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 ↗

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.”

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 ↗

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.”

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 ↗

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.”

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 ↗

Frank Caputo

Conservative 11:10 a.m.

“I'm here to fight for the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. You talk a lot but say nothing. The government is scared to negotiate trade. They're playing politics instead of going to bat for Canadians. We need a deal and you should be ashamed.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. What I appreciate about this member is not what he says, but with how much volume he says it. I just do not know. We heard 20 minutes of ranting, raving and nothingness, but one of the things that really caught my ear is when he talked about trade and how they are going to get the best deal. The government has not been to the negotiating table since October. The reason it has not been to the negotiating table since October is that it is scared of losing another MP or two and having to go to an election when times look good. The Liberals do not want to deal with the United States so that they can run against him rather than run on their disastrous record. Shame on that member. Shame on the government for not going to bat for Canadians. We need a deal. They are not trying to get one. He should be ashamed for that rhetoric in the House.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Gérard Deltell

Conservative 11:25 a.m.

“I respect that my colleague had his say in Parliament. I want to know if he knows the member he cheered for voted to remove the exact tax he wants put back. That minister also supported one kind of oil project review. And he voted to let the government make deals with Alberta. The tributes are nice but I don't get why my colleague is cheering for a guy who took so many positions he disagrees with.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and for his point of view, which was very well defined, but which we obviously have reservations about. Still, we respect what is known as parliamentary democracy. At the end of his remarks, the member paid tribute to the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie. I can understand that, now that he seems to be neutral, the Bloc Québécois is congratulating him. Is the member aware that when the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie was a senior minister in this government, he voted for abolishing the carbon tax, for the throne speech that meant environmental projects would now have a single assessment and for Bill C‑5, which enables the government to enter into agreements with Alberta, among others? More importantly, is my colleague aware that the member for Laurier—Sainte‑Marie was the Minister of Canadian Heritage when this government abolished the digital services tax? We, the Conservatives, saw no problem with that, but why pay tribute to a guy who was a senior minister for Canadian heritage and the environment, who held positions that differed from those of the Bloc Québécois?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Frank Caputo

Conservative 11:30 a.m.

“I am here for my riding of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I thank Bloc Québécois and I have a question. People struggle with many small costs. Winnipeg member says Liberals cut taxes for 22 million people. But people still need food banks. They can't pay mortgage or rent. Lettuce costs too much. Does my colleague from the Bloc agree we need to lower cost of living? Does he agree we have a crisis?”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I listened to a question just a little while ago. Before I begin, I will try a bit of French here. I thank my colleague for his speech. I want to ask my hon. colleague from the Bloc a question. One question that is really central to what we are dealing with is tax and Canadians' being bitten, so to speak, by death by a thousand financial cuts. If we were to listen to the member from Winnipeg, Canadians have never had it so good because the Liberals gave a tax cut to 22 million people. Unfortunately, people are still lining up at food banks in record numbers. They cannot pay their mortgages, cannot pay their rent and cannot afford a seven-dollar head of lettuce. Unfortunately, that does not get into the rhetoric. I wonder whether my hon. colleague agrees that we need to lower the cost of living, whether we are talking about digital streaming taxes or inflationary spending when it comes to the government. Does he not agree that we need to address what has become a cost of living crisis in this country?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Melissa Lantsman

Conservative 11:30 a.m.

