TranslatePolitics.ca

Martin Champoux

Bloc Québécois 11:45 a.m.

“You condemn the government influencing the CBC. But now you demand the government influence the CRTC. I'm calling out your double standard.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I often hear the Conservatives in committee criticizing what they perceive as government influence over what goes on at CBC/Radio-Canada, the public broadcaster. They often condemn what they see as a kind of collusion or the idea that the public broadcaster acts as a mouthpiece for the Liberal government and its policies. They are entitled to that view. However, if the Conservatives believe that the government is interfering in the operations of the public broadcaster, which is an independent body, then why would they ask the government to interfere in a decision recently handed down by the CRTC, which is also an independent body? This matter clearly falls within its jurisdiction, as it concerns the application of legislation passed by Parliament. I wonder why there is a double standard in this case.

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 ↗

Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

Bloc Québécois 11:50 a.m.

“This motion looks like you're just scared of Donald Trump. The Conservatives are saying we should lower taxes and override the CRTC to make him happy. The Liberals already tried that. They gave up a tax, got nothing back, and looked silly. Why should we think this will go any better?”

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.”

Melissa Lantsman

Conservative 11:50 a.m.

“Liberals think spending is the same as protecting. The CRTC content fund did not create famous Canadians. Freedom to compete is what protects talent. I want to stand up for Canadian creators' freedom to compete.”

Chak Au

Conservative 11:50 a.m.

“I don't like the CRTC increasing costs for streaming platforms. It will make Canada less competitive and hurt consumers. The Liberals are making Canada more expensive and over-regulated. I want lower costs and more investment in Canada.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the Liberal government must reject the CRTC's massive increase imposed on our online streaming platforms such as Netflix, Disney+, Amazon Prime Video and Apple TV, an increase sometimes referred to as the “Netflix tax.” The government may try to frame this as a technical broadcasting adjustment, but Canadians know what it really means. It means higher costs and another blow to affordability at a time when families are already struggling. The government could not even contain itself from taxing at-home leisure. The CRTC has now increased the required contribution from major streaming services from 5% to 15% of Canadian revenues, tripling the burden imposed on these companies. The 15% levy now places Canada among the most expensive countries in the world for streaming services to operate in. Let us be honest, business and Canadians do not operate alone or in a vacuum. When the Liberal government increases costs, those costs do not simply disappear. They erode the quality of leisure for hard-working Canadians. The Liberal government will, of course, avoid answering a very simple economic question: Who ultimately pays for this massive increase in costs? There are only two possible outcomes. Either streaming platforms decide Canada is becoming too expensive and not worth investing in, or they pass the high costs directly on to Canadian consumers. In both cases, Canadians lose. If productions move elsewhere, Canada loses jobs, investment and economic activity. This industry is highly mobile. Streaming companies can produce content almost anywhere in the world. Governments everywhere are competing aggressively to attract these productions, because they generate high-quality jobs and billions of dollars in economic activity. Why is the government increasing costs at a time when Canada is already struggling to attract investment? Canada already has a growing reputation internationally for being expensive, over-regulated and increasingly difficult to do business in. We have already seen capital leaving sectors such as energy, manufacturing and resource development. This policy discourages investment in Canada and is particularly damaging for major film and television production hubs like Vancouver and Toronto. If the government believes companies will simply pass the costs on to consumers, then let us call the policy what it really is, which is an indirect tax on Canadians. The Liberals may insist this is not technically a tax because the money does not flow directly into government revenue, but if government policy deliberately increases costs for companies and companies then raise prices for consumers, the effect on Canadians is exactly the same: Families pay more. Whether it appears on a tax form or on a monthly streaming bill, it is still more money coming out of the pockets of Canadians during a cost of living crisis. The Liberals may argue that the increase per household is small, but Canadians are tired of being told every increase is small. A few dollars more for streaming, a few dollars more for groceries, a few dollars more for fuel and a few dollars more for utilities, and eventually, those small increases become a major burden for families already living paycheque to paycheque. The total amount involved is not small. Reports indicate the new framework could extract hundreds of millions of additional dollars annually from the Canadian market, potentially approaching $600 million overall in contribution obligations. That is money Canadians could otherwise spend in the broader economy. That money could go toward groceries, restaurants, children's clothing, mortgage payments or supporting small businesses. Instead, the Liberals are squeezing more money out of consumers during a cost of living crisis. While the government talks about supporting industry, these platforms are already major contributors to the Canadian economy. Netflix alone has stated that, between 2021 and 2024, its activities generated approximately $6.5 billion in economic impact in Canada. These productions support thousands of jobs: camera operators, editors, visual effects artists, drivers, construction workers, caterers and countless small businesses connected to film production. This is especially important for major urban centres, such as Vancouver and Toronto, where the screen production industry has become a major economic engine. Netflix recently opened Netflix Animation Studios in Vancouver, creating more than 450 jobs in the city and bringing significant investment into British Columbia. This issue matters deeply to my riding of Richmond Centre—Marpole. Richmond and the broader Metro Vancouver region are directly connected to British Columbia's growing film and streaming industry. Many residents in my community work directly or indirectly in these sectors. In Richmond alone, filming activities take place almost every day of the year. When productions expand, jobs are created. When investments slow, local workers and businesses feel the consequences. Conservatives believe Canada should be a country that attracts investment, rewards innovation and creates jobs. However, once again, the Liberals are moving in the opposite direction. Every time a sector becomes successful, this government seeks another opportunity to impose higher costs and heavier regulations. At a time when Canada desperately needs economic growth, productivity and investor confidence, this government is making Canada less competitive. Canadians are the ones who will pay the price, through fewer jobs, less investment or higher monthly bills. This increase is the wrong policy at the wrong time. Canadians deserve affordability. Canadians deserve economic opportunity. Canadians deserve a government that understands growth cannot come from squeezing more money out of consumers and businesses. Conservatives will continue standing up for affordability, investment, jobs and common sense.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 12:00 p.m.

