TranslatePolitics.ca

Rachael Thomas

Conservative 10:15 a.m.

“I want to convince Canadians that the government is out of touch and making life harder for them. I want to show that I support investment and creators, and that the government is driving away investment and making Canada less competitive. I want the government to scrap this tax and make life more affordable for Canadians.”

Official Hansard

moved: That, given that, (i) the Liberal-appointed CRTC recently ordered online streaming services to pay 15% of their annual Canadian revenues to the government, up from the current 5%, (ii) this tax increase will be passed on to consumers who are already struggling with the rising cost of living, (iii) the tax will discourage business activity and investment in Canada, (iv) the tax is a trade irritant with the United States ahead of the upcoming CUSMA review, the House call on the Liberal Cabinet to use their powers under the Broadcasting Act to reject the CRTC’s streaming tax increase and eliminate the streaming tax. She said: Madam Speaker, I wish to split my time with the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South. After 11 years of the Liberal government, Canadians are paying more for just about everything. They are paying more for groceries, gas, housing, electricity and, now, simply watching their favourite show or listening to their favourite music. Just last week, the Liberal-appointed CRTC announced plans to triple the streaming tax, taking it from 5% to 15% on online streaming services such as Netflix, Spotify and Disney+. This question must be asked: Who will pay for this? The answer is that it will not be government, the CRTC bureaucrats or the Liberal ministers sitting across the way. Instead, it will be everyday, hard-working Canadians who will foot the bill. Every dollar of this tax will ultimately be passed on to consumers, who are already struggling under the weight of rising costs under current government policy. In fact, Canadians are already seeing the impact. Just a few days ago, Spotify notified subscribers that they would see an increase in their rates coming into effect in July. A few extra dollars here and there may not be that much to those across the way, but for Canadians who are working hard, skimping and saving, and trying to make ends meet, those dollars matter. Canadians should not be forced into a false choice between affordability and a few small pleasures in life. Families should be able to afford the essentials, such as food, clothing and shelter, while still being able to enjoy a few of those tiny comforts. After a decade of Liberal policies, affordability in Canada has only gotten worse, and this streaming tax is simply the latest Liberal attack on affordability. What makes this even harder for Canadians to accept is the growing disconnect between what ordinary Canadians are experiencing and what they see from those in positions of power. Recently released invoices show that the Prime Minister spent nearly $200,000 just on inflight food in one year. On one trip alone to Rome, taxpayers were billed almost $94,000 for meals in the air. What did these meals include? They included things like beef tenderloin, salmon, crème brûlée and fine wines. For many Canadian families, the majority actually, $94,000 would cover groceries for years, not just a few small meals. It is ludicrous. It is completely out of touch with Canadians. While families are deciding whether or not they can afford a few extra dollars on their Spotify account, the Prime Minister is spending $94,000, of taxpayer money I should add, on meals for one trip. The Liberals tell Canadians that the solution is to simply consume less. The former finance minister suggested that Canadians cancel their Disney+ account, for example, so they could save those few extra dollars each month to make ends meet. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister spent $94,000 on inflight meals for one trip. The irony here is impossible to miss. This decision is not only wrong with respect to affordability, but also wrong economically. It is wrong for investment and for Canada's future. That 15% tax puts Canada among the most expensive jurisdictions to do business with streaming companies. That sends a dangerous message to investors that Canada is becoming more costly, less predictable and not worth investing in because it is not competitive. Investment matters because we need to draw it into our country rather than chase it away. Here is what happens when investment thrives. The member across the way is shaking his head, but it creates jobs, raises wages, drives innovation and creates opportunities for everyday, hard-working Canadians. That is what happens when we are able to draw investment into our country, but the government seems committed to the opposite, which means that projects, capital, jobs and opportunities go elsewhere while the Canadian people ultimately suffer. We are already seeing what investment can do when the government gets out of the way. Earlier this year, Netflix opened a major animation studio in Vancouver. That is under question now, due to this increase in tax. Nevertheless, Netflix created this. It has spurred thousands of jobs, and it is bringing significant economic investment into Canada to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. That is exactly the kind of growth that we should be encouraging. Instead, the Liberals are putting up more barriers and more costs that threaten future investment in Canada's film, television and digital production sectors, production hubs like Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal and, increasingly, Atlantic Canada. Members opposite might want to sit up and listen to that. They rely on a healthy mix of Canadian talent and international investment, working together to create jobs and world-class content here at home, but this tax begins to call that into question. When Canada becomes a higher-cost, more regulated environment, we risk slowing the momentum and limiting opportunities for Canadians. Even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has strongly condemned the Online Streaming Act and the CRTC's most recent decision warning that Canada is moving toward rigid one-size-fits-all regulation that discourages investment. Conservatives support Canadian artists. We support creators, musicians, filmmakers and storytellers. We want them to thrive, but we do not strengthen Canada's culture by making life more expensive for Canadians. In fact, the opposite is what happened. We do not support creators by discouraging investment. We do not build a stronger economy by punishing growth. In fact, a strong culture requires a strong economy. If we want the cultural sector to thrive, then we need to build a thriving economy, a thriving ecosystem for these folks. Prosperity will happen. There is also a serious democratic problem here. For centuries, parliamentary democracy has been built on a simple principle and that is that taxes should only be imposed by elected representatives accountable to the people, not by unelected regulators such as the CRTC and not by bureaucrats operating at an arm's length from the minister. However, the Liberal-appointed CRTC has effectively imposed a massive new tax burden on Canadians without Parliament even voting on it. If the government believes that Canadians should pay higher streaming taxes, then the minister should come into this place, call for a vote and allow themselves to be held accountable. They should be transparent before the Canadian people. Instead, they are choosing to stand behind a regulator and let them do their dirty work. On top of all of this, the Liberals could not have chosen a worse time internationally to provoke this fight. Canada is heading into an important CUSMA review with the United States. The streaming tax has already been identified by the American officials as a major trade irritant. The American ambassador to Canada has warned that tripling the streaming levy is “making a bad situation worse.” At precisely the moment when Canada should be reducing trade tensions and strengthening economic co-operation, the Liberals are escalating the dispute. This weakens Canada's position when it comes to negotiations. At a time when economic uncertainty persists, Canada should be focused on becoming more competitive, not less. We should be attracting investment, not driving it away. We should be expanding trade, not creating more disputes. We should be making life more affordable for Canadians, not more expensive. This is the choice that is before the House today, and I would urge my colleagues to choose Canadians. After 11 years of Liberal inflation, Liberal gatekeepers and Liberal tax hikes, Canadians are exhausted. They are tired of paying more while getting less. They are tired of being told to lower their expectations while government spending continues to rise. They are tired of watching opportunity leave this country because the government refuses to get out of the way and allow people to thrive. Canadians are calling on the government to make a decision with their, the people's, best interests in mind. They are calling on the government to make life more affordable for them. It starts by scrapping this tax.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 10:25 a.m.

