Debates of Oct. 22nd, 2026

Opposition Motion—Funding of the Cultural Sector

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

Madam Speaker, indeed, the Prime Minister was elected on the basis of a lot of promises he made, talking elbows up yet going thumbs up instead while making no progress with Trump. Worse still, he said he would be judged by the price of food, but since he came to power, the number of people using food banks has grown by more than 20%. Last month, 2.3 million people visited food banks. The most basic of all our needs is the need to eat. However, 2.35 million people have to turn to food banks. This is not the Canada we dreamed of. This is not the Canada that Canadians deserve.

Alleged Mis-characterization of Members' Remarks

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

Madam Speaker, I am rising to respond to a question of privilege that was raised by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands on October 21, respecting the deliberations in this House that took place on October 7.

On procedural grounds, five sitting days had elapsed since the deliberations in question took place in the House. The member has not observed a key requirement in raising the matter at the first opportunity. On these grounds alone, the matter should in fact be dismissed. On substantive grounds, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands assumes that a part of the speech by the member for Halifax on October 7 respecting the second reading debate of Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, was directed toward her.

The first point is that all members who speak in debate must direct their comments through the Chair. The second point is there is no way to substantiate that the member for Halifax was directing her comments to anyone in particular. It is a more reasonable assumption that the member was referring to members in general. In fact, this is supported by what the member for Halifax actually said in the House. The member said, “some of which has been perpetrated by members of this House.”

A principle observed in this House is that we give members the benefit of the doubt. In this case, there is no ambiguity that the member for Halifax was referring to members in general. I submit that this is clearly not a question of privilege, even at first glance. What we have before this House is conjecture, which amounts to a dispute over the facts.

On June 19, 2025, the Speaker ruled on a matter that constituted a dispute as to the facts, which I would like to quote. He said, “If every disagreement is to be raised as a question of privilege, the House would spend its time doing little else. There are many opportunities in our debates for members to challenge each other on the facts of a particular case, and that is the correct way of dealing with such disagreements.”

I therefore would conclude that there are no grounds to find a prima facie question of privilege in this matter due to the procedural requirement to raise matters at first opportunity and, more importantly, that there is nothing to substantiate the allegation that the general remarks were directed to any member in particular. This is simply a dispute as to the facts.

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

I thank the hon. member for those remarks and they will be taken under consideration.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Funding of the Cultural Sector

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to talk about a very decent man. Sylvain Bergeron is a tireless advocate for the rights of the unemployed in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. I can assure the House that he has probably assisted in more EI cases than all the members here combined, and that is saying something. He also advocates on behalf of the most vulnerable. He has been involved in numerous social justice campaigns. He is a source of inspiration for people working in community-based organizations in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. This is a guy who puts pressure on members like me to effect change. I wanted to recognize him today because he has requested medical assistance in dying, and he is inviting people to visit him today and tomorrow at the Chicoutimi hospital to say goodbye.

On behalf of the people of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, I want to acknowledge his exceptional work and bid him the fondest farewell.

Getting back to today's motion, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Montcalm, who is anything but calm.

Why are we moving a motion today on levies and funding for culture? Perhaps I will start with a fairly simple answer: It is to defend Quebec's identity. We know that culture is a strong driver of identity. Why do the government and the opposition seem unsympathetic to our demands? I sense that people do not fully understand what Quebec culture and identity entail. I know that this may bother some federalist friends, but I think there is a clear distinction between the Quebec identity and the Canadian identity.

I will give a very simple, mundane example that may seem a little unserious. Then we will get back to serious things. To understand the difference between Quebec identity and Canadian identity, take one of the Liberal Party's slogans from the last election: “elbows up”. When Quebeckers are told to lift their elbow, they understand “have a drink”. I know many Quebeckers who wondered whether the government was suggesting they take a shot to forget about the tariff crisis during the election campaign. This is anecdotal but true.

