“The broadcasting regulator made its own choice. Our culture supports tens of thousands of jobs across Canada. I want the Conservatives to admit that these jobs and our heritage are important to Canadians.”

“Madam Speaker, the CRTC, at arm’s length from government, made a decision. The decision is not quite as simple as the Conservatives try to portray it. At the end of the day, we have tens of thousands of jobs throughout our nation that are very much directly connected with our culture and our heritage. It is a part of who we are, our Canadian identity, and how different of mediums can influence that. I can appreciate that the Conservatives do not give a darn about that aspect, but I am wondering if the member could recognize that those jobs are valuable jobs that contribute to every region of our country and that protecting our Canadian heritage does mean something for a lot of Canadians?”

“I want the member to show where the law gives the cabinet the power to overrule this independent regulator.”

“Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member can provide some fact with respect to the motion itself. It concludes by saying that “the House call on the Liberal Cabinet to use their powers under the Broadcasting Act to reject the CRTC”, which is at arm’s length from government. Where in the Broadcasting Act does it say that the cabinet has the authority to do what the Conservatives believe it can do?”

“The Conservatives are using extreme right-wing conspiracy theories to scare people. They falsely claim the government is telling Canadians what they can watch and what they can say about religious texts.”

“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!”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 33 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 →

“The Conservatives want the government to cancel the broadcast regulator's new streaming rules. The government does not have the legal power to do that. The Conservatives are spreading false claims about censorship and taxes to make people angry and raise money. The broadcast regulator makes its own choices to protect Canadian artists and culture.”

“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—”

“We need fair rules between online streaming services and Canadian broadcasters. Canadian TV and music are very successful, but Conservative policies would hurt this industry. I want moderate Conservatives to stand up and defend Canadian culture.”

“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.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I disagree that we do not support the arts. Quebec does a great job supporting and growing its arts and culture, and other provinces can learn from it.”

“Madam Speaker, where I disagree with the member is with regard to any suggestion that there is a lack of support for the arts community. I think of the province of Quebec. The member himself resides in Quebec and there are 44 members of Parliament who represent that province. I can assure everyone that there is advocacy to promote and encourage further growth of the industry there. In many ways, Quebec leads Canada in how we can enhance and grow our culture and heritage arts communities. I appreciate the many efforts that are taken in Quebec, and I like to think that other provinces could learn something in terms of the advocacy that we see in Quebec for our arts programming.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 45 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The Conservatives cut money for arts and culture in the past and did not care about artists. Our government has invested in culture since 2015, including permanent funding for National Acadian Day.”

“Madam Speaker, it always makes me smile when I hear the Conservatives say they are interested in culture. I remember the Harper government’s cuts to culture quite clearly. Some artists in my riding took to the streets to call for help, but the government of the day refused to listen. Let me once again remind my colleagues what Stephen Harper said in the beginning. He said that artists were complaining with their mouths full and that regular people were not interested in culture. Imagine saying things like that about artists. Of all the great investments that we have made in culture since 2015, the one nearest and dearest to my heart was the decision to fund National Acadian Day permanently and at double the amount. I hope that my colleague can clarify for me what support we have provided to artists over the years.”

“The Conservatives do not support the arts. The arts create jobs, help young people, and entertain Canadians. The Conservatives should support this industry and our performers.”

“Madam Speaker, I was in third party opposition when Stephen Harper was prime minister. His attitude toward supporting our arts was lacking, to put it nicely. I can say that the Conservative Party today has moved even further to the right and has virtually abandoned any sort of support for our arts community. That constantly comes from the Conservative benches. My friend is very familiar with how important the arts community is to our nation. Not only does it provide opportunities for young people but also adds so much value to our economy in the form of jobs, not to mention the entertainment factor for every Canadian. The Conservatives need to readjust where they stand on the political spectrum and, at the end of the day, recognize the value of a critically important industry to Canada and to every Canadian, with a special emphasis on our performers.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a 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 →

“Our government is taking the time needed to get the best trade deal for Canadians. The Conservatives take the American side, and the NDP wanted us to give in to Donald Trump before. We will not back down, and we are finding other countries to buy Canadian goods.”

