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.
