Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 16
View Martin Champoux Profile
BQ (QC)
View Martin Champoux Profile
2021-05-11 12:52 [p.7042]
Mr. Speaker, I will not ask my colleague from Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie too difficult a question.
He mentioned taxing the digital giants. A “Netflix tax” that will not apply to Netflix is incredibly ironic. Actually, if it were not so sad, it would be laughable. I would love to hear my colleague's perspective on the consequences of the government's negligence and lack of courage when it comes to getting the web giants, who are making a fortune on the backs of our creators, to pay their fair share.
View Alexandre Boulerice Profile
NDP (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond for his question.
We are talking about fairness and about the resources we need to give ourselves to support our cultural sector and our artists so they can contribute to the production of original Quebec and Canadian content.
How is it that the corner store near my office is forced to pay taxes while the Googles, Facebooks and Netflixes of the world get billions of dollars richer without having to pay a cent in taxes to Canada? These companies do not even want to tell us if they would be willing to pay.
It is absolutely scandalous and, unfortunately, the Liberals have done nothing about it since they took office six years ago. In what they are tentatively promising for next year, we can already see there will be loopholes that Netflix could take advantage of. It is unacceptable.
View Alexandre Boulerice Profile
NDP (QC)
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, to everyone's surprise, the government supported our motion requiring Netflix to also pay tax on its staggering revenues. Congratulations to the Liberals for this moment of clarity, but will they follow through?
Yesterday, together with my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby, I sent a letter to the Minister of Finance asking her to apply the digital tax to all web giants, including Netflix.
I am giving her another chance to do what is expected of her, and that is to pledge to apply the tax to all revenues of online services, including subscriptions, and to make public the 2017 secret agreement with Netflix.
Will she do it?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that there is no special exemption for Netflix or for any other digital company.
In fact, on July 1, for the first time in Canada's history, we will be imposing GST and HST on digital service providers such as Netflix. This amount is included in the budget implementation act and should result in $1.2 billion in revenue over five years.
View Martin Champoux Profile
BQ (QC)
View Martin Champoux Profile
2021-05-06 15:45 [p.6811]
Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague from Shefford for her brilliant speech and for her work on behalf of seniors. Her work can be felt in my own riding, Drummond, which neighbours hers. The work she is doing for seniors is so brilliant and so serious that seniors in my riding recognize that the hon. member for Shefford is doing an outstanding job. I want to commend her.
I am very pleased to speak today to Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget. As my colleague said a little earlier, the Bloc welcomes this bill. Needless to say, it contains urgent measures; we all agree on that.
I would like to commend the government for its initiative to remove certain technical barriers that have limited access to media assistance. These include deductions for subscription fees for individuals and the wage subsidy for media outlets. This will be well received by our print media, although there is no telling when the Liberals will realize how much our regional media, especially our weeklies, need legislation to solve the problems of the GAFAM. Even today, the GAFAM makes millions of dollars in profits on the backs of the content of our media and cultural creators.
Division 17 of part 4 of the bill amends the Telecommunications Act, in particular by facilitating the exchange of information between levels of government. This will better coordinate Quebec's efforts to provide access to telecommunications services in remote areas. We very much welcome the fact that the government is taking away the right to review CRTC decisions in funding matters for underserved regions. This adds a layer of protection against the government's often ill-advised decisions related to high-speed Internet in the regions. Everyone agrees that the government has clearly shown that this is not its great strength. We have come to expect the Liberals to promise nice things without delivering on them. That is their signature.
Take, for example, the measures announced in the budget for tourism and culture. When the budget was introduced a few weeks ago, the cultural industry's spontaneous reaction was very positive. I had the same type of reaction.
The government announced approximately $1.3 billion in assistance over three years, including $400 million for large and small festivals; $300 million over two years to create a recovery fund for arts, culture, heritage and sports sectors; $500 million for a tourism relief fund; $70 million over three years for the Canada music fund; $105 million over three years for Telefilm Canada; and $39.3 million over two years to support the book industry.
These provisions proved that the government recognized and understood the importance of helping the cultural industry. Many sectors of the industry were in a precarious situation before the pandemic for various reasons, one of which was the fact that the Department of Canadian Heritage's budget had not been increased since 2008. For 10 years, there were no investments in culture. The Liberals can lay some of the blame for that on the Conservatives because they undermined our industry by making $45 million in cuts in 2008.
I would like to quote the Prime Minister, the chief expert in empty rhetoric. Yesterday in the House of Commons, he said, “when it comes to culture, Canadians are certainly not going to believe the Conservatives. That is for sure. As a government, we have always been there for creators”.