“I want to wedge you into looking bad either way. If you attack the CRTC, I can say you're attacking Canada's institutions. If you won't attack them, I can say you really do support this tax.”

Chak Au

Conservative 12:00 p.m.

“You're hiding behind the CRTC to dodge the real issue. This tax hike will hurt people. Will your government make people pay more?”

Jim Bélanger

Conservative 12:00 p.m.

“I want you to say this tax hike will hurt my community and our film business. That might make the government look bad.”

Chak Au

Conservative 12:00 p.m.

“I want to sound like I agree with you. I want to say the tax is bad. More taxes might mean fewer jobs in our towns. That is sad. The government should not hurt jobs.”

Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

Bloc Québécois 12:00 p.m.

“You say you support your town's industry, but you really just want American culture. You don't care about protecting Canadian culture. You've already given up and become American.”

Chak Au

Conservative 12:05 p.m.

“I agree that the Liberals are bad for culture. A new tax won't make us stronger. Stop talking about Trump; this is about us. We need more investment in our own culture industries. Competition and the market will help our culture more than government can.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the comments that my Bloc colleague made earlier that the Liberals are a major threat to the cultural sector in Canada. Imposing that kind of levy with an increase is not going to make the cultural sector stronger. Also, I believe we are focusing too much on Trump. We are talking about our own production and our own film industry in our country. Very often, Trump is being used as an excuse or as a defence, which again sidesteps the issue. We have to encourage investments coming into our country for the cultural sector, so that those investments and their efficiency through competition will make Canada's culture be more widely broadcast, not by government intervention, but by the market economy.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Mike Kelloway

Liberal 12:05 p.m.

