Debates of Oct. 22nd, 2026

Government Operations and Estimates

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, entitled “Use of Underused and Surplus Federal Lands and Buildings for Services for Veterans”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present the official opposition's dissenting opinion on the study “Use of Underused and Surplus Federal Lands and Buildings for Services for Veterans”.

Conservatives believe that the Liberal MP for Cumberland—Colchester introduced this study to distract from her government's closure of the Amherst Armoury in her riding. If she wanted real results, she should have demanded action from Liberal ministers instead of asking Parliament to study what her government already has the power to do.

While the government tried to congratulate itself on military investment, the committee learned that the Liberals are counting unarmed research ships, used to count fish, towards their NATO defence target. We also learned that the Liberals pulled $3 million out of the veteran homelessness program, claiming they could not find eligible veterans, while thousands of veterans remain homeless. Representatives of organizations that serve homeless veterans testified that they were disgusted by this decision.

The Liberals were just as dismissive of female veterans who had come forward through the women veterans council. Six of the council's 12 members resigned, including retired Sergeant Jessica Miller, who testified at the study. She told the committee that emails from female veterans were never forwarded to the council, and she was told that the Minister of Veterans Affairs was taking a top-down approach. Unfortunately, the Liberal MP who sponsored the study did not show up to that meeting.

After more than 10 years in power, the Liberal government is still proposing studies and frameworks for problems it has promised to solve and that it has the tools to fix. Conservatives refuse to let another committee study cover up for Liberal inaction.

Local Radio

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I am presenting a petition on behalf of Kitchener Centre residents concerned about the Rogers radio closures and their impact on our community.

During the Shaw acquisition campaign, assurances were made that local radio would not be impacted. Petitioners want to know what the response is to these closures, and whether Rogers will be held accountable for breaking those assurances. These closures threaten local jobs, access to local news and voices of our community.

Kitchener residents deserve answers, and this petition is an important step towards holding Rogers accountable.

Guaranteed Basic Income

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions.

The first is from a group in Prince Edward Island that is working on the basic income pilot.

In November 2020, the final report of the Special Committee on Poverty in PEI recommended that the Government of Prince Edward Island begin immediate negotiations with the Government of Canada to develop and implement a basic income guarantee demonstration program for Prince Edward Island.

The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to begin immediate negotiations with the Government of Prince Edward Island to develop and implement a basic income guarantee demonstration program in the province of P.E.I. that will be implemented, monitored and evaluated for five to seven years.

Early Learning and Child Care

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am presenting comes from a group of citizens in my riding of Burlington who are in favour of the Canada-wide early learning and child care initiative.

The petitioners are calling on the government to continue investment in this program to ensure that every child across this country has access to high-quality, inclusive child care. They are looking to ensure that there is more infrastructure and that the dollars are tied to inflation.

Naming of Infrastructure Projects

[Eric St-Pierre, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition brought forth by Aaron Hagey-Mackey and signed by 765 Canadians. The petitioners ask our government to establish an open, transparent and legally binding public naming process for major infrastructure projects. The petitioners seek a process that would allow citizens and residents of Canada to submit name proposals for projects. They seek a voting mechanism that would allow publicly approved names to then be adopted as the official project name, subject of course to reasonable standards of decency.

The petitioners seek to embrace democratic principles of citizen engagement by allowing public naming of public projects.

Flood Security

[Sukhman Gill, Conservative, Abbotsford—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions on behalf of the people of Abbotsford—South Langley.

The first petition calls for long-term investment in resilient infrastructure across British Columbia's west coast corridor.

Every British Columbian remembers the 2021 floods that devastated our communities and exposed serious vulnerabilities in our critical infrastructure. Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to recognize the West Coast Corridor Resiliency Partnership as a strategic partnership and to provide predictable long-term investment in flood protection, transportation infrastructure and disaster preparedness.

Energy Security

[Sukhman Gill, Conservative, Abbotsford—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls for immediate relief for the rising diesel costs and stronger Canadian energy security.

Diesel is essential to all Canadian farmers, truckers, businesses and workers. When diesel prices rise, the cost of producing food, transporting goods and operating businesses rises with them, and that puts pressure on all Canadians.

Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to provide immediate relief from federal taxes on diesel until Canada Day, support new refinery and fuel transportation infrastructure, and take steps to strengthen Canada's domestic fuel supply so Canadians have a less vulnerable system and fewer shortages in supply and distribution.

Democratic Institutions

[Terry Dowdall, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise for the great people in Simcoe—Grey.

I am presenting a petition on behalf of a local constituent, a young gentleman who has been quite dismayed with the current state of democracy in our Canada. His petition states that “Under the ‘rights of information act’ (1985)”, every person who is a Canadian citizen, or a permanent resident, “‘has a right to and shall, on request, be given access to any record under the control of a government institution.’” The petition also says, “Canadian democracy relies on government clarity.”

The petition goes on to say that on April 29 during a health committee meeting, the new government majority voted to shut off public recordings of the meeting, going in camera and restricting public access to speeches, interviews and comments from MPs. It says that the Prime Minister has “openly attempted and successfully poached opposition MPs against the wishes of their constituents”, that the current Prime Minister is the first Canadian prime minister to gain a majority government through backdoor deals rather than through votes, and that one of the Prime Minister's first acts with his “manufactured majority” was to “stack” parliamentary committees in order to gain control.

Public Safety

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I stand in my place to bring awareness of a petition that is circulating in Saskatoon. Petitioners are extremely concerned with the rate of violent crime in our city. Since 2015, it has skyrocketed, and the government has poured gas on that fire with the epidemic of mental health and the addiction crisis from coast to coast.

The people of Saskatoon who have signed this petition are very concerned that, since 2015, violent crime has increased by 32%, gang-related homicides have increased by over 90%, violent repeat offenders obtain bail much more easily, and increased daily activity of crime and violence is putting Canadians at risk.

These are the stats, but if I ask any Canadian whether crime is getting better or worse in Canada, the vast majority believe we are headed in the wrong direction. It is time to change course with the tired government.

Trans-Canada Highway

[Gaétan Malette, Conservative, Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table more petitions for a safer and more reliable Ontario Highway 11 portion of the Trans-Canada Highway.

At the intersections of highways 11 and 101 in northern Ontario lies the town of Matheson. Whenever a major storm or accident forces Highway 11 to close, transport trucks and commuters are often left stranded in Matheson due to dangerous driving conditions. These closures place a significant strain on Matheson, delay the delivery of essential goods and prevent people from getting home safely.

Matheson is just one of many northern Ontario communities paying the high price for the poor conditions along Highway 11. It is time to designate that part of the Trans-Canada Highway as a project of national interest.

Government Accountability

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition signed by over 5,000 Canadians. I am going to read it verbatim. Whereas public confidence in federal leadership is essential to the effective functioning of Canada’s democratic institutions, many Canadians have expressed concerns regarding transparency, accountability, and decision-making at the highest levels of federal leadership, and recent developments in federal leadership, including—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize to the member opposite, but he just said that he is going to read the petition verbatim. Members cannot read a petition in the chamber.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We are supposed to summarize petitions.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will summarize the last paragraph. Recent developments in federal leadership, including the role and influence of the Prime Minister, have raised questions among Canadians about governance and public trust.

The petitioners are asking the Government of Canada to take immediate and meaningful action to restore public trust and confidence in federal leadership, as they are concerned about federal leadership, accountability and transparency, including pursuing appropriate democratic processes that allow Canadians to express their confidence in the current government.

Foreign Affairs

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to present petition e-7622 on behalf of concerned members of the Pakistani Canadian community.

Signers of the petition are disturbed by the Liberal government's decision to have the Minister of Foreign Affairs meet with the Pakistani Minister of Interior while visiting Islamabad last summer. This individual has been known to engage in targeted state-sanctioned harassment against families of Canadian citizens and members of the Pakistani diaspora.

Signers of the petition are calling on the government to ensure that future collaborations with the Pakistani Ministry of Interior be conditional on its immediate cessation of harassment against the families of Canadian citizens.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to present this petition here today in the House of Commons.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, I will not break the rules. I am just asking that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Alleged Premature Disclosure of Information Concerning Bill C-39—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on October 5 by the member for Saint-Jean regarding the lack of technical briefings for members provided by government officials.

In raising her question of privilege, the member alleged that the government committed a contempt of the House by providing a media-only, closed-door technical briefing on the west coast oil pipeline, now known as “Pacific Link”, before the project was announced. She stated that members did not have access to a similar briefing, despite having requested one. As a result, she said, members were prevented from obtaining privileged information about a project of national interest to which the media were given access.

The member noted that the Chair has repeatedly ruled that providing legislative information to the media, but not to members, before that information is presented to the House is a matter of privilege. She argued that this principle of primacy should also apply to programs and policies on which the opposition parties may need to take a position.

In response, the deputy government House leader pointed out the importance of distinguishing briefings on legislative measures from those on policies. In her view, since the government's briefing was an update on a public policy, not a legislative measure to be introduced in the House, the government was within its rights to provide information to the media. She concluded by citing a decision by Speaker Parent from April 11, 1997, in which he stated that the Chair has no control over these events.

As both these members said, members must be first to know about the contents of legislative measures. Briefings provided to the media before members have, in the past, given rise to questions of privilege on the premature disclosure of bills, and these have been ruled prima facie cases of privilege. These contempts were based on the convention that members must be the first to be informed of the substance of legislative measures, as described in section 3.14 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition. The member for Saint-Jean seemed to suggest that this convention now be extended to announcements of government proposals.

The issue here is therefore to determine whether providing information about a public policy or program to an external audience, in private or in public, before members are so informed is a contempt.

Past decisions of the Chair show that for a contempt to exist, it must be demonstrated that a proceeding in the House or the ability of members to fulfill their parliamentary duties was affected.

One of my predecessors made this same point in a ruling delivered on March 3, 2014, at pages 3429 and 3430 of the Debates:

When a situation is brought to the Chair's attention, it must be assessed within the somewhat narrow confines of parliamentary procedure and precedents....[T]he Chair must assess whether the member has been obstructed in the discharge of [their] responsibilities in direct relation to proceedings in Parliament....[A] member who is preparing to participate in proceedings—whether through a technical briefing or some other means—is not participating in the proceedings themselves. While such preparation is no doubt important, it remains ancillary to, rather than part of, Parliament's proceedings.

Therefore, while the Chair agrees that members should have timely access to accurate information and, like a number of previous Chairs, finds it disappointing that the government gives the media priority over members, the Chair cannot conclude in this case that there is a prima facie question of privilege.

I thank members for their attention.

Opposition Motion—Funding of the Cultural Sector

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

moved: That, given that,(i) culture is central to Quebec’s identity,(ii) the cultural sector plays a critical role in Quebec’s economy,(iii) the media and cultural production sectors are facing serious pressures that hamper their development,(iv) the government nevertheless abolished the Digital Services Tax levied on the U.S. digital corporate giants,the House call on the government to:(a) uphold the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s decisions imposing levies on streaming services, as set out in the Broadcasting Act; and(b) make the interim payment of $600 million promised to the cultural sector for the current year.

Mr. Speaker, today is an important day because we are once again bringing an issue to the floor of the House that is very important to us, namely culture, and, more specifically and as a priority, Quebec and francophone culture.

Before I begin my speech, I would like to extend my heartfelt congratulations to the MNA for Matane-Matapédia-Mitis in the Quebec National Assembly, Pascal Bérubé, who was appointed Minister of Culture, Heritage, Communications and the French Language. Pascal Bérubé is a highly capable and passionate man, as we saw at his swearing-in ceremony yesterday, and certainly someone who will fight for culture with the same passion and commitment to Quebec identity for which he is so well known.

Today's motion is important to the Bloc Québécois. It is also of vital importance to the cultural sector. Earlier this week, the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, or CDCE, was on Parliament Hill, accompanied by dozens of representatives from its member organizations. I took the opportunity to get a sense of their mood and take stock of the situation, since it is important to do that from time to time. I wanted to know whether the concerns and priorities we are advancing on behalf of the cultural sector are still relevant. I also wanted to find out whether we are, as my former colleague from La Prairie always said, “on the right track”.

It is worse than I thought. The cultural sector is facing an unprecedented crisis. What is particularly troubling is that we have been warning about this crisis for years, yet the sector continues to receive little more than piecemeal support, despite the widely recognized urgent need for adequate, fair, sustainable, predictable, long-term funding. We can pile on all the adjectives we want. It is simply unacceptable that culture be left in this state of precariousness year after year, budget after budget.

The motion that we are tabling today is not that complicated. First, we want to speak out against this government's abandonment of culture, an abandonment that, in my view, has been almost systematic since it entered office in April 2025. The Liberals have done nothing but backtrack on cultural issues. Let me explain, although I suspect they will rise later to tell me that significant amounts were allocated to culture in budget 2025 and will be announcing good news in the coming weeks. Not abandoning culture involves more than giving away money now and then. It involves a commitment to fund the cultural sector in a meaningful way. First, we are facing an economic situation involving a southern neighbour ready to rock the boat at every opportunity. Our economic situation demands that we strengthen our sectors as much as possible. When we can, we must. When it comes to culture, we can. We have the means; they have been requested and demonstrated and they constitute a logical choice for ordinary, average people. Failing to act would be alarmingly irresponsible.

Even the Liberals have been campaigning for years to bring in a system to ensure fairness in the broadcasting and cultural sector. Bill C-11, which I had the pleasure, so to speak, of working on for several years, was drafted in collaboration with and at the request of this Liberal government. However, the conclusion of that study, that work, was to give the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, the responsibility, under the new Online Streaming Act, of establishing a system that would ensure that American digital companies—those multibillion-dollar companies that call the shots wherever they go and that governments lack the courage to regulate—contribute their fair share.

The most logical approach is the one that has been used for decades with the traditional broadcasters and that is to impose some form of levy. That is what the CRTC has done. The CRTC worked on this for a long time, as it usually does, holding hearings and listening to representations from various stakeholders in the industry, and concluded that the right approach was to impose a 5% levy, a decision that was subsequently revised, resulting in a 15% levy.

What did the government do? It did not say, finally, a fair way to establish a framework to ensure that companies making billions of dollars off our culture and our broadcasting system contribute so that people can continue to create and produce content that reflects who we are and ensures that Quebec culture, francophone culture and Canadian culture remain very much alive and can develop, continue to evolve and be the envy of many countries around the world in this ever-changing digital landscape.

I mentioned earlier that the government will boast about having invested funds in budget 2025. It did invest in a number of sectors, including the audiovisual sector, and that was certainly appreciated. However, while the budget provided hundreds of millions of dollars to various areas of the cultural sector, some sectors facing even more acute challenges than others were completely overlooked.

There was unanimous support for increasing the budget of the Canada Council for the Arts by $140 million. It received $6 million. Sectors such as entertainment presenters, cultural presenters, the visual arts and the performing arts were entirely ignored in this budget, and yet they are on the front lines sustaining culture, theatre, dance and other artistic disciplines.

We need to support the entire cultural sector. It is not a collection of isolated groups. It is an ecosystem, an integrated whole that must function effectively and generate benefits throughout the sector. When the cultural community as a whole is properly supported, all of its sectors thrive. It is a vital part of both the Quebec and Canadian economies, and one that we simply cannot do without. The evidence is clear.

I am fed up with hearing that the cultural sector is being funded or subsidized. That is not what is being done. We invest in culture, and that brings in billions of dollars for the Canadian economy. We cannot do away with that, especially at a time when we need to affirm our identity and protect our culture. We have been experiencing this in Quebec for decades now. I get the impression that, in Canada, people are also starting to realize that culture is important and that they need to protect their identity. Perhaps this would be a good time to learn from Quebec's traditional demands on the matter.

As I said earlier, CDCE representatives spent the week on the Hill. Their demands remain unanimous: They want the money they were promised, but they also want a system in place that will reassure them. The only way to reassure them is to have a funding system that is not subject to the government's whims.

The government cannot say that, this year, when it scrapped the 5% or 15% levies, it replaced that with $600 million, as promised. The government might say that this is great news because, next year, it intends to do the same thing and even index the amount. Next year, the amount would be $800 million. The government believes this should please the cultural sector. However, the year after that, the amount might drop to $200 million, which might put everyone into a bit of a pickle. Then, the year after that one, another government might be in power that is not interested in culture and might decide to get rid of it. We would be back at square one. It is unacceptable for the government to take this approach. It is important to create a system that reassures all cultural sector stakeholders. This means fair funding for culture and a significant contribution from big tech.

There is the money, and then there is the principle. I hear the government saying that levies cannot be imposed on digital companies because they will simply pass the cost on to consumers. That is hogwash, so as not to use an expression that the Chair would reprimand me for. What a load of nonsense. Let us look at what has happened elsewhere, particularly in Europe. I was just at the French embassy yesterday with officials from the CDCE, and we discussed this very issue. Europe has imposed such levies. The European Union itself has imposed levies and has allowed other EU states to do the same, which France and others have done. The reality is that there has been no decrease in subscriptions to the digital platforms that are already generating billions of dollars in profits, and there has not been any dramatic increase in consumer costs.

By choosing to fund culture itself rather than have the digital companies do it, the government is passing the bill on to Canadians. When Canadians are asked what concerns them the most right now, they point to the cost of living. Everything is becoming more expensive. However, Canadians are now being handed a $600‑million bill when the digital companies, which are raking in billions of dollars on the backs of our creators, are the ones that should be funding culture.

That is the purpose of our motion today. I have a hard time imagining how the Liberal government, which has always claimed to support culture, or at least given the appearance of that, could oppose our motion. I would take a very dim view of that.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretaries of State for Labour]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments today. I want to ask him if he can explain why the Bloc Québécois voted against budget 2025, which included unprecedented support for Quebec's cultural industries.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, a budget is like a big stew. There are all sorts of things in there. We can love corned beef but not cabbage. When we vote for a budget, we are voting for a series of measures. Before a budget is tabled, parties make requests. We have recommendations to make for the budget. The Bloc Québécois had 11 amendments, many of which were culture-related. None of the Bloc Québécois's recommendations, particularly those concerning culture, were included in the budget.

When the Liberals ask us why we voted against funding measures for culture, it is because they did not listen. They did not get the job done. They botched the job. In that case, we take responsibility, we stand up for our people and our culture, and we vote against it.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for bringing this forward.

For 11 years, we have seen broken promise after broken promise. Another promise the government made, with regard to an industry that is, I know, as important to Quebec as it is to British Columbia, is that it has, for 11 years, promised to secure a softwood lumber agreement. Today, over 30 mills have closed in my riding. Thousands of British Columbians are out of work.

Why should Quebeckers feel that the Liberal government would deliver on this promise when it has broken every other promise it has made to Quebec, and to the nation, over the last 11 years?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

That is a very good question, Madam Speaker, and I thank my colleague for asking it.

My colleague is obviously generalizing; he is really broadening the scope of the issue, but fundamentally, I understand that we are talking about broken promises. In our motion today, we are addressing a promise that, while not yet broken, has not yet been kept, and that is very concerning. I am talking about the $600 million. This $600 million is not a request from Quebec. It is an amount intended for Canada's entire cultural sector. As a result, it is not just about a request from Quebec. Of course, the Bloc Québécois is more focused on Quebec's demands, that is well known, but in this case, it is a promise to all Canadians and to Canada's entire cultural sector, which, I would like to remind you, generates hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue annually.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague has already kindly briefed me, in private, on all the government's setbacks in the area of culture as it tries to please Donald Trump. Therefore, I would perhaps invite him to brief the House on all of these setbacks, since it is quite interesting and relevant, after all.

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

The hon. member has the floor for a very brief answer.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am being asked for a brief answer to a question that would take several minutes to address, but I will simply talk about the digital services tax, which could have been used to fund the cultural and broadcasting sectors, as well as the backtracking on the levy of 5% to 15%. These concessions were made during negotiations with Donald Trump. What did we get in return? Nothing, period. Nothing. This is a somewhat awkward position for the government to be in now, saying that it will not reinstate the levy after having removed it to appease someone who never responded favourably to our request.

I could go on, but I do not have enough time.

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

Madam Speaker, what does my colleague make of the Liberal government's position on the digital services tax? First, it opposed the tax. Then it supported it. Now it opposes it once again. In any business or economic endeavour, it is important to have a clear sense of direction. What impact does this sort of Liberal flip-flopping have on the cultural sector?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague very much, and I look forward to hearing his comments on today's motion later on.

We should remember that this tax was originally requested and required to fund the cultural sector and the media, this entire sector where American digital companies swoop in and get rich. In the end, it was not used for that purpose at all; it was used for something else entirely. It went into the consolidated revenue fund instead of serving the sectors that had been hit hard by those companies entering the market.