“I want to score points with voters by calling this a new tax. Tax bad, families good.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I want to start today by offering a short recap to those watching at home, because this is still a developing story. There is one important newsflash that I think Canadians ought to know. The message is to get ready for another Liberal tax. That is it. The government has already taxed our gas. It has taxed our groceries. It has taxed our capital gains. God knows it has taxed our income. It is now coming for our Netflix. That is really what today is about. The Liberal-appointed CRTC, which is an unelected, unaccountable body that regulates streaming services and digital content in this country, just mandated that companies such as Netflix, Disney+ and Prime Video fork over 15% of their revenues to Ottawa. That is a 200% increase from where they were. For someone watching at home, let us put a number on this and what it means for families. Netflix alone earns about $1.5 billion annually from Canadian subscribers, and 15% of that is $225 million. When passed on to consumers, that will be potentially three dollars or four dollars every single month per household, on top of everything else that Canadians pay. That might not sound like a lot of money, but that is exactly where the tax that Ottawa is collecting is going to go: directly to the consumer. At four dollars a month, that is $50 a year. We know what happens when the Liberal government levies taxes on corporations. They simply get passed on to consumers. It is never a minister that pays them. It is never the government that pays them. It is always the consumer. Anybody who says that is not the case has not been here in the last 10 years. The last thing that Canadians need right now is more taxes. On this side of the House, we will always advocate to get rid of every single one of them. Forty per cent of people in the country are within $200 of insolvency. They are within $200 of going broke. One-quarter of households are food insecure right now. We know that. We talk about it in this place all the time. When streaming becomes more expensive, people do not stop watching; they turn to things like piracy. We know that too. Canada already has some of the highest rates of piracy in the G7. This tax, of course, will make that worse. That is not a victory for Canadian creators. If we listen to the debate in the House, one would think that this was all about Canadian creators. Instead, it is a self-inflicted wound on the country. Of course, Conservatives will strongly and loudly oppose all the new taxes from this place, from Ottawa, on struggling families. We understand that when government takes less, families keep more of what they earn, businesses can invest and grow, and people have the freedom to make choices themselves rather than having unelected bureaucrats make those choices for them. It is a very simple argument, and I am sure that by the end of today, the folks on that side will understand it. There is a broader narrative at play here too. This decision reveals something about how the government thinks or what the government's values really are. First, this new Netflix tax is being levied under the guise of supporting so-called content creators. In the abstract, I think we can all agree that having more things made in Canada is good. Telling Canadian stories is a good thing. It is better for us, and it is better for our country. However, we should consider what the argument ignores. Drake, The Weeknd, Schitt's Creek and Letterkenny are some of the most celebrated Canadian cultural exports in a generation. Beloved here at home and around the world, they succeeded not because the regulator mandated their existence but because they were actually good. They were brilliant, in fact. We should also consider this: If we are making this argument today, I think we have to be honest about it. Off Campus is the number one show on Prime Video right now. It is filmed in Vancouver. It is based on a Canadian author's book. It features music from a Canadian band. By every common-sense measure, it is a Canadian story told by Canadians, but under the CRTC's own rules, it does not qualify as Canadian content. Not a dollar of this new tax flows to productions like it. What exactly are we funding? We are not funding the things that Canadians are actually watching. Remember, it is the number one show. Folks in the House might not know it because it is a young adult audience, but that is what people are watching and celebrating. Instead, we are funding what Ottawa has decided counts. It is a distinction that says everything about who this policy actually serves. Canadian stories cannot and will not succeed just because we have taxed our way to cultural relevance. They will succeed because those stories are worth telling and people want to hear them. Second, these taxes effectively shield broadcasters like the CBC and CTV from competition, rather than nurturing the creators who actually need the help. Over and over again, every independent analysis has proven that these funds disproportionately flow to established government institutions, the ones with relationships and high-priced government access payrolls, not the independent YouTuber in Calgary, the podcaster in Halifax and the digital filmmaker in Winnipeg who are building audiences on their own terms. They are now being penalized by the very subsidies that go to their better-connected competitors. That structure is not a recipe for a healthy, competitive marketplace, and we have discussed that in the House time and time again. It is how the Liberal government protects its cronies at the expense of our cultural ecosystem, and it says that anybody who disagrees with it must not like culture. On that point, there is one really big foreign entity taking a very keen interest in the signals that this is sending, and that is the United States government. Let us put it plainly: Taxing American streaming giants is a provocation. We know that. They have said that. In fact, the Prime Minister admitted that himself when he rescinded the digital services tax. That was a 3% tax. This is a 15% tax. How do members think that is going to go over with the Americans? By the way, the Prime Minister did not get a single concession for rescinding that tax when times got tough. In all of this, the retaliation could fall again, and it could fall on Canadian agriculture, on Canadian lumber or manufacturing. These are industries that also employ hundreds of thousands of Canadians, who are waiting with bated breath for something from negotiations that have not taken place since October. The Prime Minister often says that we can control what we can control, and I agree. The choice to bring in these new taxes is an entirely controllable one. Why are we voluntarily picking another fight with our largest trading partner at exactly the moment at which Canadian businesses and workers need stability, as they deserve? That makes no sense. The policy itself makes no sense, but the timing makes even less sense. Now the members opposite will try to caricature our position on this. They will say that opposing this tax means opposing Canadian culture. That is a false choice on the floor of the House of Commons, and Canadians really deserve better than that lazy argument. Conservatives believe in Canadian stories, the ones that are worth telling. We simply disagree about how to get there, because there is another way. Instead of taxing streaming platforms and hoping the money trickles down to creators, we could expand direct production tax credits that put resources in the hands of the writers, of the directors and of the producers, not the hands of the bureaucratic behemoths this is going to fund. Instead of regulations that protect legacy broadcasters from competition, we could invest in co-production treaties with our allies, such as New Zealand, the U.K. or Australia. This would open international markets to Canadian stories and give our content creators a massive market to tell their stories. Schitt's Creek did not succeed because a regulator forced it into a content fund. It succeeded because it was brilliant, it was funny and people chose to watch it. Our job is to create an environment in which the next Schitt's Creek gets made, not to tax Netflix and declare victory for Canadian culture on the backs of Canadian families. The Liberals never seem to learn the lessons that Canadians already know instinctively: We cannot tax a country into prosperity. Families are not variables on a spreadsheet, and artists are not government programs. Conservatives believe in a free people, free markets and free expression. This means we will say no to yet another misguided attempt by the government to overreach into our media markets on the backs of Canadian families and charge them a brand new Netflix tax they simply cannot afford. We say not today, and not ever.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Melissa Lantsman