“I want people to think I care about Canadian jobs and culture. I want them to forget that our government appointed the CRTC, and that our tax-and-spend policies are driving away investment.”

Rachael Thomas

Conservative 10:25 a.m.

“I claim my party's cut-taxes, cut-regulation plans would help the cultural sector. More freedom equals more growth. That politician over there wants more taxes and more rules instead. I say his plan won't work. Taxing and regulating everything is no way to help culture thrive.”

Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

Bloc Québécois 10:25 a.m.

“I think the Conservatives are scared of Donald Trump. They want to give up protecting Quebec culture before trade negotiations even start. Big tech companies make lots of money in Canada. They can handle some regulation to protect our culture.”

Rachael Thomas

Conservative 10:25 a.m.

“More regulation and taxes will drive away investment. Companies like Netflix create jobs for Canada's culture sector. We should encourage that, not punish it. The government's plan will cost us jobs.”

Blaine Calkins

Conservative 10:30 a.m.

“The government taxes and regulates businesses too much. They do that so people need their help. Then the Liberals get to announce funding and act like heroes. I think the government picks favorites like this in every part of the economy.”

Rachael Thomas

Conservative 10:30 a.m.

“I agree with my friend. The government's Bill C-11 lets politicians pick winners and losers in our culture. Politicians shouldn't get to decide that. Canadian citizens should pick what culture we like, not the government.”

Andrew Lawton

Conservative 10:30 a.m.