Yes, as my colleague said, this kind of flip-flopping and back-and-forth is absolutely pointless. In the end, the tax was repealed. We are depriving ourselves of billions of dollars that could give some serious breathing room to our cultural sector, as well as other sectors.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a bit intimidating to follow my esteemed colleague from Drummond, who enlightens us with his knowledge. We know that he is very passionate about the issue before us today, and that came through in his remarks.

I will begin my speech with an analogy to explain the subject we are discussing today.

Imagine a charming little village somewhere with several public parks that are the envy of many of the villagers in the surrounding areas. People gather there to play with their children. One day, a business from a neighbouring town decides that there might be some money to be made. It decides to organize festivals and parties in the small neighbouring village's parks and it charges people to attend. This all happens little by little. People buy tickets and come have a good time. The business then leaves and continues paying municipal taxes in the other town.

One day, the municipal councillors in the small village with the beautiful parks realize that they are paying to maintain these parks, which are deteriorating faster because they are being used for festivals. They then decide to bring a resolution before the municipal council proposing that a portion of the cost of maintaining the parks be charged to the company using them to make money. That makes perfect sense, so the village passes the resolution.

One day, the mayor of the village stands up and says that he has veto power and that he is going to use it. He wants to maintain a good relationship with the mayor of the neighbouring town, so to avoid offending him, he is repealing the levy that his municipal council had imposed on the company from the other town. However, since the parks do still need to be maintained, he decides to raise taxes in his own village and make the folks there pay for maintaining the parks.

I believe that if this were ever to happen in any village, there would probably be a public outcry, and with good reason. That is precisely the situation we are facing today, because the government has decided to overturn an order of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, imposing levies on web giants such as Netflix, Amazon and Disney+ that are making money in our territory without supporting the local cultural community that is suffering as a result of their actions.

It is important to protect content creators in Quebec and across Canada, but especially in Quebec, because Quebec culture is not just another commercial product. As we know, French is a minority language in North America, and our way of compensating for our demographic reality is by making our culture vibrant and resilient. It is important to support it. By supporting content creators, we allow them tell our stories, and their voices will fall silent if we do not support them. If their voices are silenced, we will be left hearing only the stories of others, rather than the stories that have shaped who we are.

I sincerely believe that our government colleagues share our views on the importance of protecting culture. If we asked them whether it is important to protect culture, I am sure that they would say yes and that they would mean it. That is not the issue. The issue is that they do not have the courage to make decisions that will actually protect culture. I am not trying to impute motives today. I am simply saying that they do not have the political courage needed to stand up to the United States and the web giants.

There are two parts to our request today. First, the government must give the cultural industry the $600 million that it was promised and that has still not been paid out. The government is saying that the money is coming, but the clock is ticking. Since the government decided to abolish the levy of 5%, which was supposed to increase to 15%, the cultural industry has been left without support. This is urgent. As I was saying, there are really two parts to our request because that $600 million is not a lasting solution. We cannot truly ensure the survival of the cultural industry with money taken from taxpayers' pockets and doled out by a government that could change at any time. The tariff crisis has reminded us of how important stability and predictability are for all industries, and that is especially true for the cultural industry.

Moving forward, what we are asking the government to do is to respect the CRTC's decision. The CRTC is an organization with its own governance structure and its own expertise. The CRTC holds public hearings and consultations. Citizens, businesses, artists, associations and community groups all participate. The CRTC knows what it is doing when it makes a decision, and the decision to raise the levy from 5% to 15% was based on concrete evidence. Ultimately, what we are asking the government to do is to respect its own law, which gives the CRTC full discretion to require the web giants to pay whatever amount it deems appropriate.

What we hear in response is the completely misleading argument that the money collected from the tech giants would ultimately end up being passed on to taxpayers. When the government takes $600 million to partially offset this loss of revenue, where does that money come from? The government does not have any money of its own. Its money comes from taxpayers' pockets. Ultimately, it passes the bill on to taxpayers and, what is more, it also passes it on to people who may have chosen not to subscribe to Netflix, Amazon or Disney because they want to support Quebec's cultural sector. It passes this bill on to them to avoid making the American giants pay.

The Liberals argue that this cost would simply be passed on to consumers, but it is worth noting that the European experience has already shown that that is not the case.

There are a number of other factors that can contribute to higher subscriber fees, but I would like to quote an expert from the École des médias at the Université du Québec à Montréal on the issue of affordability. Professor Catalina Briceño has stated that the affordability argument raised by the Minister of Culture is misleading too. A private company can always justify a price increase on a wide range of grounds, including rising costs, shareholder expectations for profitability, required investments or other considerations. Unless Ottawa has secured an explicit commitment from these companies, which we would certainly like to see, there is no guarantee that subscriber fees will not increase in the short or medium term. The Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions has also pointed out that the experience of other countries, particularly in Europe, contradicts that argument.

In other words, the amount consumers pay to companies like Amazon could still increase, even in the absence of government-imposed levies.

As I mentioned, predictability is also important. Systematic levies on web giants would bring in billions of dollars in revenue, a far cry from the $600 million that the government is promising. What is more, this revenue would be ongoing and would not be subject to any dubious political discussions, as could happen with a future change of government.

Ultimately, all this will serve absolutely no purpose. My colleague from Drummond mentioned the government's backtracking on the digital services tax. This was done on the sidelines of the G7 summit in the hope of encouraging the U.S. government to refrain from adding tariffs and perhaps to come back to the negotiating table. However, it has been over a year and a half, and we see where things stand today.

Did it change anything? The answer is absolutely not. In fact, it is probably perceived as a sign of weakness that the U.S. government can focus on, and there has been one step backward after another. It was all for nothing. The key thing to remember is that, for the web giants, Quebec and Canada are just a market and a way to make money. However, for the cultural community, the people of Quebec and Canada are channels through which they keep their stories, their endeavours and their culture alive. This is a reflection of the soul of our cultural agents.

If the government cannot muster the courage to correct the inequity between the web giants and our content creators, unfortunately, a part of what we are and who we are is doomed to disappear. That is why the discussion we are having today in the House is so important.

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

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member that culture is what gives us our identity. I look across our great nation, and I see the uniqueness of the province of Quebec and all sorts of wonderful things in other jurisdictions. I think of our francophone communities in Saint-Boniface in Winnipeg and in St-Pierre-Jolys in rural Manitoba, which are a part of the very fabric of our society.

Over the years, we have seen significant federal investments to support our culture and our heritage. We have a minister who is very proactive on the file. The good news is, as the Minister of Finance would say, we have a budget coming up on November 5. I am sure it will reinforce the importance of culture for all of Canada. In particular, it will single out the province of Quebec and our French language, which every Canadian, I would suggest, is proud of.

I would ask the member for her thoughts on the importance of a federal budget.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I mentioned it in my speech. Our request is twofold. Yes, we are asking that the investments promised by the federal government be delivered. If they are included in a budget, and if the federal government makes additional investments, all the better.

What we are saying, however, is that it will never replace the share that should be paid by the web giants, which pillage the market and give nothing in return. The government is selling us out for cheap without even collecting on the deal. That is what is shameful.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, why does my colleague think that the Liberals' promises to support Quebec's cultural sector never translate into concrete results?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for making an effort to speak in the language of Molière. I grant that French is not an easy language.

It is a very broad question that may go beyond today's topic, but it is still related to it. Unfortunately, we know the Liberals have a history of broken and unfulfilled promises, as my colleague, the member for Drummond, mentioned. We have been waiting for the $600 million they promised for the cultural sector for months.

It is also very much the government's style to break with tradition, even though that tradition has, in fact, been typical of the Liberals on a number of issues, like the environment. After all, the current Prime Minister is the former UN special envoy on climate action and finance. What we are seeing in Bill C‑39 when it comes to protecting the environment is nothing more than broken promises and shattered illusions.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is my turn to thank my colleague from Saint-Jean for her excellent speech and for her passion. I believe the House can see that that passion is shared by all Bloc members when we talk about culture and the French language.

The government has decided to step in for the digital giants, which were supposed to pay out $600 million in compensation. In my colleague's view, what message does this send to the other sectors of the Quebec and Canadian economies that are struggling with the impact of tariffs? Businesses are looking to the government for support in the face of the tariff threat that constantly hangs over their heads. Meanwhile, there was already a funding mechanism for the cultural sector that made sense to everyone. The government is capable of coming up with $600 million. What must the other sectors of the economy be thinking when they see this money appear, just like that?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, a lot of people must be thinking that it is time something was done for them as well. Earlier on, we were talking about the long-standing softwood lumber crisis, which started long before the tariff crisis and for which we submitted proposals to the government. Furthermore, if the government gave businesses an advance to offset the countervailing duties and give them some breathing room, it would be a zero-cost measure, since we know that international trade tribunals will eventually hand down a decision and the government will be able to pay itself back out of the proceeds. These proposals would help our sectors and cost nothing in the end. However, we are having a hard time getting so much as an acknowledgement of receipt from the government.

I think that a number of sectors must be justifiably disappointed by some of the government's actions.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, culture is very important. What is also important is keeping one's promise, and the government has a record of not keeping its promises. In 2021, it pledged $500 million for provinces to help fight forest fires, and it has failed to do that—

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

The member for Saint‑Jean has the floor to give a very brief answer.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a very simple answer.

The digital services tax was scrapped in exchange for an end to the tariff war. We are still waiting for that war to end.

[David Myles, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages and to the Secretary of State (Nature)]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to provide an update on the major commitments our government has recently made to support our creators, our media and our cultural businesses and to secure their future in a rapidly changing environment.

Our government was elected a little over a year ago with a clear commitment to stand up for who we are and what sets us apart. Our culture is at the very heart of who we are. It allows us to tell our own stories in our own way and in our own languages. Here in Canada, we are proud to have artists, creators and innovators pushing the boundaries of art. Our artists embody our culture and showcase it here and around the world.

We have a duty to protect this culture. Behind the issues of funding and regulation that we are debating, there are people working, companies taking risks, and communities that want to continue to see themselves reflected on screen and hear their stories told in the media.

There is a screenwriter developing a show, a producer securing funding for a shoot, a songwriter writing her next track. There are also technicians waiting for their next contract and a radio station trying to hang onto its local news team. These people contribute to our economy. They also help us get to know each other better, discover other realities, and share the experiences that bring us closer together. A song can transcend generations. A TV show can help us learn what life is like in another community. A news report can spark a much-needed discussion. These shared moments strengthen our sense of belonging and contribute to social cohesion.

However, the cultural sector is facing significant challenges that are undermining its business models and its ability to create, produce and reach audiences. As an artist, I am familiar with these difficulties.

We recognize the financial pressures facing the industry. Simply acknowledging the importance of our culture is not enough. We must take action. That is what we are doing.

With more than $770 million announced in budget 2025, we are investing in our media, our artists, our audiovisual sector, our festivals and our celebrations. The Bloc Québécois voted against that budget. It voted against $150 million for CBC/Radio-Canada, funding meant to strengthen its mandate to serve the public and to better reflect the needs of Canadians in both French and English. It voted against $150 million for Telefilm Canada. It voted against $125.5 million for the Canada Media Fund. It voted against $48 million for the Canada Music Fund. It voted against $95 million for the creative export strategy, which helps thousands of Canadian businesses and cultural organizations reach new international markets and has helped generate over $466 million in export revenue and secure hundreds of trade agreements.

Our government knows how important it is to ensure that Canada has a strong, resilient creative economy. We understand the importance of showcasing our stories and talent beyond our borders. We understand the importance of fostering Canadian creativity. We understand the importance of investing in our greatest asset, which is who we are and the people who bring our culture to life.

Our audio and audiovisual sectors bring Canada prestige and help strengthen our economy. In 2024, the audiovisual and interactive media sector contributed over $20 billion to Canada's GDP, or nearly 30% of culture GDP. This sector alone accounts for over 172,000 jobs.

Sound recording and music publishing generated over $542 million in GDP and accounted for approximately 5,500 jobs, which is a lot.

When a production starts, it creates jobs for film crews, performers, editors and visual effects specialists. It also makes work for workshops, transportation services, hotels and restaurants. In music, recording involves writers, composers, performers, directors and technicians. Publishers, record companies and partners then work to publicize the music so that it finds an audience.

There have been tangible success stories from across the country. In 2026, The Girl Who Cried Pearls, a short created by Chris Lavis and Maciek Szczerbowski and produced by the National Film Board, won the Oscar for best animated short film. This success followed on the heels of Matthew Rankin's triumph in Cannes in 2024, when his film Universal Language won the Directors' Fortnight audience award.

Francophone talent also shines in the music field. In 2024, Charlotte Cardin won the Félix Artist of the Year award in the international category. That same year, Yannick Nézet‑Séguin and his collaborators won the Grammy for best opera recording for Champion.

We want to see more success stories like these because Canada has the world-class talent and innovators that the world is looking for. When our creators succeed, all of Canada succeeds. Beyond the numbers and markets, it is these success stories, our creativity and our identity that we are known for abroad.

Our media also contribute every day through the connections they maintain with the people they serve. A radio station can be a familiar presence in a region. It introduces listeners to artists, follows local issues and gives community members a voice. Local media help us understand decisions that affect our region or municipality. Journalism therefore plays an essential role in our democracy. It allows us to debate issues based on verified facts, better understand the challenges facing our society and make informed choices.

At a time when false information spreads quickly, we need journalists who check the facts, cross-check sources and put events into context. This reporting creates a shared space for discussion. It helps people with different opinions better understand the issues they are being asked to consider. Supporting independent, rigorous journalism means preserving our ability to make informed choices and participate fully in democratic life.

Journalism also makes an important contribution to our economy and the vitality of our communities. In 2024, newspapers alone generated more than $1.1 billion in GDP and supported nearly 13,000 jobs. Journalism also continues to inform Canadians through radio, television and digital media.

However, the importance of these activities does not shield them from difficulties. Market shifts are changing audience habits and the distribution of revenue. Over the past few years, traditional broadcasting revenue has declined overall, while revenue from online services has increased. For production companies, funding decisions are becoming more difficult. For workers, this may mean more time between contracts and more income uncertainty. For a local media outlet, this can jeopardize its ability to keep a team on the ground.

These pressures also have long-term consequences. These skills are developed through participation in projects. Teams become stronger through experience. When this continuity is compromised, it becomes harder and harder to retain talent and prepare the next generation. A lot of time goes into a TV show, documentary or album before it reaches the public. Decisions made today determine, in part, what we are able to watch and listen to down the road. Timely and substantial funding is therefore essential.

This is why our government announced an investment of $600 million to provide stability and support to the audio and audiovisual sectors. This significant investment will provide the stability and long-term support our cultural sector needs to thrive, while ensuring that Canadian culture remains accessible to Canadians.

This funding is part of a broader reflection of the contribution of all stakeholders to the Canadian broadcasting system. Online streaming services have become an important part of our daily lives. We recognize the importance of their equitable contributions, like those of other stakeholders, to the creation and promotion of Canadian content. That is why the Online Streaming Act was passed in 2023. We needed to modernize our system and incorporate online businesses. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, then set out to clarify the major online services' obligations through mechanisms adapted to audio and audiovisual content.

Unfortunately, the Online Streaming Act did not produce the desired results. The contributions that were supposed to support our cultural sector have never been paid, as they have been stuck in litigation for years. The CRTC's initial contribution model did not provide the necessary support for our cultural industries, either in Quebec or elsewhere in the country. We had to be pragmatic and come up with a new approach. Our government therefore announced its intention to review certain requirements and develop new guidelines. We want the act to be implemented in a way that keeps services affordable, preserves consumer choice and provides businesses with flexibility while maintaining strong support for Canadian content.

Beyond these investments, we are also exploring how to modernize the institutions and funding mechanisms that support our audiovisual sector. Our government announced this intention in January at Prime Time and again in April at the Association québécoise de la production médiatique conference, along with the launch of an advisory panel on audiovisual modernization.

This is a unique opportunity to modernize our audiovisual sector, strengthen our industry and consolidate Canada's position as a world leader in audiovisual excellence. We are working in partnership with the industry, drawing on the expertise of an advisory committee made up of industry leaders to develop ambitious, innovative solutions that respond to the sector's needs and help it thrive in a rapidly changing environment.

The discussions also highlighted the importance of innovation and skills. Workers and businesses need opportunities to experiment, pursue training and build their expertise as AI and other technologies evolve. These opportunities must reach communities across the country and groups that face greater barriers.

I will conclude by speaking about our two official languages, particularly French, which is at the core of our identity and a source of pride. French-language productions operate in a unique market, whether the production in question is a TV show or a song. Our francophone creators must be able to produce their works and reach their audiences, both in Quebec and elsewhere in the country. Indigenous creators must be able to share their stories and keep their languages alive. Official language minority communities need to be able to see themselves reflected in the content that they watch and listen to. It is this conviction that led Canada to become one of the founding members of UNESCO's 2005 Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. When our media and cultural works reflect this diversity, they help us better understand the country that we share. They allow everyone to feel that their experiences have a place in our collective life.

Our government is committed to supporting a strong, dynamic and viable cultural sector where creators and businesses can thrive in the digital age. We must take into account the financial pressures facing the sector and the financial realities of households while also preserving the ability to tell our stories and to understand our own reality.

Canada is home to internationally recognized talent and considerable expertise. We want to provide them with the conditions that they need to continue creating and connecting with audiences. By supporting these sectors, we are investing in our economy, our democracy and the ties that bind us together.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was almost moved by the first part of my colleague's speech. It was a litany of good intentions. It shows his knowledge—

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

We are having trouble hearing. We will try again. The microphones were on, but we could not hear.

Is the interpretation working? I am told it is.

The hon. member for Montcalm may start from the top.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, I was almost moved by the first part of my colleague's speech, by the litany of good intentions. I thought he would come to the same conclusion as us, but that is not the case. Nevertheless, it is reassuring to hear from someone who is aware of this issue.

By the way, when it comes to the CRTC's decision to impose a levy on the web giants, the online streamers, the government initially said it would take a pragmatic approach. Given that the government had to negotiate with the Americans and did not want to upset them too much, it decided that instead of imposing a levy, it would provide $600 million in funding, although this money has not yet reached its intended recipients. Affordability was also cited as a reason.

The government's current logic is that it should make the public pay so that the public does not have to pay. That is the logic behind the Liberals' decision not to make the web giants pay.

How does that make sense?

[David Myles, Liberal, Fredericton—Oromocto, NB]

Madam Speaker, the question we need to ask ourselves is this: How are we going to support artists and the cultural industry? We agree that this is very important.

It is also important to note that the CRTC's decisions had not been implemented. They were stalled because there were too many lawsuits. We therefore decided to give the industry this $600 million in support because it was needed at that time.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He is obviously very articulate in both official languages, which is good for all Canadians, especially here in the House of Commons.

Today we are talking about the digital services tax. The member is well aware that his government scrapped that tax in June 2025, claiming that it was doing so to help the negotiations with the United States.

Sixteen months later, can the member tell us how the negotiations with the United States are going? At first glance, there has been no progress at all, absolutely none.

The government scrapped a tax that helped it get elected. It scrapped the tax, but absolutely nothing changed.

[David Myles, Liberal, Fredericton—Oromocto, NB]

Madam Speaker, I love speaking or trying to speak in French whenever I have the opportunity.

It is important to note that we are looking for a new policy direction. We agree that digital platforms must contribute to cultural production in Canada. It is not that the tax has been abolished, but we are going to take some time to find a new policy direction, because the tax was not working.

We are also going to provide immediate support to the cultural industry, which needs it right now.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to point out that, in his speech, my colleague mentioned the animated short film The Girl Who Cried Pearls. I would like to note that one of the screenwriters who worked on the French adaptation is from the township of Lingwick in Compton—Stanstead. We are very proud of her. In fact, the short film was screened this summer with the co-screenwriter in attendance. It was very interesting.

My colleague mentioned the importance of local media. I would him to tell us what our government is doing to support local media at a time when there is a great deal of misinformation.

[David Myles, Liberal, Fredericton—Oromocto, NB]

Madam Speaker, I believe this issue affects us all.

What I find interesting, from a journalism and cultural perspective, is that we have creators and journalists all across Canada. We need to find ways to support them across the country. That is why we included historic investments in budget 2025. Additional investments are also planned for budget 2026, which will be tabled in the coming weeks.

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

Madam Speaker, our government has implemented several measures to support Quebec's cultural sector, including in budget 2025.

Can my colleague tell us about the measures that have been put in place to support Quebec's cultural sector?

[David Myles, Liberal, Fredericton—Oromocto, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very pertinent question.

As I said earlier, the investments set out in budget 2025 were historic. They included $150 million for CBC/Radio-Canada, $150 million for Telefilm Canada, $127.5 million for the Canada Media Fund, $48 million for the Canada Music Fund, $26.1 million for the National Film Board and $600 million to support the purchase of Canadian content for TV5MONDEplus. There were historic investments in budget 2025.

