Debates of May 28th, 2026

Opposition Motion—Elimination of the Streaming Tax

[Doly Begum, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think our government is taking all the steps necessary, especially at the time right now, to address the challenges that people are facing. If I had had more time, I would have talked about more measures that our government is taking. Right now we are facing a very difficult time with tariffs, and just this morning, I was at the industry committee, where we talked about AI. I know my hon. colleague has sat with me at some of the committee hearings as well, so we will work together to make sure that we have policies that help everyone, and I look forward to doing that.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to extend a warm welcome to my colleague for her maiden speech in the House.

On that note, I want to ask my colleague what she thinks about the fact that the opposition really is pushing a motion to try to overstep culture and protection of culture for our communities here in Canada, especially for francophone communities. Can my colleague comment on why it is important that we oppose this motion?

[Doly Begum, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I found really inspiring, after being elected and being in this House, is practising my French. I had almost stopped using my French after my university days. I learned French and English at the same time, so both are my second languages. Unfortunately, I did not practise enough. I think we have to do everything possible to protect both of our languages, and we should do everything possible to work hard so that French is protected.

I also want to take a moment to say that there are a lot of indigenous languages that may be going extinct, and we should do our part to make sure that we protect them as well.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome my newly elected Liberal colleague. I could give her the opportunity to answer a question in French, since she says that she has learned French. There is no reason to be embarrassed about speaking English or French when in the House of Commons.

I would simply like to know who, in the end, will pay the 15%?

She can give a very simple answer.

[Doly Begum, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I only speak a little French. I need to practise.

I am learning, and I look forward to doing that in the coming months and years. Maybe my hon. colleague will help me learn and practise as well.

I know that our government is taking action to make sure that more money goes into the pockets of hard-working Canadians. That is essentially the aim of every policy and every bill that we pass in this House. I look forward to working with every member in this House to do just that.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker,

October was a beautiful month at Green Gables, when the birches in the hollow turned as golden as sunshine and the maples behind the orchard were royal crimson and the wild cherry-trees along the lane put on the loveliest shades of dark red and bronzy green, while the fields sunned themselves in aftermaths.

Anne reveled in the world of color about her.

“Oh, Marilla,” she exclaimed one Saturday morning,... “I’m so glad I live in a world where there are Octobers...”

Those who love Canadian content may recognize this memorable passage from the great Canadian story Anne of Green Gables, written by the great Canadian author Lucy Maud Montgomery. This passage highlights why the book has endured for so many years: Anne's irrepressible spirit, capturing her vivid imagination that turns the ordinary autumn into something magical.

Anne's author, Lucy Maud Montgomery, in fact spent 15 years of her life in Leaskdale, Ontario, which is in my riding of York—Durham, about 15 minutes from where I live. She wrote the majority of her books while living in Leaskdale, and she raised her two surviving children there. Anne of Green Gables was not successful because Lucy Maud Montgomery was funded by a tax on foreign authors. Anne of Green Gables was not successful because a Liberal government forced Canadians to buy her book. It was successful because it was great writing, great content and great Canadian culture. The strength of Canadian culture should not rely on forcing foreign companies to subsidize Canadian content. The strength of Canadian culture should not rely on forcing foreign companies to force Canadians to watch or listen to government-mandated content, regardless of its quality.

We are talking about the Online Streaming Act today and the increase in that tax on Canadians, the Netflix tax, from 5% of gross Canadian revenues to 15% of gross Canadian revenues, which will undoubtedly increase the costs for Canadians. There are many reasons to oppose this tax hike, but what I want to focus on today is that this tax hike will be a trade irritant with our friends in the United States and will impede our ability to get a good deal on our CUSMA renewal. Since its introduction, the Online Streaming Act has faced trade backlash from the United States, and rightly so. It requires foreign streaming services to contribute a percentage of their gross Canadian revenues to Canadian production funds as a condition of market access. Those payments were at 5% and have now increased to 15%.

These rules are discriminatory for at least four reasons: First, they exclude Canadian streaming services from the same obligations, so foreign companies must pay and Canadian companies do not have to. Second, when foreign companies pay, they pay twice. That is because the royalties they pay to Canadian rights holders are included in the taxable revenue used to calculate their obligation. I know Liberals love taxes, but this is a tax on a tax. Third, the rules exclude foreign companies from benefiting from those content funds. Last, they require streaming providers to promote and prioritize Canadian content. This is often referred to as discoverability.