“I'm against the Liberal government's tax on streaming services like Netflix. The Liberals warned us about this. Now they're doing it. It's going to make everything more expensive for Canadians. The government shouldn't get to decide what Canadians can watch.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, it is a great privilege, as always, to rise on behalf of the people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, especially because we have seen the benefits of film production in Canada in our part of the country. It is great that we have Canadian productions. It is great that we have American productions that choose to set up shop in Canada. The one thing that I think is often missing in this conversation is that the Liberal government has never met a tax it does not like. When it tries to control Canadians and their viewing preferences and listening preferences, the only one who wins is government, not industry, not film production and not the people who work in television and media in this country. The Liberal-appointed CRTC has come out with a declaration that to enforce the Liberal legislation that the Conservatives warned about vociferously, Bill C-11, the Online Streaming Act, it will triple the amount of money the streaming services that Canadians enjoy, such as Netflix, Amazon Prime and Apple TV, will have to spend to 15%, up from 5%, as the levy they will have to pay to fund Liberal government-approved productions and Liberal-approved content. This is so important because when Bill C-11 first came through the House, Conservatives warned that it was not actually going to be about Canadian storytelling; it was going to be about the government picking and choosing winners, picking and choosing which types of stories get to be told, which ones get the support of government, who gets supplemented and supported and who gets suppressed. One of the biggest powers of Bill C-11 that we warned about was, basically, the requirement that streaming sites, including, for example, YouTube, would have to manipulate their algorithms so that they are serving up content that the Liberal government wants Canadians to see. While the Liberals say they are not manipulating algorithms, we know that the consequences of what they are forcing streaming platforms to do necessitate that. We have already heard, quite recently, from streamers who have noticed changes. Content they used to produce and generate that would do very well all of a sudden is not. Podcaster Jasmin Laine, among others, has pointed to this. We have heard from officials that there are still very many conversations going on, and the Liberal government tries to play coy on these things. Even now, we have heard from one Liberal member of Parliament that this is all the CRTC's actions at arm's length and not something the Liberal government is controlling, ignoring the fact that the Liberal government has the power under the Broadcasting Act to step in and stop this streaming tax immediately. It has the power to do this. This is a consequence of the government's own legislation. What is this going to mean? It is easy to get up and say that, in theory, we can put this levy in place and triple it from 5% to 15% and all these big American streaming platforms are going to have to pay it. That is the type of rhetoric we hear from people who do not understand how business works. They do not understand how markets work. To be fair, I have seen the budgets the Liberals put forward. I know they do not understand how business works. This money will not be absorbed by the Netflixes and the Amazons. It will be passed along to consumers. All of a sudden, the amount of money people have to pay to Netflix to watch some shows they like will go up. The amount of money we have to pay to subscribe to these platforms will go up. This tripling of the tax will be passed on to consumers, who, because of everything the Liberal government has done to the country, deserve the chance to kick back and watch something for fun. They deserve the chance to watch some television shows and some movies. However, when the Liberal government is saying that we need to penalize companies that are offering a service to Canadians that Canadians pay for, and that the money will go toward content the Liberal government approves of, Canadians know this will result in more government control or in companies pulling out of the Canadian market altogether. Members should remember that Bill C-11 did not come in isolation. It came alongside the Online News Act, which similarly tried to extort companies for being utilized by Canadian companies. In that case, it was journalism and news outlets. What did Meta do in response to this? It said, “Why are we going to be penalized because newspapers want to share their content on our platform?” Meta pulled news out of the Canadian market. To this day, Canadians cannot share a news article about Liberal corruption, among other things, or any news article on Facebook or Instagram. It is very conceivable that streaming companies could take similar retaliatory action if the Liberal government makes it so that their business model is no longer viable. This is not about the American companies. This is not about streaming services. What this is actually about is Canadians' ability to access content they want and shows they want. One of the great things about streaming services is that they bring together content from around the world. We often think about the need to safeguard this term we hear, “cultural sovereignty”, but in actuality, Canada, as we often hear from the Liberal government, is a very diverse country. Streaming services allow Canadians of all backgrounds to watch shows in different languages and from different countries. In fact, my favourite show of all time was not an American production imposed on me but a Spanish show that I learned about through a streaming service. I cannot understand it in the original Spanish; perhaps I will get to that at another point. I hate the idea that the only content we would get is Canadian productions when we should be able to have access to everything. We can imagine if other countries imposed the same sort of cultural protectionism that the Liberals are trying to do. Then Canadian content could not be exported. People in other countries would not get to benefit from some of the great cultural exports of Canada, shows like Being Erica and Schitt's Creek, or speeches from the member for Winnipeg North, and all of these Canadian cultural exports that people from around the world may wish to tune in to. Not all Canadian content is good content, as the latter example shows, but we do not want the Liberal government to be the determining force in what types of content Canadians can see, and we do not want Canadian enterprise to suffer. Again, the idea that the Liberals are presenting is that if we triple this levy, companies are just going to pay it, and it is going to go into creating jobs and opportunities in Canada. However, we know that is not what happens, and the Online News Act is, I think, a very good cautionary tale. I would note that the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture has not really staked out a position on this. He said he will “carefully assess its impacts.” Now, that, I believe, translates from Liberal to “We do not know what we are doing, but we will carefully assess its impacts.” He says he wants Canadians “to see themselves reflected on [the] screen”. We do, but we also want Canadians to be able to afford to watch the content they want to watch and to afford things that have already gone up in price. It is more expensive to buy groceries now. It is more expensive to pay rent, to buy a house, to pay the gas bill and to fill up the gas tank. These are measures that, in a lot of ways, are within the Liberal government's control. Why is the Liberal government insisting on making everything more unaffordable? In fact, there has already been some recognition from the Liberals of the effect that streaming services have on Canadian budgets. We may remember the former finance minister whose brilliant idea for how Canadians could cope with inflation was to cancel Disney+. Well, more Canadians will have to follow that advice because these services are going up in price because of something the Liberal government could rectify very easily. We have an opposition motion that calls on the Liberals to reject this streaming tax increase, to use their authority, which rests in the Broadcasting Act, to cancel this streaming tax once and for all. I remember when Stephen Harper warned about the Netflix tax over a decade ago. The Liberals mercilessly mocked. They said, “No one is going to tax streaming services,” and here they are, not just taxing them but increasing the tax on these streaming services. We will not protect anything in Canada if we take away more affordability from Canadians and take away choice, which needs to be front and centre in how Canadians choose to engage in whatever cultural product it is: a show, a movie, a song or anything else.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 10:40 a.m.