To illustrate this difference between Quebec identity and Canadian identity, I would like to go back to the early 2000s. When I began my master's degree at the University of Ottawa, I learned about a major study that had been carried out across Canada. This study was trying to distinguish between Canadian identity and American identity. It was looking at what made Canadians different from Americans. This question was asked in all of the Canadian provinces, and the answers were very interesting.

When Canadians were asked what made them different from Americans, the first thing that they said was that they had a public health care system. That was the most common answer. The second most common answer was that Canada is multicultural, not a melting pot. These are two very institutional things.

When Quebeckers were asked the same question about what made them different from Americans, the first thing they said was language. The second thing they said was culture. The third thing was our soap operas. I found that quite funny. In the early 2000s, Quebeckers felt that their soaps were part of their identity. Quebec identity is strongly rooted in our language and culture. That makes sense because we are a national minority within Canada and throughout the Americas. We speak French and our cultural products are very different.

Why am I saying this? It is because it is clear and it is a fact that even my federalist colleagues should be able to recognize: Quebec culture is fundamentally different from Canadian culture.

Why are people today indifferent to calls for levies to support the cultural sector? It is because it does not affect them. The cultural products consumed by English-speaking Canadians are essentially the same as those consumed by Americans. They are perfectly happy with platforms like Netflix and Disney+. They consume the same type of cultural content. It is very different for Quebeckers, and that is where we see this indifference on the part of the federal government. Since it only affects Quebeckers, why bother making an effort? Why risk making Mr. Trump unhappy? Since it only affects Quebeckers, let us just let it slide.

That is what we have seen. Earlier, in a question, I referred to the letter from the leader of the official opposition to the Prime Minister, asking him to end the levies so as not to upset Mr. Trump, which the prime minister did. He abolished the levies to avoid upsetting Mr. Trump and, in doing so, demonstrated his indifference toward Quebec culture. While the Conservatives and Liberals fear retaliation from Donald Trump, what we fear, clearly, is the decline of Quebec culture.

We are in the midst of a tariff crisis, which is very tough, but I would say that there is a much bigger crisis: the fact that the rise of the web giants weakens our culture and may put it at risk. Perhaps we should address this issue first. I encourage my Quebec MP friends, whether Conservative or Liberal, to honestly ask themselves this: Do we want to further weaken Quebec culture? Instead of making web giants pay, what they are doing today is making all Quebeckers pay. In a way, it contributes to weakening Quebec culture.

In that sense, we need to put an end to the spurious argument that I have heard from many colleagues: the affordability argument. People have been saying all day that if we had kept the levy system, the web giants would have passed the bill on to consumers, so it had to go. Instead, the government came up with $600 million. We have to wonder, where does that $600 million come from? It does not appear out of thin air. Where does the government get its money from? It comes out of taxpayers' pockets. It is a bit spurious to say that the government does not want levies because people will be stuck with the bill, but on the other hand, it says that it is going to take $600 million in taxes and try to redistribute it. That has not yet happened, as everyone has pointed out. I find it pretty spurious.

I would like to draw an analogy. When I look at the situation today, I see the federal government treating the web giants the same way that it treats the oil and gas sector. Their goal is to protect the greedy corporate giants. The web giants make roughly $4 billion a year on average, but the federal government does not want to require them to pay levies. In much the same way, it funds infrastructure for the oil industry, which raked in $131 billion in profits between 2020 and 2024. The federal government protects these greedy corporations that are awash in public money. It pays for their infrastructure, but it does not stand up for Canadian and Quebec taxpayers. Instead, it prefers to give those greedy corporations free rein. This analogy is important because it reflects the federal government's response to the worst crisis that we are currently facing, which is the tariff crisis.

The federal government's response has been to support the only sector that has not been hit with tariffs, the oil sector, by providing $44 billion in infrastructure to the greedy oil companies and give special treatment to the web giants that are raking in billions of dollars in profits while hollowing out our culture.

As an elected member from Quebec, I find that shameful.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague from Jonquière—Hébertville—Pays‑des‑Bleuets. I think he really has a beautiful riding name. it is very typical of Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean.

I would like my hon. colleague, with whom I sit on the Standing Committee on International Trade, to explain to me why the Bloc Québécois voted against budget 2025, which provided unprecedented support for Quebec's cultural industries.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that a budget contains a lot of things and that, ultimately, we vote on the whole package. Members cannot just pick one part like that and ask why we voted against the budget when the rest of it is unpalatable. If I were to offer my colleague rotten fish and tell her that the potatoes were good, would she eat the whole dish? I do not think so.

The same applies when it comes to voting on a budget: When a significant portion of it is rotten, people vote against it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate my colleague's sense of humour. Using “lever le coude” in French for “elbows up” was very funny.

I will give him another example. When people talk about the “shadow cabinet” here in the House, they refer to them in French as “ministres fantômes”. When I explain to my colleagues that “fantôme” means “ghost”, they do not find it funny, but that is our reality.

Finally, I want to assure the member that all of us Quebeckers are proud of our culture. We are proud of this distinction that makes us a nation. That is why the Conservative government had recognized the principle of nationhood. I can assure him that I am very passionate about culture, as are the 77 members here in the House who represent all Quebeckers.

The question I am going to ask him is this: They have a position that has been well known for a long time, and we have a position that has been well known for a long time. What does he think of a government that got elected on one thing, is doing something else and keeps changing its mind, going back and forth on this issue?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this warrants harsh judgment. My colleague is absolutely right.

I will, however, take this opportunity to say that I have no doubt that every MP from Quebec has a strong sense of belonging. The difficulty is that they are forced to make compromises within the Canadian framework. Too often, those compromises are made at the expense of Quebec culture and autonomy.

That is why there is a fantastic project, one I invite him to take part in, and that is Quebec independence.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, throughout this debate, people have been raising the issue of affordability and the levies that should be paid by the billionaire web giants.

I know that my colleague is very clear on the concept of fairness. Could he explain to us why this has nothing to do with affordability, but rather with fairness?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the House leader of the Bloc Québécois gave a very good answer to a question about that earlier today.

The $600 million that the government has proposed, but that no one has seen yet, will be paid by all taxpayers. Taxpayers who have no interest in Netflix or in these web giants will be forced to foot part of the bill. They will have no choice.

Personally, I will never understand how companies that are raking in $4 billion a year can have no obligations whatsoever towards customers in Quebec who pay for their services, while at the same time those companies are being allowed to completely dismantle our cultural sector.

This is an unacceptable injustice. In a few years' time, the government will have to answer for this negligence.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, am a big fan of Pays-des-Bleuets, but I always thought that Lac-Saint-Jean was more blueberry country, not Saguenay. However, that is a discussion for another time.

The CRTC mechanism has not yet allowed the money to flow to cultural institutions because it is being challenged in court at this time. That is why our government is providing funding to support the cultural sector.

Why is the member so keen to preserve a mechanism that is not working?

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. member for Jonquière—Hébertville—Pays-des-Bleuets has the floor to give a reply in under 15 seconds.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in less than 15 seconds, all I can say is that they must reinstate the levies.

I would also like to say to my colleague that, unfortunately, the electoral map has been redrawn in a way that does not respect communities of interest. As a result, a significant portion of Lac-Saint-Jean now falls within the riding of Jonquière.

It is always nice to learn something new.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec is a nation, one to which this House sometimes pays lip service in order to downplay the legitimate aspirations of Quebeckers. Here in North America, we are a minority and are different: the village of the indomitable Gauls, francophones drowning in a sea of anglophones. We need to nurture and cherish that difference, despite the fact that the Meech Lake accord and the Charlottetown accord did not recognize even the concept of a distinct society. Culture, our culture, is one of the pillars that shape our identity. It is a force that brings us together to laugh, reflect, cry, create and work. The cultural industry is a treasure that showcases and presents who we are.

Despite its claims to the contrary, culture is far from a priority for the current government, which is using concessions on this file in a futile attempt to curry favour with the U.S. administration to the benefit of the major U.S. digital platforms. By going ahead with abolishing levies for online streaming platforms, the government is causing experts such as Catalina Briceño to wonder whether it is putting our cultural ecosystem at risk of being dismantled. She warns that by exempting online streaming platforms from levies intended to support Canadian content, Ottawa is putting an entire industry at risk. As she explained, after the Prime Minister stressed the importance of being “at the table” when international decisions are being made, he now risks putting our cultural gains “on the menu”. He is doing so without the slightest hesitation. We cannot and must not accept that.

That is why, on this opposition day, the Bloc Québécois is asking the government to make the interim payment of $600 million promised to the cultural sector for the current year and to uphold the CRTC's decisions imposing levies on streaming services. There are some things in this life that are inevitable and money is one of them. To survive and thrive, the cultural sector also needs a real infusion of funding, stable financial support that will help it reach its full potential.

Unfortunately, since money does not grow on trees, on May 21, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, issued a regulatory policy based on the Broadcasting Act that was intended to force online streaming companies to triple their investment in Canadian programming by allocating 15% of their revenue to the creation of local content, rather than 5%. This CRTC policy sparked a rather predictable outcry from the major American streaming platforms who consider local culture to be a thorn in their side.

That caused a chain of three reactions. First the American companies refused to contribute. Second, the Conservative Party defended the United States and digital billionaires. Third, the Liberal government backed down, overturned the CRTC's decision and basically apologized to the U.S. government for existing. The major American streaming platforms pitched a fit and Ottawa backed down.

The president of the Union des artistes, Tania Kontoyanni, said it well: “It is devastating and utterly disheartening to let the tech giants intimidate us like this.” The irony is that, in society, we rightly condemn and denounce intimidation. However, the government bends over backward for the bully and ends up grovelling before it, using spurious arguments to justify its cowardice.

The Liberal government has already backed down like this before. Indeed, on June 29, 2025, the Liberal government formally scrapped the digital services tax—the infamous Netflix tax—in order to advance trade negotiations with the United States. As we can see, the government's main excuse at the time was not the cost of living crisis but the trade dispute, and it got us nowhere. More than a year later, the Liberal government's trade negotiations with the United States have been about as productive as trying to grow a plastic decorative tree from Walmart.

The last time it backed down, on June 3, 2026, the Liberal government offered a very different explanation. The official reason now invoked by Ottawa is that the fees paid to broadcasters and streaming platforms would be passed on to consumers in the form of price increases, and the government did not want that to happen. The government attempted to justify its decision by saying, “At a time when Canadians face cost-of-living pressure, now is not the time to make culture and entertainment more expensive.”

Who could possibly be against virtue? We, too, want to make culture and entertainment accessible, but not by kowtowing to American cultural and financial hegemony. While he was at it, the Liberal Prime Minister might as well have said that Quebec culture is too expensive, and that American entertainment is so much better. It is all well and good to play the tough guy by claiming an “elbows up” political stance, but it is hard to land a blow when kneeling before one's bully.

Sadly, in the face of the appetites of American web giants, the Liberal Prime Minister has decided to put Quebec's cultural industry on the menu and has relinquished Canada's ability to defend its cultural sovereignty and to enact laws that apply to everyone equally and that legitimately aim to support Quebec culture and ensure the discoverability of Quebec cultural productions. To me, politics is a noble pursuit. The Liberal government must respect citizens and stop treating them like idiots. I find it insulting when I hear the government say that it abolished levies on American broadcasters and platforms to save taxpayers money.

