Debates of May 28th, 2026

Opposition Motion—Elimination of the Streaming Tax

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. What I appreciate about this member is not what he says, but with how much volume he says it. I just do not know. We heard 20 minutes of ranting, raving and nothingness, but one of the things that really caught my ear is when he talked about trade and how they are going to get the best deal.

The government has not been to the negotiating table since October. The reason it has not been to the negotiating table since October is that it is scared of losing another MP or two and having to go to an election when times look good. The Liberals do not want to deal with the United States so that they can run against him rather than run on their disastrous record. Shame on that member. Shame on the government for not going to bat for Canadians. We need a deal. They are not trying to get one. He should be ashamed for that rhetoric in the House.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to give notice, under Standing Order 43(2)(a), that all remaining Conservative caucus speaking slots are hereby divided in two.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was surprised to hear the member for Winnipeg North essentially deliver two speeches. First, he gave a 20-minute speech, and then he basically gave another one in response to the questions he was asked.

Before I get started on today's completely ridiculous opposition motion—and let me be clear, by “opposition”, I mean the Conservative opposition—I want to point out that we in the Bloc Québécois would never have launched such an attack on one of the tools we have to defend Quebec culture and, yes, even Canadian culture.

Before I begin to discuss the Conservatives' ridiculous stubbornness in attacking anything that could possibly help our culture survive and even thrive in the new global digital environment, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the contribution of the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, not in his capacity as environment minister, as members did yesterday, but in his capacity as heritage minister.

He and I both won our seats in the 2019 election and, like everyone else, I figured he would immediately be given the environment portfolio because of his long-time passion and activism. What a surprise it was when the then prime minister put him in charge of Canadian Heritage. I am sure a lot of people—himself included—thought that was not his dream job, but I do admire how seriously he took it. During his time at the department, he made it clear that culture truly mattered to him. In fact, he was the one who introduced the first version of the bill to modernize the Broadcasting Act, Bill C‑10 at the time, which died on the Order Paper when an election was called the following year after weeks and months of excruciating Conservative filibustering.

Bill C‑10 became Bill C‑11 in the 44th Parliament, and again, against all odds and despite all the Conservatives' stalling tactics, we ended up passing the bill in 2022. That means it is partly the political legacy of the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie that we are defending here, because the CRTC decision that this motion is challenging stems from that act, which he introduced in November 2020. However, I doubt that this is an argument for today's cause. Still, I too would like to commend the contribution of this member, one of the few parliamentarians to stand up for their deeply held convictions and stay true to them, so much so that he chose to leave politics rather than swallow his frustration at his government's decisions and its lack of commitment to the environment and climate change.

I hope that this government and this Prime Minister will not cause the current Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture the same disappointment.

Let us get back to the Conservatives' motion, because we have to. We have no choice. Basically, what this motion is saying is that if people want to watch American shows, even if it means that Quebec and Canadian shows disappear, that is just fine. It is fine for American streaming giants to come here and make millions, if not billions, of dollars in Quebec and Canada without contributing to our broadcasting system. They think that is fine. Come to think of it, it would also be fine if there was no longer a Canadian and Quebec broadcasting system at all. Robert Charlebois, a great Quebec singer whom most of my Conservative colleagues have probably never heard of, used to sing that living in this country is like living in the United States.

The Conservative motion talks about the contribution that they are calling the Netflix tax, a commitment by American giants to use part of their revenues to ensure that original Canadian and Quebec productions are made, both in English and in French.

Given a choice between protecting Quebec and Canadian culture and artists and defending Netflix, Amazon Prime Video and Disney+, the choice is clear for the Conservatives, and that is most unfortunate.

I cannot believe that some Quebec Conservatives, whom I hold in high regard, are endorsing such a motion. It is embarrassing. Our artists are barely able to fund their work and our producers are struggling and being forced to trim not only the fat, but also the muscle, while American multinationals are making billions of dollars at their expense.