“You said the government should make the CRTC stop. I don't think the government has the power to make the CRTC do that.”

Andrew Lawton

Conservative 10:40 a.m.

“You made the CRTC do this. You passed the Online Streaming Act. You appointed the CRTC. You should repeal your bill. Your actions upset the U.S.”

Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

Bloc Québécois 10:40 a.m.

“You're both the same. The Liberals didn't tax digital products because they were scared of Donald Trump. Now you want to scrap a tax to make Donald Trump happy. Why would your plan work? The Liberal plan failed.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I really do feel that these two parties are one and the same. As members may recall, last January, this Liberal government completely abandoned the cultural sector by failing to implement the 3% tax on digital products, which would have generated an additional $1.5 billion for the cultural sector. Why did the government do that? It was because Donald Trump posted a tweet. The Prime Minister thought that if the government did not implement this tax, the U.S. would return to the negotiating table. The result was a complete failure. Today's Conservative party proposal uses the same strategy—scrapping a tax that will generate revenue for the cultural sector—so as not to upset Donald Trump. Why would a failed Liberal proposal work just because the Conservatives are suggesting it?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Andrew Lawton

Conservative 10:40 a.m.

“I want Canadians to pay less tax. The Online Streaming Act could make it harder for Quebec culture to reach other countries. I stand behind Canadian creators.”

Rachael Thomas

Conservative 10:40 a.m.

“I say more government control means we pay more and get less choice. Bill C-11 lets government decide what we see. Should government decide what is Canadian culture? Or should Canadians decide that?”

Andrew Lawton

Conservative 10:40 a.m.

“I want to praise my friend for working on this. The minister in charge picks bad people to control what we see. It's about control and taking away our freedom. We should stop him.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Lethbridge, for her incredibly important work on this. I know the minister responsible for this is the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture. This is the minister who thinks someone should be criminally charged if they quote a Bible verse that he does not like. This is the minister who stood behind the Canadian Museum for Human Rights' decision to malign parental rights as being a hateful discussion. This is the minister who is championing the return of the online harms act. We know the Liberal government has used that to weaponize the Canadian Human Rights Act against people for dissident opinions. Everything about the government's handling of the heritage file is about control and eliminating Canadians' freedom and choice.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Mario Beaulieu

Bloc Québécois 10:45 a.m.