Conservative 11:45 a.m.

“You're lying. The government could stop the CRTC today if it wanted. The Prime Minister just wants to tax Canadians more and spend their money.”

Official Hansard

The Conservative position, Madam Speaker, is often for the Liberals to get out of the way and let Canadians decide. The member opposite and the government are saying that the CRTC is an independent decision-maker, which is where this is all going, and that its hands are tied. That is simply not true. The government has the power today to issue a directive. It can set the decision to the side entirely by an order in council. The Prime Minister does not have a regulatory problem with the CRTC. He has a spending and a taxing problem with respect to Canadian families. He can hide behind the CRTC all he wants, but what Canadians ought to know is that they are getting a new tax and the Liberals are controlling that.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Melissa Lantsman

Conservative 11:50 a.m.

“You say we have a double standard. No, we're consistent. We want the government out of all of it. Stop taxing and meddling.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I think the member opposite knows that the position of the Conservatives is very clear on the funding to the CBC. We are talking about what the Prime Minister does and does not have control over. That is very simple. We have a motion in the House right now to ask the government to rescind its decision. While we are at it, it can rescind the decisions on Bill C-11, which has not worked, and Bill C-18, which has taken news out of the hands of Canadians and blocked them from local journalism. We can do all of that with this motion and with future motions. There is no regulatory problem for the government here. It is imposing a tax on Canadians, and the exact thing we are arguing today is that it should take that tax off of Canadian families.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Melissa Lantsman

Conservative 11:50 a.m.

“You're still talking about Donald Trump? Let me tell you what really doesn't make sense. The Prime Minister gave up a 3% tax and got nothing. Now he's charging Canadian families 15% to watch streaming services that don't even count as Canadian content. Explain that!”

Kelly DeRidder

Conservative 11:50 a.m.

“I don't want a new tax. I think it will hurt people. I want the government to help the arts another way.”

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates

Business of Supply

Rachael Thomas

Rachael Thomas

Rachael Thomas

Blaine Calkins

Rachael Thomas

Andrew Lawton

Andrew Lawton

Andrew Lawton

Rachael Thomas

Andrew Lawton

Andrew Lawton

Rachael Thomas

Frank Caputo

Gérard Deltell

Frank Caputo

Melissa Lantsman

Melissa Lantsman

Melissa Lantsman

Melissa Lantsman

Kelly DeRidder