Business of Supply

A Conservative supply motion calling on the government to cancel the CRTC’s new requirement that online streaming services pay 15% of their Canadian revenues, up from 5%, arguing the cost will be passed to consumers, cost jobs, and strain trade with the United States. Conservatives said the levy amounts to a tax that hurts households and cultural businesses, which should compete freely; the Bloc opposed the motion and argued both major parties have abandoned taxing digital companies, pointing to the cancelled digital services tax and what the government got in return for scrapping it; the NDP said streaming companies should contribute to Canadian film, television and artists and urged members to vote the motion down; Liberals defended the CRTC as an independent regulator whose decisions should not be directed by the House and said the government is protecting the arts sector and Canadian industries during trade negotiations with the United States. Some Bloc members also paid tribute to a departing colleague, and one Liberal question concerned how Bill C-11 supports francophone artists.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

34 statements

Louis Villeneuve, Brome—Missisquoi

Liberal
“I want to know how this bill will help protect and promote the work of French-speaking artists.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech. As a francophone, I would like to know how Bill C-11 will help protect and promote the work and artistic creations of francophone artists.

Kristina Tesser Derksen, Milton East—Halton Hills South

Liberal
“We must keep supporting and promoting French-speaking artists in Canada. They are an important part of our national identity.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Certainly, a big feature of what the CRTC is trying to do is highlight, encourage and elevate the voices of Canadians, including indigenous, regional and certainly francophone artists as well. I will just mention that I am learning French, as is probably evident from my speech, and as I was raising my children at home, often I would be able to turn on Canadian television and they could watch French cartoons, such as Caillou. Does everyone remember Caillou? I actually started learning French that way as well. I think it is very important that we continue to elevate the voices of our francophone artists. They are a true, central part of our Canadian identity. It is important that they be protected and allowed to thrive.

Kristina Tesser Derksen, Milton East—Halton Hills South

Liberal
“We must keep supporting Canadian talent. The government should continue giving producers incentives to make content here and keep things fair for our artists. I also encourage everyone to enjoy Canadian content this weekend.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague’s French is certainly better than mine, and I hope to speak as well as she does one day soon. Absolutely, it is important that we continue to encourage Canadian talent to be highlighted, and I have mentioned this in some of my other remarks. We have had some great programs lately that have really gotten us a lot of international attention, and we want to keep that up. I think the government’s role is to continue to level the playing field, to continue to incentivize producers to continue producing within Canada, but at the same time to make the message clear that we want Canadian content at the forefront and for it to be encouraged and lifted up. I think the way we do that is to continue doing what we are doing, to incentivize, but also to make sure that the fairness is there for our Canadian artists. I would encourage everyone to get out this weekend to take in some Canadian content to help with that.

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“The Conservatives say rules from the broadcast regulator hurt Canada too much and are not worth protecting our arts. But arts create tens of thousands of jobs. We must protect Canadian industries while we negotiate with the United States. We will work to get the best deal for Canada.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, one of the principal arguments that the Conservatives are using is that what the independent body of the CRTC is proposing is having such a profound impact that it is not worth protecting our industry. The industry I am referring to is our arts industry, which creates and has literally tens of thousands of jobs, directly and indirectly. They are trying to blame it all in regard to the United States. I think we have a responsibility to protect our industries as we go through the negotiations. We will strive to get the best deal for Canada, first and foremost. We understand that two and a half million Canadians rely on exports to the United States. There is a multitude of different policies that we are putting into place to protect those jobs and to grow our industries, but—

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“The CRTC made this choice on its own, and other major countries do the same thing. The Conservatives want to scrap it just because the United States does not like it. Canada is an independent country, and we do not have to do everything the United States says. We are still talking with them, and we will get a good deal for Canadians.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is the independent, arm’s-length CRTC that has made the decision. I think it is important for us to recognize that Canada is not alone. There are other G7 countries that have what the Conservatives are saying we should not have as a nation. They believe that, because the United States has said we should not have one, we should abolish it. It is as simple as that. I wonder if the Conservatives believe that Canada owes it to its citizens to stand independently of the United States. We do not have to listen to everything it says. Negotiations are going on and they will continue. We will get the best deal for Canadians on that front.

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“Protecting Canada's independence means supporting our arts and culture. The Conservatives are wrong to say we should just do what President Trump wants. I want the member to say more about why our sovereignty and arts programs matter.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, part of the point that I have been trying to make is the fact that we have Canadian sovereignty. A part of that sovereignty means our culture and arts performers, many of the professions that my friend from the New Democratic Party has highlighted, are very important to who we are as a nation. What is disappointing is the degree to which the official opposition has capitulated its responsibility to protect Canadian sovereignty by indicating that we should just listen to what President Trump wants. I appreciate the comments on that by the member. Could she expand on the importance of Canadian sovereignty and on the issue of our arts programs?

Abdelhaq Sari, Bourassa

Liberal
“I oppose this motion. Big foreign streaming companies make a lot of money in Canada, so they should help pay for Canadian shows and movies just like our own broadcasters do. This money creates good jobs and supports our economy and culture.”
  • A repeated line

    “The audiovisual production sector supports hundreds of thousands of direct and indirect jobs in Canada.”

