Why Watching Your Favourite Shows Just Got More Expensive

We all know the feeling of coming home after a long day at work and wanting to unwind by watching our favourite show on Netflix, Crave, or Disney+. For many Canadians, these simple pleasures offer a welcome break from the stresses of everyday life.

Unfortunately, those everyday pleasures just became more expensive because of the Liberals' streaming tax.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), which the Liberal government tasked with implementing the policy, recently decided to increase the levy on online streaming services from 5 to 15 per cent. At a time when Canadians are already struggling with the rising cost of living, this decision will make entertainment less affordable for families across the country.

A few extra dollars per month may not seem like much on its own. But Canadians are being squeezed from every direction. They are paying more for groceries, more for gas, more for housing, and more for electricity. Now they are being asked to pay more to watch their favourite shows or listen to their favourite music.

What makes this decision especially frustrating is how disconnected it seems from the realities many Canadians face.

While families are reviewing household budgets and deciding whether they can still afford a streaming subscription, the Prime Minister spent nearly half a million dollars of taxpayer money on luxury in-flight catering during his first term in office. Reports show those expenses included items such as fine wine, braised beef, Normandy butter cups, and crème brûlée. At a time when Canadians are struggling to make ends meet, that kind of spending is completely out of touch.

The streaming tax is not only costly for consumers—it also discourages investment.

Streaming companies invest in Canada, creating jobs, generating wages, and supporting innovation and economic growth. Earlier this year, Netflix opened a major animation studio in Vancouver, creating hundreds of jobs and bringing significant investment into the Canadian economy.

When Canada becomes a more expensive and heavily regulated place to do business, we risk slowing that momentum and limiting opportunities for Canadian workers and creators.

But the consequences don’t stop at Canada's borders.

The Liberals' streaming tax has also become a major trade irritant with the United States at exactly the wrong time. Canada is approaching an important review of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), and American officials have already identified the streaming tax as a significant concern.

At a time when Canada should be focused on strengthening our economic relationship with our largest trading partner, the Liberals are doubling down on a policy that risks creating unnecessary friction and undermining our competitiveness.

That’s why my Conservative colleagues and I recently tabled a motion calling on the Liberal government to reject and eliminate the streaming tax.

Throughout the debate, Liberals insisted the streaming tax wouldn’t affect consumers. Some even called it "imaginary" and accused Conservatives of making it up. They repeatedly told Canadians there was nothing the government could do because the matter was entirely in the hands of the CRTC.

Not surprisingly, Liberals voted against our motion to axe the Netflix tax.

Then, just days later, the government admitted what Conservatives had been saying all along.

In a press release, the government acknowledged that the CRTC's new requirements would impose additional costs on streaming companies and that those costs could ultimately be passed on to Canadian consumers through higher prices. The government also announced that it had instructed the CRTC to review the fee increase.

It turns out the government can direct the CRTC on these matters, despite what Liberals claimed during debate.

By that point, however, the damage had already begun. Spotify and Disney+ had already increased subscription prices.

Even more disappointing is that, while the government now admits Canadians would bear the cost of the streaming tax, it has not addressed the underlying problem. Instead, it announced $600 million in additional subsidies for the cultural sector—money that will ultimately come from taxpayers.

Conservatives support Canadian creators, but not at the expense of families who are already struggling through a Liberal-made recession.

The solution is simple. The Liberals should repeal the Online Streaming Act and eliminate the streaming tax altogether. If they won’t, a Conservative government will.

Canadians deserve a government that lowers costs, encourages investment, helps grow the economy, and allows families to keep more of their hard-earned money instead of paying more for yet another Liberal tax.

Canadians should not have to choose between covering life's necessities and enjoying the simple comforts that make daily life a little easier.

Sacrificing Canadian Agriculture for Photo Ops

“We are only going to accept the best deal for Canada.”

That was Prime Minister Mark Carney’s promise on trade. Canadians should expect every negotiation to be judged by one question: does it strengthen Canada?

Yet on the proposed Mercosur trade deal, the Liberal government appears ready to abandon that principle.

Instead of pursuing the best deal for Canada, the Prime Minister seems focused on the fastest deal for himself— one that allows him to stand at a podium, sign an agreement and claim a political win.

Negotiations with Mercosur, the South American trade bloc made up of Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay and Uruguay, are expected to enter their final stages at the end of May. If this deal proceeds in its current form, communities across Southern Alberta will pay the price.

That includes Lethbridge County, home to Alberta’s renowned “Feedlot Alley.”

Southern Alberta’s beef sector was built over generations through hard work, investment, and innovation. Producers operate under some of the highest standards in the world for animal care, food safety and environmental stewardship. These operations support thousands of jobs, local businesses and rural communities.

I have visited many of these feedlots and seen firsthand the professionalism and care that define them. These are world-class producers.

Now they may be forced to compete against imports from some of the world’s lowest cost beef producers, where standards for labour, food safety, sustainability and animal care often do not match Canada’s.

That is not fair competition. It is Ottawa asking Canadian producers to compete with one hand tied behind their backs.

When lower cost imports enter Canada under those conditions, they do not simply create competition. They distort the market and drive down prices for Canadian producers, while offering little meaningful reciprocal access for our beef abroad.

So where is the “best deal for Canada?”

There is another serious risk.

Canada’s most important trade relationship remains with the United States, and the upcoming CUSMA review will be critical. This is hardly the moment to create unnecessary trade irritants.