We will continue to provide this support to the cultural sector, which is extremely important in Quebec and Canada.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, the government obviously has many intentions, and we appreciate this openness. However, concrete action is needed.

For example, Quebec's book sector and Livres Québec have been asking for $10 million for years, for reasons such as supporting libraries and promoting the purchase of books from Quebec and even from Canada. That is not a huge amount. One could compare it to the $43 billion the government wants to invest in a pipeline. That would cover quite a few books.

Let us get back to the $10 million. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say. What is the government waiting for to respond to such a simple request, which would be concrete and very beneficial for culture?

[David Myles, Liberal, Fredericton—Oromocto, NB]

Madam Speaker, I also have books at home from publishing houses such as Goose Lane. I actually believe that is the oldest independent publisher in Canada.

We will be there to have these extremely important discussions. This is a very important issue, and we will see what is in the budget. I do not know the details of the budget at this point, but it is certainly an important issue, as is support for creators and authors across Canada.

We will be there to support this sector.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague for his excellent French in answering questions today.

However, my colleague's response was somewhat inconsistent. He said that when his government abolished the levies imposed on the web giants, there was an urgent need to provide the cultural sector with the $600 million in question. However, here we are, nearly 18 months later, and, to the best of my knowledge, not a single player in Canada's cultural sector has received any of those funds.

How can he say it is urgent to provide this money when no one has seen a penny to date? Was this yet another empty promise from the Liberals?

[David Myles, Liberal, Fredericton—Oromocto, NB]

Madam Speaker, as the minister has said on several occasions this week in the House, this money will be coming very soon. That is good news.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, they have been saying that the money will be coming very soon for 18 months now.

The government does not want to implement the CRTC's decision, yet $600 million has been sitting on the table for the past 18 months. I am guessing they will earmark another $600 million in the next budget. That will bring the total to $1.2 billion, while we wait for the government to get its act together and finally implement the CRTC's decision.

[David Myles, Liberal, Fredericton—Oromocto, NB]

Madam Speaker, just to be clear, it has not been 18 months. This is an important matter, and, as the minister indicated, the funding will be distributed very soon.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk.

We are debating a motion today that perfectly illustrates how this Liberal government operates. In fact, I should say how it fails to operate, because since this new version of the old Liberal government was elected, we have heard a great deal of promises but seen very few results. We have heard grand promises, significant promises. The first was the Prime Minister's promise that he would be the right person to resolve the tariff dispute with our neighbour to the south, Donald Trump, and that, because he is a prominent banker and has a wealth of experience, he would be able to find a solution that would ensure Canadians pay fewer tariffs.

Eighteen months later, have we seen any improvement? When I speak to businesses in my riding, unfortunately they tell me quite the opposite. Every time that this government takes a step forward, it seems that the U.S. government and Donald Trump use it as an opportunity to raise tariffs. The first misleading claim by this government and this Prime Minister pointed to his long list of credentials and past experience to say that he was the right person for the job. Unfortunately, we have seen that he has been unable to reach an agreement with the Americans, and Canadians are left paying the price.

The second major promise he made was that he would be judged by the prices at the grocery store. Of all the people I have spoken with, not one has told me that groceries have become less expensive over the past 18 months under this new Prime Minister from the same old Liberal government. I think that everyone understands what I mean. Once again, we have a government that talks a lot. Our leader likes to say that this Prime Minister is all talk and no action. Personally, I would say that he is all talk, a bad negotiator and short on results, because nothing is getting done. That is the reality.

I will ask my Bloc Québécois colleagues for their indulgence, as I will return to the motion in a moment, because I want to say that I was asked this week about the fact that I had written to a minister of this Liberal government. It is as though there were something wrong with a member of Parliament writing to a minister because their department is not functioning properly to offer potential solutions. Unfortunately, the minister chose to use that letter to play partisan politics in the House. The Minister of Jobs and Families used a letter that I had sent her on behalf of three businesses in my riding to score political points, claiming that we say one thing and do another, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Since I was unable to table this letter, I would like to read three short paragraphs expressing what I wanted to tell the minister. Here is an excerpt: The current delays at ESDC [Employment and Social Development Canada] are hard to fathom for businesses that rely on the processing times published by the department. In most cases brought to our attention, these processing times are not being met. Worse still, they sometimes end up twice as long as expected.

A little further on, I wrote the following about one company's experience: An LMIA [labour market impact assessment] for three workers was submitted last March 25. More than 90 days after it was filed, the business was still awaiting a reply, and two of the three workers involved were no longer able to work.

Here is a passage concerning another business that illustrates a different issue deserving the minister's attention: The company waited more than 150 days for a response to an LMIA. After more than five months, the file still had not been processed and, according to information sent to my office, had not even been taken in charge by ESDC.

That is what I was telling the minister. I would not have made the letter public. I would not have brought it up here because I thought we could still sort things out with the Liberal ministers. However, it seems that we can no longer trust exchanges between a member who represents a riding and the ministers of this Liberal government. I think that is wrong and that there should seriously be a cabinet shuffle somewhere so that the people who are in those seats realize that they have a responsibility to all Canadians, not just Canadians in their ridings but Canadians in all ridings. That is what democracy is all about. They are government ministers who must represent everyone.

I really wanted to get that on the record. I would also like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to table the letter if my colleagues agree.

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

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to table the letter?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I suspected that would be the answer.

That is the Liberal government in a nutshell: grand statements, high-profile press conferences and promises. The Prime Minister tells us he will stand up for Canada's interests and honour its commitments. There is a big difference between talking tough and negotiating tough. The Liberals seem to excel at making announcements. The problem is that they are unable to turn those announcements into results.

Let us talk about the gift the Liberals handed to the digital giants in the U.S. What did Canada receive in return? Normally, a skilled negotiator makes concessions on some points in order to secure gains on others. A negotiator who walks away from the table without gaining anything should consider a different line of work. Am I suggesting that the Prime Minister should change jobs? I will let him draw his own conclusions.

Let us review the facts. The Liberal government backed down under U.S. pressure when it came to the major digital platforms helping to fund Canadian culture. Netflix, Disney+ and other digital streaming giants had been expected to contribute 15%. Washington opposed that measure. What did the Liberal government choose to do? It chose to reverse course in June 2025.

What has the government announced to try to smooth things over? It announced that $600 million would be paid to the cultural sector. That money is coming out of the pockets of Canadian taxpayers. Instead of taking that money out of the pockets of the American tech giants, the government is taking it out of the pockets of Canadian citizens. Earlier, the parliamentary secretary told us that this money would be paid out quickly. He was right to issue a correction. It has not been 18 months, it has been 16 months. This money should have been paid to businesses in the cultural sector 16 months ago, not 18 months ago. That is still a 16-month delay, 16 months too late, if we are to believe the Liberals' promise. In other words, what the government did was cut costs for the American tech giants and ask taxpayers to make up the gap, but we got absolutely nothing in return. U.S. tariffs have not gone away and Canadian businesses continue to feel the consequences of the trade war.

We made major concessions. What did we get in return? Nothing. Donald Trump got something. He got his concessions. The tech giants got a break. Canadians got left with the bill. However, we do not know when that bill will come, because no one has been paid. In short, it is a bad deal all around. What a negotiator he is.

Artists, producers, creators and those who work in the cultural sector are the ones being left behind. They likely had high expectations with this announcement. On one hand, they have not received a single cent of the levies that were supposed to be paid out. On the other hand, none of the Liberals' promises have materialized. The government promised a swift resolution, but instead it has created uncertainty. Raising people's hopes only to disappoint them later is not how you run a country. Even the promised compensation has yet to materialize. This is not an isolated incident. I have pages and pages of examples where the Liberals have failed to keep their promises. It has become this government's trademark. The Liberals table a bill promising to protect creators, yet nothing happens. They promise to help businesses by resolving the tariff crisis, but it is not working. They promise to lower the cost of groceries, but there are 2.35 million monthly visits to food banks. The government lectures Canadians about fiscal discipline when they themselves are incapable of it. One need only look at the PBO's figures to see that.

In closing, I would just like to say one thing: Never buy into a Liberal promise.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a very simple question for my colleague. We know that the Leader of the Opposition sent a letter to the Prime Minister asking him to put an end to the entirely legitimate demands that the government was making of the web giants because he was afraid that the Americans would retaliate with more tariffs.

Does my colleague agree with that as a Quebecker, given our cultural specificity? Does he not think that his leader made a bad decision in this case?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will let you in on a secret. My leader always makes good decisions. Why? It is because my leader thinks about the families who cannot afford to pay their bills at the end of the month, who are just $200 away from being unable to make ends meet, who are being forced to borrow money. We saw it again this morning in the report from Dalhousie University: More and more people are being forced to use their credit cards to pay for their groceries because they do not have any money.

It is clear that raising taxes and driving up the cost of living is just not in the Conservatives' DNA. There are perhaps different choices that this government could have made to help the cultural industry, but taking more money out of taxpayers' pockets should certainly not have been one of them.

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

Madam Speaker, the member opposite said the leader of the Conservative Party always, and he emphasized the word “always”, makes good decisions. I disagree, and I will give two very clear examples.

Does the member really believe that the leader of the Conservative Party was right when he suggested that we should fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada? Does the member opposite really believe that the leader of the Conservative Party was right when he recommended that Canadians buy cryptocurrency, which ultimately ended up in losing tens of thousands of dollars for people? That was his recommendation back then.

I wonder if the member opposite believes that was a good thing for the leader of the Conservative Party to do, let alone opposing all the affordability measures that the leader of the Conservative Party continues to say no to.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, yes, I agree.

It was actually the former governor of the Bank of Canada, who is no longer there. If my colleague had listened to my leader's advice, he might be rich today and might no longer be here in the House, to the great relief of many opposition members. At the time, cryptocurrency had lost value, but I would point out that that is no longer the case today.

If the measures my colleague is talking about had worked, there would not be millions of people using food banks. I would not hear stories from people who start crying at the grocery store checkout because they are short of money and are forced to take essentials out of their cart. I would not get calls from people asking me personally what they are going to do, because they tried to pay the cashier, but their card was declined and they were ashamed that they could not pay. That is the reality, and I do not understand why the Liberals are ignoring it.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, in this current day of an affordability crisis, which the Liberal government voted we are actually not in, I am hearing from members of my community about affordability and accountability with respect to the government. It seems that the government is measuring its success by the amount of money it spends.

What are my colleague's thoughts on that?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, if there is one thing the Liberal government has plenty of, it is money it does not have. The Liberals are putting a lot of measures in place, but not a one of them can be paid with money that exists. It is money the government has to borrow. What does that mean? It means that by 2030, it will cost Canadians $83 billion a year in interest on the debt. That is more than we pay for the health transfer, even though we have major problems across the country, particularly when it comes to mental health.

I therefore invite the Liberals to be more prudent and fiscally responsible with Canadians' money, and I invite them to solve the real problems instead of creating more.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to explain something to me.

He says that there would be affordability issues if web giants, which are making billions of dollars, were required to pay levies. Currently, there are none. If we look at the European experience, we see that in France, levies are 20%, and there is no correlation between the cost of these services to the public and the fact that a 20% levy is charged.

How can he say that this affects affordability?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, companies like Netflix hiked their fees when they saw that the government was going to impose levies. Unfortunately, the levies were scrapped. Prices should have come down for consumers, but none of those companies have lowered their fees.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in today's debate on a motion moved by the Bloc Québécois.

Speaking of the Bloc Québécois, I think it would agree with me that we should give a little nod to what is currently happening in Quebec. After that, I will address the heart of the matter of the digital services tax.

Some will have already noticed this, but the House of Commons is practically serving as a highway to the Quebec National Assembly these days. That may sound a bit poetic, but here are the facts.

Yesterday, the Premier of Quebec, Premier Paul Saint‑Pierre Plamondon, who can now be called “PPSPP”, unveiled the composition of his cabinet. I wish him all the best. Two of his ministers used to sit here in the House of Commons, and they were no ordinary members.

I would like to take a moment to salute and congratulate Alain Therrien, who is now the president of the Quebec Treasury Board. Mr. Therrien served here in the House of Commons as the member for Sanguinet from 2019 to 2025. He was also his party's House leader, and I had the pleasure of working with him, or against him, although it was far more often with him, because he always sought to reach the best compromise for all parliamentarians. I also knew him when he was a member of the National Assembly the first time, and I can say that he is also a great businessman. Above all, he is an honest man who gives his word and keeps it. When I say honest, I know he will do the right thing when it comes to managing public funds at the Treasury Board. I did say he would do “the right thing”, not that he is “right-wing”.

I also want to acknowledge the appointment of Simon‑Pierre Savard‑Tremblay as the Minister Responsible for Relations with the First Nations and the Inuit. As members may recall, Mr. Savard‑Tremblay was the member for Saint‑Hyacinthe in the House of Commons until quite recently. That is no small matter. It is the first time that a first nation member has sat at the cabinet table, dealing with first nations issues in particular. He deserves a round of applause. He is a member of the Wendat Nation. When we say “Wendat” we often think of Wendake. Since he is originally from the Wendat Nation, I used to run into this gentleman at every powwow in Wendake. In fact, the Grand Chief of the Wendat Nation, Pierre Picard, welcomed this appointment and intends to work with him for the good of first nations and all Quebeckers.

There are even more moves from the House of Commons to the National Assembly, as they involve not only elected officials but also people working on parliamentary teams.

Today, a member who once worked in the House of Commons as a senior adviser to a party leader is about to be sworn in. His name is Éric Duhaime, and he once served as senior adviser to the leader of the Canadian Alliance, from 2000 to 2002, in the House of Commons. Understandably, I know Mr. Duhaime well and have had the pleasure of his acquaintance for over 20 years. We worked together at the provincial level, and I am pleased to offer him my heartfelt congratulations. Everyone in politics knows him for the absolutely outstanding and attention-grabbing campaign he led, starting with zero MPs and ending up with 19. Today, these 19 parliamentarians will be sworn in to the National Assembly. History is being written today, 90 years, 10 months and 10 days since 1935, as Conservative members, under the leadership of Éric Duhaime, return to the National Assembly.

As for the official opposition, we can talk about a second generation, since two of the members elected under the Liberal Party banner in the National Assembly and sworn in are the sons of two veteran parliamentarians who have had careers in the House of Commons. Allow me to acknowledge Sacha Cannon, the son of Lawrence Cannon, a well-known member of this House who was also a senior minister and brought honour to Canada around the world when he was foreign affairs minister. I would also like to acknowledge the member for Verdun, Antoine Dionne Charest, son of Jean Charest, who was here as a member of Parliament, deputy speaker of the House, senior minister, deputy prime minister of Canada and party leader, before becoming an MNA and premier of Quebec.

Yes, we see people from the House of Commons at the National Assembly, but the left is also represented, since Québec Solidaire includes a former member of the House of Commons. Here in the House he stood out for inspiring many with his passion and a tone that left no room for interpretation. I am referring to the former member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, Alexandre Boulerice, who is now the MNA for Gouin. I checked his election results. He was elected with 63% of the vote. Let us just say that he does not have to concern himself with recounts. I think his experience here in the House of Commons will be valuable to the Quebec legislature because he, too, has experienced a minority government. Let us not forget that he was part of the parliamentary group that signed a long-term agreement with the minority government. We know the outcome, how things turned out. I think that if, by chance, the leader of Québec Solidaire were considering a long-term agreement with the Parti Québécois government, Mr. Boulerice could keep a close eye on things and tell his leader that it is not really a good idea.

I would like to acknowledge and congratulate the 127 people elected to the National Assembly. I wish them every success in their work on behalf of Quebec. This clearly shows that democracy in Quebec is alive and well. Why is that? It is because there are four distinct parties firmly established in the National Assembly. There are four different colours, four different perspectives. Whether the perspective is sovereignist, federalist, autonomist or socialist, each is represented in the National Assembly.

This leads me to an important point: No one in this House can claim an exclusive right to speak on behalf of Quebec. All members from Quebec speak on behalf of Quebec, and no one has a monopoly on that. The proof is quite simple. Quebeckers have elected four different parties to the National Assembly. Yes, it is a minority government, but what is clear is that the views of Quebeckers will continue to be debated in the National Assembly in the months ahead.

I want to come back to the subject at hand, but I think that was worth mentioning.

The digital services tax is a Liberal Party invention. Let me remind members. Originally, in 2015, the Liberals were against this “Netflix tax” and they did not want to implement it at all. Ultimately, they ended up putting it in place. In November 2020, in an economic update, they announced their intention to create the digital services tax. Between 2021 and 2023, there were a few postponements. On June 20, 2024, they finally passed Bill C‑59, which introduced the digital services tax. On June 28, 2024, the order in council was passed.

What was particularly unfortunate about this approach is that it was retroactive to January 2022. Taxing people, taking money out of people's pockets, is not necessarily the best way to balance a budget. In addition, doing so retroactively was quite unfortunate.

However, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stepped down. The Liberals then adopted a new approach. We all remember that approach: In 2025, they chose a new leader who vowed to stand up for Canada everywhere, especially at the White House, with an elbows up attitude. We all remember the Prime Minister's elbows up rhetoric. How did that elbows up approach end up playing out at the White House? It ended with a thumbs up. When the Prime Minister appeared before the President of the United States, he seemed far less inclined toward elbows up and settled instead for a thumbs up. The photographs speak for themselves, and that is unfortunate.

To demonstrate that he was no longer operating in an elbows up frame of mind but rather in a thumbs up one, he sought to ease tensions in the relationship in the hope of creating more room for a possible agreement with the United States. That is why, on June 30, 2025, he announced the elimination of that tax, saying it would facilitate negotiations. Unfortunately, that approach yielded absolutely nothing. If one campaigns on an elbows up message but shows up with a thumbs up, what does that achieve? It achieves nothing. That is exactly what happened here. The government tried to appease President Trump, but it gained absolutely nothing in return.

That is why what we are discussing today is yet another unfortunate illustration of how the Liberals and this Liberal government say one thing but do the opposite, and never seem to deliver. They are always boasting about all the houses they are going to build, but fewer have been built this year than in previous years. They say they are going to help people more, but 2.35 million people are using food banks. That is the Liberal Party's record after 11 years. That is the Liberal Party's record over the past 18 months, under the leadership of this man, who said he was elbows up but instead, all he can do is give a thumbs up.

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

Madam Speaker, I find this somewhat interesting. The member opposite is an experienced parliamentarian. He will recall the original position of the Conservative Party on the digital tax was that of opposition. Conservatives did not support it. Through this debate, maybe we can get a clarification today as to the Conservative Party's position on a digital tax. It is important.

On arts and culture, I have argued in the past and will continue to in the future, as early as this afternoon, that arts and culture are part of our Canadian identity and that all provinces have something to contribute, especially the province of Quebec because of its very unique nature. As a government, it is important that we continue to support that. However, I am more interested in what the Conservative Party's position is on the digital tax today.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very surprised at the question from the member. I am sure he knows our position pretty well, because it was very clear in 2015: no Netflix tax. All of us here who were elected in 2019, 2021 and 2025 had exactly the same stand on that, which was no taxation.

The Liberals changed their minds. Let me remind them that former prime minister Trudeau said, “We're not going to increase the cost of internet...to impose more taxes...on taxpayers.”

A few years later, however, he said that other countries had taken action and that Canada had no reason to apologize for doing the same.

We are sticking to our guns, but unfortunately, the Liberals are changing their minds like a weather vane.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague pointed to the Prime Minister's lack of resolve in dealing with the U.S. giants, claiming at the time that the issue was one of affordability. However, the $600 million in question ultimately comes out of taxpayers' pockets.

Does my colleague agree with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission's solution of imposing levies on billion-dollar U.S. digital platforms?

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

Madam Speaker, the problem with the proposal is that Canadians are the ones who will end up footing the bill. That is why we have always taken a completely different approach, one that I acknowledge is open to review. I readily acknowledge that we favour policies that avoid imposing additional taxes or similar charges. That is our approach. I believe that it is the best one, but of course that is a matter for debate.

We were all re‑elected in 2025 on that basis, having received one million votes from Quebeckers. Let us never forget that our Conservative caucus had nine members here in Ottawa in 2025 and eleven afterward. We increased our share of the vote to 21%. More than one million Quebeckers voted for us, so yes, I think so. As I said earlier, we do not speak for all Quebeckers, but many Quebeckers think as we do.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate all the newly elected members of the Quebec National Assembly, including former members of the House of Commons, especially the Conservative members. It has been decades.

I also thank the member for his comments. Can he give more examples of times when the Liberals failed to keep their promises? If so, what impact have these empty promises had on Quebec?

[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.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we should remember that web giants, the billionaires such as Netflix and Amazon Prime, make $4 billion in profits in Canada. Instead of imposing levies on those who rake in billions of dollars in profits, the government is proposing to take Canadians' money, $600 million, and invest it in culture. The government has not yet paid that out; the sector is still waiting for that money.