“Madam Speaker, I find it amazing that the member would even say something like that or even use the word “shame.” Let me remind him of what his good friend, the member of Parliament for Bowmanville—Oshawa North, when he travelled representing the Conservative caucus, had to say to Canadians about the U.S.-Canada trade situation. He said that we were having a “hissy fit.” That is what the Conservatives say when they go down to the States, and they are representing more of the American point of view than the interests of Canadians. There is no shame in having a government that recognizes that it will take the time necessary in order to get the best deal for Canadians. The difference is we are putting Canada first. That is what we are doing. The NDP, on round one with Donald Trump, wanted us to capitulate back then. We did not do it then, and under this Prime Minister, I can assure the member we are not going to do it now, because we are determined to get the best deal for Canadians. In the interim, we will look at other opportunities to sell Canadian exports. Serious commitments have been coming in. Trade agreements have been achieved. We will continue to work every day of the week to achieve more.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Reply to a comment in debate

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a comment in debate

  Signal 44 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 →

“Quebec shows us how important arts and culture are to our identity. Organizations like the CBC and the CRTC protect our culture and both our official languages across Canada. I want to know what the member thinks about these independent groups.”

“Madam Speaker, as I indicated earlier, I genuinely believe that Quebec leads the nation in terms of demonstrating just how important culture, heritage and arts programming are to our overall identity. When I think of the CRTC or CBC, whether it is TV or Radio-Canada, these are important institutions that are there to protect one of the things that Canadians value very much, the fact that we are a bilingual nation. I always appreciated, for example, that CBC has both French and English throughout the country. Things of that nature are positive. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on that aspect of these independent, stand-alone organizations.”

“I want the member to explain the Conservative position on the broadcast regulator. Do the Conservatives believe it should have any role at all?”

“Madam Speaker, there is a great deal of contrast on the CRTC issue between the Conservatives and the government of the day. Can the member provide some clarification on what today’s right Conservative Party’s position is on the CRTC? Does it believe that it has a role? It seems to me that the Conservative positioning is to get out of the way. What is the Conservatives’ position on the CRTC?”

“Conservatives want to cut funding for the CBC, but they dodged my question about the CRTC. Does the Conservative Party support the CRTC or not?”

“Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting learning process in terms of what the Conservative members have been speaking about this morning. There is definitely a reaffirmation in terms of a lack of commitment to the CBC, as an example, and reaffirming their commitment to take away financing. When I asked the former speaker about their position on the CRTC and its future here in Canada, that question was sidestepped. I am very much interested in trying to flush out the Conservative position on the CRTC as an arm’s-length organization of the Government of Canada. Does the member or does the Conservative Party support the CRTC in general?”

“I oppose this motion. Big foreign streaming companies make a lot of money in Canada, so they should help pay for Canadian TV shows and movies. Requiring them to invest here creates good jobs and helps local businesses across the country.”

“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.”

• Echo ×3

  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 →

“Our government wants to protect and grow the film industry across the country. We are focused on making the system fair so movie companies, actors, and crew members get the support they need.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I would put all that power into this one Cape Bretoner, because all the production would happen on Cape Breton Island. I will say that the main focus of this government is not just on protecting this sector and those jobs and movies that take place in Quebec, Manitoba or Cape Breton, but enhancing them. Where we are focused is how we build equity and fairness into the system to ensure that these companies, the actors and all of those skilled people I talked about recently are given a leg up. That is what we are going to be focused on.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  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 →
• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 9 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 →

“We need to invest in our own local talent and make things fair across the country. I want to see more movies and shows made in places like Sudbury.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think the fundamental, foundational piece here is what I just mentioned about equity and fairness. Where we need to focus is how we reinvest in our own people, our own talent and our own ability. I want to see more movies and shows in Sudbury, where I have not been, but I hope to go. I want to see more of that. What we need to do is continuously focus on this: where the equity is not there, to make sure it is there. That is what a sound government does, and that is what a responsible government will do.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  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 →

“Conservatives often talk about cutting all taxes. How would it hurt rural development if the government stopped funding economic projects across the country?”