The CRTC's decision did not fix everything, far from it, but it is more than just a step forward. It is a necessary step if we want to be able to stand up to the cultural tsunami that is being unleashed by the web giants.

Forcing them to increase their contribution to original content is not a penalty or a tax. It is about catching up. It is a matter of fairness.

Our traditional broadcasters have always had clear obligations: fund local content, promote the French language and support the next generation. Only digital platforms are exempt from that.

Although this measure is necessary, it is not sufficient in and of itself. First, we need to ensure that the money collected is actually used to support the creation of Quebec content, particularly French-language content. Quebec must receive its fair share. Most importantly, Quebec needs to be able to decide for itself how the investments will be used, but I will come back to that later.

Second, we must also guarantee that this contribution is not limited to funding. Quebec content, French-language content and Canadian content must be discoverable. As anyone who has seen The Glass House on Prime Video can attest, our TV shows are outstanding. They must be available and they must be given a chance to be successful. I would add that they must also be given a chance to be aired by the licensed broadcasters, which have been contributing to the system for decades.These broadcasters are once again being harmed. They must be able to afford to broadcast our TV shows, our original content, our stories.

Lastly, it is important to beware of unintended consequences. We also do not want the platforms to pass on this increase to Quebec consumers in the form of price hikes. Once again, the public should not pay the price for the government's past inaction or for making contributions to original Quebec and Canadian productions more fair. The Bloc Québécois will continue to fight to ensure that every dollar contributed by the streaming platforms is used to strengthen our cultural identity, protect our language and support and develop Quebec's unique creativity.

That is why, today, we are reaffirming our clear and consistent stance that Quebec should have its own communications regulator, a CRTC that is just for Quebec. The current CRTC makes decisions that profoundly affect Quebec culture, but it does so within a Canadian framework where Quebec is just one minority among many. Even with the best of intentions, this structure cannot fully reflect Quebec's reality. It cannot give francophones the weight they deserve. It cannot prioritize our creators the way we would. It cannot fully grasp the complexity of our cultural ecosystem.

The result is that, all too often, CRTC decisions dilute Quebec's unique characteristics with a one-size-fits-all approach. A Quebec CRTC would be better at defending our culture. It would allow us to adopt rules tailored to our market. It would allow us to impose clear requirements for French-language content. It would allow us to provide greater support for our emerging artists. It would ensure that local content is truly discoverable. It is not enough simply to produce content; that content must also be seen, heard and discovered.

These days, the major platforms have algorithms that overwhelmingly favour dominant content, much of it in English and too much of it foreign. Our content is in there somewhere, but it is often invisible and hard to find. If Quebec had its own CRTC, it could implement concrete measures, such as spotlighting Quebec content, adapting quotas, mandating promotion and requiring algorithmic transparency. The Conservatives do not like that word, but it would not be a burdensome requirement; it would be a lifeline.

Let me go back to the CRTC decision. We do support that measure, but with clear conditions. First, the proceeds must truly benefit Quebec, not in theory or in some watered-down way, but concretely. The funds must not be folded into bigger federal programs that force Quebec culture to compete with vastly different contexts. Quebec must get its share, and it must be able to decide how to use the funds.

Second, these contributions must be used to strengthen French-language content, not just to fund Canadian content as a whole. The language issue is crucial to Quebec. Without decisive intervention, the presence and influence of French will decline.

Third, no matter what, the cost must not be passed on to consumers. We know full well how the web giants operate. When they are forced to meet new obligations, they either challenge them in court or try to pass on the cost to users. The Bloc Québécois is opposed to forcing Quebeckers to offset the web giants' contribution costs. These companies are making a profit from the market. They have to contribute.

If we want future generations to be able to keep living, creating and dreaming in French, we need to take concrete action, even if it seems draconian to some people. Increasing the streaming services' contribution is only one step. The Conservatives want to stop our cultural content from flourishing in the new digital environment. The Liberals must not follow their example. It would be a real shame if the new Prime Minister and the new Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture did to culture what they have done to the environment, in other words, if they completely destroy the legacy of the member for Laurier—Sainte‑Marie.

