House of Commons Hansard #124 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was chair.

Topics

Opposition Motion—Elimination of the Streaming TaxBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

May 28th, 2026 / 11:50 a.m.

Conservative

Chak Au Conservative Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC

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.

Opposition Motion—Elimination of the Streaming TaxBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

Noon

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

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?

Opposition Motion—Elimination of the Streaming TaxBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

Noon

Conservative

Chak Au Conservative Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC

Mr. Speaker, let us see who is sidestepping here.

From 2021 up to now, we have seen numerous occasions where the government intervened with decisions made by the CRTC. Now the Liberals are trying to hide behind the argument that the CRTC is an arm's-length organization.

Let us be clear. We are not talking about the CRTC's mandate here today. We are talking about affordability and the burden on the people with this increase in levy.

Let me ask a simple question: Does the government agree that this increase would impose an additional burden on the people? Also, will the government support this additional burden on the people?

Opposition Motion—Elimination of the Streaming TaxBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

Noon

Conservative

Jim Belanger Conservative Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the area I come from, the Sudbury area, has actually become a pretty major Ontario film hub over the last 10 to 15 years, namely for Shoresy, which is a spinoff of Letterkenny.

How does my colleague think this increase in tax will impact our communities and what damage might it do?

Opposition Motion—Elimination of the Streaming TaxBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

Noon

Conservative

Chak Au Conservative Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC

Mr. Speaker, I think my city and his riding are in a similar situation. We have a growing film industry, and we are creating jobs and economic activities in our community, which is very beneficial to people. I think we have to keep this economic growth going.

If this kind of levy is imposed on companies creating jobs for our communities, I think it will hurt people. We have to safeguard and encourage the film industry, and not have it destroyed by this kind of additional cost for businesses.

Opposition Motion—Elimination of the Streaming TaxBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

Noon

Bloc

Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, by claiming that standing up for culture is a trade irritant, as the Conservatives do in point (iv) of their motion, they are also giving up on linguistic and cultural diversity and, above all, accepting English American culture as the standard.

If the Conservatives do not have that cultural sensitivity, is it because they have already embraced that standard?

Is it because, for them, the culture we are talking about is the U.S. culture?

Opposition Motion—Elimination of the Streaming TaxBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

Chak Au Conservative Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC

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.

Opposition Motion—Elimination of the Streaming TaxBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

Sydney—Glace Bay Nova Scotia

Liberal

Mike Kelloway LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport and Internal Trade

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.

Opposition Motion—Elimination of the Streaming TaxBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

Bloc

Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my Liberal colleague's speech. He is telling us that the Liberals want to defend culture. From the beginning, the Liberals' argument about the Conservative motion has been that they cannot intervene in the CRTC's decisions, since it is an independent body.

The logical question is this: If they cannot intervene, that is one thing, but if they had the power to intervene, what would they do? Would they ask the CRTC to reverse that decision or not?

That is the important question. Their answer will tell me whether or not they are protectors of culture.

Opposition Motion—Elimination of the Streaming TaxBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

Mike Kelloway Liberal Sydney—Glace Bay, NS

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.

Opposition Motion—Elimination of the Streaming TaxBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Belanger Conservative Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt, ON

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, the filming industry in my area, in Sudbury, managed to come about and grow because of tax credits, incentives and so on.

I listened to the member, and I would like to ask him whether he is for or against this tax.

Opposition Motion—Elimination of the Streaming TaxBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Mike Kelloway Liberal Sydney—Glace Bay, NS

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.

Opposition Motion—Elimination of the Streaming TaxBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE

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?

Opposition Motion—Elimination of the Streaming TaxBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Mike Kelloway Liberal Sydney—Glace Bay, NS

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.

Opposition Motion—Elimination of the Streaming TaxBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Bloc

Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, I did not get an answer to a question that was quite straightforward and specific. I am going to give my colleague another chance to answer a very specific question.

The Liberal government scrapped the digital services tax on July 1, 2025. I would like my hon. colleague to tell me what the government got in return for repealing that tax.

Opposition Motion—Elimination of the Streaming TaxBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Mike Kelloway Liberal Sydney—Glace Bay, NS

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.

Opposition Motion—Elimination of the Streaming TaxBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Kristina Tesser Derksen Liberal Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON

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.

Opposition Motion—Elimination of the Streaming TaxBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Tony Baldinelli Conservative Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her description of the excellence, the talent and the workforce that have been created.

I had the pleasure of working for the Ontario government in 1995 when we came forward with the Ontario film and tax credit. We have generous tax credits provincially and federally, which have allowed the excellence of that industry to grow. However, does the member not think that the ruling from the CRTC, the penalizing of the revenues up to 15% and the tax that will flow because of it, lead to penalizing the industry and to the loss of jobs and expertise? It is a competitive business. Production companies are being told to go to the United States.

Would we lose because of this move?

Opposition Motion—Elimination of the Streaming TaxBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

Kristina Tesser Derksen Liberal Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON

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.

Opposition Motion—Elimination of the Streaming TaxBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

Louis Villeneuve Liberal Brome—Missisquoi, QC

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.

Opposition Motion—Elimination of the Streaming TaxBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

Kristina Tesser Derksen Liberal Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON

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.

Opposition Motion—Elimination of the Streaming TaxBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is a relatively new member of the House.

I want to congratulate my colleague on her French. I think she has improved considerably. That is something I had to work on as well. My goal is still to become truly bilingual.

Online streaming, as the member said, is a relatively new concept. Those of us who are older, and I will put myself in that category, did not grow up with the concept. We would not have known what anyone was talking about. We had television, and the big innovation when I was a kid was that we could get it in colour.

I want to ask this again. What I am wondering, given that the changes are so rapid, is this: What does the member believe is the most important thing we can do to ensure that the big online streaming platforms hire more Canadian talent, hire more Canadian actors and pay them at scale instead of lesser wages while they bring in U.S. stars to sprinkle the programming?

Opposition Motion—Elimination of the Streaming TaxBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

Kristina Tesser Derksen Liberal Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON

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.

Opposition Motion—Elimination of the Streaming TaxBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Shelby Kramp-Neuman Conservative Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON

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.

Opposition Motion—Elimination of the Streaming TaxBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

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—