I will pause on that for a moment. The government is dictating the content that these streaming service providers must show Canadians. They are telling them that regardless of whether a show is popular, of quality, good to watch, fun to watch or even if anyone wants to watch it, it must be shown to Canadians. The Liberal government will tell them what content is okay. All of this leaves us with an unfair and uneven playing field, whereby foreign companies are required to contribute but banned from benefiting.

The cost to foreign companies is real. One estimate that was submitted before the CRTC by the Computer and Communications Industry Association in the United States said that at 5%, it cost its industry $2.2 billion U.S. This will grow between 2025 and 2030, at the higher CRTC rates, to over $7 billion U.S. I am not noting the cost so that we shed a tear for companies that are paying taxes but to note that there is a real cost to U.S. companies. We should not be surprised that these U.S. companies are outraged that they are being discriminated against and are calling on their government to take action.

The Americans have responded in several ways. First, the Online Streaming Act has been identified in the USTR's national trade estimates report every year since its passage. That report identifies trade irritants that the U.S. has with countries around the world. If we go to the section on Canada, we will find a subsection on the Online Streaming Act, which calls out this tax.

This is not just some government report that sits on a shelf. USTR Jamieson Greer has repeatedly said in public that the national trade estimates report must be part of any CUSMA renegotiations. This means that the issue is squarely in play for the U.S.

The government has often claimed that Canada is shielded from this or otherwise protected because of the so-called cultural exception in the CUSMA. The cultural exception exists, but it comes with a price. Let me unpack that a little more.

The starting point is chapter 19 on digital trade in the CUSMA. It covers non-discrimination. It says, in the relevant part, “No Party shall accord less favorable treatment to a digital product created, produced, published, contracted for...or...made available on commercial terms in the territory of another Party”. We have to treat foreign digital products in the same way as we treat other foreign digital projects and products created in Canada.

Lawyers will argue on whether there is discrimination or not, and we will leave that to them. I would say that I think the case is pretty strong.

That takes us to the so-called cultural exemption, which is found in chapter 32. It says, in the relevant part, that the agreement, the CUSMA, “does not apply to a measure adopted or maintained by Canada with respect to a cultural industry”. Okay, that sounds good. However, that is not the whole story, because just two articles down, it says, “Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, a Party may take a measure of equivalent commercial effect in response to an action by another Party that would have been inconsistent with this Agreement”.

Taken together, this means that Canada can violate its non-discrimination obligations in the digital trade chapter for the cultural sector in Canada, as it is doing with the Online Streaming Act. However, that gives the U.S. the right to retaliate with “equivalent commercial effect”. This is why the estimates of the cost to U.S. industry are so important, because it tells us what the retaliation may be.

It is also important to note that the retaliation provision is not limited to the cultural sector. This means that the United States could choose which products or services it wishes to retaliate against. The U.S. has done that repeatedly with other countries. We can take France as an example. The U.S. retaliated to the French digital services tax by targeting its wine, cheese and handbags.

We have talked a lot in the House about vulnerable industries in Canada: steel, aluminum, lumber, automotive and seafood. We can imagine the United States taking retaliatory action, completely consistent with its obligations, in one of those industries.

I just want to end on how this funding is being used, because we could argue about whether this is good or not, but what really puts the nail in the coffin for me is to see how this cultural funding is being used. It is often used to push radical ideologies on Canadians, families and children. Let us look at just a couple of the outrageous examples.

Most recently, we heard about the example of the prank show Northland Tales, produced by the CBC and APTN, in which the state broadcaster used deceptive tactics to lure participants to a show and then sandbagged them to push their anti-historical, anti-Canadian narratives attacking Canadian figures and institutions such as John A. Macdonald, the founder of our country. Without Macdonald, there would be no Canada. There was also the RCMP, a historic institution in this country. Even members of Parliament were targeted. The member for North Island—Powell River was targeted. He is smarter than the average bear and was able to avoid that.

We can see that this funding is not used to promote quality Canadian content, such as Anne of Green Gables. It is wasted on radical ideologies.

However, there is a solution. The solution is that the government should use its powers to stop the CRTC from raising this tax from 5% of revenues to 15% of revenues. The government has the power. It has its majority. The question is whether it will do that. At the end of the day, Canadians want to go home, kick their feet up, crack a beer and watch Netflix without having it cost them an arm and a leg.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat sad to see Canada's official opposition surrender our arts and cultural sovereignty to the United States. That is in fact what we have been witnessing from Conservative members like the one who just spoke, who made it very clear why he wants everyone's gung-ho support of this resolution. He is advocating for what we would expect to hear from American politicians or for advocates for Netflix. That is the kind of advocacy we are seeing coming from the Conservative Party.