Can my colleague explain to me why taxpayers should be forced to pay instead of companies that are making billions of dollars in profits? Elsewhere in the world, including in Europe and France, these companies are forced to pay levies. However, that has not made any difference to the cost of people's subscriptions. This is not a matter of affordability. These companies can afford to pay. The government needs to explain why it refuses to make them pay.

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand why this is important for everyday Canadians. This is an affordability question as well. The culture sector is important to Quebec, and we understand that. That is why in the 2025 budget we included $770 million for it. I do not understand why the Bloc Québécois would vote against that and now ask a question about why we are trying to put this bill to consumers.

Just like how broadcasting is making money and paying it back, the giant Internet industry should be paying. It should not be taking this for granted. That is why we tried to do that. We realized it did not work, and we are trying something different.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about the work she was doing on the Library of Parliament committee and how it can inform the government's continued support of the cultural sector. I wonder if she could elaborate on her support there and the work of that committee as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Library of Parliament does very important work, and Canadian culture and francophone culture are exhibited through it as well.

Canada's creative export strategy is very important, and it was announced in the spring economic update that it was permanently renewed, with an investment of $95 million over five years and $19 million per year thereafter, so that we could attract talent and give equal—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to discuss support for the cultural sector today. Our government has always been committed to supporting culture and creators, as evidenced by the additional $600 million we are investing to support the cultural sector in Canada. That announcement from June is in addition to the funding already announced in budget 2025. Over the last 12 months, we have announced more than $1.5 billion in funding to support the cultural sector across the country. As a reminder, these investments are being made at a time of economic uncertainty. I think that speaks to the importance our government places on supporting culture.

I believe supporting culture is crucial, because our culture is what brings our Canadian identity to life and reinforces our sense of belonging. Our cultural references are what make us truly Canadians. Culture is about telling our stories and our history. Culture is also our legacy for future generations. It is not frozen in time, because artists contribute to our evolving identity through their creations.

In addition to being a central part of our Canadian identity, arts and culture are a driver of economic prosperity. We need only think of all the economic benefits that cultural events generate for Canadian communities. These include performances, festivals, art galleries, the tourism appeal of having a packed calendar of events, and the local jobs that these events create. According to the data, the cultural sector contributes tens of billions of dollars to the GDP every year, making it a major economic contributor.

What is more, arts and culture contribute to the vitality of our communities. Cultural events and festivals are places for the community to gather. They strengthen the social fabric.

When we see local creators succeed, it makes us proud. There is a wealth of local talent in my riding of Madawaska—Restigouche. The whole community celebrates when local artists shine in major performances, in national or international music competitions, or in any other art form. It is always a joy to see local artists succeed.

I want to take this opportunity to underscore the important work being done by our local cultural organizations and societies. Small community organizations are often the ones that keep culture alive, organize events, activities and different workshops, or program regular live performances and events. Without the work of teams and volunteers, our communities would go without the cultural activities they have now. While they often have few staff and limited resources, their volunteers are dedicated. I therefore want to commend the work of everyone involved in the cultural life of our society and thank them for it.

I would also like to take this opportunity to highlight the federal government's support for these organizations. Through its various funding programs, the government provides support to the Société culturelle de la Baie des Chaleurs in my region, as well as organizations in Kedgwick, Hauts-Plateaux, Chutes and Saint-François, and the Centre des arts La petite église in Edmundston, to name just a few. Those are all cultural organizations in my riding that have all received federal funding over the past year through various programs, enabling them to provide high-quality cultural programming to the people of our region.

When we talk about supporting the cultural sector, we must also support the venues and institutions where culture is brought to life in our communities. Let me give a concrete example. In my region of Madawaska, the New Brunswick Botanical Garden is an important contributor to the cultural vitality of the area. In addition to showcasing our local flora and offering visitors the opportunity to explore beautiful themed gardens, the botanical garden also hosts numerous cultural events throughout the year that regularly receive support from the federal government.

I am thinking in particular of the Sortie branchée en Acadie, which is an event that takes place every August. It is a truly festive occasion at the Botanical Garden. There are musical performances by local and visiting bands, which bring together many people from the community. Many people come from all over to see the talented musicians performing at the Botanical Garden. It is also a time for families to come together. There is a whole range of activities, particularly cultural activities. For the 2026 event, the federal government contributed close to $20,000. In the fall, in early October, I attended the Grande Grouille festival at the Botanical Garden, another important event in my region.

The Grande Grouille is truly a special event because the Botanical Garden is decked out in fall colours. There are Halloween decorations and thousands of pumpkins, some of which are lit up. Visitors can stop by during the day or night. A whole range of activities are available, including musical performances. Children paint pumpkins in schools. Competitions are also organized. It really is a wonderful, community-building event, which attracted over 25,000 visitors this year.

Again, I am happy that our government contributed in various ways to this event's success. As part of the building communities through arts and heritage program, the botanical garden received $30,000 to organize the Grande Grouille and Jardin emballé. Jardin emballé will take place in November. I was saying that the Grande Grouille is a celebration of fall. Jardin emballé will offer a taste of Christmas magic. There will be a big public market showcasing local makers. There will be music again. This is another example of a cultural event hosted at the botanical garden, and I am very pleased that my government contributed to it.

When I talk about supporting arts and culture, I also think about how important it is to support our festivals. I can say that, during the summer, there is a lot going on in the riding of Madawaska—Restigouche. There is an event every week. There are tons of festivals livening up our communities. They bring people together and attract visitors to our region. They give local artists a chance to perform on stage. They also allow us to welcome artists from outside the area. There are farmers' markets where local artisans can showcase their products. All these summer activities keep our communities vibrant and contribute to the cultural life of the region I represent. Through various programs, the federal government provides some of the funding for our festivals.

I am thinking in particular of the Grand Falls Potato Festival, the Saint-Quentin Western Festival, the Kedgwick Fall Festival, the Salmon Festival, the Campbellton Bluegrass Festival, and the Sortie branchée en Acadie festival I just mentioned, to name just a few examples. These events bring our communities to life and contribute to our cultural vitality, and I am very pleased to see, once again, that our government is supporting these types of events.

Speaking of arts and culture, I would like to highlight a special event that takes place in my riding. The Rendez-vous des artistes is held every year in Saint‑Léonard, in the municipality of Vallée-des-Rivières. This symposium is the largest gathering of painters and sculptors in the maritime provinces, giving visitors the opportunity to see more than 100 artists at work in one place. It is really amazing because they set up huts along the paths in a park, so people can walk the whole route and admire the work of artists from New Brunswick and beyond.

Last summer, I had the opportunity to speak with some artists. They told me that the symposium in Saint-Léonard is often their favourite summer event, particularly because of the warm welcome they get and the layout with the huts. This year, the federal government once again provided funding to the Rendez-vous des artistes to support the organization of this event.

I want to highlight this because, when we talk about supporting the cultural sector, I think of events like this one in Saint-Léonard. It is a cultural hot spot and brings a community to life. It helps to showcase artists and sculptors from New Brunswick, as well as those from elsewhere.

Since we are discussing the various programs that support culture, I would also like to mention the Celebrate Canada program. This program provides funding for major celebrations, including Canada Day and National Acadian Day. National celebrations in Ottawa certainly have their place, but we must also celebrate locally, thereby honouring our Canadian identity, or our Acadian identity on August 15. It is essential that local communities have the resources they need to organize celebrations during the summer, whether on July 1 or August 15.

Those are very busy days indeed. We tour my whole riding of Madawaska—Restigouche to experience all the different celebrations taking place, and I can confirm that federal funding is a big help, especially considering that budget 2025 doubled the funding for National Acadian Day this year. This made a tremendous difference for our communities. It ensured that we could have amazing festivities, hire local talent and truly celebrate our Canadian and Acadian identity.

In closing, let me reiterate that supporting culture and creators is a priority for our government, as evidenced by the concrete measures we are taking, the many different programs we are offering and the investments of more than $1.5 billion we have made over the last year alone.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, we are talking about $600 million that was promised for this year but never delivered. My colleague spoke so highly of culture, festivals and whatnot in his speech that I seriously doubt that this opposition day motion will yield any sort of solution.

Maybe my colleague has not spoken with groups like Quebec's REMI, the Regroupement des événements majeurs internationaux, and Festivals and Major Events Canada, or FAME. Honestly, these groups had a lot more funding during Stephen Harper's era.

What does my colleague have to say about that?

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to my colleague that the $600 million was in addition to the investments already provided for in budget 2025. More than $1.5 billion has been invested to support the cultural sector in the past 12 months alone.

I meet with representatives from many cultural organizations in my riding, as well as from national organizations working in the arts and culture sector. We are working together to determine whether the current programs meet their needs.

Sometimes we have discussions about how we could improve certain programs to better meet the needs of different creators. I am thinking in particular of organizations that represent the francophone cultural community outside Quebec. I speak regularly with key players in this community, and support for the cultural sector is one of the topics we discuss.

[Dalwinder Gill, Conservative, Calgary McKnight, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister assured Canadians that a deal would be reached with the U.S. Now we have no deal and more tariffs, and he has made a concession on the levy that would have provided funding for francophone media.

Does the member agree that the Prime Minister gave up funding for francophone media and got nothing in return?

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, whom I miss on the Standing Committee on Official Languages now that he is no longer a member.

I would like to point out that, under the old approach, no amount of money reached the cultural communities on the ground. Under the approach we have promoted, this year, $600 million has been allocated directly to support cultural communities. We are also working on a new strategic direction for the implementation of the Online Streaming Act.

As we continue that work, and while we are also holding discussions with our international partners—indeed, Canada does not operate in a vacuum either—we are providing money directly on the ground.

That means we are able to do both of these things at the same time.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche for his speech and for his work on official languages.

In his speech, he mentioned that the government had doubled the funding for National Acadian Day.

Could he talk about the importance of this funding and its impact on our official language minority communities?

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, Acadian civil society had been calling for this for a long time, so I am very pleased that we not only doubled the funding for National Acadian Day, but also made it permanent.

This funding enables our local Acadian communities to celebrate our Acadian identity in a big way. August 15 is an important day for us, and it is integral to our identity as Acadians. It is when we come together as a community and express our pride. We hold tintamarres, make music and participate in a wide range of family activities.

This funding gives our communities the means to celebrate on a grand scale. It also helps us organize and fund the big August 15 concert, which was held in my colleague's riding this year and will take place in Campbellton, in my riding, in the summer of 2027. I am really looking forward to taking part in that event next summer.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague, and I would simply like to point out to him that the $600 million that has not yet been distributed is far less than what could have been collected through the levy.

Does he think it is acceptable to reach into the pockets of all Quebeckers and Canadians instead of asking the greedy tech giants, which make $4 billion in profits each year, to do their part to support our cultural sector?

How can he justify that to his constituents?

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that the key word in my colleague's question is “could have”. No money was paid to the sector. However, this year, over the next few months, $600 million will be distributed to support the cultural community thanks to the approach we have taken.

In fact, we have already announced that we are working on a new policy direction for the implementation of the Online Streaming Act. While we were discussing the best approaches with our international partners and looking into these issues, we were aware that the cultural sector needed an immediate injection of funding. That is why we announced an investment of $600 million this year. We can provide funding and continue to work on implementing the act at the same time.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first off, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Côte‑Nord—Kawawachikamachi—Nitassinan.

First, I would like to warmly congratulate my new colleagues in Quebec's National Assembly who were elected on October 5. In the Laurentians, from the La Vérendrye wildlife reserve to the Rivière des Mille Îles, nine sovereigntist MNAs were elected.

As a sovereigntist, the member for Laurentides—Labelle and a proud member of the Bloc Québécois, I wish to reiterate that I intend to work closely with my counterparts in the Parti Québécois for the future of our nation. The future of our nation depends on promoting what lies at the very heart of who we are: our culture.

I understand the federalist strategy all too well. Control over our cultural destiny is seen as a threat to Canadian unity. That is why the affirmation and promotion of our culture have always been filtered through the lens of federalist policies. The preservation of our heritage and cultural autonomy represents a real and tangible challenge to the broader project of Canadian nation-building.

Faced with Anglo-American cultural hegemony and pushes toward uniformity, Quebec must have the tools necessary to ensure its cultural sovereignty: produce its own works, promote them and make them available to its citizens, and showcase its world view across the globe. Its ability to choose its own cultural destiny depends on it.

When the government backtracks on important legal pillars that have real, tangible and major effects on some of the population's culture, we have every right to question the intentions behind these decisions. As an opposition legislator, it is my duty to do so.

The government will definitely tell us that it has increased CBC/Radio-Canada's funding. It did, and we are very glad it did. CBC/Radio-Canada is a public broadcaster. I am happy to know that in the coming weeks or months, hopefully, Radio-Canada will have reporters based in the Laurentians. We do not have any right now.

Let us turn to TVA, Noovo and private production companies. How can they compete against Netflix, Amazon, Disney+ and the others? When production and distribution of cultural products fall into the hands of foreign giants, we risk losing more than just part of our identity.

What we are asking for is not complicated. We must not give up the key ways in which we define our cultural priorities. We must maintain our presence in the public space and make our voice heard around the world. In 2026, as American platforms share their content globally and play a pivotal role in our cultural life, the government is choosing to scrap the digital services tax. Wow. It is choosing to give up one of the few levers at its disposal to get these giants to contribute to the cultural ecosystem where they make their profits. Imagine that. This choice puts commercial interests ahead of cultural interests. Yes, commercial interests come before cultural interests. Refusing to exercise the powers of the state means accepting the power relationship and letting these platforms set the ground rules on their own.

This abdication is an admission of weakness and a profound disdain for francophone culture in North America.

Let me be clear. Without the Bloc Québécois, no one here would take such a strong stand on Quebec culture. I am turning to my Liberal Party or Conservative Party colleagues here, and asking them where they stand on this issue. Defending Quebec culture involves defending the economy. They go hand in hand. Defending Quebec culture involves protecting jobs. Defending Quebec culture involves negotiating with the European Union. We have to stop assuming that protecting culture and creating jobs are mutually exclusive.

The Prime Minister wants to to create closer ties between Canada and the European Union. We can also turn to the EU's defence of culture for inspiration. Europe oversees huge platforms and ensures that its creative works are present and visible on streaming services. A number of its member states have also taken action on a fiscal level.

Let us be bold, and let us take pride in Quebec culture. I know that the Prime Minister understands the value of soft power. I say to him: Let us take pride in seeing Quebec walk the red carpet at Cannes, shine at the Oscars and showcase its artists on the world stage. However, that kind of success does not happen on its own. Without funding, culture cannot thrive. From Théâtre du Marais in my riding in the Laurentians to Quebec TV series that are reaching audiences around the world, every link in the chain matters. We need to support our culture and to show the world what Quebec has to offer. Our culture deserves the government support it needs to create, renew, be passed on to future generations and flourish. That is why it is essential that the government uphold the CRTC's decisions imposing levies on streaming services, as set out in the Broadcasting Act, and that it make the interim payment of $600 million promised to the cultural sector for the current year.

How many questions have we asked? It should be possible to do this within days. Governments know how to move quickly when they want to invest.

The question that I put to my colleague earlier focused on festivals. Culture, cultural events, festivals and tourism development are indeed part of who we are. It is not enough merely to express concern for them or to say that we value them. We must back those words with action. Quebec's cultural sector, like its tourism sector, deserves recognition proportionate to its contribution to Quebec's and Canada's economies and to our collective identity. This is necessary.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech by my colleague, the member for Laurentides—Labelle. I am from the Lower Laurentians. My colleague is from the Upper Laurentians.

She spoke about the influence of Quebec and Canadian culture. I can assure her that the 44 Liberal MPs from Quebec who sit on this side of the House care deeply about Quebec culture and the French language. There is no doubt that we defend them wholeheartedly.

Earlier, she mentioned festivals. Every year in my riding, we hold a buckwheat pancake festival. That is culture. Everyone is invited to join us.

I would like to ask my colleague a specific question.

Given that my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle voted against the 2025 budget, which provided unprecedented support for Quebec's cultural industries, why did you vote against it?

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I would remind the member to address the Chair, not other members directly, and that we do not refer to how the Deputy Speaker or other persons occupying the Chair have voted.

I invite the Member for Laurentides—Labelle to reply.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was obviously asking this question of my colleagues here.

Frankly, we were expecting this question. The motion we are moving today is concrete. The question is not how we vote, why we vote or what we vote on. Action is needed. I have no doubt that my Liberal and Conservative colleagues care about culture. However, it is time for my Liberal colleagues to take action. I will believe it when I see it. The $600 million is needed now.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, why do Liberal promises, such as their pledge to support Quebec's cultural sector, never translate into concrete results?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague, who serves with me on the Standing Committee on Health.

I think that, like me, my colleague has met with representatives from cultural organizations and festivals. There are a lot of changes happening right now, both in terms of public safety and in the allocation of resources. What really matters, however, at the core is diversity and outreach. I do not see why the official opposition would be against this proposal.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her great speech. I would like her to say a bit more on the importance of making web giants pay. The government chose to kowtow to Mr. Trump and abandon the idea of imposing levies, even if such levies exist in Europe and have no effect on the cost of monthly subscriptions. Therefore, saying that it is a matter of affordability is simply not true.

Does my colleague have anything to add on that subject?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my answer to my colleague is that this is exactly why we are having this opposition day.

We are asking for the bare minimum, because the government is definitely not considering the Broadcasting Act. It says it wants to build Canada strong, but we can still look to what is being done elsewhere and draw from it. The EU and Australia, for example, chose culture. We did not.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are currently going through an affordability crisis. Does my colleague understand that hiking contributions to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission will increase costs for Quebeckers? Is this the right time to do something like that? Is it justified?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. Her French is as excellent as always.

When it comes to our identity, who we are, our values, culture is priceless. That is exactly what I just said. Economic decisions are made at the expense of culture, while both should go hand in hand. This is about our very essence.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on behalf of the Bloc Québécois on the issue of web giants, culture more broadly, Quebec identity and, of course, the funding that the Liberal government should provide, but not at the taxpayers' expense.

First of all, I would also like to congratulate my colleague Meggie Richard, an MNA from my region, on the Côte-Nord, who has just been appointed minister responsible for regions and land use and minister responsible for the Côte-Nord region. As my colleague, the member for Laurentides—Labelle, said, we are very proud to see in our National Assembly, which is my own parliament, MNAs and ministers who care deeply about our culture, language and identity, and who will defend them tooth and nail, just as we in the Bloc Québécois do here in the House of Commons. Obviously, what happens here has an impact on what happens in Quebec.

I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate our minister of culture, communications, and the French language, Pascal Bérubé, who was appointed minister yesterday. Of course, I know that he will also be a staunch defender of Quebec's identity.

That brings to mind words often repeated by my leader, the member for Beloeil—Chambly, who has said on numerous occasions that a nation must not place all authority over its culture, its language and its identity in the hands of another nation. To do so is to put them at risk. The only nation that can protect and promote a culture, a language and an identity is the nation itself, the one that lives through that identity, that language and that culture. For us, of course, being able to debate the motion before us on this opposition day is essential. I could summarize that motion, but I will simply take a moment to read it into the record. It is very brief and, in essence, reiterates the points I made earlier:

That, given that,

(i) culture is central to Quebec's identity,

(ii) the cultural sector plays a critical role in Quebec's economy,

(iii) the media and cultural production sectors are facing serious pressures that hamper their development,

(iv) the government nevertheless abolished the Digital Services Tax levied on the U.S. digital corporate giants,

the House call on the government to:

(a) uphold the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission's decisions imposing levies on streaming services, as set out in the Broadcasting Act; and

(b) make the interim payment of $600 million promised to the cultural sector for the current year.

The term “interim payment” mentioned in the motion is important.

My colleague brought up an issue that my colleague from Repentigny also raised in his questions, and that is the government's weakness when it comes to cultural measures. The government wanted—at least that is what it said—to ensure that levies were paid so that the money could be used to help our cultural enterprises and broadcasters. The government decided to simply cave to the U.S. government. At least, that is the pretext, if not the exact reason. It said that it might be a good idea to perhaps give in on this point to facilitate negotiations. That is a huge sum. As we have heard, these companies made $4 billion in profits last year. In this country, they pay nothing. At the same time, they will be competing, unfairly I would say, with our own cultural enterprises and creators.

The government agreed to levy a tax to help our broadcasters, enterprises and creators to create content here at home. As I said earlier, creating content here at home meets our need to show our identity and continue to increase its vitality.

As I was saying, there was some political will. The companies, however, refused to give in to that. The Conservative Party, meanwhile, decided to stand up for the Americans and the billion-dollar corporations. The government overturned the CRTC's decision to collect these amounts.

