It’s Back: The Netflix Tax Debate Returns for the 2019 Election


It’s Back: The Netflix Tax Debate Returns for the 2019 Election

Four years ago, then-prime minister Stephen Harper used the first week of the 2015 federal election campaign to pledge that if re-elected his government would not institute a Netflix tax. My Globe and Mail op-ed notes that the Liberals responded with a no Netflix tax promise of their own, which became government policy when Justin Trudeau was elected a few months later. Yet as Canada heads toward another election this fall, Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez and his party seem ready to place the spotlight on Netflix taxes once again. Only this time, the government will call out opposition parties that do not commit to new Internet taxes.

The Netflix tax debate has emerged as confusing policy issue in part because the same term can be applied to several forms of taxation. Some are not particularly controversial. For example, applying sales taxes to digital services such as Netflix is widely viewed as inevitable since it would level the playing field with similar domestic services such as Crave that already collect and remit sales taxes. Moreover, service providers don’t pay the sales taxes, consumers do. Service providers simply collect from consumers and remit them to the government.

The Netflix tax that Mr. Rodriguez appears to have in mind would involve mandated payments by digital services in support of Canadian content production. The Liberal government initially rejected the idea as part of its digital cultural strategy, emphasizing enhanced “discoverability” of Canadian content on Internet platforms and voluntary agreements to invest in Canada, headlined by the $500 million commitment over five years from Netflix for production in Canada that was announced in 2017.

When those measures failed to stem calls from the cultural sector for more aggressive policies, however, the government convened the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review panel to recommend reforms to Canada’s communications laws. The panel report is not due until January 2020, but that did not stop Mr. Rodriguez from stating in late June that “everyone has to contribute to our culture. That’s why we’ll require web giants to create Canadian content and promote it on their platforms.” In fact, recent reports indicate that his department has already convened seven working groups charged with identifying regulatory reforms for the Internet.

The shift toward mandated Canadian content comes despite industry data confirming record setting financing in Canadian film and television production. The total value of the Canadian film and television production sector nearly reached $9 billion last year, an all-time record with overall production increasing by 5.9 per cent. Notably, the increased funding came primarily from distributors and foreign financing, not broadcasters.

The data may not support new Netflix taxes, but the government appears to believe that the increased fees for digital services will make for good politics this fall.

Yet cultural groups are unlikely to be satisfied with extending the 5 per cent contribution requirements for broadcast distributors such as cable companies to the online video services. In fact, some groups have visions of a 30 per cent contribution requirement, likening online video services to established broadcasters who enjoy a myriad of regulatory advantages not found online (these include must-carry requirements, copyright retransmission rules, and simultaneous substitution benefits). Others want the principle extended to Internet service providers and wireless carriers, risking increased consumer costs for basic communications services.

Mandated contributions could also spark a trade battle with the United States. While the new Canada-U.S.-Mexico Trade Agreement features a cultural exception, it also permits the U.S. to retaliate with measures of “equivalent commercial effect.” In practice, that could mean new levies or fees in the hundreds of millions of dollars against Canadian companies seeking to access the U.S. market.

The Liberal shift toward new Internet or Netflix taxes also marks an abandonment of the government’s emphasis on public consultation and expert policy development. By circumventing the broadcast review panel and effectively ignoring the results of a public consultation before the results are even in, the government seems ready to place a big bet on another Netflix tax election, only this one features promises of increased Internet costs and new consumer fees.


  1. Kelly Manning says:

    Isn’t Québec already collecting HST (PST + GST) on Netflix as of 2019 Jan 1?

    Netflix is hardly a necessary of life, unless you have a mental addiction to it, so why should it be exempt from the taxes we pay on other forms of entertainment

    If you can afford the ridiculous prices of wireless service in Canada you should not be whining about Netflix being taxed.

    Promising not to tax Netflix reminds me of Buck a Beer Ford. It could be very popular, but is it the best policy from the viewpoint of dealing with alcohol abuse in society?

    Why should Netflix have an advantage over other content providers?

    • You should probably re-read the second and third paragraph of the article.

    • Joe Consumer says:

      This is nothing to do with making Netflix charge sales tax or HST and everything to do with mandated Canadian content and payouts from everyone to the content production companies – which will inevitably lead to higher prices of services such as Netflix, Hulu (if it ever launches here), Crave and even broadband internet access.

  2. We pay enough taxes as it is. How about a breathing tax as well. Doesn’t matter to me anyways. With my Android box I can get everything for free.

  3. I really have no idea who to vote for this fall. Seriously. Every time we have to go to the polls, it becomes more and more of a Sophie’s choice.

    Federal elections really need to introduce the right to decline your ballot[1]. It’s an absolutely valid “vote” (as opposed to just staying home).

    [1] Not to be confused with simply staying home (and indicating that you are not really interested in a democracy IMHO), it is a statement that while you are interested in democracy, no candidate satisfies your beliefs enough to get your vote.

    • Agreed. There is no choice because every vote is for a corporate apologist or supporter. I consider contemporary Canadian government to be “them vs us” affair.

  4. It amazes me that the culture industry still thinks that they are entitled to a single cent.

    It’s amazing that the culture industry can’t use the internet, a tool never seen in human history, with platenary reach of potential clients, and they still can’t make it work and still doesn’t seem enough.

  5. Everybody feels entitled, it seems. But the question in my mind is who really is this “culture industry”? There is lots of culture on the Internet already, and I’m thinking that this industry is just that – an industry. It seems that our politicians either have no imagination, or they’re confusing actual culture with industry and money. Their efforts are not for the benefit of the people or our culture. All I have to say to them is “leave our internet alone”.

  6. Pingback: News of the Week; August 14, 2019 – Communications Law at Allard Hall

  7. Bobby Brooks says:

    I think they are already collecting it.

  8. I think that there should be a public consultation regarding this issue.