Okay, the Conservatives want us to capitulate. This is not the first time. I remember, on Trump one, that they wanted us to capitulate. Why are the Conservative Party members giving up on our culture and heritage communities?

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague takes such a dim view of culture in Canada, that it cannot stand on its own two feet. I am not afraid of American culture. I am not afraid of watching American sports. I am sure the member opposite watches U.S. films or TV and maybe even uses Netflix.

It does not scare me because I have confidence in Canadian artists and Canadian cultural creators and confidence that our content is excellent. Just as Anne of Green Gables went worldwide, I believe the next Canadian author, streamer or musician can do the same.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is not about being afraid of American cultural content. On the contrary, it is popular with plenty of people. That is not the issue. The issue is about levelling the playing field across the country, because the existing media outlets and institutions had to pay licence fees and infrastructure costs, while the web giants enter the market without any such costs. It is simply a matter of taking a small cut of the profits that they make and redistributing them to support our culture.

Contrary to what the member seems to think, this is not about dictating content. The institutions will remain independent. However, one of the things that it will do is help maintain regional media outlets, which is very important for democracy. I would like to hear his comments on that.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, these companies already pay taxes in Canada, employ thousands of Canadians and invest in our country.

The member talks about balance. This is not balance; this is government picking winners and losers, choosing which Canadian content gets funding and choosing and forcing tech companies to manipulate their algorithms to show Canadians content that the Liberal government says is good.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague and I share a very keen interest in international trade. We are trying to understand by what logic the Liberals would bring forward something like this right when we are about to review CUSMA. This, as he has amply said many times, is a trade irritant at a time when we need to try to find common ground with our partners, and with another thing, Mercosur, in which they were also worried about backdooring products in from other parts of the world.

At a time like this, why on earth would the government go ahead with something like this?

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very good question, and there is no good answer other than that I do not think anybody is awake at the steering wheel. This is the most important negotiation that our country will engage in this year. Why would the Liberals go and poke our friend right in the eye, squarely and firmly, during this negotiation? It makes no sense.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the hon. member brought up Lucy Maud Montgomery's Anne of Green Gables. I read all of those books when I was a little girl growing up. That was before the Internet, when Canadians were able to talk to each other and find Canadian content.

We have heard at heritage committee, over and over again from Canadian artists in every genre, that they would have not made it as far as they did without the supports and the Canadian content rules we have in place today.

Does the member opposite believe that it is important to have Canadian culture?

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course I believe that. I started my speech by reading from Lucy Maud Montgomery's Anne of Green Gables.

I believe in Canadian content. I do not believe in the Liberal government choosing which Canadian content should succeed and which should fail, or in forcing tech companies to regurgitate only the content that it chooses as acceptable.

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of Canadians who feel that every month brings yet another bill. However, they cannot afford it. Canadians are tired of opening their bills and finding them higher than the last month. Families are tightening their belts, reducing subscriptions, delaying purchases and working overtime, yet somehow their bills keep growing and they cannot get ahead. What frustrates Canadians most is that so many of these rising costs are not accidents. They are policy choices.

Today, we are talking about the CRTC's decision to triple the streaming tax from 5% to 15% on online platforms like Netflix, Spotify, YouTube and others. However, let us be honest about what this really is. This is another example of a government and its agencies believing they know better than Canadians how Canadians should spend their own money.

Let us be clear about what just happened. On May 21, the CRTC announced it was tripling the levy on online streamers, not increasing it modestly, not adjusting it to inflation, but tripling it, going from 5% to 15% in one announcement. Here is what makes that even more remarkable: The original 5% levy has not even cleared the courts yet. Streamers launched legal challenges against the original rate, challenges that are still before the courts today. The CRTC has not collected a single dollar from those original obligations, so what did the CRTC do? It tripled it anyway. That is a government agency operating without discipline, without accountability and without any apparent concern for the consequences its decisions have on real Canadians.

Let us talk about those consequences. When we triple the tax on online streaming services, we do not hurt Netflix shareholders. We do not inconvenience executives in California. We do not stress out shareholders or investors. It is the single mother in Aurora, using Netflix at the end of a long day with her kids. It is the senior in Newmarket who cancelled cable years ago because streaming was more affordable. It is a young couple already wondering how they are going to manage rising rent and grocery prices in the dimming dreams of starting a family.