As the philosopher Plato would say, that is an absurdity. The government has always been there in word. That is true. However, in practice, the Department of Canadian Heritage's budget did not increase from 2015 to early 2020. Why did the Liberals turn a deaf ear to the industry's repeated requests? The industry has been calling for an increase in funding for a long time.
I will not spend time talking about what the Liberals have not done because I only have 10 minutes. As an eternal optimist, I will focus on the future and tell myself that a little pressure and good collaboration might convince the Liberals to reconsider.
I was happy about all those measures I just listed, all those measures to help the tourism and cultural sectors, but I was deeply disappointed that the government opted not to include those measures in Bill C-30.
Festival season is coming, but the crowds will not be as big as they were two years ago because now we have public health rules to follow. Organizers are already busy preparing for this summer. As I said, they are happy with the funding set aside to help them. They now know that money will show up at some point, but they do not know when.
Arts and entertainment, festivals and tourism need predictability to survive, so I do not understand why the Liberals chose not to act fast to help the creators and artists they claim to stand up for.
Unfortunately, there are other flaws. Let us talk about the so-called digital services tax, or DST, which is a strange name, in my opinion. The chapter of the budget on the digital services tax starts off by saying, “The government is committed to ensuring that corporations in all sectors, including digital corporations, pay their fair share of tax on the money they earn by doing business in Canada.” It is there in black and white. However, this tax will not apply to companies like Spotify, Amazon Prime, Disney Plus, Apple Music and Netflix, who draw their income from user subscription fees.
This tax, nicknamed the “Netflix tax”, will not apply to Netflix. This week in the House, I asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage questions about this digital services tax. To summarize, I asked why the government continued to give multinational web giants a free ride. The minister replied that I had it all wrong. He then declared that web giants would be taxed.
I know that the minister has a lot on his plate these days with all the questions about the environment. I will be happy to help him understand culture and communications a little better. The tax the Minister of Canadian Heritage was talking about was the GST, which is paid by consumers, not companies. Companies collect it and hand it over to the government.
Page 733 of the budget says that the digital services tax would not apply to companies that stream digital audiovisual content. The Bloc Québécois wants the digital services tax to apply to companies that stream this kind of content. The idea is that this money would be given to our cultural and media industries as compensation, as they have unfairly suffered from the arrival of the Web giants. The government, however, would rather put that money in the consolidated revenue fund than use it to help those that urgently need it.
Netflix streams audiovisual content, and Netflix and the others have a significant impact on our cultural sector, so Netflix is not subject to the Netflix tax. That speaks volumes about the government's understanding of the issues. The government does not need to thank me for my insights; if it has any more questions, it knows where to find me. Seriously, though, I am astounded that the Liberals do not appear to have a concept of fairness. The government seriously lacks courage in dealing with foreign companies.
I now want to talk about a topic that my colleague from Shefford raised earlier. This topic affects us all and considerably affects my constituents in Drummond. With Bill C-30, the Liberal government is finally getting to its 2019 election promise to increase old age security, but only as of the age of 75 and only by $766 a year. As members know, this increase will not even happen until 2022. I think the House is well aware of the Bloc Québécois's position on this subject, but I want to give a voice to those who have been forgotten and who are affected by this.
This week, Mr. Bibeau called my office to share his disappointment with my team. He did not understand why the government made this choice to increase OAS at 75 only. He said, “I am retired. I receive the old age pension too and I think it is unfair that I am not getting that increase. My needs are no different from those 75 and older. I have to buy groceries and I have bills and rent to pay, just like them. I am not saying that I am jealous. I am happy that they are getting that money, but I do not understand this choice by the Liberals. I do not know if I am still going to be here when I am 75. I want to fully enjoy my retirement, spoil myself a bit and it seems that it would be a show of respect for the government to give this increase starting at 65 for all the years I worked and contributed, right?”
I understand and I share Mr. Bibeau's dissatisfaction, concerns and dismay. There are others like him: Mrs. Gaudreault, Mrs. Tellier, Mr. Paradis, Mrs. Guérin. Many people share Mr. Bibeau's point of view.
In Quebec, 19% of the population is over 65. In Canada, two million people are between the ages of 65 and 74, or two million people have been ignored by a government that made the choice to increase the pension at 75 as though the pandemic and the cost of living did not affect people 65 to 74. I think this deserves some serious thought.
I would now be happy to answer my colleague's questions.
View Luc Desilets Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Desilets Profile
2021-05-06 17:13 [p.6823]
Madam Speaker, I just want to remind our colleague that, even though the budget was positive, we voted against it. However, we will be supporting this Bill C-30.