“I want the government to subsidize culture with taxes. Other countries do it. Conservatives like oil subsidies but not culture ones. That's not fair.”

Andrew Lawton

Conservative 10:45 a.m.

“I don't want the government to subsidize cultural products. Companies in the private sector have to convince people to support them. Cultural companies should do the same.”

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 10:45 a.m.

“I'm filling time with kind words and saying nothing anyone could pin down later. I don't like the other team. They're extreme and they say things I don't like.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, for those following the debate, since the start, we have heard from the far right. I mean, it is the extreme right. These people are more right than the Reform Party of the past. Talk about conspiracy theories. Two members are saying the government is trying to tell Canadians what to watch, that they cannot watch this or it is okay to watch that. An hon. member: Thank you for telling people, Kevin. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the compliment from the member opposite. Having said that, it is a fear factor, and no one does it better than today's Conservative right party. I have been around for 35-plus years as a parliamentarian, and I have never seen a political entity cater to the far right as much as this party has. We have clearly seen a demonstration of that this morning. What a way to start off a morning. The member opposite says the government is telling people they have to be careful and they cannot say certain things regarding the holy scriptures. The Charter of Rights guarantees— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 10:45 a.m.

“I'm filling time with kind words and saying nothing anyone could pin down later. I don't want to give a straight answer about taxes or power. I'll just talk a lot and hope my side looks good. And I definitely want people to be scared of the other guys.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the Charter of Rights guarantees religious freedom. One would think that the Conservative Party members would recognize that reality, because that is a reality, but it does not fit their political script. What they want to do is cause division and get people angry. How do they do that? They will say things like, the Liberals are trying to limit religious freedoms, even though the charter says differently. Now we are hearing them say that we want to tell Canadians what they can watch and what they cannot watch. There have been two speakers and the essence is there. Tin hats are out in full force on the Conservative benches. Let me make a suggestion to the members opposite to take a look at what has actually taken place, and not only through the CRTC, which, by the way, is an independent, arm's-length organization that is not political. Conservatives try to simplify it by saying that it is a CRTC tax. I will provide comments on the issues where they try to give a false impression. I posed a question to the member opposite in regard to the motion itself. At the very end, the motion says this, which is the essence of the motion: the House call on the Liberal Cabinet to use their powers under the Broadcasting Act to reject the CRTC’s streaming tax increase and eliminate the streaming tax. The Conservatives are calling on the cabinet to do this, but the cabinet does not have the authority to do what the Conservative Party is asking the cabinet to do. When I posed a question about this, what did the member say? The member made reference to the Governor in Council. The Governor in Council and the cabinet do not have the authority to do what the Conservative Party of Canada is asking to be done. That is the reality, and yet the Conservative Party members still try to heighten it by saying that it is a tax and that the federal government can make the change. This is just like what they do on other government legislation, where they try to give the false impression that the government is trying to limit what people can watch on TV or that it tells Canadians what they can and cannot watch, whether it is on the Internet or TV. It does a great disservice, I believe, to Canadians as a whole to put that kind of information forward and spread that kind of misinformation. However, I understand what the motivation often is for the Conservative Party members. It is not about good public policy. It is about how they can take an issue and generate thousands of emails, cause people to get angry and at the same time raise money for the Conservative Party of Canada. No one does it better than the Conservative Party of Canada, in terms of promoting fear and raising money based on misinformation. I have seen it first-hand, when I have received emails pumping up the fear factor and spreading misinformation. That is the essence of the motion we are debating today. The first question I asked was about an industry that is so important to Canada. Let us just put the CRTC to the side right now. When it comes to industry, I would challenge members to think about the communities they represent and the many aspirations of young people and others who want to be involved in the arts and in the promotion of Canadian heritage and to be performers or singers. There is an industry that exists and that is healthy. In the government benches, we want it to grow and we support its growth. Supporting its growth means ensuring there is a level playing field, and that is what we want to see. We want to see a level playing field, because we know that our culture, heritage and arts industry can survive and do exceptionally well under a level playing field, but that is not the case in different areas. The Conservatives talk about the CRTC increase that is being applied. They do not talk about the CRTC decrease for major broadcasting here in Canada. Why is that? We established the CRTC many years ago. The Conservatives had the opportunity, when they were in government, to get rid of it if they did not like it. They could have brought forward legislation to do so. They chose not to. I would be interested in hearing whether the Conservative Party of today supports the CRTC. To what extent does it support the CRTC? My fear is that the far right has taken over the Conservative Party, and these types of organizations and corporations, these arm's-length organizations, would be on the chopping block. At the end of the day, in this particular area, the decision the CRTC has made really talks about the protection of our industries. It talks about levelling the playing field. That is important. I made reference to the constituents we represent. I think of the aspiring individuals we have today. I think of the numerous success stories that have been there in the past. I think of the programming and the artists we see today. The CRTC has played a role. CBC has played a role, both radio and TV. Some members heckle. Some participated with CBC. At the end of the day, we see the potential within that industry. I want to talk about