“Mr. Speaker, Conservatives often go to great lengths in the House to speak about eliminating all taxes. As a member from rural Canada, could the member explain what impact it would have on many development opportunities in rural areas if the government was not there to support economic opportunity all across this country?”

“The government should support film and TV production companies instead of arguing about politics. Canada has the best actors and film crews in the world.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will go back to what I said earlier. The fact of the matter is that if we just make this an argument about ideology, conspiracy theories and trickle-down economics, we are missing the point. The fact is that government does have a role to support: not to be the sage on the stage, but to be a guide on the side. That is what good governments do. They allow those production companies and those movies to know what we know here in Canada: that we have the best actors, production crews and companies in the world.”

“We will continue to support the arts and film industry in Canada.”

“Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I would be remiss not to say, “Go, Habs, go.” I know we are down 3-1, but I think we are going to come back, and I hope we do. The reality is that sometimes we have to pivot, not just in politics but in the economic realm. What we are not going to pivot on is supporting an industry that is so important to Canada: the fine arts, the creative arts and the film industry. We are going to be there in lockstep.”

• Vague
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Clarity 18 of 100

  Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

  See full analysis →

“I support our law that makes online streaming companies help pay for Canadian music and shows. It is fair to make foreign streaming sites support our artists just like traditional Canadian broadcasters have always done.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Milton East—Halton Hills South. Today I rise to speak in support of the Online Streaming Act and its implementation by the CRTC. On May 21, 2026, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission released two regulatory policies implementing Bill C‑11, the Online Streaming Act. Those rulings focused on a modernized framework for Canadian programming expenditures, the discoverability of Canadian content, and support for television services of exceptional importance. The CRTC decision reduced the obligations on Canadian companies that are losing market share, while imposing for the first time Canadian expenditure requirements on streaming companies. The CRTC struck a balance between those producing Canadian television and those of us who watch it. The decision creates a fair, flexible and adaptable framework that supports Canadian artists and the growth of Canadian creative industries. I am not here to defend the CRTC’s decision. Rather, I am here to talk about the important work of future-proofing the Canadian broadcasting sector, which started almost a decade ago. This recent CRTC ruling is just one milestone, significant as it is, in a long journey to modernize the Canadian broadcasting system. It is the culmination of several years of work from legislators in this very House and the CRTC. Let us take a look back. As members know, the Online Streaming Act was the first major reform of the Broadcasting Act since 1991. Thirty-five years ago, Canada was still building its place in the global screen sector. We were still fighting for space and recognition. Today, Canada has one of the strongest and most respected audiovisual ecosystems in the world. It includes film and television, animation and documentaries and, increasingly, digital and interactive content. We are a global production hub, we develop world-class talent and we have built institutions that have supported generations of creators. This is a source of pride. Canada has one of the strongest audiovisual sectors in the world, and that did not happen by accident. Our culture is the result of deliberate decisions made by Canadians to support it, and the Broadcasting Act is no exception. It is an essential cultural legislative text. Thanks to this system, generations of Canadians have grown up listening to Canadian music on the radio and watching Canadian shows and films on television. A distinctly Canadian space allows us to share our stories in order to better understand each other and to better grasp what it means to be Canadian. Before the Broadcasting Act was modernized, we were clearly at an inflection point. The industry was evolving faster than our policy frameworks were designed for. Business models were upended. Audiences were fragmenting. Technology was transforming how content is created, financed, distributed and discovered. That pace of change was not slowing down. As the revenues of traditional radio and television broadcasters stagnated and declined, so did the level of support for Canadian music and stories, and for the creative professionals behind them. Changing viewing habits put the future of Canadian audiovisual content at risk, as audiences moved away from traditional broadcasters, who are subject to Canadian content requirements, toward foreign, largely United States-based online streaming services. These streaming platforms had no obligation to support Canadian content, until the Broadcasting Act was updated by the Online Streaming Act. Let us review the role of CRTC. Through the Online Streaming Act, the government sought to give the CRTC the powers and tools needed to regulate online broadcasters fairly, including by imposing regulatory requirements by way of conditions of service. The act established the foundations for all service providers, including streaming services, to contribute fairly to the broadcasting