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

Madam Speaker, it is pretty clear to me that the Conservative motion is completely off base when it comes to Quebec and francophone culture and production, among other things.

I wonder if my colleague could talk about the fact that the Conservatives are not the only ones abandoning the cultural sector. This Liberal government also turned its back on culture when it eliminated the 3% tax on digital products last July. It was in the Liberal election platform, but barely three months after getting elected, they reversed course, hoping that would get them back to the negotiating table with Donald Trump.

I would like to ask my colleague the following question. How much revenue was ultimately lost because this government eliminated the digital services tax, despite its election promise to keep it?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my insightful, eloquent, and personable colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean for his question.

It certainly took everyone by surprise when the government decided to simply scrap the digital services tax last July. That tax, which would have brought in between $1.2 billion and $1.5 billion annually, could certainly have helped support the media and the cultural sector.

They did this in the hope of securing concessions from the Trump administration, which turned out to be completely futile. What is more, the government stubbornly refuses to reinstate this tax in the form of a levy, which, once again, would generate funds that could literally save many sectors of the cultural industry that are currently struggling. It is stubbornness. It is a lack of goodwill.

What worries me right now is that this decision by the CRTC might be overturned, or that the government might ask the CRTC to go back to the drawing board and reverse this decision for the same reasons, that is, to kowtow a little more to the Trump administration.

I am deeply worried about the disengagement we have been seeing.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and for his point of view, which was very well defined, but which we obviously have reservations about. Still, we respect what is known as parliamentary democracy.

At the end of his remarks, the member paid tribute to the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie. I can understand that, now that he seems to be neutral, the Bloc Québécois is congratulating him. Is the member aware that when the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie was a senior minister in this government, he voted for abolishing the carbon tax, for the throne speech that meant environmental projects would now have a single assessment and for Bill C‑5, which enables the government to enter into agreements with Alberta, among others? More importantly, is my colleague aware that the member for Laurier—Sainte‑Marie was the Minister of Canadian Heritage when this government abolished the digital services tax?

We, the Conservatives, saw no problem with that, but why pay tribute to a guy who was a senior minister for Canadian heritage and the environment, who held positions that differed from those of the Bloc Québécois?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to pay tribute to the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie for his career and his political commitment. I think that is very honourable. If there is any member who respects that, it must be my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk. However, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie was not the Canadian heritage minister when the digital services tax was abolished. That was last year, under the current Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture. The member for Laurier—Sainte‑Marie was the environment minister at the time.

That being said, my colleague is in a much better position than I am to know that a member of a major political party that has to represent interests across Canada, contrary to our mission as members of the Bloc Québécois, is forced to swallow a lot of bitter pills on a regular basis. Perhaps one day, my Conservative colleague will be tired of having to swallow the bitter pills that are the social convictions of his western colleagues.

I get the feeling that our colleague from Laurier—Sainte‑Marie was fed up with having to put up with the disappointing experiences he endured on the environmental front.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

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.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I take note of the question from my colleague from Winnipeg North, but first and foremost, I would like to acknowledge that my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk was absolutely right. The member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie had indeed returned to the Department of Canadian Heritage by then. I apologize to him. That was a public mea culpa.

My colleague from Winnipeg North talked about the fact that Canada is a bilingual country and that some institutions are independent. I fully agree with him. However, Quebec is a nation whose only official and common language is French. That is why extraordinary measures are sometimes needed to protect this distinctiveness.

I completely agree about the independence of the institutions established to regulate, as is the case with the CRTC and with CBC/Radio-Canada as the public broadcaster. That is what I hope this government will respect when it comes time to implement the decision that was just rendered by the CRTC. As I said in my speech, I believe that this decision is a step in the right direction, but it is just one step, and other measures will need to be added later on. As for the independence of institutions, I completely agree with my colleague.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

I listened to a question just a little while ago. Before I begin, I will try a bit of French here.