Winnipeg. If someone wants to get a sense of the size and magnitude of the arts community, they should come to Winnipeg during Folklorama or during one of the many different arts festivals we have. I will focus on Folklorama and I will highlight two pavilions. Actually, there are four. I am talking about the Pearl of the Orient Philippine Pavilion sponsored by Magdaragat, which has been around now for 50 years. I was at a celebration just the other day for 50 years of Magdaragat. That organization, the musicians, the dance performers and the curators have been there for years. Many of them were performers virtually from the beginning. Those performers have participated on stages like the Rainbow Stage in Winnipeg. They have toured many other countries in the world, and they have even performed for royalty. This is just one pavilion. Members can take me up on it. If they come to Winnipeg during Folklorama, they will not just see two or four pavilions, but they will see over 45 different pavilions. If members tour those pavilions, they will see a lot of young people wanting to stay in the arts program in one form or another. We should be encouraging that involvement. We see it at many of the events that we attend at professional, semi-professional and amateur levels. Why would we want to give up on an industry that has been there for Canadians, generated jobs and contributed to our Canadian identity? That is the essence of what we are hearing from the Conservatives. The Conservatives are trying to simplify it by saying that it is all about taxation, as though this government does not care about the issues of taxation and affordability. The very first action by this Prime Minister was getting rid of the carbon tax, which was a significant tax break to Canadians. Within weeks of being in session, prior to the summer after the federal election, this Prime Minister and government brought in legislation to give a tax break to 22 million Canadians. People were talking about the housing issue, and what did we do? We brought in a GST exemption for first-time homebuyers in order to make it more affordable for young people, which was a tax break for first-time homebuyers. It does not stop there. In recent months, we have eliminated unfair telecom fees so consumers can get breaks when they are managing and looking for better plans and to prevent excessive fees being charged. What about the extension of the alcohol excise duty relief? We also decreased banking costs: Some of those basic charges have been reduced. When we talk about the issue, the Conservatives say that it is simplified tax, or they call it a streaming tax, but it is actually meant to get Canadians thinking about the broader issue of taxation. I can tell members that there are many initiatives. I have not even made reference to the suspension of the federal fuel tax, by 10¢ a litre, very recently. That is something we have put into place. There are opportunities where the government has taken advantage by providing substantial tax breaks. It is something the government is very much aware of and on top of. The government is not going to take the Conservative bait of using misinformation and trying to say the government has an authority through Governor in Council that it does not have, and do what is being asked for within this resolution. I look forward to hearing other members of the Conservative Party stand up and give the specific citation for the cabinet having the authority that they are telling Canadians we have. I would like to hear specifically where that authority is coming from when they say that cabinet has the authority to change the decision of the CRTC. I believe that the CRTC would have taken all considerations before making the decision to increase in certain areas and decrease, I am going to underline the word “decrease”, in other areas. I wonder what the position of the Conservative Party is about that decrease. That is one of the issues the Conservatives attempt to raise by bringing in this motion today. The other issue they are trying to raise is to plant the seed of fear or doubt in this government's ability to get a trade agreement with the United States, when nothing could be further from the truth. They implied in the resolution we have before us today that this is going to have a severe impact on the trade discussions with the United States. I was listening to the member for Lethbridge, and what she had to say along with the member for Bowmanville—Oshawa North, who did not speak today but is the one who travelled to the United States. We remember that he spoke to the President and the vice-president and came back. Canadians will remember this. Can anyone imagine that leader of the Conservative Party had the member for Lethbridge and the member for Bowmanville—Oshawa North travel to the United States to negotiate on the issue of trade? We can talk about a fear factor. What did the member for Bowmanville—Oshawa North have to say about the issue after consulting with the President of the United States and the vice-president? He said that Canadians were having a “hissy fit”, trying to blame Canadians. Then, let us look at the motion we have today. The Conservatives are trying to imply that the Government of Canada is not doing its job on such an important file and that we do not understand the impact that policy has in general. In a few words, I can assure members as we get through this debate. No doubt, the Conservatives will stand up and talk about trade between Canada and the U.S., and try again to give the false impression that the government is dropping the ball, when nothing could be further from the truth. That is what they will do and we will see that throughout the day. What is the reality? At the end of the day, if I were to put it in a nutshell, we recognize that the government and the Prime Minister have made a commitment to not just settle for any deal. We are going to get the best deal that is in the best interests of Canadians when it comes to trade and CUSMA between Canada, United States and Mexico. We are in negotiations. The negotiations will continue in one form or another. We are very much concerned about issues like the tariffs situation and so much more. Believe it or not, as a government, we can do more than one thing at a time as we have clearly demonstrated. They can look at the billions of dollars of investment coming into Canada in terms of commitments through the actions of this Prime Minister and other ministers. They can look at the agreements and legislation for trade agreements that have been achieved already. We have had commitments to further advance trade agreements. These are all tangible actions that would generate billions of dollars of investment and opportunities, especially if tied into the major projects that we have listed that would benefit every region of our great nation. In conclusion, I tell my Conservative friends not to give up on our culture and our heritage. Support that industry. One of the best ways they can do that is if they want something—