For many Canadians, streaming is no longer a luxury. It is one of the few affordable forms of entertainment left. The government talks constantly about affordability. The Prime Minister himself campaigned on it, yet here we are: another tax, another cost, another burden placed on the backs of Canadians who are already carrying too much.

Let us not pretend that this is the only one. It is the latest, in fact, in a long list of punitive measures from the Liberal government that, together, are squeezing Canadians in every direction. The cumulative weight of all these decisions lands on a family's kitchen table, and they feel it.

Now let me turn to the longer-term damage, because this is where it truly gets serious. When we triple the tax on online streaming services, Canada becomes one of the most expensive operating jurisdictions in the entire world for streaming services; not the most expensive in the G7, not among the most expensive in the western world, but among the most expensive on earth.

What does that signal to investors? What does that say to a company sitting in a boardroom in Los Angeles, London or Seoul, deciding where to put its next production studio, its next animation facility or its next regional headquarters? It says Canada is expensive. It says Canada is unpredictable. Canada is harder to do business in.

I want to give the House a concrete example of exactly what is at stake here, because I think sometimes these debates can feel abstract. Let me make it tangible. Netflix recently opened Netflix Animation Studios in Vancouver. That facility created more than 450 good-paying jobs. It brought significant investment to British Columbia. It put Canadian artists, animators and storytellers to work doing world-class creative work right here at home. That is exactly the kind of investment we should be encouraging. That is exactly the kind of economic activity we should be competing to attract.

The Online Streaming Act, combined with this triple levy, sends precisely the opposite message. It tells companies like Netflix to think twice before they build something here and to think twice before they hire here. If a company succeeds in Canada, we will tax it for it. That is devastating, not just for Vancouver and Toronto but for every Canadian who works in the film and television industry, and for every community that benefits from that investment.

There is then the trade dimension. This may be the most reckless aspect of all. When one triples the tax on online streaming services, it is not in isolation. We are in the middle of a critical review of CUSMA, the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement. Our trading relationship with the U.S. is under more scrutiny than it has been in a generation. The Trump administration has been clear and consistent. It views the Online Streaming Act as a trade irritant.

This is not speculation. This is not opposition talking points. The Americans have said so directly and repeatedly. Just recently, the United States Ambassador to Canada stated, and I am going to be careful to represent this accurately, that the “CRTC’s decision to triple the tax rate on leading streaming services is making a bad situation worse”, that it targets and taxes American companies, puts up new discriminatory trade barriers and worsens the investment climate for American businesses. That is a warning.

What is the Carney Liberal government's response? Its response is silence, indifference and a shrug.

At the exact moment when Canada needs to be demonstrating to our largest trading partner that we are a serious, reliable and competitive economy, the government is escalating a fight that nobody in the country asked for over a policy that helps nobody in the country. That is negligence.

I want to address something directly because I know that the government will raise it. When one triples the tax on online streaming services, it is a tax on investment in the arts and culture. Conservatives believe in Canadian culture and have defended it for a decade, over a decade, from Liberal postnational attacks. We believe in Canadian artists, storytellers and creators. We are proud of what the country produces in music, film, television and literature. That pride is real and it is not a partisan position. It belongs to us all.

One does not strengthen Canadian culture by punishing investment. One does not support Canadian creators by driving away the platforms and production companies that employ them. One does not build a vibrant, creative economy by making Canada one of the most expensive places in the world to operate a streaming service. Real support for Canadian culture means creating conditions where great Canadian content can be made, can find an audience and can compete with the best in the world on its merits. It does not mean turning a government agency into an Internet czar that picks winners and losers, removes choice from viewers and tells Canadians what they should be watching. That is not cultural policy. That is paternalism and Canadians deserve better.

Let me say something about the constitutional dimensions, as well. For over 800 years, the parliamentary tradition we have inherited, the tradition that is the foundation of this very institution, has been clear. The power to tax belongs to Parliament, not to agencies and regulators, not to appointed officials who are not accountable to the people of this country at the ballot box.

