Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak about the recent CRTC decision, what it means for the ongoing trade relationship between Canada and the United States, and both how this decision will directly hit Canadians at home and its broader implications on negotiations on 232 tariffs and CUSMA. I first want to address the first point of defence that the government uses, which is that this is not a government decision but a CRTC decision. This is a gross mis-characterization of the process. The CRTC’s own press release clearly indicates that the decision is a direct result of the organization’s attempt to meet criteria set out in legislation introduced and passed by the government. The CRTC presser acknowledges: The CRTC is taking important steps to implement the modernized Broadcasting Act (the Act) by updating how Canadian and Indigenous content is supported and made available. The Act requires the CRTC to modernize Canada’s broadcasting framework and ensure that online broadcasters make meaningful contributions to Canadian and Indigenous content. That instruction came in the last Parliament, under Bill C‑11, the Online Streaming Act. I will remind the House that Conservatives raised objections to this legislation, including to its potential impact to CUSMA negotiations, months prior to the U.S. election. We voted against the legislation specifically because of our concerns of impacts to the trading relationship between Canada and the U.S. even during the Biden administration and before the current administration’s battery of unjust and unfair tariffs was levied against Canadian industry. Outside the House, we were not alone in our concerns. In June 2024, in a meeting with the international trade committee, Dr. Meredith Lilly, associate professor and Simon Reisman chair in international economic policy at Carleton University in Ottawa, stated in her opening remarks: ...implementing CUSMA in good faith also means not adopting legislation and regulatory measures that contravene CUSMA and antagonize the Americans. For example, on digital trade, the Online Streaming Act would be in violation of the chapter of CUSMA on digital trade were it not for Canada’s cultural exemption. Similarly, unilateral action by Canada to introduce a digital services tax would discriminate against large U.S. firms. We should be prepared for U.S. retaliation if these measures are enacted, and Canadian lawmakers should be aware of the damaging consequences for the broader CUSMA review process. Similarly, Sean Heather, senior vice-president for international regulatory affairs and antitrust at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, stated: Consequently, Americans find it ironic that Bill C‑11 specifically targets U.S. companies in a manner that may violate Canada’s international trading obligations, including those under CUSMA. This action appears to contravene commitments that guarantee a minimal standard of treatment, require equal treatment of foreigners and local enterprises, and obligate Canada to refrain from imposing certain performance requirements on foreign direct investment. While addressing a press conference in 1947, standing alongside Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, President Harry Truman said, “The record proves that in peaceful commerce the combined efforts of our countries can produce outstanding results. Our trade with each other is far greater than that of any other two nations on earth.” Everyone was telling not just the government but all members of the House that the Online Streaming Act would have a negative effect on CUSMA talks. Now we have the added issue of tariff negotiations as well, and all of this is just for the initial 5%. Bill C-11 gave the CRTC the power to do what it is doing. As a result, that 5% has now tripled to 15%, and the timing could not have been worse. The Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade is heading down to Washington to negotiate with our American counterparts, which is a difficult prospect on the best of days. Now he has to contend with a regulatory body’s recently tripling what the Americans have viewed since 2024 as a trade irritant. I will be quite candid. I would love for the minister to succeed. There would be no member of the House happier than me if he came home with a paper in hand that ends the 232 tariffs sets the groundwork for a successful CUSMA review, but decisions like the recent CRTC announcement make it unnecessarily harder for him, especially considering that the initial levy is still being argued before the courts. We need, collectively, to set him up to succeed, not to fail. Supporting the decision by the CRTC, and refusing to accept responsibility for giving it the authority and mandate to do what everyone warned it would do, is not supporting the minister in his duties but actively torpedoing him. I would also like to take the opportunity to head off the argument that by opposing this tax hike, and tax in general, we are attacking Canadian and indigenous media and content producers. This is simply false. The government has innumerable ways to help out these sectors financially. The only thing we are saying is to not create an additional irritant in a trillion-dollar relationship in order to get there. I have the perfect solution. The CRTC estimates that the tax will mean $2 billion in revenue. I know how we can supplement that for the next 45 years, and it will not cost the government a single cent of additional committed funding: cancel the $90-billion Alto high-speed rail vanity project. Using public funds to unite Canadians through media, among a dozen other concerns, is a far better use of taxpayers’ dollars than paying for a project that no one asked for and that will involve the permanent expropriation of private lands and tear rural communities asunder. Naturally, yes, I am singling out the Alto high-speed rail project because it is topical and relevant to my riding, but the broader point is that there are a number of programs or revenue-raising mechanisms that can be used instead of a tax on these digital service providers. What gets lost in these conversations is the reality of these investments in Canada. These companies, while American-owned, provide economic benefits alongside Canadian digital service providers. They provided $4.6 billion in 2024-25 and were responsible for 86% of foreign productions that year. They support an estimated 85,000 Canadian jobs, and of course, they are not happy. Motion Picture Association CEO Charles Rivkin issued a statement on this matter, which in part reads, “This burdensome framework unfairly targets global streamers with requirements that directly violate Canada’s obligations under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.... The decision also undermines the open, market-based system that has helped fuel investment, job creation, and creative partnerships across North America”. It is important to remember that these concerns about Bill C-11, which led to the recent CRTC decisions affecting the Canada-U.S. relationship, predated the Trump administration. They predated elbows up. They predated the current trade war. It may feel great to some listeners to dismiss the importance of this relationship and say to move on. If they are not willing to listen to the economic argument against that, I would encourage them to think about what that means for their daughter-in-law who works in the local steel mill, their father who is on the line at the auto plant or their sister who is working at the pulp mill. Their economic well-being, as well as the livelihoods of the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who depend on the nearly $1 trillion of trade that flows between our two nations annually, is the cost of that good feeling. As a legislator, I am not prepared to pay that cost. Speaking to the importance and defence of Canada-U.S. trade is not a defence of or attack against any one administration, Democrat, Republican, Liberal or Conservative. It is a plea to cut through the rhetoric and noise and to repair and reinvigorate the relationship between our two great nations. We as legislators need to think beyond the current news cycle. We need to plan for 10, 20, 50 and 100 years into the future. Yes, that means diversification, but as the Prime Minister himself recently said, that also means deeper integration while building fortress North America. Leaders on both sides of the border cannot change that one part proximity, but we need certainty to change everything we can to restore those nine parts goodwill and common sense. Getting rid of this tax hike is certainly a step in the right direction.