“Investing in Canadian culture and broadcasting is good for the economy. Global streaming services should contribute too. This isn't a new idea. It's not a punishment, it's an investment in Canadian jobs and production. Streaming companies are doing fine with similar rules in other countries. This is about supporting an important part of our economy, not an ideological argument.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Milton East—Halton Hills South. I am pleased to rise today to speak against this motion and in support of broadcasting systems that continue to invest in Canadian workers, Canadian creativity and Canadian economic growth. Despite the rhetoric we have heard today, this debate is not truly about the so-called streaming tax. In fact, it is about whether the global streaming giants, which earn substantial revenues from Canadian audiences, should contribute in a fair and reasonable way to the Canadian broadcasting and production ecosystem from which they benefit. That principle is neither radical nor new. For decades, companies participating in Canada's broadcasting system have contributed financially to the creation and presentation of the Canadian programming on which they rely. Those contributions helped build one of the most respected production sectors in the world. Today, Canada is internationally recognized as a major centre for film, television, animation and documentary production, in addition to digital and interactive media. Talented Canadians from coast to coast to coast work on productions viewed around the globe. Our studios are full, our crews are world-class, and our creators are winning international awards. This success did not happen by accident. It happened because successive governments and regulators understood that Canadian stories and Canadian production capacity matter economically, as well as culturally. The motion before the House, in my opinion, ignores that reality. It frames contributions to Canadian programming as though they are simply a burden or a penalty, but these contributions are investments. They are investments in jobs, infrastructure, intellectual property, skills development and economic activity across this country. Not only that, but expenditures on Canadian programming are not a punishment. They are not being asked to shovel money into a bottomless pit. We are asking them to invest in some of the best programming in the world. We are asking them to continue to make some of the great shows that we talked about here today: Shoresy, Heated Rivalry and North of North. We want more of that. They cannot argue that the programming being made in Canada is unworthy of their services. The screen-based production sector supports hundreds of thousands of direct and indirect jobs in Canada. These are not abstract jobs. They are good-paying, highly skilled jobs held by Canadians in every region of this country. They include camera operators, lighting technicians, sound engineers, visual effects artists, editors, costume designers, set builders, location managers, caterers, truck drivers, musicians, actors, writers, producers, translators and post-production specialists. The economic impact extends well beyond the production set itself. When productions film in a community, they rent hotel rooms, use local restaurants, contract transportation companies and use facilities throughout the community they are filming in. I can attest to this. Little Lorraine, a movie that was filmed on Cape Breton Island, was a huge success at the box office, but in terms of economic development, it provided a boost to the Cape Breton Regional Municipality. In cities like Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal, the production industry has become a major economic engine, but places like Cape Breton Island have been home to many movies. Again, what it contributes, not just to the economy of the country, not just to the regional economy, but to the local economy, is quite substantial. This is why the framework established under the Online Streaming Act matters. The world has changed dramatically since the original Broadcasting Act was drafted. Traditional broadcasters continue to contribute to Canadian content obligations while facing increasing competition from large foreign streaming services that dominate audience share and subscription revenues. The problem the legislation sought to address was straightforward: The regulatory system has not kept pace with technological change. Canadians are increasingly consuming programming online rather than through conventional broadcasting platforms, yet the contribution framework that historically applied primarily to Canadian broadcasters is still an item. This imbalance is not sustainable. If Canadian broadcasters are required to contribute to Canadian programming while foreign streaming platforms generating significant Canadian revenues are exempt, eventually the financial foundation supporting Canadian production begins to erode. Contributions to broadcasting systems are not new, and they are not unique to Canada. Many countries around the world require streaming services to contribute to domestic production ecosystems. Jurisdictions across Europe, for example, have adopted similar frameworks to ensure that local production sectors remain viable in the digital era. Despite these obligations, global streaming companies continue to invest heavily in these markets. Why? Companies invest where there is talent, stability, infrastructure and opportunity. Canada, our country, offers all of those things. We have world-class crews. We have globally respected creative talent. We have competitive production environments. We have advanced visual effects and post-production sectors. We have strong educational institutions producing those skilled workers. Importantly, we have a long-established production ecosystem built through decades of public and private investment. I think today we have heard some really interesting dialogue in terms of the focus here. The focus is obviously on affordability when dealing with the Americans. We are focused on that. I could go through the measures we have produced and the ones we are working on, but we also have to look at the creative arts as a major force of economic development. It is essential. I see it first-hand on Cape Breton Island. I have seen the impact it has had on the economy. I have seen the impact it has had on families and jobs. We need to look at this not as an ideological argument, but one of economic development, one where we are not just protecting the creative arts but focused on enhancing them. With that, I yield the floor.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

Bloc Québécois 12:05 p.m.

“I don't need you to lecture me about protecting culture. Answer my question. If you could intervene, would you reverse the CRTC decision or not? Your answer will show if you really care about culture or just want to avoid the topic.”

Mike Kelloway

Liberal 12:05 p.m.

“I'm not going to say whether we would reverse the CRTC decision or not. Instead I'm going to talk about how the government wants to help everyone in the industry. We want to make things more fair and help all these skilled people. That's what I'm focused on.”

Jim Bélanger

Conservative 12:15 p.m.

“I'm not going to give a clear answer on whether I support or oppose this tax. Instead, I'm going to talk about how the film industry in my area benefits from tax credits and incentives. I want to know what the other person thinks about this tax.”

Mike Kelloway

Liberal 12:15 p.m.

“I want the government to spend more money so there will be more movies and shows made in Canada. I'm going to talk about fairness and investing in people, but I'm not going to give a clear answer on whether I support or oppose this tax.”

Robert Morrissey

Liberal 12:15 p.m.

“This is a chance to talk about how great it is when the government spends money in rural areas. I'm going to ignore the issue of fairness and focus on how much we need the government's support.”

Mike Kelloway

Liberal 12:15 p.m.

“I don't want to talk about fairness or ideology. I want to talk about how great it is when the government spends money to help special companies we like.”

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates

Business of Supply

Martin Champoux

Melissa Lantsman

Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

Melissa Lantsman

Kelly DeRidder

Melissa Lantsman

Chak Au

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Chak Au

Jim Bélanger

Chak Au

Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

Chak Au

Mike Kelloway

Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

Mike Kelloway

Jim Bélanger

Mike Kelloway

Robert Morrissey

Mike Kelloway