    Said 3 times by 3 members since May 28.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is with conviction that I rise to express my clear opposition to the motion. I oppose it because I want to defend a broadcasting system that continues to invest in Canadian workers, Canadian creativity and our country’s economic prosperity. Despite the rhetoric evident in the motion moved by my Conservative colleagues, this debate is not about a so-called streaming tax. It is about whether global streaming giants, which derive substantial revenue from Canadian audiences, should contribute in a fair and reasonable way to the ecosystem that they benefit from every day. There is nothing radical or new about this. For decades, companies that participate in the Canadian broadcasting system have contributed financially to the creation of Canadian programming. These contributions have helped build one of the most respected production industries in the world. The motion before us today disregards that reality. It portrays contributions to Canadian programming as a burden or penalty. However, these contributions are investments in jobs, infrastructure, intellectual property and economic activity across the country. Let us be clear: Platforms are not being asked to throw their money away. They are being asked to invest in some of the best productions in the world. They cannot claim that the programming produced here is unworthy of their services. The audiovisual production sector supports hundreds of thousands of direct and indirect jobs in Canada. These are not abstract jobs. These are good, highly skilled jobs filled by Canadians in every region of the country. These are technicians, artists, producers, actors, videographers, translators and many more. The economic impact is much broader because it goes far beyond the film set. When a production comes to a community, for example in Montreal, hotel rooms are filled, visits to local restaurants increase and local workers are hired. It also generates interest in tourism and economic development for the area. Entire local economies benefit from a vibrant production sector not just in Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal, but also in rural, northern and indigenous communities. That is why the framework established by the Online Streaming Act is so important. The world has changed considerably since the original Broadcasting Act was drafted. Canadians are consuming more and more content online. This is especially true for young people. Young people tend to go directly to online content rather than broadcast content. That is a very important distinction to make, because historically, only broadcasters were required to contribute. Imposing obligations on one group but not the other was not sustainable. If Canadian broadcasters are required to contribute to Canadian programming, while foreign platforms that generate significant revenue in Canada are exempt from this requirement, the financial foundation supporting Canadian production will inevitably crumble. This framework is neither unique nor radical. In fact, we see the same thing happening all over the world. European countries have adopted similar requirements, and despite these obligations, major global platforms continue to invest heavily in these markets. It is fair to ask why that is the case. It is because businesses invest where there is talent, stability, infrastructure and opportunities, and Canada offers all of that. It offers opportunities, infrastructure and, above all, exceptional Canadian talent. The irony is that many of the voices criticizing these requirements today will celebrate the Canadian industry’s success without ever acknowledging the policies that made it possible. We cannot separate our success from the public policy framework that has supported this growth. When domestic production shrinks, jobs disappear, creative workers leave the industry or leave the country altogether, and Canada becomes dependent on content produced abroad, without maintaining its own creative industrial base. This is not a recipe for long-term economic resilience. Countries that invest in domestic production develop exportable industries, and our creators develop commercial intellectual property on an international scale. Film and creative studios attract foreign investment. Canada strengthens its position in a rapidly expanding global audiovisual economy. Weakening our production ecosystem would not make Canada stronger. It would make it far more dependent, and since we are seeking cultural sovereignty, such a dependence is something to be avoided, especially when we consider the motion under discussion today. The substance of the issue before the House is simple. Should international and multinational streaming platforms, which generate significant revenue from the Canadian public, contribute to the Canadian broadcasting and production system, or should the burden continue to fall disproportionately on Canadian broadcasters and companies alone? I believe Canadians know the answer. There should not be an imbalance. It should not be disproportionate. It should be balanced. A modern broadcasting system needs to reflect a modern market. That requires fairness, sustainability and, above all, ensuring that the economic benefits of our system continue to support Canadian jobs. Canadian production and Canadian stories must also be supported. At a time when countries around the world are in fierce competition to attract production investment and creative talent, now is not the time to weaken the foundations of our domestic industry. Now is the time to modernize our framework responsibly so that it reflects the realities of the digital age, while continuing to support the creators who put Canada on the map. Canada has never built its greatness by stepping aside. Canada has never done that, and it will not start today. Before coming to Quebec and Canada, what most attracted me was Canadian and Quebec culture. How do we get to know this culture? Through what means? How do we hear about it? Who is the ambassador for this culture? We discover this culture through Quebec’s cultural productions, which are exported abroad, both in English and French. If we do not fully support this industry, we will not be able to encourage, retain and develop the teams responsible for these productions. As I said, Canada never built its greatness by stepping aside. Canada will not start doing that today. For all these reasons, I urge all members of the House to reject this motion.

Abdelhaq Sari, Bourassa

Liberal
“I had trouble hearing the question over the noise. But our goal is to protect our industry, jobs, and culture. We want to make sure the tax is fair.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 46 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 35 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I, too, was having a hard time speaking because of all the noise. I would ask my colleague to repeat his question, because I could not really hear him, even with the interpretation. That said, if I understood correctly, he was asking whether the tax will be broadly applied. I am simply saying that what matters to us is the objective itself, that of protecting our industry, protecting out jobs and protecting our culture. That is the goal. The most important thing is not knowing who will have to pay and who will not, but ensuring a degree of fairness. Obviously, that is what we are aiming for.