The CRTC does not have a mandate from Canadians to triple a levy on streaming services. It was not elected and cannot be defeated at the polls, yet here it is making decisions with real tax consequences for millions of Canadians. The Prime Minister and the Liberal government must reject this decision.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Before we go to questions and comments, I would remind the member not to use the name of any member, including the Prime Minister, in this place.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight a couple of things. Canada is one of seven countries that make up the G7, but it is not the only one that deals with this streaming issue. A number of other countries in the G7 do, countries like France and others. I don't believe that they are going to allow themselves to be intimidated. The Conservatives are prepared to capitulate and say that we should get rid of any sort of streaming, that we should just stop it. They are advocating from an American perspective. They sound more like representatives of Netflix than members of Parliament advocating in the best interests of Canadians.

When will the Conservatives start advocating for Canadians, in particular our arts community?

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the question reflects how disconnected the member is from the film industry.

I used to finance many of these projects and have spoken to people on the ground. What they are saying is that they want opportunity. They want investment. They want the opportunity to showcase their work and their talent. Allowing for this levy, which will chase away investment and shrink the industry, is not going to be helpful. That is what this comes down to.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on the whole, I agree with my colleague. We are witnessing a pathetic display of obsequiousness by the Conservative Party today. It has decided to champion the interests of American companies in the House even as our culture and media sectors are being hit hard by an unprecedented advertising revenue crisis. We have to support them.

Some American companies are going to use our cultural products to make a profit here, yet we should not tax them.

How is that fair?

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure the member that this is not about American companies. It is disappointing to hear the question framed as if a Canadian would put the interests of an American company ahead of the people we represent. That is unacceptable.

The principle we are talking about here is chasing away investment and opportunity for Canadians and Canadian content. That is what this is about. Whether it is an American or a European company investing here, it does not matter. At the heart of this debate are the Canadian creators and artists who are fighting for a chance to showcase their work.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for that thoughtful presentation. She knows full well that when governments pick winners and losers, capital flees. Capital flows to where certainty exists. In this regime, under this proposal, there is no certainty. The CRTC is oblivious to economics, trade or capital flow.

Can the hon. member tell me how she thinks the decision can negatively impact investment in Canadian production and Canadian culture?

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have one clear example. I talk a lot to entrepreneurs on the ground, one of whom in particular said they had been trying to open up markets in Europe. They had competed with respect to quality and price, yet they still lost the contract. A good company and smart entrepreneur would seek feedback once they had lost a contract, so they contacted the buyer to ask why they lost out. In this case, they lost out to an American company. The buyer said that they were identical with respect to quality and price, but, unfortunately, as Canada is known to be a country that is very difficult to do business with, they decided to buy American.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, Indigenous Affairs; the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Democratic Institutions; the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona, Health.

[Tatiana Auguste, Liberal, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise for the first time since the recent election to represent my constituents and to speak on their behalf. I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park

I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of a broadcasting system that continues to invest in Canadian workers, Canadian creativity and in Canada's economic growth. Despite the rhetoric we have heard, this debate is not really on a so-called online streaming tax. This is about whether global streaming giants that generate substantial revenue from our Canadian audiences should make a fair and reasonable contribution to the Canadian broadcasting and production ecosystem from which they benefit.

This principle is neither radical nor new. For decades, companies participating in the Canadian broadcasting system have contributed financially to the creation and presentation of the Canadian programming on which they depend. These contributions have 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, as well as digital and interactive media.

Talented Canadians work on productions that are being watched all over the world. Our studios are full, we have world-class crews and our creators are winning international awards. This success did not happen by chance. It happened because successive governments and regulatory bodies understood that Canadian stories and Canadian production capacity matter just as much economically as they do culturally.

The motion before the House fails to take this reality into account. It frames contributions to Canadian programming as though they were merely a burden or a penalty, but these contributions are investments in jobs, infrastructure, intellectual property, skills development and economic activity across the country. Furthermore, spending on Canadian programming is not a punishment. We are not asking companies to throw money down a bottomless pit. We are asking them to invest in some of the best programs in the world. We are asking them to continue making The Glass House, Shoresy, Heated Rivalry and North of North. They cannot claim that Canadian-produced programs are not worthy of their services.

The film production sector supports hundreds of thousands of direct and indirect jobs in Canada. These are not abstract jobs. These are good-paying, highly skilled jobs, filled by Canadians in every region of our country. They include camera operators, lighting specialists, sound engineers, visual effects artists, editors, costumers, set carpenters, studio managers, caterers, truck drivers, musicians, actors, writers, producers, translators, production specialists, and the list goes on.