I thank my colleague for his speech.

I want to ask my hon. colleague from the Bloc a question. One question that is really central to what we are dealing with is tax and Canadians' being bitten, so to speak, by death by a thousand financial cuts. If we were to listen to the member from Winnipeg, Canadians have never had it so good because the Liberals gave a tax cut to 22 million people. Unfortunately, people are still lining up at food banks in record numbers. They cannot pay their mortgages, cannot pay their rent and cannot afford a seven-dollar head of lettuce. Unfortunately, that does not get into the rhetoric.

I wonder whether my hon. colleague agrees that we need to lower the cost of living, whether we are talking about digital streaming taxes or inflationary spending when it comes to the government. Does he not agree that we need to address what has become a cost of living crisis in this country?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Where should I start, Madam Speaker? The member brought up a lot of different issues.

First, yes, we are in a difficult economic situation. Yes, Quebeckers and Canadians are finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet and, yes, the lines at food banks are growing. We are aware of those problems. However, that is still no reason for us to be telling our artists, creators, broadcasters, performing arts producers and content creators that they are not important and that we are going to let them be steamrolled because we do not want to add to the burden of the multinationals that are coming here to make a quick buck.

If my colleague really wants government money to be better spent, then perhaps he should take a look at big oil, which is raking in tens of billions of dollars a year while benefiting from tax breaks and government subsidies. If we were to cut back a little on the billions of dollars that we are giving already-rich multinationals that have absolutely no need of our help, then perhaps we would have the means to provide a little more support to Quebeckers and Canadians who are currently struggling.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to explain to me why the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this motion.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I gave a 20‑minute speech to express just how important Quebec's francophone culture, and even francophone culture in Canada, is for protecting the French language and supporting our creators in Canada, whether they are anglophone or francophone. All content creators, broadcasters and artists are deeply troubled and affected by the arrival and dominance of digital giants that do not contribute to the broadcasting system. That is why we are going to defend our position and vote against this motion.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to start today by offering a short recap to those watching at home, because this is still a developing story. There is one important newsflash that I think Canadians ought to know. The message is to get ready for another Liberal tax. That is it. The government has already taxed our gas. It has taxed our groceries. It has taxed our capital gains. God knows it has taxed our income. It is now coming for our Netflix. That is really what today is about.

The Liberal-appointed CRTC, which is an unelected, unaccountable body that regulates streaming services and digital content in this country, just mandated that companies such as Netflix, Disney+ and Prime Video fork over 15% of their revenues to Ottawa. That is a 200% increase from where they were.

For someone watching at home, let us put a number on this and what it means for families. Netflix alone earns about $1.5 billion annually from Canadian subscribers, and 15% of that is $225 million. When passed on to consumers, that will be potentially three dollars or four dollars every single month per household, on top of everything else that Canadians pay. That might not sound like a lot of money, but that is exactly where the tax that Ottawa is collecting is going to go: directly to the consumer. At four dollars a month, that is $50 a year.

We know what happens when the Liberal government levies taxes on corporations. They simply get passed on to consumers. It is never a minister that pays them. It is never the government that pays them. It is always the consumer. Anybody who says that is not the case has not been here in the last 10 years.

The last thing that Canadians need right now is more taxes. On this side of the House, we will always advocate to get rid of every single one of them. Forty per cent of people in the country are within $200 of insolvency. They are within $200 of going broke. One-quarter of households are food insecure right now. We know that. We talk about it in this place all the time.

When streaming becomes more expensive, people do not stop watching; they turn to things like piracy. We know that too. Canada already has some of the highest rates of piracy in the G7. This tax, of course, will make that worse.