I talked about nations earlier. No one else can defend and promote our culture as well as we can ourselves. It sounds obvious, but we still have to debate it here. Even though it seems evident, we still have to fight these battles. Quebec's identity is already in the hands of Canada. After that, it is in the hands of the United States, to a certain extent, since we are caving in to pressure from the Americans as well as from businesses. We are a long way from having the tools we need to defend and promote our culture and to create content here at home that can be broadcast here, in accordance with our own needs and preferences. We are a long way from that. I would say that it goes even beyond governments, because we are bowing to pressure from foreign, multi-billion-dollar corporations, which care less about our culture and more about their profits. Our culture is not part of their mandate or their primary objective. We are a long way from cultural sovereignty.

I will echo what my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle said. She talked about the “Canada strong” thing that some people go on and on about here in the House. A nation with an identity fights for that identity and is prepared to defend it at every turn. It will never yield to blackmail by governments or corporations. That is out of the question. Identity is not for sale. In my opinion, this is proof. A lot of people talk about how the Prime Minister is standing up to the United States very vigorously. This may be a cliché, but I think the government is just talking the talk. It is not walking the walk, and we believe that jeopardizes Quebec's culture and its development. That is one point.

Next, it seems that, to put it simply, in an effort to defuse the situation, the government is admitting that it has yielded to pressure from the U.S. and the tech giants, and is asking the CRTC to back down, but it will provide $600 million. My colleague from Jonquière—Hébertville—Pays-des-Bleuets said earlier that it is less than what we would get in royalties. That $600 million is already not enough. That is not even what we would have had with the levies. What is more, these $600 million come from taxpayers' pockets. One of the arguments used by the government and the Conservative Party was that it would cost far too much, as a member opposite mentioned earlier. However, academics and researchers have debunked the argument that the services we get from the tech giants would be less affordable. Currently, measures are being implemented in Europe, and the costs have not actually changed. However, taking those $600 million from taxpayers’ pockets is really just taking their money instead of taking the tech companies' money. That is basically what it is. The government is paying for these companies and covering them instead of doing its job as a sovereign state when it comes to culture. That is really what it is doing.

That is why the Bloc Québécois is not simply asking for $600 million. I mentioned at the outset that the word “interim” is important. At the end of the day, we want the tech giants to pony up that money. We do not want the government or ordinary citizens to foot the bill. We want the tech giants to do so. We also want—and I emphasize this because it is absolutely fundamental to us—to retain control over our culture, content discoverability, our creative output and our language. We need that funding to support our culture.

I hope that my colleagues will vote for what sounds to me like common sense.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my colleague that, over the last 12 months, our government invested over $1.5 billion to support the cultural sector. These sums helped support many cultural events that have an impact on our identity as Canadians, Quebeckers or Acadians.

Here is my question for my colleague: Given the current economic uncertainty, is a $1.5-billion investment not a testament to the importance given by our government to supporting culture and a multitude of programs that have real impacts on the ground?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the motion on the order paper today calls for an interim payment of $600 million, and it could have been more. This money is coming out of the pockets of taxpayers, when, instead of making Canadians pay, the tech giants could have been made to pay. That would have given us more money. Allocating a certain amount is one thing, but why not seek more and make sure that taxpayers do not have to pay anything?

I think a responsible government would do exactly what our motion calls for.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that protecting Quebec culture and the French language was important enough to walk away from trade negotiations with the United States, yet he backed away from requiring American streaming giants to contribute to our cultural sector. The $600 million he promised has still not reached our friends in Quebec.

Has the Prime Minister sacrificed Canada's cultural sovereignty to appease Washington? If he has not, why are American tech giants off the hook while Quebec artists, French language producers and Canadian taxpayers are left holding the bag?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague. Personally, I think that someone who backs down like this is not someone I would send to war to defend my own identity and my own culture. In short, it is a recurring theme for us in the Bloc Québécois. Yes, the Prime Minister has let down artists and Canadians. I hope he will be able to make amends. Once again, we are talking about the $600 million, but no one has seen a cent of that. Again, throwing out numbers is all well and good, but we have not seen a cent of this money, and the amount is not enough.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment and hear my colleague's thoughts on it.

Earlier, in my speech, I said that the economy and culture go hand in hand. I hear the government saying that culture is important and needs to be promoted, and it certainly seems to be congratulating itself, but is it actually doing anything concrete?

We have to use this opposition day to sound the alarm and to point out that the $600 million has yet to materialize and the government is ignoring the Broadcasting Act.

Is my colleague as discouraged as I am? It is time to get out of here.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have a lot of hope that change will come. That is why I want Quebec to become a country.

I get a sense that the government is playing a kind of bait and switch game. One minute we are talking about the Broadcasting Act and the government's obligations under it, and then suddenly it backtracks. The same thing happens all the time. We see it with Bill C-5 and with Bill C-39, which threatens other bills that are currently on the table. The government says it is getting things done, but then reverses what it accomplished. It says that it is going to get the first nations drinking water issue moving, for example, but then tables Bill C‑39, without being sure what impact it will have in that regard. It could nullify parts of the bill. The government acts as though it is making progress, but ultimately, it always backs down, in every sense of the word.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that, on the issue of global streaming services, it is not a question of whether they should. They must be able to contribute to our cultural sector. It is not if, but how.

That is something the Government of Canada is working on. The $600 million is an interim solution so there is money to support the industry. Could the member reflect on that comment?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply add that, obviously, if I were part of the government and had options, I would not be doing what the government is doing now. It is doing absolutely nothing for culture. I can barely understand my colleague's comment. He talked about an interim solution, so he might as well vote for our motion.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to mention that I will be sharing my time with the member for Edmonton Strathcona .

There are things that cannot be measured in dollars. There is a refrain that an entire people knows by heart, a show that unites three generations in front of the same screen, a news report that forces us to face the truth; that is culture. It is not a luxury that people treat themselves to when everything is going well. It is the thread that connects us to one another and that obviously connects Quebec, la belle province, to the world. I would like to thank my Bloc Québécois colleagues for dedicating this day to culture.

We completely agree on the facts: Culture is at the heart of Quebec's identity; it sustains our economy, and it is now weathering a storm.

I am from Montreal North, Bourassa. Where I come from, culture is not an abstract concept. It is a young artist recording their first track in their basement. It is a teenager filming her neighbourhood with her phone because no one else is telling its story. It is a family newly arrived in Quebec discovering the Maison culturelle et communautaire de Montréal-Nord and the artists who give voice to their new community. For these young people, culture is often the first door that opens. It is a path to self-confidence, to a career and, ultimately, to a full and equal place in Quebec society.

The question, then, is not whether we should support culture; of course we should. The real question is how can we support it here and now, in practical terms, without leaving our creators by the wayside. What exactly is at stake?

Let us remember what is at stake. In 2024, audiovisual and interactive media generated more than $20 billion in gross domestic product and more than 172,000 jobs. Sound recording and music publishing generated over $542 million and some 5,500 jobs. Behind these figures are faces, screenwriters, sound engineers, film crews and local journalists. Around them are workshops, suppliers and restaurants that depend on every production and every event for their existence.

That talent shines. This year, the National Film Board of Canada won the Oscar for best animated short film with The Girl Who Cried Pearls.

The money we are talking about today is tied up in court, but let us not lose sight of reality while Quebeckers are watching us. The Online Streaming Act brought platforms into our system. In 2024, the CRTC required them to contribute 5% of their revenue from their sales in Canada. That decision has since been challenged in court. In May, the CRTC increased the requirement to 15%, but everyone knew that a new court battle would ensue.

In the meantime, who is paying the price for the wait, for the delay? Who is really paying the price for this opportunity cost? It is not the platforms; it is the creators. No money comes from levies stuck in court. No movie production can be funded. No newsroom can be saved.

That is why, on June 3, our government made a clear, informed and responsible choice to give $600 million a year to the audio and audiovisual sectors. That is $600 million a year now, not in five years or following a legal proceeding. This is a firm commitment from the government.

As we are permitted to under the act, we also provided the CRTC with new policy directions that set out clear priorities: French content, local news, indigenous stories and official language minority communities.

As a government, we are refusing to let families foot the bill. In my riding of Bourassa, people are counting every penny. Culture must therefore remain accessible to everyone, not just those who can afford it.

We are talking about an additional amount here. What has been added? This $600 million is on top of the investments in the most recent budget. That brings me to the comments that I heard from my Bloc Québécois colleagues today.

When stating facts and quoting numbers, it is better to take the entire amount into account. The sum total is not $600 million. The calculation must include every other investment, ant the total then becomes $1.15 billion: CBC/Radio-Canada got some money; $150 million over three years for Telefilm Canada; $127.5 million for the Canada Media Fund; $48 million for music; not to mention the National Film Board, the Canada Council for the Arts and TV5MONDE+, which showcases French-language original content. That channel is really dear to me. Before I came to Quebec, my window into Quebec culture was TV5MONDE. It was really important for me to mention it.

Unfortunately, the Bloc Québécois voted against that budget and blocked it. They cannot ask for resources to support culture after blocking all the investments I just listed. They support culture in the morning and vote against it in the evening. That is critical: There needs to be some consistency between what they are saying today and how they voted previously. They obviously should have voted for the investments announced by the government, not against them.

An important point must also be made. I encourage all members to read the recent articles published by Radio-Canada and La Presse on misinformation, because culture also includes access to reliable information. In an age of misinformation, an independent journalist who verifies facts, conducts investigations and provides context is a safeguard for our democracy. Journalism is one of the pillars of our democracy. That is why we are undertaking consultations on extending the labour tax credit for journalism to audio and audiovisual production.

Let us now turn to the future. We are also paving the way for the next generation. An advisory group is currently examining the modernization of our audiovisual institutions. No decisions have been made, but one guiding principle remains clear: Creators must retain ownership of their work and the value it generates. Having taught at university and worked in artificial intelligence, I say with conviction that AI will profoundly transform cultural and artistic creation. It is up to us to ensure that it serves our artists rather than replacing them. We must ensure that it acts as a tool that strengthens and supports their work rather than displacing it. Achieving that goal requires investment in training and respect for the work of creators.

I want to go back to the motion itself. The Bloc Québécois is asking us to respect the CRTC. We respect its independence, but the law also gives the government the responsibility of giving it direction. That is what we are doing openly before the House. Locking in a framework that is bogged down in court is not protecting culture. It is prolonging the wait and creating delays. The Bloc Québécois is asking us to provide $600 million. We share their sense of urgency. It is precisely because we share that sense of urgency that we have opted for direct funding rather than waiting for the litigation to be resolved.

In closing, I want to go back to this young man from Montreal North, leaning over his microphone in his basement. I want him to know that his story matters, that his voice matters, that his language matters and that, tomorrow, there will be a strong industry ready to welcome him. The choices we make today, as a government, are not just about jobs and businesses. They decide what stories we tell and what stories we will tell our children, our young children, and what stories the world will hear from us.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his usual fashion, the hon. member for Bourassa is lecturing us on morality. Everyone but him has their facts wrong and plays politics.

I will take the high road and simply ask him whether it is the entire budget that has been chosen as compensation for failing to abide by the CRTC's decision, or if it is $600 million. It is the $600 million that was set aside as interim funding to compensate the government's failure to abide with the CRTC's decision on levies but that has not yet been disbursed. The levies would generate much more than these $600 million. Moreover, in terms of affordability, that sum would not be paid by taxpayers.

If it works in Europe, why would it not work here in Canada?

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Bloc Québécois for his attention.

Once again, I have to straighten a couple of things out. As I mentioned in my speech, it is not $600 million; it is $1.15 billion. There is a verb tense issue in my colleague's question. He used the wrong tense. He should have said that the $600 million is a commitment from the government that will come from outside the CRTC.

I hope that my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois will recognize that the previous CRTC approach did not work. I am using the correct verb tense: It did not work. Not everything that works elsewhere has to work here as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my esteemed colleague. As always, it was fascinating listening to him speak. He shared part of his personal journey with us today, explaining that he first discovered Canada through TV5. We are delighted that he chose to settle in Canada with his family.

My colleague spoke about the need for consistency. On that point, I would remind the House that this party, this government was elected on a promise not to implement a digital services tax initially. It later introduced one, only to then withdraw it, arguing that doing so would create more room for negotiations with the United States.

Can my colleague provide an assessment of the actual impact that the decision to withdraw it has had on negotiations with the United States? In my view, there has not been any benefit.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and congratulate him once again on his eloquence.

Nonetheless, I would like to set the record straight. The results are clear. I have referenced them before, and I can do so again for everyone's benefit. On top of the $600 million, there is another $550 million in concrete funding for CBC/Radio-Canada, Telefilm Canada, the Canada Media Fund, the Canada Music Fund, the National Film Board of Canada and the Canada Council for the Arts, as well as TV5MONDE.

That being said, regarding consistency, there is something we need to keep in mind. Again, in my earlier remarks on artificial intelligence, I said that the context is changing very quickly. It takes a very agile government to adapt to this reality. I really hope that all my colleagues will vote against this motion, simply because it is inconsistent with the position of the Bloc, which voted against Quebec culture.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague eloquently explained why it is so important to support culture across Canada's francophone communities, whether it be Quebec culture, Acadian culture or francophone culture throughout the country. The most recent budget included nearly $1 billion in investments to support the cultural sector.

As a Quebec member who voted in favour of that budget, could he explain why it was important to support those investments in culture, unlike the members of the Bloc Québécois, who spoke about culture all morning but voted against these historic investments in the cultural sector?

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Before giving the hon. member for Bourassa an opportunity to respond, I will interrupt proceedings for a moment. There is a great deal of noise in the lobby and around the House at the moment. This is something that often occurs just before Question Period, but I would ask those present to keep quiet and refrain from disrupting the proceedings of the House.

The hon. member for Bourassa.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

First of all, I would like to thank my colleague for his very eloquent and direct question.

I would like to tell him that I was not the only Quebecker to vote for this budget. I was among 44 members who proudly represent Quebec, represent it well and defend Quebec culture on an ongoing basis. Culture is a vehicle for development that is very important, if not essential, to it success.

I can reiterate and confirm once again that our government will always defend the Canadian and Quebec cultural sector in general. It will ensure that Canadians see themselves on screen, hear our voices and our official languages, including the French language, and celebrate what makes our country unique.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP has long been a champion of diversity in Canada. We have also long been defenders and promoters of Quebec's cultural distinctiveness within Canada and the rights of francophones.

The NDP has long supported the right of Quebec, as the only majority French culture in North America, to protect and promote the French language, including in broadcasting. We strongly support funding for media and cultural production sectors in Quebec and across Canada, and we are pleased to support this motion today.

There is a major imbalance in Canada right now between the web giants operating in our country and support for actual Canadian media and culture. Canada's culture sector is under serious pressure from underfunding and from American web giants that are profiting from our stories and our labour but not paying their fair share. The government has not done the work to protect the cultural sector across Canada. New Democrats have long demanded that the government ensure that web giants like Netflix contribute to the creation of French-language content at the same level that broadcasters are being asked to contribute in Canada.

I want to talk a little about what this actually means, and I am going to speak a bit about what it means in my constituency of Edmonton Strathcona.

In Edmonton, I saw just how important francophone media are to keeping our culture alive. Media outlets such as Le Franco, Radio-Canada Alberta and Radio Cité do more than just report the news. They tell the stories of Franco-Albertans, feature local artists and community activities and give a voice to francophones in Alberta. These media outlets are important to francophone families, keeping them connected to their language, their history and their community. They also help young people discover Alberta's francophone culture.

When a local media outlet closes its doors, we lose more than just journalists; we also lose part of our culture and history. Protecting Canadian media means helping members of every community, including Franco-Albertans, tell their stories and make their voices heard.

Canadians overwhelmingly support our broadcasting sector. Recent polling shows that Canadians support the Online Streaming Act at 83%. That includes voters for all parties. That includes 65% of Conservative voters. Canadians understand this is about defending cultural sovereignty. It is about telling Canadian stories. It is about supporting jobs in the Canadian arts sector.

The arts sector contributed $131 billion to Canada's GDP in 2024. The arts and culture sector supported 1.1 million jobs across Canada in 2024. The sector deserves the support of the government. Instead, what we are seeing is a government that is willing to give up our sovereignty, back down on our stories and stop support for our cultural communities. We saw that when the Government of Canada was willing to give up the digital services tax, income that should have gone to our cultural communities and to telling stories: francophone stories, indigenous stories, Canadian stories. Instead, the Liberal government bowed to Donald Trump and the tech giants that support him.

New Democrats supported measures announced by the CRTC that would have helped ensure that Canadian stories continued to be told and made sure Canadian stories were available to audiences across the country.

In May, the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture overruled the CRTC after he had stood in this House and told us it was independent. He effectively gave a massive break to foreign streaming giants and instead replaced those potential revenues with a $600-million promise, none of which we have seen yet and none of which has benefited broadcasters.

I want to be clear. That $600 million is our money. That is my money. Those are taxpayer dollars. That is not revenue being paid from the billions made by web giants. It is money that is coming from the pockets of Canadians to support Canadian industry. I am all in for supporting Canadian industry, but I sure would like the web giants to pay their fair share, and that is not what the government is demanding.

I want to talk about another issue that is very close to my heart and very important. The CBC and Radio-Canada are the Canadian institutions we need in this country to tell our stories. We have a massive country, and having a public broadcaster is so vitally important. Mr. Speaker, I know you are an Albertan as well. I came out of the Alberta referendum on Monday thinking how dangerous it is that our media landscape is not getting the support it requires. At this moment in time, when misinformation, disinformation and foreign interference in our media landscape continue to rise, we do not see the commitments to our public broadcaster that we need to see.

To show the cynicalness of the government, weeks before it called the 2025 election, the then minister of heritage brought forward a massive investment for the CBC. He said the government was going to invest in the CBC, our public broadcaster. It was going to make it permanent. It was going to make it stable. It was going to make it reliable. Well, the Liberals won the election and are still in government, yet we have not seen any of it. None of those protections for our public broadcaster came forward. We know the BBC and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation are funded at a level so much higher than the CBC receives in Canada.

I also met recently with representatives from Press Forward, an association of over two dozen news media publishers that employ journalists, editors, photographers, video journalists and other professionals dedicated to informing the public. Again, I will go back to the referendum in Alberta. Canadians are increasingly confronted with complex questions and this maelstrom of disinformation, fear and foreign interference. The lack of local, human-verified, quality journalism is a real problem that we need to address in this country.

I fully support Press Forward's three asks of the Government of Canada: to maintain the Canadian journalism labour tax credit at its current level of 35%, so that independent news publications can continue to provide value to the communities they serve; to expand the local journalism initiative by $6 million per year and have it go past 2035; and to defend the Online News Act to ensure sustained investment in Canadian news.

This is not just about making sure we have local news. It is about sovereignty. It is about our democracy. A strong media landscape and the ability of Canadians to get the information and the stories they require to make good decisions are cornerstones of a strong democracy. Without those, we have an uneducated electorate that does not get the information they require to do their duty as citizens.

Therefore, I urge the government to take this seriously, to start making the web giants pay their fair share, to make sure that cultural communities and our industry have the resources they need to tell our stories, to protect our sovereignty, and to ensure that francophone and indigenous stories are front and centre across this country.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr Speaker, I need not tell you how much I appreciate the comments we just heard from my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona, with whom I once had the great pleasure of working on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and, incidentally, on this sort of bill.

I want to ask my NDP colleague what she thinks of what I would call a cynical move. What does she make of the fact that the government has the power to impose levies on the tech giants, as recommended by the CRTC, but chose not to do so? Instead, it chose to pass on a $600-million bill to Canadians, many of whom, out of solidarity with the cultural sector, but also in support of the government's efforts to negotiate an agreement with the United States, have decided to cancel their subscriptions to the American platforms.

Is it not a bit cynical for the government to say that it is going to pass the bill on to people who, out of solidarity, chose not to subscribe or to cancel their subscription? What are my colleague's thoughts on this?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for bringing this motion forward and making sure that people in Quebec and across Canada are aware of what is being done right now in Canada, what the government is doing. I think it is really important.

It is an important moment. Right now, our sovereignty is under attack. We all know that. Everyone in this place knows that our sovereignty is being threatened by Donald Trump and the United States administration, and the fact is that the Government of Canada has decided to give a gift to web giants. These are among the most bad actors in the corporate world. The government gave them billions of dollars in subsidies, in effect, and then took $600 million from Canadian citizens to make up for the shortfall.

The member spoke about cynicism. It is not just cynicism. It is so disappointing. It is such a failure of leadership.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the comments from the member opposite, especially her comments about the importance of the CBC. I listen to CBC Radio One daily and also local news. In Hamilton, we have lost our local weekly newspapers. We have lost local talk radio stations. Even the daily TV news is a shadow of its former self, as is the daily newspaper.

I am wondering if the member could expand on the importance of having a common frame of reference. She talked about how that is impacting democracies. I think this is an issue not only for Canada, but also for western democracies around the world.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a bit of a bigger issue, and the government has a role to play on a larger scale. This is not just about making web giants pay their fair share. It is not just about taking $600 million from Canadians to make up the shortfall. It is a bigger picture.