The economic impact extends far beyond the film set itself. When productions are shot in a community, people rent hotel rooms, eat at local restaurants, use transportation companies, rent facilities, hire local workers and generate interest in tourism and regional economic development. Entire local economies benefit from a strong production sector. In cities like Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal, the production industry has become a major economic driver, but production has also created opportunities in small rural communities across the country, including in the Atlantic provinces, the Prairies, northern Canada and indigenous communities. That is why the framework established under the Online Streaming Act is important.

The world has changed dramatically since the first Broadcasting Act was drafted. Traditional broadcasters continue to contribute to Canadian content obligations while facing growing competition from major foreign content streaming services that now dominate audience share and subscription revenue. The problem the legislation set out to solve was simple: The regulatory system had not kept pace with technological change. Canadians are consuming more and more programs online rather than on legacy broadcasting platforms, but the contribution framework traditionally applied primarily to Canadian broadcasters. That imbalance was unsustainable. If Canadian broadcasters are required to contribute to Canadian programming while foreign streaming platforms generating significant Canadian revenue are exempt, the financial foundation supporting Canadian production will begin to erode.

However, contributions to the broadcasting system are not new and they are not unique to Canada. Many countries around the world require streaming services to contribute to national production ecosystems. Governments across Europe have adopted similar frameworks to ensure the viability of local production sectors in the digital age. Despite these obligations, global streaming companies continue to heavily invest in these markets. Why?

Companies invest where there is talent, stability, infrastructure and opportunities. Canada offers all those things. We have world-class teams. We have creative talent that is respected around the world. We have competitive production environments. We have advanced visual effects and post-production sectors. We have good schools that train qualified workers. Above all, we have a long-established production ecosystem built through decades of public and private investment.

Ironically, many of the people who are now criticizing the contribution requirements celebrate the economic success of Canada's film and television industry without recognizing the policies that helped create it.

We cannot separate the success of Canada's production industry from the public policy framework that supported its growth.

What we do know, however, is that there is a real economic cost to not maintaining Canada's production capacity. When domestic production weakens, jobs disappear. Creative workers leave the industry or even the country. Investment in infrastructure slows down. Independent production companies burn out and Canada becomes increasingly dependent on foreign-produced content without maintaining its own creative industrial base. That is not a recipe for long-term economic resilience.

This motion also raises concerns about trade relations with the United States as we approach the CUSMA review.

Canada has always defended the principle that cultural policy holds a unique place in public policy. Successive governments from all political stripes have defended Canada's ability to promote Canadian voices, Canadian creators and Canadian cultural industries. There are good reasons for that.

Canada shares a border with the world's largest cultural exporter. Without supports for domestic creation and discoverability, Canadian voices can easily be drowned out in an increasingly concentrated global market. Again, it is not just a cultural issue but also an economic one. Countries that invest in domestic production develop exportable industries.

Canadian productions are making their mark on the world stage. Canadian creators are developing intellectual property that can be marketed worldwide. Canadian studios are attracting foreign investment. Canadian crews are gaining competitive expertise across the country, and Canada is consolidating its position in the rapidly growing audiovisual economy.

Weakening our production ecosystem would not make Canada economically stronger. Rather, it would make us more economically dependent. I believe that Canadians understand what fairness means. They understand that when companies benefit from access to Canadian audiences, talent, infrastructure and markets, it is reasonable to expect them to contribute to the sustainability of the system they benefit from. They also understand that Canada's production industry is not just a fringe cultural undertaking disconnected from the economy. It is a major economic sector. It creates jobs, supports small businesses, boosts tourism, generates exports, develops a highly skilled workforce, strengthens regional economies and helps maintain Canada's competitiveness in one of the fastest-growing global sectors at a time when countries around the world are in an intense competition to attract production investment and creative talent. Now is not the time to weaken the foundations of our domestic industry.

This means ensuring that the economic benefits generated by this broadcasting system continue to support Canadian jobs for Canadian production and Canadian stories.

For these reasons, I urge all members of the House to reject this motion.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the content of my colleague's speech. I think we are on the same wavelength. We understand that there are funds that need to be reinvested in our local culture.

I have a question for my colleague. Her government scrapped the tax on tech giants last year, supposedly to facilitate negotiations with the U.S. president, yet we can see that it has yielded no results. Should this tax not be reinstated? Does she agree with the idea of recovering these colossal sums—as I recall, it was $7 billion over five years—which could allow us to support our regional media?

Will she commit to working within her caucus to convince her government to reinstate this tax, which had been adopted and was the result of sound legislation?