We voted against the budget for two reasons. First, the health funding it contains is not enough. We want recurrent funding, and we want it to go up from 22% to 35%. Second, as my colleagues mentioned earlier in their speeches, we want the government to increase old age pensions.
I have a question for my colleague. We are all familiar with page 733 of this brick of a budget, which says that Netflix is not subject to the Netflix act. Would the member please share his thoughts on that?
View Kody Blois Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Kody Blois Profile
2021-05-06 17:14 [p.6823]
Madam Speaker, I would say to my hon. colleague that I am quite disappointed that the Bloc will not be supporting the budget. There are a lot of very important investments that matter to Quebec and, of course, to his constituents as well. Although it does not come as a surprise, it does come as a disappointment.
The member referenced the brick, which I call an important document that has many great ideas for Canadians. Of course, if we are going to put out a vision that matters for the days ahead and for the future, it has to be comprehensive, and that is why it is quite substantive.
The member had a question that referenced page 833, but I was lost in the interpretation. I am happy to follow up with the member about Netflix and digital giants. I know that our government is focused on closing the gap in that regard, but perhaps I can follow up with my colleague offline to get to his question.
View Alexandre Boulerice Profile
NDP (QC)
Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I think you will find the unanimous consent of the House for the following motion:
That the House:
(a) recognize that tax giveaways to Netflix represent an injustice to local broadcasters; and
(b) call on the government to make all webs giants pay their fair share, by including Netflix in its proposed 3% tax on digital services.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
All those opposed to moving the motion please say nay. I hear none.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
Hearing no dissenting voice, I declare the motion carried.
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On that last unanimous consent motion, I just wanted to clarify that no company is excluded from the proposed digital services tax.
View Alain Therrien Profile
BQ (QC)
View Alain Therrien Profile
2021-05-05 15:41 [p.6683]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising from the comments made by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands after the motion moved by the NDP. The member said that every digital company is subject to the new legislation. That is wrong. It is false.
Subscription-based companies like Netflix, Amazon Prime and YouTube Premium are not considered to be covered by this tax. The member made a mistake. I would like the record to show that he told a lie—
View Alexandre Boulerice Profile
NDP (QC)
Mr. Speaker, once again, the Liberals gave in to a web giant, and once again, it is Netflix. In reading the budget, we discovered that Netflix will not have to pay the so-called digital services tax of 3%. We thought it was a mistake or another blunder, so we asked the finance minister about it and, no, the Liberals did it on purpose. It was deliberate.
In 2020, Netflix generated $25 billion in revenue, but this company does not pay any tax at all in Canada. The Liberals think that is fine the way it is. Will the minister reverse that decision and have the courage to do the right thing? It is not complicated.
“Do. Or do not. There is no try.”
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
I want to point out that there is no specific exception for Netflix or any other digital company. In fact, on July 1, we will start charging GST and HST to digital service providers like Netflix for the first time in Canadian history. That provision is included in budget implementation act, 2021, no. 1 and should bring in $1.2 billion over five years.
View Cathay Wagantall Profile
CPC (SK)
View Cathay Wagantall Profile
2021-02-05 10:20 [p.4051]
Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to give an overview of some of the inadequacies of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.
The Liberal government has once again said one thing in its messaging and preamble about what this bill would do, in contrast with what the content of the bill actually enacts. Its message to Canadians is that the bill would ensure online broadcasting is covered under the act. It indicates that the bill updates broadcasting and regulatory policies to better reflect the diversity of Canadian society and that it modernizes and provides the CRTC with new enforcement powers through an administrative monetary penalty scheme.
Updating and modernizing the Broadcasting Act is very important, as it has been almost 30 years since any significant change has been made to Canadian broadcasting regulations. Many of my younger colleagues have commented during their speeches on this topic on how old they were when changes were last made to the Broadcasting Act, even speaking to the fact they were but a glimmer in their parents' eyes.
I cannot say I was there when Maurice Cole was the essence of radio, but I do share a birthday with CKSW, a country music radio station in Swift Current, Saskatchewan, which serves southwestern Saskatchewan and first began broadcasting in 1956.
I grew up enjoying Saturday morning cartoons with the Flintstones, the Road Runner and Bugs Bunny. Saturday nights we watched Hockey Night in Canada, and on Sunday evenings we had popcorn for supper as we were entertained by Red Skelton and Carol Burnett. Movies filmed a detective as he slowly crept along an entire block, and advertisements for headache relief lasted a full 60 seconds. We do not know what we have until it is gone.
That being said, boy, do I love getting to watch what I want, when I want and as much as I want. That is where we are at today, in the blink of an eye. However, that is enough of precious memories. We will move on to the task at hand.