Abdelhaq Sari, Bourassa

Liberal
“I agree with my colleague's goal, but we need to discuss the timing and our plan. We are negotiating with the United States right now, so we must be careful with our approach. Quebec culture and its French identity cannot be compromised.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his eloquence and his interest. I can say one thing: I fully agree with the objective. My colleague and I could discuss the pace we should set and how to proceed. We must also not forget that we are currently in negotiations with another country to the south. We therefore need to figure out how to move forward with our proposals and our approach. This has been said many times, and I reiterate it today: Quebec culture and its francophone identity are non-negotiable.

Louis Villeneuve, Brome—Missisquoi

Liberal
“I disagree with the Bloc Québécois member. Our government is not backing down. I want to know how this CRTC decision will protect and promote Canadian and French-language culture.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to add that I do not agree with my Bloc Québécois colleague. Our government is not caving in, quite the contrary. I would therefore like to ask my colleague how this CRTC decision will help protect and promote Canadian and francophone voices so that our culture remains strong and well represented.

Abdelhaq Sari, Bourassa

Liberal
“Our government is protecting the French language and culture. We are doing this by investing hundreds of millions of dollars into public broadcasting, film, and media.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 46 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the objective is the same. What we want is to protect our institutions, promote the French language and protect francophone culture. In 2025, our government invested $150 million in CBC/Radio-Canada, $150 million over three years in Telefilm Canada, $127.5 million over three years in the Canada Media Fund, $26.1 million over three years in the National Film Board and $6 million over three years in the Canada Council for the Arts. Our government will defend the French language, francophone culture and the essential institutions that protect them. I came today not to orate, but to present numbers and facts.

Abdelhaq Sari, Bourassa

Liberal
“The government protects workers and institutions that support the French language and culture. We want to keep sharing our history and culture with young people in French.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 48 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would say that the government protects workers and institutions, especially as they relate to what we seek to promote: the French language and francophone culture. We want to keep passing on our history and our culture to your young people, in our own voice and using our own language.

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“The CRTC is independent from the government. The Conservatives are siding with Donald Trump and the United States instead of protecting Canadian arts. Other major countries protect their arts industries. The Conservatives should protect Canada's control over its own arts.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that the CRTC stands alone. It is at arm’s length from and independent of the government. That is a very important thing to note. The other thing I would highlight is that it is somewhat shameful to see Conservative member after Conservative member surrender Canada’s sovereignty as they advocate on behalf of Donald Trump and the United States with respect to the whole idea of applying something to protect the Canadian arts industry, something that, by the way, other G7 countries have done. The Conservatives are saying no to not only Canada having the opportunity to protect its industries, but also possibly even those other G7 countries. Why is the Conservative Party not recognizing the importance of Canadian sovereignty on the issue of the arts?

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“The CRTC is independent from the government, and it set the fee on foreign streaming services. Other rich countries do this too to protect their arts. The Conservatives are siding with the United States instead of standing up for Canadians.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 27 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it would take a lot of time to address that particular speech, but let us stick to the motion itself. Time and time again, I have heard from the Conservative speakers on this. First of all, we need to recognize that the CRTC is independent of government. The CRTC is the one that set the price. When we talk about having a fee on international streaming, Canada is not alone. Other G7 countries have done that. Time and time again, Conservative MPs stand up and surrender Canadian sovereignty on the important issue of protecting our arts industry. Why is the Conservative Party already starting to capitulate and advocate on behalf of the United States as opposed to taking a look at what is in the best interests of Canadians? It is time that the Conservative Party stand up for Canadians.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 124

  1. Government Orders Business of Supply 114 statements
  2. Oral Questions Foreign Investment 13 statements
  3. Oral Questions Justice 6 statements
  4. Oral Questions Canadian Identity and Culture 6 statements
  5. Oral Questions The Economy 4 statements
  6. Oral Questions The Environment 4 statements
  7. Oral Questions Finance 6 statements
  8. Oral Questions Agriculture and Agri-Food 4 statements
  9. Oral Questions Steel and Aluminum Industry 2 statements
  10. Oral Questions Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship 6 statements
  11. Oral Questions Aerospace Industry 8 statements
  12. Oral Questions International Trade 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions Seniors 4 statements
  14. Oral Questions Public Safety 6 statements
  15. Oral Questions Oil and Gas Industry 3 statements
  16. Oral Questions Labour 2 statements
  17. Oral Questions Climate Change 2 statements
  18. Oral Questions Air Transportation 2 statements
  19. Oral Questions Business of the House 2 statements
  20. Government Orders Business of Supply 66 statements
  21. Oral Questions Health 4 statements
  22. Private Members' Business Canada Revenue Agency Act 12 statements
  23. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  24. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  25. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  26. Government Orders Business of Supply 462 statements