Approximately half of all beef produced in Canada is exported, and most of that goes to the United States. If Canada opens the door wider to offshore imports that undermine North American supply chains, Washington will notice.

Why would any government risk Canada’s most important agricultural export market for the sake of a secondary trade announcement?

The same reckless logic applies to Alberta’s sugar beet industry.

Too often overlooked, sugar beet production is a cornerstone of Southern Alberta’s economy. It supports more than 2,000 jobs and contributes hundreds of millions in economic activity.

Yet global sugar markets are already under pressure, with Brazil increasing sugar output and driving prices lower. Alberta producers are already feeling that squeeze.

A Mercosur deal that allows even more low-cost imports into Canada would intensify the pressure and further weaken domestic producers.

From beef to sugar, the pattern is clear. Canadian industries absorb the risk. Rural communities shoulder the uncertainty. Workers face the consequences.

And what does the Prime Minister gain?

A press conference. A handshake. A headline.

That may be enough for a government focused on optics. It should not be enough for a country that depends on agriculture.

Trade deals should expand opportunity, protect strategic industries and strengthen Canada’s long-term position. They should not be negotiated as vanity projects designed for cameras and talking points.

If the Prime Minister truly means what he said, that Canada will accept only the best deal, then he should prove it now.

This means standing up for Canadian cattle producers. It means defending Alberta’s sugar beet farmers. It means protecting our relationship with the United States. It means rejecting any agreement that asks Canadian agriculture to sacrifice competitiveness so the government can check a box and line up for a photo.

Because a bad deal with a nice photo is still a bad deal.

As negotiations reach their final stage, the government must decide whether it is governing for Canadians or campaigning for cameras.

I kindly urge you to write to the Minister of International Trade, the Honourable Maninder Sidhu, at Maninder.Sidhu@parl.gc.ca and advocate for our beef and sugar beet industries.

A Defining Moment for Religious Freedom in Canada

Religious freedom has long been a cornerstone of Canada’s identity and a key part of its global appeal. For generations, people from around the world have chosen to build their lives here in pursuit of the freedom to practice their faith openly and without fear.

In the late 19th century, Jewish families fled Europe and came to Canada seeking refuge from religious persecution. Between 1919 and 1939, many Ukrainians made the same journey, escaping both religious and political oppression. More recently, Iranian Christians have arrived in Canada in search of the same fundamental freedom. These stories are not isolated. They are part of a broader pattern that has helped shape Canada into the country it is today.

As a result, religious freedom is not just a principle we uphold; it is deeply woven into our national fabric.

Yet today, that freedom is increasingly under pressure. The Liberal government, under Prime Minister Carney, has introduced Bill C-9, the Combating Hate Act. While its title may sound reassuring, the reality is that the legislation risks doing more harm than good.

Bill C-9 strips away long-standing religious protections and opens the door for Canadians of faith to face criminal consequences simply for expressing beliefs rooted in their own sacred texts.

Until now, sections 319(3)(b) and 319(3.1)(b) of the Criminal Code have provided a clear safeguard: individuals could not be prosecuted for the willful promotion of hate if they were expressing, in good faith, an opinion on a religious subject or speaking from a sincerely held belief grounded in scripture.

These weren’t loopholes, they were deliberate protections. In fact, even the Supreme Court has affirmed that such defences are essential to preserving the constitutionality of Canada’s hate speech laws, precisely because freedom of expression and freedom of religion are foundational rights.

Despite the clear legal and constitutional realities, the Liberals have chosen to press ahead and remove these protections. Rather than focusing on the real drivers of crime, like their failed, soft-on-crime, catch-and-release policies, they are doubling down on a path that risks silencing lawful, good-faith expression.

It’s no surprise Canadians have taken notice and are raising their voices in a way that is rarely seen.

From coast to coast, people of all faiths have spoken out—writing, calling, and showing up in remarkable numbers. The offices of MPs have been flooded with concerns about this bill. It’s been a powerful display of civic engagement from Canadians who simply want their fundamental freedoms respected.

And yet, those voices have been ignored.

With the support of the Liberals, the Bloc Québécois, and the NDP, Bill C-9 passed the House of Commons on Wednesday, March 25, and is now before the Senate.

But this is not the end of the process.

Many people have reached out to my office to ask what can be done. Now, the focus turns to the Senate, where Canadians still have a voice. The same energy we’ve seen across the country can and should be directed there.

Canadians have already made a significant impact. Conservative MPs brought their concerns directly to the floor of the House of Commons, holding the government to account and pushing for change. We were able to stop the Liberals from watering down the legal definition of hate, an amendment that would have created even more ambiguity and further chilled free expression.

That’s a meaningful win.

And it proves something important: when Canadians speak up, it makes a difference.

While many are understandably concerned, there is still reason for hope. This bill has not yet become law. We are still in a democracy, and the process is not over.

Now is the time to stay engaged.

Canadians can write, call, and reach out to Senators, particularly the Government Representative in the Senate, Pierre Moreau, to make their views known. He can be reached here: pierre.moreau@sen.parl.gc.ca . These messages don’t need to be long or complicated. A simple note, “Please stand up for religious freedom and reject Bill C-9,” is enough.

As former Prime Minister Stephen Harper once said: “There are no permanent governments in a democracy. That means that anything can be built upon. It means that anything can be undone. And it also means that eventually anything can be restored.”

That’s not just a quote, it’s a reminder. A reminder that in Canada, the voice of the people still matters.