We need to have guardrails and legislation in place to protect Canadians from the disinformation, misinformation and foreign interference we are seeing on social media platforms. We need to make sure that Canadians have the education they need so they are able to recognize AI slop, bots and whatnot. We also need to make sure that we are supporting our local news. I have incredible local journalists and news outlets in Edmonton and in Alberta that do not get the support they need to continue to provide the services we need as Canadians for our democracy to be strong.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that the Liberals are very good at making really expensive promises to much fanfare, but the results are totally opposite or non-existent. I think of housing. They promised hundreds of thousands of houses, and we are seeing a fraction of that. We are seeing a decline in housing, as far as new construction and making better availability for people renting go.

I wonder if the member could share any more examples of where the Liberals are making lots of promises and not keeping them.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree with my colleague more. The fact of the matter is that the $600 million, which we should not be taking from the pockets of Canadians, has not even gone to the industry that requires the money and needs the support.

Announcements do not keep jobs. Announcements do not help Canadian workers. Announcements do not tell stories, but we would not know that by watching what the Liberal government does. It likes announcements more than action.

Alleged Mis-characterization of Members' Remarks

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to rise and add my voice to the matter of privilege raised yesterday by my colleague, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

Debate in this House is often vigorous. We know that. We disagree about facts, policy and the direction of our country every single day in this place. That is our responsibility as elected representatives, but there is a clear distinction between challenging an argument and attacking a member's integrity. Standing Order 18 prohibits disrespectful or offensive language. House of Commons Procedure and Practice is equally clear: “Remarks which question a Member's integrity, honesty or character are not in order.”

The member for Halifax attacked my integrity when she characterized my opposition to Bill C-39 as a “wild disinformation campaign...perpetrated by members of this House”, specifically referring to me and my work opposing this legislation. I reject that characterization. I stand by my words, and I will stand by my facts. I have raised serious concerns in this House about Bill C-39 and the extraordinary new powers it would give the minister of labour. Those are not invented concerns. They are written into the legislation, and I am far from alone in raising them.

United Steelworkers national director Marty Warren stated, “the right to strike is a red line.” The Canadian Labour Congress has warned that this bill would give one minister extraordinary power to end a legal strike without parliamentary oversight. CLC President Bea Bruske put the problem plainly: “A right you cannot exercise is not a right.” Unifor President Lana Payne has warned that the proposed amendments would give the minister special authority to override workers' ability to exercise their right to strike. Unifor has also cautioned that employers may come to expect government intervention, fundamentally changing the power of the bargaining table. I can go on. I can say what Mark Hancock from CUPE has said. I can say what Gil McGowan from the Alberta Federation of Labour has said.

For me to stand in this place as a representative of the New Democratic Party, a party of labour, and speak about what I am entitled to as a member of Parliament, as somebody who represents labour in this country, is my right. This bill would not just weaken the right to strike. It would have consequences beyond bargaining. When employers believe the government will step in when negotiations become difficult, there is less incentive.

I have consistently raised these concerns in good faith based on the text of the legislation, the constitutional importance of the right to strike and the explicit warnings of Canada's labour movement. Calling that work a “wild disinformation campaign” does not answer the substance of my argument. It attempts to discredit me as a member of Parliament making that argument. Parliament must be a place where members can scrutinize legislation, challenge the government and defend workers' rights without having their integrity for doing so impugned.

For these reasons, I support the concerns raised by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, and I ask that the member for Halifax be directed to withdraw her comments and publicly apologize.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I thank the member for her intervention. We will take it into consideration.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Funding of the Cultural Sector

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time.

This is a message for all those who pay taxes, for all my fellow citizens in the Gaspé Peninsula, the Magdalen Islands, and throughout Quebec who, every morning when they go to buy a cup of coffee, pay a small portion of the taxes, and who, every Thursday when they receive their paycheque, agree to pay income tax. Why do they agree to this? They do so because they know that in society, we must contribute to the common good. Together, we put money into a common pot. Then we use it for major social programs. They also agree to pay these taxes because they remember what Benjamin Franklin, one of the illustrious Founding Fathers of the United States, said in 1789: Nothing in life is certain except death and taxes.

If Benjamin Franklin, the American, were with us today, he would be surprised, because he would see that there are people for whom taxes are not a certainty. They are not immortal, but they manage to avoid paying taxes. The tech giants, these large companies, seem to be able to slip through the cracks of the tax system and rake in truly massive profits without having to pay their fair share. This is a long-standing problem, and it affects our media and cultural industries.

A few years ago, the government decided to act by bringing in the digital services tax. It was not a bad idea. In fact, it was fairly modest. The tax was set at only 3%. Many pay considerably more than that. It applied only to large online streaming services making global profits of more than 750 million euros. That amounted to more than $20 million in revenues for Canada.

A 3% tax was a reasonable way to ensure that the web giants paid their fair share. As La Presse noted in a 2025 article, digital services companies such as Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple and Microsoft generally do not pay corporate income tax in foreign countries where they nevertheless generate substantial revenues from local consumers. This situation exists because they often have no physical presence in those jurisdictions. I suspect that Ben Franklin would have been angry about that. I believe that my constituents would be as well, because everyone who pays their taxes expects to see some fairness in the system. The digital services tax was intended to correct this to some extent. However, the current government decided to abolish it.

Then something else happened. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, recognized that Canadian cultural production faced a serious funding challenge and proposed increasing levies on major online platforms such as Netflix, Disney+ and Amazon Prime Video. The underlying concept makes sense: Companies that generate profits in Canada, use content created by Canadians and earn revenue from Canadian audiences would finally pony up a bit of cash that could then be reinvested in the cultural sector. Once again, however, the government said no. These U.S. tech giants can opt out of an obligation that applies to everyone else. They do not have to contribute to the public purse.

This must be because they are having such a hard time. In the final quarter of 2025 alone, the tech giants netted $158 billion. That is $158 billion in a single quarter. Why, then, should we give these giant billion-dollar platforms a tax break? Why should tax fairness and justice be set aside for the benefit of the wealthiest and most powerful?

I feel that people may see me as a bit of an idealist; in our society, we know that the richest and most powerful come out on top all the time.

I do not agree with that. I spent 12 years as a journalist fighting injustices and 12 years as a lawyer fighting injustices. I want to do the same in politics. It is not fair that billionaire companies that use our cultural products are not paying their fair share of taxes. There is no good reason for that.

However, this government has come up with one for us: the cost of living. The Liberals are telling us that we cannot ask them to pay taxes because the cost of living is high these days. We would run the risk of seeing our subscriptions to Netflix and other companies go up.

If we follow that line of reasoning, why do grocery stores pay taxes? Why do consumers pay taxes at restaurants if that increases prices? The cost of living is already a major concern. Why, then, do grocery stores and restaurants pay taxes? Why are landlords taxed on their rental income when there is a housing crisis and housing costs are already too high? Why do sawmills pay taxes if that increases the price of lumber? Why do fishers in Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands pay taxes on their income if that drives up the cost of seafood? They help feed Canadians, yet prices continue to go up.

That argument simply does not hold water. Moreover, if the problem were only that the argument lacked merit, that would be one thing. The reality is that the claim is not even borne out by the evidence. Similar levies have already been implemented in Europe, and they have had no impact on subscription fees.

What is more, the government gave all of that up without even getting concessions from the web giants, without even saying that in exchange for not imposing levies, they would have to lower their prices. That is so ridiculous, it makes my head spin. Have we been lied to?

Basically, what we have all understood is that the government is kowtowing to the Americans. The Liberals decided that the American web giants were too powerful for them and they had to roll over and let them come here and make money without paying their fair share of taxes.

However, two days ago, in my riding of Îles‑de‑la‑Madeleine, I found out that residents will have to pay for parking at the airport. Charging parking fees at the local airport is like putting a toll booth on the Jacques‑Cartier bridge. Planes are essential in the Magdalen Islands.

Now we are being told that everyone has to chip in and times are tough. As a result, poor taxpayers who are on welfare and need to take a plane from the Magdalen Islands to have an operation for cancer will have to pay for parking because they have to pull their weight, but not Amazon, Google, Microsoft or the other web giants. This clearly makes no sense.

Behind all of this lies something quite tragic: Regional media outlets and artists are struggling. These levies would have generated significant revenue. The government is giving Americans a free pass without getting anything in return, and it is taking significant resources away from the cultural industry. The digital services tax amounts to $1.4 billion a year that could have been used to support a sector that was struggling. With all the levies, if American platforms had to pay a share, which was lower than that of Canadian broadcasters, we would have collected $2 billion a year. We know that there are regional media outlets that are suffering and that there are artists who need support, but out of fear of Donald Trump, the government has given up on social justice. Out of fear of Donald Trump, it has given up on supporting the cultural industry.

What is the point of Canadian sovereignty?

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We will now proceed to statements by members.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In closing the last discussion on the business of supply debate, it was really hard to hear the hon. member. I know that when we begin Statements by Members, there is often too much noise to hear important statements, particularly of remembrance, such as the one we are about to hear.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I want to remind members that it is important to have a level of ambient noise that is very low, so that we can hear the statements, some of which are quite solemn.

Irene Mathyssen

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honour a remarkable woman, Irene Mathyssen.

Irene devoted her life to public service and to building a more just society. As a leader, teacher, community activist, cabinet minister, MPP for Middlesex and MP for London—Fanshawe, she championed equality, human rights, women's rights and a stronger social safety net for all.

Irene was known for her warmth, her humour, her kindness, her strength and her conviction. She treated everyone with respect and believed in leaving the world a better place.

I was fortunate to learn from Irene and work alongside her and her daughter, former MP Lindsay Mathyssen, who said that losing her mother has left an indescribable emptiness, but that her legacy, the values she instilled, the example she set and the love she gave so freely to those who knew her will continue to guide us.

Let us honour Irene by carrying her legacy forward.

Tony Powell

[Philip Earle, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Labrador, I rise today to honour the life of the late Tony Powell of Charlottetown, Labrador, who is being laid to rest at this very hour.

Captain Powell was a gifted pilot, a devoted father, an accomplished author and a respected member of his community. Captain Powell was known for his exceptional aviation skills, his kindness toward others and his adventurous spirit.

As a skilled bush pilot, Tony spent years navigating Labrador's vast and rugged wilderness, flying hunters, anglers and adventurers from around the world into some of the region's most remote locations. Through his work, he not only shared his love of flying, but also introduced countless visitors to the beauty, hospitality and spirit of Newfoundland and Labrador.

On behalf of all Labradorians and everyone in the House, I extend heartfelt condolences to his family and loved ones. May they find comfort in the memories they shared and in the lasting legacy Tony left behind. He will be remembered. He will be deeply missed.

Public Safety

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in Manitoba, law-abiding hunters are being denied access to public Crown lands by an illegal blockade near Bloodvein. Let us be clear that provincial crown lands are public lands. They are meant to be enjoyed by everyone. The wildlife on those lands is managed by a provincial department. The road where the illegal checkpoint is set up is a provincial road, and the RCMP in Manitoba operate under a provincial contract.

Instead of enforcing the law, according to media reports, a Manitoba NDP minister may have broken the law and tried to bribe a chief of a first nation. The federal Minister of Public Safety must tell Manitobans whether these troubling allegations against one of Premier Kinew's ministers are being investigated. Because the provincial NDP government has failed to resolve this situation, I am calling on the Minister of Northern Affairs, who is also the MP for this area, to intervene and have the roadblock removed.

Protecting hunting rights and respecting indigenous rights should not come at the expense of the rule of law.

Union of Medical Care and Relief Organizations

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last week I was in Syria with a delegation to highlight the Union of Medical Care and Relief Organizations, which provides medical and humanitarian relief to people affected by crises in Syria. It was the most eye-opening, heartwarming and gut-wrenching experience that I have felt in my life.

I witnessed first-hand the resilience and willpower of Syrian people in the face of monumental suffering. I saw the power of community. While Canada has always played a critical role in humanitarian aid, we are blessed to host over 100,000 Syrian people as a part of our Canadian community.

We now must channel our strength as Canadians toward supporting the building of health infrastructure in Syria, encouraging the international community to come together to scale projects like UOSSM's health clinic nationally in Syria and enhancing the mechanisms that NGOs use to deliver aid to the most vulnerable.

Latin America Heritage Month

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

Mr. Speaker, for many Latino families, the heart of the home is around grandma's kitchen table. It is where generations gather, stories are told, recipes are passed down and our traditions live on. Our heritage is found in the warm embrace of our abuela, in the faith of our parents and in the love of family.

Like so many, my family left behind the people, places and language we loved for the extraordinary privilege of becoming Canadian and calling Canada our home. Whether our roots are Mexican, Colombian, or Ecuadorian like mine, we remember where we come from and are profoundly grateful for being Canadian.

However, gratitude carries a responsibility, we must fight to preserve the Canadian dream that hard work is rewarded, sacrifice means something and our children can build a better life than the one we had. That is the promise that brought us here, and it is a promise that we must pass on.

Feliz Mes de la Herencia latinoamericana.

Organ Donation and Transplants

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Sherbrooke was immensely proud to host the 11th Canadian Transplant Games this summer. The event was an opportunity to celebrate life, the resilience and determination of the athletes, and the generosity of donors. It was also a chance to pay tribute not only to them, but also to their loved ones.

Our city also serves as an ambassador for this cause through its memorial garden, the only one of its kind in North America, which pays tribute to more than 6,200 organ and tissue donors. For nearly 40 years, the Canadian Organ and Tissue Donors Association has played a vital role in saving lives by coordinating the transportation of both organs and medical teams. This service is provided on a voluntary basis with the support of police forces across the country, including the RCMP.

I would also like to highlight Bill C-234, introduced by our colleague, the member for Edmonton Manning, which aims to recognize living donors.

Finally, I would like to express my immense gratitude to Richard Tremblay, a member of the Order of Canada and founder of the association, for his exceptional commitment and unwavering dedication to Sherbrooke.

Dieter Dudy

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I pay tribute to Dieter Dudy of Kamloops, who unexpectedly passed away in September.

Dieter was an extraordinary person who will be fondly remembered and deeply missed. His legacy centres around his dedication to family, community and public service. Dieter served as a two-term councillor in Kamloops. He was known for his work at Thistle Farm, an organic vegetable farm.

I will miss chatting with him at our local farmers' markets. He donated thousands of pounds of fresh produce to the Kamloops Food Bank to help the hungry. Dieter gave time to Tourism Kamloops, serving on its board; to the Rotary; and to Community Futures.

Dieter was predeceased by his wife Debbie. Mourning his loss are his partner Lynn Tendler, son Ryan Dudy, daughter Kaitlin Methot and her daughters, Sophia and Alyse. I offer the family my deepest condolences. May perpetual light shine upon Dieter.

Tuna Fishers of Prince Edward Island

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give a shout-out to the bluefin tuna fishers who are enjoying another excellent fishing season in Prince Edward Island.

My riding is home to North Lake, or as we like to call it, the tuna capital of the world. The current world record tuna was caught in the North Atlantic in 1979 by Captain Ken Fraser in North Lake. The fish tipped the scales at an astounding 1,496 pounds.

At the start of October this year, Island fishers have landed over 850 giant bluefish. They account for nearly 90% of their quota fill. The quality of this tuna fuels our local economies with premium P.E.I. product that has been exported to high-value markets in Japan and around the world.

However, it does not stop there, our world-class charter industry drives vital tourism dollars into our coastal communities. Sports anglers come from all over the world to try their luck and skill at landing one of these giant bluefin. I invite all members to join me in wishing P.E.I. tuna fishers fair winds and good seas.

Food Security

[Colin Reynolds, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the high cost of living has forced more families to depend on food banks. According to Food Banks Canada, there's been a 9% increase in people turning to food banks in the past year, with a record of over two million visits in one month, because of food inflation and rising fuel.

In Manitoba alone, food bank usage has increased by 9.5% since 2025. With over 60,000 people relying on food banks each month, this number has more than doubled. In the past five years, more Canadians are facing food insecurity and struggling to keep up with the rising costs of housing and groceries.

On this side of the House, we will continue to fight to save Canadians more money by cutting costs at the grocery store and at the pump. Canadians are working hard, but their paycheques cannot keep up with the rising cost of living. Canadians deserve food security. We warned the Liberals this would happen. Now Canadians are suffering under the high cost of living. It is time for change.

National Forest Week

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of National Forest Week, I want to pay tribute to the thousands of men and women who work every day in our forestry sector. In our regions, the forest is more than just a resource: It is a vital pillar of our history, our economy and our connection to the land. This year, this recognition is all the more important as the industry is going through a particularly difficult period.

Amid uncertainty, production shutdowns and trade tensions with our neighbour to the south, forestry workers continue to show remarkable resilience. I want to tell them that their contribution is essential. It supports our communities, provides for our families, and contributes to Quebec's economy.

To all forestry workers, contractors, producers, and the communities that depend on the forest for their livelihoods, I say thank you for your hard work, your determination and your love for our region.

I wish everyone a good National Forest Week.

World Menopause Month

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

Mr. Speaker, every year the estimated cost of unmanaged symptoms of menopause in the Canadian economy is $3.5 billion. More than 10 million Canadian working women are directly impacted by this biological transition, and they often hide their symptoms due to fear. That is why every October we recognize World Menopause Month to break the stigma and support women.

Many organizations have done vital work, but more needs to be done so women are supported at work and through health care. As the largest women's Parliament in Canadian history, we can all acknowledge that menopause is a systemic health crisis. I encourage all parties in the House to commit to supporting the millions of women through their menopause journeys.

Alberta

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on October 19, Albertans sent a strong message to Ottawa: We want a stronger Alberta within a united Canada. Conservatives for Canada knocked on tens of thousands of doors and reached over a million Albertans, and the message we heard from them was loud and clear. Albertans do not have a problem with Canada; they have a problem with Ottawa.

Albertans on both sides of this debate recognize that we need serious reform in Ottawa, reform that unleashes the potential of our natural resources sector, not 10 years from now, but today. We need reform that respects provincial jurisdiction, respects law-abiding firearms owners and respects Alberta's tremendous contribution to our Confederation.

This referendum was not an endorsement of the status quo. It cannot go back to business as usual in Ottawa. Albertans showed the country that we love Canada. It is time for Ottawa to show that it loves Alberta.

Lorrie Williams

[Jake Sawatzky, Liberal, New Westminster—Burnaby—Maillardville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mourn and honour the life of a community leader in New Westminster. Lorrie Williams was a city councillor in New Westminster from 2002 to 2018, serving the residents of New Westminster with great dedication.

Lorrie established the Canadian Harambee Education Society in 1985 to assist girls in Kenya and Tanzania to complete their post-secondary education. The CHES continues to fund projects improving the lives of girls by increasing access to education, improving the infrastructure of schools, building dormitories and laboratories, and improving water and solar power supplies. In 2004, Lorrie was awarded with a Meritorious Service Medal for her work with the CHES and was also named the Humanist of the Year in 2011 for her compassion and care for all internationally.

I would like to honour Lorrie's dedication to her community and for all of us to celebrate her tremendous life and the contributions she made to the lives she touched in New Westminster and around the world.

Scott Edward Gorry

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to remember a dear friend and long-time member of my team, Scott Edward Gorry, who sadly passed away earlier this summer at the age of 48. For a decade, I had the privilege of working alongside Scott, a man whose passion for politics was matched only by his passion and conviction for public service.

Scott was a loyal friend who I trusted completely. He had a sense of humour and a positive attitude that made his presence known in every room he went into, but above all, Scott was a man devoted to his family. To his wife, Mylene, he was a loving husband and best friend. To his children, Caleb and Olivia, he was their protector, biggest supporter and greatest source of love. To his parents, Debbie and Frank, his sister Crystal, his extended family friends, and everyone who worked with him on the hill here over the years, his memory will be fondly cherished by the love, happiness and joy he gave to everyone so freely.

Scott will be remembered, and he will be dearly missed. Rest in peace, my friend.

Best Wishes for Speedy Recovery

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my full support to the mayor of Laval, Stéphane Boyer, who is currently recovering from surgery to remove a brain tumour. For several years now, Mr. Boyer has dedicated himself to serving the Laval community. Public life demands a deep commitment and many sacrifices, both for elected officials and for their loved ones.

Today, I want to express my solidarity with Mr. Boyer, his family and his loved ones in the face of an ordeal that requires a great deal of courage and resilience. Having witnessed my own mother's battle with this disease, I am deeply moved by those who are going through it, and my heart goes out to him during this difficult time. I offer him my full support and wish him strength and courage so he can one day return to his duties.

On behalf of the community of Alfred-Pellan, I wish the mayor a speedy recovery.

Irene Mathyssen

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Irene Mathyssen, who served the people of London—Fanshawe in the House for 13 years. Irene dedicated much of her life to our community as a teacher, a provincial representative and a member of Parliament.

In the House, she spoke with conviction and brought determination to her work. She was an advocate for human rights and a strong voice for veterans, devoting considerable time and effort to both. Her career in public service spanned decades, so I want to take this moment in the chamber to remember her contribution, acknowledge the commitment that sustained those years of public service, and express our immense gratitude.

To her husband Keith; her daughter Lindsay, who also served in the House; and to her family, friends and former colleagues, I offer my sincere condolences. On behalf of the people of London—Fanshawe, we honour Irene's memory and join all the people mourning the loss of someone who gave so much of her life to our community.

Homelessness Network

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this month, Sudbury's Homelessness Network marked its 20th anniversary of providing support services to people experiencing homelessness. The network is a partnership of five organizations: Centre de santé communautaire, the John Howard Society, the Elizabeth Fry Society, the N’Swakamok Friendship Centre and Association des jeunes de la rue. Each partner brings its own expertise, relationships and knowledge of the community. Together, they have built a coordinated response that is stronger than any one organization can provide on its own.

As Denis Constantineau, executive director of the Community Health Centre, said, homelessness describes a person's housing situation. It does not define the person.

I thank all the partners, outreach workers, case managers, housing workers and support staff for their work, their compassion and their persistence over the past 20 years.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has lost control of immigration. It turns out that he cannot even count the number of people who are here. In June, he said our population had declined, but Statistics Canada revealed that there are already 300,000 more people here than the Prime Minister claimed.

How can the Prime Minister tell foreign media that we need more immigration when he cannot even count the number of people who are already here?

[Jill McKnight, Liberal, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, we have been working on immigration since we formed government. The work is continuing, and we will have more to share soon.

The Economy

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is out of the country again. He is signing big, meaningless declarations—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Members are not allowed to suggest that the Prime Minister is not here. Members do not have the right to say where the Prime Minister is. He may be here.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition may continue.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is once again signing meaningless declarations that will not feed any Canadian and that will not house any young family that wants a home. However, he did not say a single word about a report from Food Banks Canada that says Canadians are going hungry and that there has been a 9% increase in food bank visits.

Why will he not come back here and deliver affordable food for Canadians?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Finance and National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that the Prime Minister is always there to defend Canada's interests at home and abroad, but what Canadians are concerned about today is that the Leader of the Opposition—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I would ask members to tone it down.

The hon. Minister of Finance may continue.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my Conservative colleagues seem really interested in my answer, so I will continue. As I was saying, what is concerning for the people watching at home is that the Conservative leader has been in the House for over 20 years, so he has had many opportunities to vote for measures that would have helped Canadians. Unfortunately, the Conservative leader did not.

On this side of the House, we will always fight for Canadians.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is again off signing unenforceable and meaningless declarations overseas while he fails to feed a single Canadian or house a single young couple here at home. In fact, since Food Banks Canada released a damning report that revealed that here in Canada there is a 116% increase in the number of people relying on food banks, which is at a crisis level according to the organization, the Prime Minister has not uttered a single, solitary word.

Why not stop spending our money abroad, and bring home affordable food at home?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Finance and National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know better. They know that the Leader of the Opposition speaks a good game, but when it comes to voting in the House, they know that he did not vote in favour of the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. That is the measure that is putting food on the table. That is the measure that is helping 12 million Canadians.

On this side of the House, we know what we need to do. We are going to fight for Canadians every single day.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals have sent immigration out of control. We now learn that the Prime Minister cannot even keep track of the number of people here in the country. In June, he claimed that the population had gone down, but then Statistics Canada said this month that there are 300,000 more people in Canada than the Prime Minister had said.

How can the Prime Minister tell The New York Times that we need an increase in immigration, when he cannot even keep track of the number of people already here?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Finance and National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have heard the Leader of the Opposition, again and again, saying many things. One thing they know is that the Prime Minister has taken back control of the immigration system in the country. Not only did we do that, but we also ensured that we would have a sustainable level of immigration.

We know, on this side of the aisle, that the people who come to our country choose Canada, contribute to our society, build families here and contribute to the greatness of the country.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, immigrants themselves are not to blame. They are hard-working, law-abiding and decent people. What is to blame is the Liberal government, which has destroyed the system. The asylum claim backlog is up 2,500% since the government took office. Temporary foreign worker permits are up 135%. The number of temporary residents is up 260%. The Liberals have lost track of 300,000 people.

If the Prime Minister cannot even keep count of the number of people here, how can he claim that we need to bring more immigration in?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Jobs and Families and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite might want to speak to his caucus about not demonizing immigration. In fact, so often we hear from members on the opposition bench about how immigrants are stealing Canadians' jobs. They are forgetting about the hard work immigrants do to build a life here, to contribute to our economies and in fact to build businesses. He should speak to the members of his caucus who continually ask for more temporary foreign workers while ignoring the need for sustainable immigration levels that we can manage, that help our economy grow—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, if anyone should be apologizing to immigrants, it is the Liberal government, for completely destroying the system and allowing corporate power brokers to use vulnerable immigrants to drive wages down and rents up.

Provinces must deliver the services related to newcomers: health care, jobs and housing. However, the Prime Minister wants to concentrate all the power in his hands, where he has let the system run out of control.

Why not allow Alberta, Quebec and the other provinces more control so they can ensure that we protect health care, housing and jobs for all Canadians?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Jobs and Families and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we have done with the temporary foreign worker program. We have worked closely with provinces and territories to ensure that flexibilities are there for provinces that need short-term labour availability when there are no Canadians to take the jobs.

What does not help is an opposition party that demonizes immigration and demonizes immigrants, making it harder for people to get the workers they need, for people to land in our communities and contribute to their fullest. Enough is enough. They need to stop speaking out of both sides of their mouth.

Government Priorities

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-39 continues to bring people together, but against the bill: Fifty-six scientists from the Royal Society of Canada are speaking out against it today.

They are calling on the government to eliminate the provision that allows projects to be authorized before proceeding with environmental assessments. They are calling for the elimination of the one-year deadline for assessing projects; they are denouncing the absurdity of allowing the minister to suspend environmental laws; and they are calling for the reinstatement of the five-year sunset clause to prevent abusive powers from becoming permanent.

Who is the government going to listen to: science or the oil companies?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Minister of Government Transformation]

Mr. Speaker, the principle behind Bill C-39 is simple: one project, one review, one year.

The idea behind Bill C‑39 is to ensure that major projects are built in Canada, that they are carried out with respect for the environment and workers' rights, while also ensuring stability and predictability, which our country needs to attract investment and to build infrastructure.

That is exactly what we are doing. I invite the Bloc Québécois to come to its senses and support Bill C‑39.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, scientists are not the only ones speaking out against Bill C-39 today. Does Stephen Guilbeault need to get his act together too?

Stephen Guilbeault called on the government to “stop funding the destruction of nature”. He criticized Bill C‑39 for allowing the minister to circumvent the Species at Risk Act, and he criticized the fact that the Liberals continue to subsidize fossil fuels to the tune of billions of dollars.

Will the Liberals remember the days when some of them had principles, and will they stand up against the Prime Minister's pro-oil drift?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Minister of Government Transformation]

Mr. Speaker, what is absolutely mind-boggling when listening to the Bloc Québécois is that they can say that and, at the same time, mock the Churchill Falls project, which is the largest renewable energy project. I would like to recall what the president of Hydro-Québec said about the Churchill Falls project ensuring prosperity for a generation of Quebeckers, affordable electricity rates in Quebec, and clean, renewable energy.

I cannot comprehend in what kind of world the Bloc Québécois is unable to rally behind a project that holds such promise for Quebec.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a bad time for a bad bill.

Today, 56 Royal Society of Canada scientists spoke out against Bill C‑39. Today, Steven Guilbeault asked the Liberals to stop destroying nature. On Monday, a group of female senators, including Michèle Audette, raised concerns about indigenous rights violations. Unions are speaking out against the limitations on the right to strike. The simple truth is that everyone is condemining Bill C‑39.

Is there a Liberal who will stand up and speak out against this bill?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, it bears repeating that there has been no easing of environmental standards. What we have is the efficiency to build the major projects we need to transition to a net-zero economy. Let us talk about electricity projects, such as Churchill Falls, the largest renewable energy project in North America. We are also working with Hydro-Québec to make our country and our economy strong.

Public Services and Procurement

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the veterans minister talked about creating employment opportunities for veterans. This week we learned the Liberal government awarded a $12-million security contract for the CRA to an American firm with ties to ICE instead of a Canadian not-for-profit that employs veterans. The difference between the two bids was less than 1%.

The Liberals have been in here this week talking about the procurement process, but we are looking for an answer to a very simple question: What part of this decision included the employment of veterans?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, the member knows better. Let us be clear. This government will always stand with veterans. That is why veterans are prioritized when it comes to hiring at the CRA and across the public service.

When it comes to operational security matters at the CRA, they are handled independently by the experts at the agency, not politicians.

We will always stand with veterans.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for days the Liberals have been leaning on this claim that it is an independent procurement process while ignoring their responsibility to have a framework in place that prioritizes the employment of veterans and buying Canadian. That is what they have been talking about, a buy Canadian strategy. Instead, they picked a U.S.-owned company with ties to Donald Trump's ICE and in the headlines for all the wrong reasons instead of prioritizing employing Canadian veterans. Why did they not hire veterans or buy Canadian?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, we have always supported and will always support veterans, including with respect to employment opportunities. The process the CRA undertook was independent, which resulted in the contract going to a Canadian subsidiary with over 10,000 workers.

Let us talk facts. This contract was about for 60 employees, of whom 33 have been rehired, including 12 veterans.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie South—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised that Canadian companies would receive preferential treatment on contracts worth more than $5 million. After being outbid by less than 1%, a CRA security contract was awarded to U.S.-based Allied security, a company with ties to ICE's mass deportation efforts in the United States, instead of the Commissionaires, a Canadian not-for-profit that employs thousands of veterans and RCMP officers.

Why is the Prime Minister ignoring his own procurement policy by giving a major federal contract to an American-owned company instead of supporting a 100-year-old Canadian institution?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, that member knows better too. It is simply not true. The contract was awarded after a rigorous process that included technical criteria.

As I mentioned, contracting is done free of political interference. Maybe on that side 12 years ago they had political interference. On this side, we do not do that. We are talking 60 employees. Thirty-three were rehired. Twelve of them are veterans.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie South—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this was a $12-million security contract with the CRA that was awarded to an American-based company that refers to itself as America's most patriotic company. It is also a company known for paying lower wages and benefits to its employees.

For 100 years, the Commissionaires has employed thousands of veterans, RCMP officers and former members with good wages and benefits. Was supporting Canadian veterans and Canadian workers ever a consideration with this contract or was it always intended for the same corporate networks that keep benefiting from the Prime Minister?

[Jill McKnight, Liberal, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague has already spoken to, and as I spoke to yesterday, this was a contract awarded through the CRA following a fair and open procurement process. It selected a registered Canadian business headquartered in Ontario, which employs thousands of Canadians.

Our government will always stand with Canadian workers and Canadian businesses, and we will build the strongest economy in the G7.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have again betrayed veterans, stripping the Commissionaires of a $12-million CRA contract only open to Canadian companies. It went to Allied Universal, an American company with just 1% of its workforce in Canada and tied to Donald Trump's ICE deportations. The Liberals wrap themselves in the flag at election time, and then pay Americans at contract time. Here is the kicker: Allied Universal has been suing the government for $420 million.

Will the Prime Minister give the contract back to the Commissionaires?

[Jill McKnight, Liberal, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for his service to Canada and for his advocacy on behalf of veterans. As we have stated, this was a fair and open procurement process. The decision was made by officials at CRA. We will continue to stand with Canadian workers and Canadian businesses.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when people say “Canada first”, it has to mean something.

This is a perfect example of what not to do. The government just took a contract away from the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires and gave it to an American company, Allied Universal. That company is the one involved in deporting people in connection with Donald Trump's ICE operations.

How is it a “Canada first” move to take a contract away from the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, which employs Canadian veterans, and give it to an American company?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Finance and National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows full well that, on this side of the House, we always support our veterans with job opportunities.

In this case, my understanding is that this is a contract for 60 security officers. Of those 60 officers, 33 were commissionaires and 12 are former uniformed service members.

We obviously expect all government officials to comply with the buy Canadian policy.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister who just responded is the Minister of Finance and National Revenue, so his department was the one that took this contract away from our Canadian commissionaires and awarded it to an American company.

Can the government please explain why no one put a stop to this and said that, instead of favouring an American firm, the work should remain with our veterans and a Canadian company?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Finance and National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, what my colleague is suggesting is somewhat contradictory.

As I said, the contract awarded by the Canada Revenue Agency involves 60 security officers, 33 of whom are former commissionaires and 12 of whom are veterans who served this country in uniform.

At every stage, we make every effort to give preference to Canadian companies and to ensure that all departments and agencies comply with and follow buy Canadian procurement practices.

Canadian Identity and Culture

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all TV and radio station operators in Quebec are required to pay levies, pay fees, pay into the system. That is how cultural production is funded.

However, thanks to the Liberals, American streamers like Netflix do not have to pay a penny. The American web giants that are infinitely richer than Quebecor or Bell Media get a free pass, which, by the way, directly contradicts the Online Streaming Act.

Why is the federal government giving an advantage to American multinationals with billions of dollars at their disposal at the expense of our businesses and our culture?

[David Myles, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages and to the Secretary of State (Nature)]

Mr. Speaker, they seem to be forgetting the historic investments we made in budget 2025, including more than $700 million for the cultural sector.

Did they forget about the investment in the creative export strategy, which injected another $95 million in the cultural sector?

We have not forgotten those investments, nor have we forgotten that they voted against all of them.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Liberals have forgotten their $600-million promise, their commitment to impose a levy on the web giants.

The worst part of all of this is that taxpayers will have to foot a $600-million bill to make up for the government's backtracking on the levy. Instead of making the web giants pay, the government is foisting the bill onto all taxpayers, even those who do not have Netflix or Disney+ subscriptions, even those who chose to cancel their subscription as a show of solidarity toward Canadian culture.

Let us not forget that Netflix made $3.7 billion in profits in the last quarter alone, while Disney+ made $712 million. The median income for Quebeckers is about $40,000, yet they are the ones being forced to pay.

Does the minister think that is fair?

[David Myles, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages and to the Secretary of State (Nature)]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member once again for his question. It is important to note that that money has been held up for more than a year. That is why we announced an investment of $600 million, which will start flowing shortly.

Canada Revenue Agency

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals set a gold standard for incompetence at the CRA. A so-called sovereign citizen stole $10 million from the CRA. He called and told them he was going to commit the scam, and they gave him the money anyway. The bank had to stop future payments, not the CRA, even though it was known that he was committing the scam.

The CBC claims that there is around $300 million in bogus claims going out under the same scam. The incompetent finance minister says he is clueless. Why does he not know, and when will Canadians get their $300 million back?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot talk about specific cases. The member knows that.

Let us be clear that fraud is a crime and that anyone who commits fraud will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. This could include up to 14 years in prison, and extensive fines and penalties of up to 200%.

There are new measures in place to ensure fraud and scams are detected, including secondary reviews of large refunds. We will stop at nothing to ensure those who have committed crimes are brought to justice.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that answer should be treated like fraud.

The fact that the bank had to stop future payments and not the CRA speaks volumes to how bad these guys have messed up the CRA. They will give their Liberal-connected insiders millions of dollars in tax-free writeoffs if they are connected to their green slush fund scandal, but they will fleece Canadians for every single dollar.

The CRA minister said the buck stops with him. When will they collect the money? When will Canadians get answers?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, the member knows that abuse of the tax system is illegal, and the CRA will always take enforcement action when tax fraud occurs. We all know we cannot comment on specific cases, but Canadians can be assured that when it comes to fraud, every action is on the table to hold fraudsters to account.

We have implemented additional safeguards to help ensure greater consistency and accuracy in refund processing. The measures include strengthening controls, intensified oversight and tightened authority levels. On this side of the House, we will go after—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. member for Langley Township—Fraser Heights.

The Economy

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Food Banks Canada is reporting an 8% increase in visitors this year compared to last, double what it was seven years ago. One-fifth of visitors were actually employed and one-third were children. Food inflation is outpacing wage growth again this year according to the report, and things are becoming more difficult for many families despite the many promises from the Prime Minister.

Will he at least acknowledge that relying on food banks is the unfortunate reality for far too many Canadian families, or is he totally out of touch with reality?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Finance and National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I would like, on behalf of all members of this House, to thank the people at Food Banks Canada. They do very important work across this country, and I think we should all applaud their work and thank them for their work.

We implemented one of the recommendations, which is now called the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. With that, 12 million people in this country will receive a benefit to help them with groceries.

On this side of the House, we are always going to do what is right to support Canadians.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec's food banks are overwhelmed. They are now handling a record number of requests for food assistance—more than three million every month. That is a 44% increase over the past five years. One in three children relies on food banks. Vulnerable households now spend 112% of their disposable income just on food, housing and transportation.

Will this government adopt our plan to scrap taxes on diesel? It is very simple.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Finance and National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on behalf of all my colleagues and thank those who work in food banks across the country. They perform essential and extraordinary work helping the most vulnerable members of our society.

We have actually gone further than what my colleague is suggesting. What we have done is provide direct support through the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. More than 12 million Canadians are receiving direct assistance to help them at a time when they need it most. On this side of the House, we will always be there to stand up for the interests of Canadians.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, may I remind the House that, just this week, the Liberals refused to acknowledge the cost of living crisis? A 67-year-old woman in my community has been forced to take house cleaning jobs 25 minutes away from home. She cannot afford winter tires or groceries. Food bank usage has increased by 30% nationwide since 2019. Who was in power then? It was the Liberals.

Will the government adopt our Conservative plan to lower grocery bills by eliminating all federal taxes on diesel?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Finance and National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, we understand the situation perfectly. We are acutely aware, as are all Canadians, that affordability is the priority—housing, food and gas prices. That is precisely why we introduced the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which will help 12 million Canadians.

What is unfortunate, however—and the people watching at home know it—is that my Conservative colleagues voted against that measure, which will help 12 million Canadians. I hope that they will reconsider their position and support a government that supports Canadians.

Employment

[Bruce Fanjoy, Liberal, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, skilled workers build this country. In my riding of Carleton and across Canada, young people want a path into the skilled trades, and unions are ready to train them.

Can the Secretary of State for Labour tell this House how the union training and innovation program will help more young Canadians get into the skilled trades and build Canada strong?

[John Zerucelli, Liberal, Secretary of State (Labour)]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Carleton for supporting the skilled trades.

Canada is embarking on one of the largest nation-building efforts in our history, but we cannot build big without skilled workers. That is why last week we announced $430 million for the union training and innovation program to expand apprenticeship training and modernize the union training centres that will support the next generation of skilled trades.

When we invest in workers, we are building Canada strong.

Steel and Aluminum Industry

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the industry minister said resolving the Stelco dispute was a “question of days”, yet Cleveland-Cliffs is proceeding with indefinitely idling its Stelco cold-rolled and coated steel operations. It has been 13 days since Stelco first responded to her letter and six days since the minister said it would be resolved, and now we learn she is giving them an extra 15 days.

Canadians are having a hard time keeping up, and workers cannot pay their mortgages with another government warning. Will the minister stop issuing warnings, do what she said she was going to do and start enforcing Stelco's employment commitments?

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what we are doing. We are making sure that Stelco respects its commitments under the Investment Canada Act. We are following the process. In 15 days, if nothing happens, legal action will be taken.

Our aim has always been to protect Canadian workers and the Canadian industry. That is what we have been doing, and that is what we will continue to do.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, every single day, it seems like the Liberals' timeline keeps changing. There are so many things they could do right now to increase competitiveness in this industry. First, they could enforce the contracts they have. Second, this industry needs more customers, competitive costs and market access, yet the industrial carbon tax remains, American tariffs remain and workers face layoffs.

Conservatives would eliminate the industrial carbon tax, pre-approve LNG projects to create demand for Canadian steel, and restore access to our largest export market. Will the Prime Minister adopt our proposal so we can give steel and auto workers a fighting chance?

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, let us try to make some sense out of all this.

First of all, we never asked for this. Second of all, we are responding to an attack from the U.S. administration. Our aim is to protect Canadian workers and to protect Canadian industries. We will always do that. That is also why the Prime Minister goes abroad sometimes and signs trade deals to diversify our economy so we can protect our industrial base.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, three weeks ago, Stelco laid off 350 Hamilton steelworkers. Two weeks ago, the Liberal minister sent a letter threatening legal action, and today she is giving them another 15 days. The Liberals wrote a similar letter to Stellantis. Eight months later, those workers are still waiting for results.