This act provides the guidelines for everything in our media industry. It is a crucial vehicle for determining fairness in the way the industry is regulated, while ensuring it is vibrant and growing with opportunities for Canadians. The Broadcasting Act covers everything from how our Canadian broadcasters operate to how we support Canadian content and production.
The arrival of the Internet and online streaming services has been a reality for a long time now, and they have been competing with Canadian broadcasters on an uneven playing field. Unfortunately, Bill C-10 does not meet the need to set the policies and standards required to level that playing field. The bill is vague. It does not address important aspects of issues important to industry stakeholders, such as ensuring that the web giants Google and Facebook have to compete under the same rules as Canadian companies. It does not explain how digital platforms and conventional players would compete on an even playing field.
Bill C-10 also does not require broadcasters to contribute to the creation of Canadian content or the Canada Media Fund, as is currently the case for Canadian broadcasters.
In the previous majority Liberal government, the then minister of heritage championed the decision of Netflix to support Canadian content with a $5-million commitment. However, I could not help but notice that this generous contribution was immediately followed by an increase in monthly consumer fees, which smacks of Canadians paying outright for this supposed act of generosity and appreciation for investing in Canadian content.
The issue of proprietary content that is shared on digital platforms is also not addressed. The bill does nothing to address the inequity between digital and conventional media; the regulation of social media, such as Facebook; and the sharing of advertising royalties demanded by traditional media.
As well, the absence of language guidelines in the bill disadvantages francophone communities by failing to ensure that online broadcasters create content in both official languages. There are no guidelines to regulate French content, and the specificity of Quebec culture is not mentioned.
The one and only measure to increase the place of French language is the reference in paragraph 3(1)(k) of the act, which states, “a range of broadcasting services in English and in French shall be extended to all Canadians as...[means] become available”.
This is to be replaced by simply removing that last part so that it will now read, “a range of broadcasting services in English and in French shall be progressively extended to all Canadians”.
This does not better reflect the diversity of Canadian society. It changes it, for sure. However, it is unacceptable and represents a much weaker approach than the act provides for aboriginal, racialized and LGBTQ content. It is important to note I am not saying that their content should be minimized in any way, but simply that there is not an even playing field here, even within the act, for French and English content. It is important we do this.
I have children who home-school, and they watch French-language television to increase their French capabilities, which is something I wish I had had the opportunity to do as I was growing up. It was much more difficult for this lady who shares a birthday with a radio station.
The bill also does nothing to modernize the copyright law. With Bill C-10, the government has introduced a broad delegation of powers to the CRTC, without including clear guidelines, on the percentages of Canadian content required, fees and contributions, expenses, French content and so on.
The CRTC's powers have not even been clearly defined at all. In fact, the bill even chooses to limit the oversight powers of parliamentary committees with respect to the directives and regulations adopted by the CRTC. It also limits broadcasters' ability to appeal a decision. This is not acceptable. The message the government is sending is for us to trust it, and we will see it later. The government will, therefore, wait several months for the CRTC to act, and with very limited parliamentary oversight.
This is very poor governance on behalf of Canadians. Canadians expect and deserve accountability in and oversight over their government, and any and all laws, regulations and public institutions governing their opportunities as individuals and peoples. Taking authority away from committees' capacity for oversight and from the Auditor General, and increasing state control of information and conversation is regressive, not progressive. It is a serious overreach by the Liberal government.
In a minority situation, it would have been much more appropriate to come up with a clear bill, detailing in concrete terms the government's approach to all of these issues, rather than simply giving the CRTC more discretion and telling Canadians to wait and see how it would be exercised.
Stakeholders have outlined the many shortcomings I have mentioned today, and in their defence, Bill C-10 is not supportable without significant amendments in response to those requests. I can only hope that the Liberal government has been listening to our stakeholders.
Media has changed forever, and Canadians have changed how they gather information and find entertainment. They have also come to realize that there are no limits on the opportunities to choose where they go for their content.
Apparently I am having trouble with my audio. This is something I deal with all the time, and I apologize. Saskatchewan, for connectivity, comes and goes. I am very frustrated with that. I want what I have to say to be heard.
View Dan Mazier Profile
CPC (MB)
Mr. Speaker, what happens if companies like Netflix cannot comply with the new regulations? An organization like Netflix would have to make a decision between cutting the service or complying with the new regulations. What does the member think Netflix should do? Take the company home and stay in the United States or actually offer Canada some decent service?
Results: 1 - 15 of 16 | Page: 1 of 2

1
2
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data