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Rachael Thomas

Conservative 11:05 a.m.

“I say the government had a choice. It could make everyone's life harder, or it could give more freedom. The government should have chosen freedom. Why not?”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, that was quite something. The member talked about levelling the playing field. Interestingly enough, the Broadcasting Act was put in place originally to try to make sure that the limited airwaves that were available through radio and television would be shared. There would be French and there would be English. The other thing that it did was make sure that traditional broadcasters contributed to a pot of money in order to create Canadian content. Those traditional broadcasters could also pull from that pot of money. They could apply for grants and contributions in order to produce that content. Online streamers came onto the playing field and they did not have to do those things, so the government made the determination that it should be equally punitive to everyone. Everyone should have to pay a tax. Everyone should be limited in what they could produce. Everyone should have the government dictate what is Canadian and what is not Canadian in terms of content. However, the government had another option. It could have levelled the playing field by actually giving everyone freedom to produce what Canadians want and freedom to stream what Canadians most want to view or listen to. That was the other choice. The choice was freedom and competition and in the interest of consumers. Why did the government not choose that option?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 11:05 a.m.

“Domestic streamers should pay more because 25% is more than 15%. My opponents don't care about Canadian talent. We must protect the industry. My opponents should explain how their motions will help. They probably won't.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize that, domestically, we are talking about 25% compared to streamers that pay 15%. Levelling the playing field is important. We need to recognize that through the CRTC and organizations like CBC, CTV, Global and others, at the end of the day, we have had some sensational programming. Two right off the top of my head are Schitt's Creek and Corner Gas. Both have been exceptionally successful. We can talk about artists from the past and current individuals like Céline Dion. There is so much talent in Canada. If it were up to the Conservatives, they would devastate that industry. By the actions, the talk and the speeches that have been delivered over the last number of years, the far-right Conservatives have clearly demonstrated that they do not support that industry, and I find that unfortunate. I look to members who are a little more moderate in the Conservative caucus to stand up, defend that industry and tell us how they believe this motion or motions from the past from the Conservative Party are going to support it. I am not hearing that, and I think we should all be concerned about that.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates

Business of Supply

Rachael Thomas

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Rachael Thomas

Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

Rachael Thomas

Blaine Calkins

Rachael Thomas

Andrew Lawton

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Andrew Lawton

Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

Andrew Lawton

Rachael Thomas

Andrew Lawton

Mario Beaulieu

Andrew Lawton

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Rachael Thomas

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux