe have adopted similar frameworks to ensure the viability of local production sectors in the digital age. Despite these obligations, global streaming companies continue to heavily invest in these markets. Why? Companies invest where there is talent, stability, infrastructure and opportunities. Canada offers all those things. We have world-class teams. We have creative talent that is respected around the world. We have competitive production environments. We have advanced visual effects and post-production sectors. We have good schools that train qualified workers. Above all, we have a long-established production ecosystem built through decades of public and private investment. Ironically, many of the people who are now criticizing the contribution requirements celebrate the economic success of Canada's film and television industry without recognizing the policies that helped create it. We cannot separate the success of Canada's production industry from the public policy framework that supported its growth. What we do know, however, is that there is a real economic cost to not maintaining Canada's production capacity. When domestic production weakens, jobs disappear. Creative workers leave the industry or even the country. Investment in infrastructure slows down. Independent production companies burn out and Canada becomes increasingly dependent on foreign-produced content without maintaining its own creative industrial base. That is not a recipe for long-term economic resilience. This motion also raises concerns about trade relations with the United States as we approach the CUSMA review. Canada has always defended the principle that cultural policy holds a unique place in public policy. Successive governments from all political stripes have defended Canada's ability to promote Canadian voices, Canadian creators and Canadian cultural industries. There are good reasons for that. Canada shares a border with the world's largest cultural exporter. Without supports for domestic creation and discoverability, Canadian voices can easily be drowned out in an increasingly concentrated global market. Again, it is not just a cultural issue but also an economic one. Countries that invest in domestic production develop exportable industries. Canadian productions are making their mark on the world stage. Canadian creators are developing intellectual property that can be marketed worldwide. Canadian studios are attracting foreign investment. Canadian crews are gaining competitive expertise across the country, and Canada is consolidating its position in the rapidly growing audiovisual economy. Weakening our production ecosystem would not make Canada economically stronger. Rather, it would make us more economically dependent. I believe that Canadians understand what fairness means. They understand that when companies benefit from access to Canadian audiences, talent, infrastructure and markets, it is reasonable to expect them to contribute to the sustainability of the system they benefit from. They also understand that Canada's production industry is not just a fringe cultural undertaking disconnected from the economy. It is a major economic sector. It creates jobs, supports small businesses, boosts tourism, generates exports, develops a highly skilled workforce, strengthens regional economies and helps maintain Canada's competitiveness in one of the fastest-growing global sectors at a time when countries around the world are in an intense competition to attract production investment and creative talent. Now is not the time to weaken the foundations of our domestic industry. This means ensuring that the economic benefits generated by this broadcasting system continue to support Canadian jobs for Canadian production and Canadian stories. For these reasons, I urge all members of the House to reject this motion.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Yves Perron

Bloc Québécois 4:20 p.m.

“I want to tax tech giants and spend the money on Quebec culture and regional media. The government should bring back that tax, not negotiate. Will you help me pressure the government to tax them again?”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the content of my colleague's speech. I think we are on the same wavelength. We understand that there are funds that need to be reinvested in our local culture. I have a question for my colleague. Her government scrapped the tax on tech giants last year, supposedly to facilitate negotiations with the U.S. president, yet we can see that it has yielded no results. Should this tax not be reinstated? Does she agree with the idea of recovering these colossal sums—as I recall, it was $7 billion over five years—which could allow us to support our regional media? Will she commit to working within her caucus to convince her government to reinstate this tax, which had been adopted and was the result of sound legislation?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Tatiana Auguste

Liberal 4:20 p.m.

“I don't want to directly answer whether we should tax tech giants and spend the money on regional media. Instead I'll talk about how much I love Quebec and French-language culture and claim the motion on the table is unreasonable. I want my Quebec colleague to agree with me that we should support exporting French-language productions. I'd rather talk about CRTC and language and export than answer whether we should reinstate that specific tax.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. My colleagues can rest assured that they have in me a strong advocate for Canadian culture, Quebec culture, and above all, French-language culture. All of this will be promoted through the CRTC's work. In my view, the motion before us seems unreasonable because we must continue to support Canadian production. I think my colleague will agree with me when I say that, as a Quebecker, I believe we must above all support all French-language productions that are exported, because French is not only a magnificent language for us, but also one that deserves to be exported around the world. This will happen thanks to the investments currently being made in Canada.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Bernard Généreux

Conservative 4:25 p.m.

“You didn't answer my question earlier about who will really pay this 15% tax on digital products. I'm going to ask you again since your colleague dodged it. I want to expose that consumers will pay this new tax, not tech companies. The government is just using cultural products as an excuse to raise taxes.”

Tatiana Auguste

Liberal 4:25 p.m.

“You're right, consumers will pay this tax. I think that's fine. These companies should pay their fair share. I want to gain more tax revenue to produce Canadian content everyone can enjoy. That's why I'm voting against this motion.”

Karim Bardeesy

Liberal 4:25 p.m.

“I want to look like I care about black creators. If I talk about this policy maybe it will make all my viewers and all Canadians happy.”

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates

Business of Supply

Jacob Mantle

Yves Perron

Jacob Mantle

Steven Bonk

Jacob Mantle

Lisa Hepfner

Jacob Mantle

Sandra Cobena

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Sandra Cobena

Alexis Deschênes

Sandra Cobena

Fred Davies

Sandra Cobena

Tatiana Auguste

Yves Perron

Tatiana Auguste

Bernard Généreux

Tatiana Auguste

Karim Bardeesy