system. Canadian studios and creators should not be disadvantaged. Canadian culture deserves a supportive and conducive environment for its flourishing both online and off-line. This is what the Online Streaming Act has made possible. How were the online streaming services brought into the system in the first place? The Online Streaming Act modernized the Broadcasting Act by confirming that online broadcasters are subject to Canada’s regulatory framework. In November 2023, the government issued policy directions to guide the CRTC during its implementation of the Online Streaming Act. Those directions required the CRTC to ensure that streaming services would make meaningful contributions to the broadcasting system and that there would be robust consultation with industry stakeholders and civil society. Since that time, the CRTC launched several consultations and conducted public hearings to gather input on various aspects of the Online Streaming Act implementation, with a view to modernizing the broadcasting regulatory framework in the public interest. Canadian programming should be widely available on streaming platforms. The Online Streaming Act ensures that Canadian stories and music are supported and showcased on major streaming platforms operating in Canada, alongside the significant volume of U.S. and foreign content available on these services. The growth of online streaming services has opened the door to an unprecedented range of content choices for Canadians, yet in this vast digital landscape, Canadian stories and creators can be difficult to discover and recognize. The Online Streaming Act helps ensure that Canadian voices, music and shows remain visible and accessible to audiences across the country. Supporting the discoverability of Canadian content is not just about entertainment. It is about reflecting our experiences, our perspectives and our identities to Canadians. When people can see themselves in the stories being told, it helps strengthen a stronger sense of connection, pride and belonging. The implementation of the Online Streaming Act aims to support the long-term viability of the Canadian broadcasting system while strengthening our cultural sovereignty in a rapidly evolving digital environment. Canada is a hub of creativity, innovation and exceptional emerging talent. It is essential that our creators and cultural industries continue to have the opportunity to grow and succeed. Achieving this goal requires a modern and fair framework in which all broadcasting services operating in Canada contribute equitably to the Canadian broadcasting system and support the creation and promotion of Canadian stories and music. Traditional broadcasters already contribute to Canadian productions, from the development of Canadian programs through Canadian programming expenditure requirements and through contributions to production funds. However, until the recent CRTC decision, online broadcasters operated in the Canadian market without similar obligations to support Canadian music and stories. Canadian broadcasters have delivered incredible Canadian content for decades. They invested in the system and helped create the content that so many of us love. It is only fair that online streaming platforms should have to contribute in an equitable way. As the CRTC continues to implement the Online Streaming Act, the ultimate goal remains unchanged: to ensure that the approach is comprehensive, fair, evidence-based and compliant with international business obligations. The Online Streaming Act is a cornerstone of our approach to enabling Canadian creators to thrive in a modernized broadcasting system. This remains a priority for our country. The government remains committed to the Broadcasting Act and its objectives. We want to ensure that our children and future generations grow up as we did, with the opportunity to watch our stories and listen to our songs. Entertainment is how we share experiences, emotions and ideas. It is what allows us to build a shared culture and identity. Today we have a world-class audiovisual industry, one that creates extraordinary content, supports over a hundred thousand well-paying jobs across the country and contributes in a major way to our economy. Canada’s artists, creators and cultural entrepreneurs are at the heart of our identity. Their work drives innovation, creates jobs and ensures that Canadian stories are heard at home and around the world. We are telling Canadian stories that travel. We build intellectual property here at home. Those stories are increasingly one of our most valuable cultural and economic assets. That is important because this is not just cultural expression anymore. It is an export, and it is a key part of how Canada diversifies its economy in a rapidly changing global environment. The Online Streaming Act equips our broadcasting system to meet the known and immediate challenges of today and to help brace for the challenges of tomorrow.”

“Film production is growing in my riding, and we want to keep it going. This rule is not a tax; it is required spending on Canadian content. We need to support our film industry and make sure Canadian artists can tell their stories on our screens.”

“Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Milton East—Halton Hills South, there has actually been quite an active growth in film production, and we want to keep it going. First, I would comment that my colleague might want to review the legal definition of what a tax is. This is not in fact a tax. It is a Canadian programming expenditure. Second, as far as encouraging film and production goes, yes, it is definitely important that we incentivize, but it is also important that we level the playing field so Canadian artists have the ability to have their stories heard and have their stories reach us in our living rooms at home.”