That is not a victory for Canadian creators. If we listen to the debate in the House, one would think that this was all about Canadian creators. Instead, it is a self-inflicted wound on the country. Of course, Conservatives will strongly and loudly oppose all the new taxes from this place, from Ottawa, on struggling families. We understand that when government takes less, families keep more of what they earn, businesses can invest and grow, and people have the freedom to make choices themselves rather than having unelected bureaucrats make those choices for them. It is a very simple argument, and I am sure that by the end of today, the folks on that side will understand it.

There is a broader narrative at play here too. This decision reveals something about how the government thinks or what the government's values really are.

First, this new Netflix tax is being levied under the guise of supporting so-called content creators. In the abstract, I think we can all agree that having more things made in Canada is good. Telling Canadian stories is a good thing. It is better for us, and it is better for our country.

However, we should consider what the argument ignores. Drake, The Weeknd, Schitt's Creek and Letterkenny are some of the most celebrated Canadian cultural exports in a generation. Beloved here at home and around the world, they succeeded not because the regulator mandated their existence but because they were actually good. They were brilliant, in fact.

We should also consider this: If we are making this argument today, I think we have to be honest about it. Off Campus is the number one show on Prime Video right now. It is filmed in Vancouver. It is based on a Canadian author's book. It features music from a Canadian band. By every common-sense measure, it is a Canadian story told by Canadians, but under the CRTC's own rules, it does not qualify as Canadian content. Not a dollar of this new tax flows to productions like it.

What exactly are we funding? We are not funding the things that Canadians are actually watching. Remember, it is the number one show. Folks in the House might not know it because it is a young adult audience, but that is what people are watching and celebrating.

Instead, we are funding what Ottawa has decided counts. It is a distinction that says everything about who this policy actually serves.

Canadian stories cannot and will not succeed just because we have taxed our way to cultural relevance. They will succeed because those stories are worth telling and people want to hear them.

Second, these taxes effectively shield broadcasters like the CBC and CTV from competition, rather than nurturing the creators who actually need the help. Over and over again, every independent analysis has proven that these funds disproportionately flow to established government institutions, the ones with relationships and high-priced government access payrolls, not the independent YouTuber in Calgary, the podcaster in Halifax and the digital filmmaker in Winnipeg who are building audiences on their own terms. They are now being penalized by the very subsidies that go to their better-connected competitors. That structure is not a recipe for a healthy, competitive marketplace, and we have discussed that in the House time and time again. It is how the Liberal government protects its cronies at the expense of our cultural ecosystem, and it says that anybody who disagrees with it must not like culture.

On that point, there is one really big foreign entity taking a very keen interest in the signals that this is sending, and that is the United States government. Let us put it plainly: Taxing American streaming giants is a provocation. We know that. They have said that. In fact, the Prime Minister admitted that himself when he rescinded the digital services tax. That was a 3% tax. This is a 15% tax. How do members think that is going to go over with the Americans? By the way, the Prime Minister did not get a single concession for rescinding that tax when times got tough. In all of this, the retaliation could fall again, and it could fall on Canadian agriculture, on Canadian lumber or manufacturing. These are industries that also employ hundreds of thousands of Canadians, who are waiting with bated breath for something from negotiations that have not taken place since October.

The Prime Minister often says that we can control what we can control, and I agree. The choice to bring in these new taxes is an entirely controllable one. Why are we voluntarily picking another fight with our largest trading partner at exactly the moment at which Canadian businesses and workers need stability, as they deserve? That makes no sense. The policy itself makes no sense, but the timing makes even less sense. Now the members opposite will try to caricature our position on this. They will say that opposing this tax means opposing Canadian culture. That is a false choice on the floor of the House of Commons, and Canadians really deserve better than that lazy argument.

Conservatives believe in Canadian stories, the ones that are worth telling. We simply disagree about how to get there, because there is another way. Instead of taxing streaming platforms and hoping the money trickles down to creators, we could expand direct production tax credits that put resources in the hands of the writers, of the directors and of the producers, not the hands of the bureaucratic behemoths this is going to fund. Instead of regulations that protect legacy broadcasters from competition, we could invest in co-production treaties with our allies, such as New Zealand, the U.K. or Australia. This would open international markets to Canadian stories and give our content creators a massive market to tell their stories.