Let us think about this for a moment. At the same time as it backed down in the face of American pressure, in order to save face, the Liberal government announced a commitment to provide $600 million annually to Canada's audio and audiovisual sectors. Those funds are intended to replace the revenues that would no longer be generated through levies on online streaming platforms to support Canadian culture. If I understand correctly, on behalf of the online streaming services, Ottawa will now pay the contributions that were supposed to support Canadian content creation. In other words, taxpayers will be expected to shoulder the burden instead of American tech. The Liberal government is therefore passing the web giants' financial responsibility on to Canadians while claiming that it is doing so in the name of affordability.

Let us be clear about the logic here. Canadians are being asked to pay so that Canadians do not have to pay. That is the rationale behind the Liberal decision not to require the digital giants to contribute. The only difference is that the government is doing it in a way that it hopes will go unnoticed. I find that level of hypocrisy deeply troubling. The reality is that the federal government does have a responsibility to support the cultural sector as it competes with online platforms, just as various industries have received assistance in coping with the tariff dispute. However, in the interest of fairness, that support should not be provided as a substitute for the fair contribution that should be made by American platforms.

That is why the Bloc Québécois is calling on the government to immediately disburse the $600 million in emergency support that the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture promised to the cultural sector on June 3, 2026, and to uphold the CRTC's decisions imposing levies on streaming services, as set out in the Broadcasting Act. The Bloc Québécois motion calls for two simple things: respect the authority of the CRTC and make the $600 million payment immediately.

[Marilyn Gladu, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his speech.

Our government continues to support Quebec's cultural sector, but I want to know where the biggest problems are. Is it the media, radio, television, music or maybe the arts? Where is the best opportunity?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that failing to implement the levy solution through the CRTC amounts to foregoing billions of dollars that could be used to support all the sectors the member just mentioned.

The government claims that it cares so much about culture and that a one-time injection of $600 million would solve the problem in the midst of a tariff crisis. In the same breath, it says that other sectors also need support. This does not add up. A solution that would generate billions of dollars for the cultural sector is available. Other sectors need investment. If the levies had been implemented, the $600 million earmarked for culture could have been directed to those sectors during this tariff crisis.

The government's position is illogical, and it is kowtowing to the U.S. tech giants.

[Dalwinder Gill, Conservative, Calgary McKnight, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of serving on the official languages committee during the last session, so I understand the issues facing Quebec and francophone media. I support efforts to promote francophone culture.

Can the member elaborate on whether his party believes the government can impose a levy on the major streaming platforms without those companies passing their costs on to the Canadian consumer?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the European experience shows that a 20% levy has no impact on affordability for French taxpayers.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his excellent speech, my colleague demonstrated the government's cowardice. Today, it is trying to pass off taking $600 million directly out of the pockets of Quebeckers and Canadians as a solution, when the fact is that the web giants make $4 billion a year.

I would like my colleague to talk to us about how levies might be a better solution than what the government is currently proposing.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is the context.

We are forgoing $4 billion by not standing up to the Americans and the web giants that come here and make money at our expense.

The Liberals say this will strengthen their position in trade talks. They are prepared to make concessions. The government talks about how much it cares about the cultural sector and says that is why it is offering $600 million in lieu of the levies. The thing is, that $600 million is taxpayers' money. On top of that, the government would have people believe that affordability is the reason it is not moving forward with the CRTC's decision, even though the CRTC has the authority to impose these levies on billionaire web giants.

That is the problem. The government is not standing its ground. It is not being “elbows up”. Instead, it is yielding to the bully and trying to sugarcoat a bad decision with this $600 million.

By the way, our motion is about getting that $600 million out the door right away because the cultural industry has been waiting for 16 months.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Madawaska—Restigouche.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to discuss the essential place of francophone culture in the digital environment, as well as the tools we, as a government, have to support the creators, artists, journalists, cultural workers and businesses that bring Canadian stories to life.

Culture is at the heart of Canadian identity. It brings us together, helps us better understand our communities and contributes to the vitality of our democracy. Songs we sing together, programs that spark conversations and news stories that help us understand current events all contribute to our sense of belonging.

In Quebec, as across Canada, the cultural sector plays a vital economic role. Behind every audiovisual production, every album, every performance venue and every newsroom are workers, businesses, skills and careers that contribute to the prosperity of our country.

At the same time, the media and cultural production sectors are going through a period of profound transformation. Consumption habits have changed rapidly. Traditional revenues are under pressure, business models are evolving, and financing has become increasingly uncertain for many cultural activities. In this context, it is essential that we preserve the strength of our cultural ecosystem while adapting to today's digital realities.

For more than half a century, Canada's broadcasting system has been guided by a fundamental principle: Those who benefit from access to the Canadian market should also contribute to its development. This principle has helped support Canadian creation, sustain our artists and ensure that our stories reach audiences across this country.

However, the media landscape has changed significantly in recent years. Online streaming services now play a central role in how Canadians watch films and television series, discover music and access content. This is precisely why Parliament modernized the Broadcasting Act through the Online Streaming Act. The objective was not to preserve the system exactly as it existed in the past but to ensure that it remained relevant and effective in the digital age.

The Online Streaming Act established that streaming services that benefit from access to the Canadian market should also contribute to the creation and promotion of Canadian content. All broadcasters, whether traditional or online, should make a meaningful contribution to Canada's broadcasting ecosystem. Within this framework, the CRTC is responsible for implementing directions established by Parliament and defining the obligations that apply to various participants in the cultural system.

These measures are particularly important for francophone creators. The act recognized the unique situation of French in Canada and North America, as well as the specific challenges associated with creating, distributing and ensuring the discoverability of French-language content.

In a global digital environment where the volume of available content is innumerable, discoveries remain an ongoing challenge for francophone works. It is not enough for our artists to create exceptional content. Audiences must also be able to find it, discover it and engage with it. That is why the issue of discoverability occupies an increasingly important place in cultural policy discussions both in Canada and around the world.

Alongside this regulatory work, our government recognizes the challenges facing the cultural sector and the importance of providing the stability it needs during this period of transition. It is in this context that this government announced a $600-million investment to support Canada's audio and audiovisual sectors. Work is continuing on the implementation of this commitment, and we will share further details as it progresses.

The government's objective remains clear. We must support the creation of Canadian content to help ensure the future of our artists and cultural workers, and to maintain services that remain accessible and affordable to Canadians. We are also undertaking a broader examination of the institutions, programs and support mechanisms that contribute to the development of Canada's audiovisual sector.

We want to ensure that our policies continue to reflect the realities of today's industry, enabling creators and cultural businesses to thrive in an ever-evolving environment. This important work must be guided by the communities our systems serve. Francophone creators must be able to tell their stories and reach their audiences in Quebec and across Canada. Indigenous creators must be able to share their perspectives and ensure indigenous languages are heard.

Ultimately, the decisions we make today are not only about funding mechanisms or regulatory frameworks. They are about the jobs, businesses and talent that contribute to Canada's economy. They are about the stories we choose to tell, the voices we want to hear and the cultural heritage we hope to pass on to future generations. Protecting our culture means protecting our ability to tell our own stories in our own languages, to ensure they continue to reach audiences here in Canada and around the world.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote Michael Geist, Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law: “Patching the old broadcast contribution system onto the Internet was never a good idea, and starting over creates an opportunity for a much-needed full reset and the chance to provide more sensible answers to those questions.”

Would the Liberal member agree that the Liberal government failed with the Online Streaming Act, simply creating more problems for Canadians and the arts and culture industry, and is once again having Canadians foot the bill?

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government understands that artists, creators, cultural workers and institutions are essential to ensuring that Canada and Quebec stories, perspectives and creativity continue to reach audiences not only at home but around the world as well. This is important because their work matters and should not be taken for granted. That is why we took that very first step that we needed to take. Because the world of this industry is very much transient and is transforming, we have now decided, because it is not going through, to take different measures, and we need time for that—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the member to continue with questions and comments.

The hon. member for Repentigny.