Schitt's Creek did not succeed because a regulator forced it into a content fund. It succeeded because it was brilliant, it was funny and people chose to watch it. Our job is to create an environment in which the next Schitt's Creek gets made, not to tax Netflix and declare victory for Canadian culture on the backs of Canadian families. The Liberals never seem to learn the lessons that Canadians already know instinctively: We cannot tax a country into prosperity. Families are not variables on a spreadsheet, and artists are not government programs.

Conservatives believe in a free people, free markets and free expression. This means we will say no to yet another misguided attempt by the government to overreach into our media markets on the backs of Canadian families and charge them a brand new Netflix tax they simply cannot afford. We say not today, and not ever.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

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?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

The Conservative position, Madam Speaker, is often for the Liberals to get out of the way and let Canadians decide.

The member opposite and the government are saying that the CRTC is an independent decision-maker, which is where this is all going, and that its hands are tied. That is simply not true. The government has the power today to issue a directive. It can set the decision to the side entirely by an order in council.

The Prime Minister does not have a regulatory problem with the CRTC. He has a spending and a taxing problem with respect to Canadian families. He can hide behind the CRTC all he wants, but what Canadians ought to know is that they are getting a new tax and the Liberals are controlling that.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I often hear the Conservatives in committee criticizing what they perceive as government influence over what goes on at CBC/Radio-Canada, the public broadcaster. They often condemn what they see as a kind of collusion or the idea that the public broadcaster acts as a mouthpiece for the Liberal government and its policies. They are entitled to that view.

However, if the Conservatives believe that the government is interfering in the operations of the public broadcaster, which is an independent body, then why would they ask the government to interfere in a decision recently handed down by the CRTC, which is also an independent body? This matter clearly falls within its jurisdiction, as it concerns the application of legislation passed by Parliament.

I wonder why there is a double standard in this case.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think the member opposite knows that the position of the Conservatives is very clear on the funding to the CBC.

We are talking about what the Prime Minister does and does not have control over. That is very simple. We have a motion in the House right now to ask the government to rescind its decision. While we are at it, it can rescind the decisions on Bill C-11, which has not worked, and Bill C-18, which has taken news out of the hands of Canadians and blocked them from local journalism. We can do all of that with this motion and with future motions. There is no regulatory problem for the government here. It is imposing a tax on Canadians, and the exact thing we are arguing today is that it should take that tax off of Canadian families.

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

Madam Speaker, here is what I want to know. The fourth point of the Conservative motion basically says that we are scared of Donald Trump, that we should lower the tax and overrule the CRTC's decision because we are scared of Donald Trump. The Liberals did just that last July. They repealed the digital services tax out of fear of Donald Trump. They believed they would get something in return. In the end, they got diddly-squat. I love that expression.

If it did not work for the Liberals, why do the Conservatives think it will work for them?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure where the member was going with that question, but I will highlight what he highlighted.

The Prime Minister went to Washington last year and rescinded a 3% digital sales tax, getting nothing in return. Now we see the Liberal government imposing a 15% tax, many more times than 3%, on Canadian families for watching streaming services that the CRTC does not even count as Canadian content. It makes no sense. It makes no sense in our negotiations—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kitchener Centre.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, at a time when Canadians are barely getting by, here we are introducing another tax. I hear from residents all over my community about how they are barely getting by.

I also have a very vibrant arts community in Kitchener Centre. I would like my colleague to dive a little deeper into the Conservative solution on how we could better support our arts industry, rather than adding another tax that Canadians cannot afford.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think the Liberals often confuse spending and protecting. The Weeknd, James Carroll, Lorne Michaels and Saturday Night Live did not come from the CRTC content fund. What protects Canadian culture and talent is the freedom to compete. We will continue standing up for Canadian creators and their freedom to compete and express themselves.