The minister stated today that “no act of God” can change the commitments made to Canadian workers, so will the Prime Minister finally take Cleveland-Cliffs to court, or is this just another empty Liberal threat?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Finance and National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the member was missing in action yesterday. We just announced with the Government of Ontario more than $8 billion to support a number of sectors in Ontario: our steel sector, our brave men and women who work in the automotive industry and those boosting our critical minerals.

Instead of talking our workers and our industry down, why does he not support the government and work with us to make sure that we keep jobs in Canada and grow our industry and make sure that we build Canada strong together?

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the only action missing yesterday was the action not taken for Canadian workers.

Last Friday, the minister said the resolution was a “question of days”. Today, she gave them another two weeks. Stelco's third quarter this year was the strongest since 2024, yet Cleveland-Cliffs still broke the job commitments it made when it bought Stelco. Its CEO even praised President Trump on his unjustified tariffs on Canada.

We cannot let Canada and its workers be bullied by President Trump and his buddies. Will the Prime Minister file a lawsuit today, yes or no?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Jobs and Families and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, the question has been asked and answered, but I will ask a question. Why is it that this opposition party cannot stand with Canadians, the Province of Ontario and the premier, as we have, to protect steel workers, to protect the steel industry, to protect the automotive industry and, yes, to invest in the Ring of Fire in northern Ontario? I know the member of Parliament for Kenora has written about the Ring of Fire.

Why are they not applauding that investment? Why are they not applauding the kind of critical mineral exploration and development that our country needs? It is appalling.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the damage from Canada's steel crisis is not stopping at the steel mill. Stelco is idling its coating lines and laying off workers, and the downstream industry is taking a hit.

A stamping manufacturer in my community of Cambridge bought its steel from Stelco for years. Now that the supply is gone, it is not able to source what it needs. It will lose its contracts and customers because it cannot get its steel in time. That is more jobs that will be gone for good.

What is the Prime Minister going to do to keep these businesses open and Canadians working?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Jobs and Families and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, I have some good news for workers in Cambridge and all across Ontario. The Premier of Ontario and the Prime Minister stood together yesterday and said that they were going to control the things they can control. One of the things we can control is investing in our companies to make sure they can produce steel for the automotive sector, for the critical industries that are powering our nation and, yes, for the critical mineral sector in northern Ontario. Guess what. We believe in doing things. The opposition is going to stand up and complain time and again, but we are going to stand up for workers.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, throwing more money at the problem will not produce the steel this company needs at this time. How does this make industry more competitive?

Conservatives have a plan to eliminate the industrial carbon tax, to pre-approve LNG projects that create demand for Canadian steel and to restore access to our largest export market. If this Cambridge manufacturer cannot secure the material it needs, it will be forced to shut down. Families will lose their paycheques, and customers and contracts will leave Canada.

We have a serious proposal to save Canadian jobs. Will the Prime Minister adopt our plan and give businesses a fighting chance?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Jobs and Families and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, we actually have a serious proposal to save jobs, and we are putting the money behind it. What we are not doing is standing up there and criticizing every single idea—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It is too loud.

The minister may continue.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when industry speaks and tells the Government of Canada and the Province of Ontario what kinds of supports they need, we listen. We listen, because we know we can actually pivot these industries and support Canadian workers. When northern Ontario puts its hand up and says it wants to be part of the solution and wants faster action on the Ring of Fire, we partner with Ontario. We build those roads. That is what we are doing. We are working hard every day for Canadian workers, and that is how we stand together as a country.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, New Tecumseth—Gwillimbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Industry was on Bay Street saying, “We used to be able to transform aluminum in Canada, and we don't anymore.” The minister should know there are over 80,000 Canadians employed in the downstream aluminum industry right now whose jobs are at risk. Her comments saying the industry does not exist are a slap in the face to every one of those workers.

Why is she already writing the industry's obituary when it is the Liberals' failure to get a deal that is killing these jobs?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Jobs and Families and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, the only thing I hear in the House of Commons today is the members of Parliament from the Conservative Party who have clearly given up. We are not chasing after things that we actually cannot bring to fruition. We are working on the things we can control. When the Premier of Ontario, the aluminum industry, the steel industry, the automotive industry and the critical mineral industry say this is what we need, we invest in those industries. We invest in the workforce that we need. We support workers when their jobs are at risk.

All I see from these guys is them voting against Canadians, voting against workers, criticizing provinces and—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South.

Employment

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians cannot afford the Liberal government. Candace is a 25-year-old mother from Aylmer who has applied without success to over 500 jobs. Here is what she wrote me: “Every day I wake up wondering how I am supposed to provide for my family. My husband's income alone is no longer enough to cover our mortgage, vehicle expenses, groceries, utilities and the necessities our daughter needs. If I cannot find employment soon, we may lose our home and be forced to move.”

She is not alone. Will the Liberals admit that this is now the new normal in their Canada?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Jobs and Families and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know Candace's background, but I can tell members this. We are working hard to make sure every single Canadian has a pathway into good jobs. Not only that, there are great jobs out there. We are making sure that people have the skills that they need to take up those good jobs. I would be happy to correspond with Candace and tell her about some of the work that we are doing and some of the opportunities that exist across this country. If we cannot all stand up for people like Candace, then we are really not doing our job. I would say that the member could guide that constituent to—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I can barely hear the minister because of the member for Vernon.

The minister has a couple of seconds left.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when members of Parliament have letters like that from constituents, it is important to share that information. I am very glad that member of Parliament has. I hope that he is telling Candace about the opportunities that exist for her and her family.

The Economy

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for a year and a half those arrogant Liberals have been standing in the House and telling us how great everything is. The Prime Minister says affordability is the best it has been in a decade. If that were true, I would not be getting emails like this every single day, and 2.35 million Canadians would not be using the food bank in a single month. Then we have Julia from St. Thomas, the mother of an 11-year-old. She owns a home and has done everything right. She is selling her belongings on Facebook Marketplace so that she can buy her daughter shoes. Are the numbers wrong or are the Liberals?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Jobs and Families and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, any mother who is facing hardship and has to sell things on Facebook Marketplace to feed her child is something I think we could all say would be an abomination in Canada. That is why I think that member of Parliament should go and tell that mother, Julia, that he voted against the school nutrition program, that he voted against the Canada child benefit program and that he voted against the investments in skills training. Let us add the groceries and essentials benefit. Every solution that we have proposed, as the Government of Canada, to help vulnerable people in this country, those guys vote against. In fact, they—

Sports

[Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba, Liberal, Mont-Saint-Bruno—L’Acadie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, sport makes our communities stronger and healthier. Sport helps our youth grow and brings families together. Our government wants to give all Canadians good places to go play sports.

Can the Secretary of State for Sport explain how our government is working with its partners to develop and improve sport across the country?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Secretary of State (Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from Mont-Saint-Bruno—L'Acadie for his great question.

Through the build communities strong fund and the active transportation fund, we are supporting sports facilities and developing parks, bike paths and local roads that help people across the country stay active every day. These infrastructure projects are essential for Canadians, and our government is helping to build them.

Finance

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the RCMP raided the offices of Lion electric. This pump-and-dump scheme involved over $500 million in government grants and Canada Infrastructure Bank financing, plus an undisclosed amount from Export Development Canada. The Liberals called this a calculated risk and claimed “rigorous due diligence was conducted.”

Clearly, that minister, now the finance minister, cannot evaluate risk. With investment success like this under his belt, how can Canadians count on the finance minister's ability to manage the budget?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola is having a cross-conversation here.

The hon. Minister of Public Safety has the floor.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, let me just underscore the work of the finance minister, who works day and night to ensure that Canadians are able to be resilient, to work hard and to bear the fruits of their labour. That is the work of the finance minister.

As for the matter that my friend opposite brought forward, the matter is being investigated by the RCMP, and I am unable to comment any further.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that has become the Liberal template: pump taxpayer funds into companies connected to Liberal friends, watch millions get extracted by insiders and hope the public is not paying attention when the bankruptcy follows. This level of incompetence earned the minister a promotion from the Prime Minister.

Will the Liberals take this opportunity to come clean and release the additional information from the financial losses experienced by Export Development Canada, information they have withheld from this Parliament, and allow the RCMP to get a full picture of how much in taxpayer funds has been lost due to the minister's gross incompetence?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I have every confidence in the RCMP being able to undertake this investigation and do a thorough job.

As the matter is being investigated, as members are fully aware, I am unable to comment any further.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has thrown taxpayers under Lion Electric buses. Liberals talk about calculated risks and rigorous verification, Canadians paid the price for this fiasco. The RCMP searched Lion Electric's headquarters as part of a financial fraud investigation. This is another clear indication that we must put an end to economic patronage.

Has the Liberal government put in place any safeguards to protect Canadians' money?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the party opposite, we have every confidence in the RCMP to be able to do its job. The matter is under investigation, and I am unable to comment any further.

The Economy

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we live in an era where global events are having local impacts. Rising protectionism, energy shocks and supply chain disruptions are all converging to drive up costs. Families and workers in my constituency of Davenport are doing their best to navigate this rapidly changing world and are looking to the Canadian government to provide long-term economic vision and a bridge to the future.

Can the Minister of Finance tell workers and families how our government is stepping up to help make their lives more affordable?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Finance and National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the great work she is doing for all of her constituents in Davenport. She really is an exceptional member of our team.

She is right. This team, this government, and this Prime Minister have always been acting to make life more affordable for Canadians. One of the latest measures we announced was the extension of the suspension of the federal excise tax on fuel. This is going to help Canadians. Canadians know, and they are watching today, that we will have their backs. We are always going to be there for them. Every day is a good day to work for Canadians.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a policeman told me there is a hot new meat market in Edmonton. It is not a trendy butcher shop. It is literally a “hot” meat market, as in stolen meat. There has been a rash of meat thefts. Brazen beef bandits fill shopping carts with the pricey stuff. They escape and sell the meat on the black market. After 11 years of Liberal soft-on-crime laws and government overspending that feeds inflation, this is Canada today.

When will the Liberals stop butchering our economy and do something to get it back on track?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, look, I appreciate—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The minister will have to start again.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern expressed by my friend. That matter is an issue of local jurisdiction for Edmonton police. I invite the member opposite to bring that up with Edmonton police to ensure that those who are responsible for this are held to account.

Foreign Affairs

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this week we learned Israeli defence company Elbit Systems is acquiring a Canadian submarine company. A few weeks ago, a different Israeli company acquired a Canadian offshore project owned by Suncor. Both of these companies are on a United Nations blacklist for complicity in genocide and the ongoing illegal occupation in Palestine. The government has promised to ban trade with illegal settlements and told Canadian businesses not to deal with companies like this, but here we are.

Will the federal government step in to stop this acquisition?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, peace and the fragility of the situation in the Middle East are constantly on our minds as the Government of Canada. We will continue to do everything to bring peace, protect the rights of Palestinians and Israelis and ensure that the illegal settlements are not furthered. We will continue to do that every day as we continue to investigate.

Government Priorities

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-39 would make drastic changes to our country. It puts the profits of foreign investors over Canadians' labour rights, environmental protections and indigenous peoples, yet Liberals, aided by Conservatives, are shutting out critical voices who want to be heard. This includes eminent scientists from the Royal Society of Canada who today warned that without major amendments, the bill will inflict irreversible harm.

Will the minister extend the special committee hearings to ensure full scrutiny of this sweeping legislation by experts, stakeholders and ordinary Canadians?

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the member, but we disagree here. This is the time to build and build now. Across the country, large-scale projects will employ Canadian people, will involve Canadian businesses and will use Canadian materials. The bill catalyzes all of that, and it is very important that we pass the bill because, in particular, when it comes to building Canada, we do that with unionized workers.

Irene Mathyssen

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Following discussions among representatives of all parties in the House, I understand that there is an agreement to observe a moment of silence in honour of our former colleague Irene Mathyssen.

I now invite hon. members to rise.

[A moment of silence observed]

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South is rising on a point of order.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during oral questions, the Minister of Jobs referenced a desire to see the correspondence I was referring to about food affordability.

I seek unanimous consent to table the letter—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Clearly, there is no unanimous consent.

Committees of the House

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions amongst all parties, and I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion.

I move:

That Bill C-240 be transferred from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security pursuant to Standing Order 73(3).

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.

There being no dissenting voice, it is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

Oral Questions

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As I know you are aware, my tolerance for heckling is very high.

During question period, we had the Minister of Jobs and Families providing an answer to a question that was put across the way. It was very disturbing when the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek yelled from the top of his lungs, on more than one occasion, “Sit down.”

We all take the responsibility to stand up, representing our constituents or the government or opposition. The only one who should be asking us to sit down is the person sitting in the Speaker's chair. We are asking that the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek apologize for screaming in the House and trying to intimidate another member to sit down.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

There was clearly a great deal of noise. At a certain point, debates get quite heated. One can understand that, but that certainly is not appropriate language. We should not be telling any member to sit down while they are speaking, while they rightly have the floor.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, if you go back and review the audio from basically every single question period, you will hear that exact phrase, “sit down”, coming from the government benches almost every time members of the opposition ask questions.

If the parliamentary secretary wants to teach lessons, he should maybe take a lesson on decorum as well.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It is clearly inappropriate, whichever side it comes from. I would just hope that members could do better in future.

It is time now for the hon. opposition House leader to stand up because he has a question.

Business of the House

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is time for everyone's favourite moment of the week in the House of Commons, the Thursday question.

I would like to ask the government if it could update the House as to the business for the rest of this week and for the week following. Perhaps the government could tell us why it has chosen to table a budget on a Thursday afternoon right before a break week. Is it because the Liberals are afraid of getting questions on the budget, especially after the Parliamentary Budget Officer's update, which paints such a bleak picture of the Liberal government's fiscal and economic management?

Will the government be bringing in any legislation to provide relief at the grocery store? It tried the exact same tactic that the Trudeau government tried of giving out rebates, and food inflation continues to rise, wiping out any benefit that Canadians might have received from that. Will it bring in any legislation that will actually deal with the root cause of inflation, which we know, of course, is massive amounts of borrowing, pushing up the cost of debt as well?

Will it bring in any legislation to unblock our resources, for example, potentially repealing the shipping ban on Canadian energy off Canada's west coast? That would open up Asian markets and would improve the economic performance of the country.

Will the government be taking any of the measures to undo the terrible policies that it has inflicted on this country for the past 11 years?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to offer my condolences to the Canadian Armed Forces members in Wainwright who are dealing with loss, Canadian military families across Canada and the families of the injured who are still dealing with the aftermath of the fire. My prayers and thoughts are with them, and I know the people of London West are also thinking about the people in Alberta.

I also want to recognize that on Monday, Albertans voted to stay in Canada. They voted to believe in building a strong country. They voted for building our nation together with Canadian workers, with Canadian material, and that together we will continue to build a strong country. I want to recognize that.

The member opposite mentioned our budget that is going to be tabled on November 5, which is a Thursday. I would like to remind the member that after the many years he has sat here, he is well aware that we also sit on Friday. I welcome him coming in on Friday, November 6, to ask a lot of questions. Many members will be in the House to answer those questions.

Tomorrow, we will begin to study two bills. In the morning, we will study Bill C-28, the Canadian space launch act. In the afternoon, we will study Bill S-3, on weights and measures.

On Monday, we will resume consideration at second reading of Bill C-40, strengthening Canada's defence sector act.

Tuesday, October 27, shall be an allotted day.

On Wednesday and Thursday of next week, we will call Bill C-34, the digital safety act, at second reading.

Finally, I would like to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 66(2), we will resume debate on Motion No. 10 to concur in the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, on Tuesday, October 27.

Alleged Mis-characterization of Members' Remarks

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would very briefly like to respond to the question of privilege that was raised by the member for Edmonton Strathcona prior to question period, in which she said, “The member for Halifax attacked my integrity when she characterized my opposition to Bill C-39 as a ‘wild disinformation campaign’”.

I would submit that the term “disinformation” has been used extremely loosely in the chamber. Many members use it, and it certainly is not something new. In fact, on June 14, 2021, perhaps ironically or coincidentally, in a response to a question I raised, the member for Edmonton Strathcona said, “legislation that was so flawed and needed so much work that it opened the door for the Conservative Party to sow disinformation”. In fact, I would draw the Speaker's attention to the fact that the member actually used that term in that characterization on a number of occasions on that day.

My point is only to demonstrate that “disinformation” is a widely used term in the House, and unless PROC, another body or the House is going to decide that the term is no longer allowed to be used, it is a term that we are continuing to use. The member used it in the one example I just provided.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Funding of the Cultural Sector

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

Mr. Speaker, let us talk a little bit about the importance of what we are proposing today, the purpose of our motion.

In the Gaspé, we are lucky to have quite a few local media outlets. What do those people do? They connect members of the community. What I mean by that is that they create a space for dialogue where people can have democratic discussions. They give a voice to the voiceless. They let marginalized people, members of civil society and elected officials express themselves. They help foster a collective dialogue. I believe in that. Freedom of expression and dialogue ensure that, in society, discussion leads to identifying promising solutions.

This is a traditional media model that we need to support during this revenue crisis. Social media and major platforms are eating into these outlets' revenue streams because there are too many advertisers paying to advertise on social media.

We all use social media, but let us think about how it works. The idea behind social media is to create echo chambers, to make society as individualistic as possible so that those who think alike all end up together in their own little corner. We need to support our local media to counterbalance what social media is doing by making society individualistic. That is why members should support our motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is really important for us to recognize that this is an interim measure of $600 million that was put into place. There is no doubt, when we think of online streaming and the benefits, that it has to be able to contribute in one form or another.

The Prime Minister and the government are committed to coming up with a system that is going to work in the long term by working with international partners, and in the interim, providing funding so we can provide the support that is necessary for our cultural communities.

Does the member not think that is a responsible thing to do?

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

Mr. Speaker, we want the $600 million to be paid out as quickly as possible. However, we find it shocking that all taxpayers in Canada and Quebec, who do pay their taxes, will be subsidizing our industry, which needs support. Rather, it should be the tech giants' job, given that they are raking in billions of dollars and paying nothing. That is shocking and makes no sense at all.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it was the Conservative government, under then prime minister Harper, that recognized Quebec as a nation. Culture, language and shared ancestry all played a part in determining what a nation is. With this in mind, the province of Quebec demands a level of autonomy that other provinces do not benefit from in Canada.

Would my colleague agree that the other provinces in Canada, such as Alberta, deserve more autonomy, away from the heavy hand of the federal government, in determining what is the best direction for their province, as with immigration, for example?

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

Mr. Speaker, under the Meech Lake accord, Quebec was presented with a number of proposals, and what we learned from that was that it was not possible to get the support of the other provinces.

I wish the very best for people in the other provinces. As far as we in Quebec are concerned, we drew our own conclusions. We are fighting to expand our freedom. What we want is a country, and I wish the same for my colleague from another province.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity, following my colleague's very apt remarks, to acknowledge the appointment of my predecessor and, in many respects, my mentor, Alain Therrien, the king himself. Mr. Therrien left an indelible mark on the Bloc Québécois, and I am sure he will do an outstanding job in Quebec City as treasury board president.

I would also like to congratulate my friend Simon‑Pierre Savard‑Tremblay, who served alongside us until this past spring and who will now serve as the minister responsible for relations with the first nations and the Inuit.

Finally, I congratulate the entire Parti Québécois caucus and all the newly appointed members of cabinet. We are really looking forward to working with them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a connection I could mention, because Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj is a huge riding that is home to four members of the National Assembly, and yesterday, three of those four members were appointed to cabinet. I believe that this is the strongest representation that Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands have ever had around the cabinet table. My colleague rightly acknowledged our former Bloc Québécois colleagues.

I would also like to extend my congratulations to Pascal Bérubé, who will be able to join our fight to ensure that the U.S. web giants pay their fair share. I am confident that we will be able to count on Mr. Bérubé as minister of culture to join forces with us to finally deliver some tax fairness and ensure that the U.S. web giants contribute to our cherished Quebec culture.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed in how the Conservatives have tried to frame this as if they were really concerned about culture and heritage, when they want to defund CBC and —

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

No, that is true.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' behaviour is questionable in regard to CBC Radio.

I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on the importance of funding those two institutions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I did not understand what the member was asking, but if the question was whether the government should quickly release the $600 million that the Liberals promised, then the answer is yes, they should do it soon.

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

Mr. Speaker, I begin my speech in good spirits, thanks to the wonderfully quick wit of the member who spoke before me.

I am also going to follow in my colleagues' footsteps, because I too have prepared some brief remarks about our representatives in Quebec City that I want to give before starting my speech. We found out who will be in cabinet yesterday. The riding of Berthier—Maskinongé is a little smaller than my colleague's riding in the Gaspé; we did not get four ministers, but we did get three, which is not bad at all. I am very proud that Elsie Lefebvre was elected in Berthier. She is my own MNA, because that is where I live. Maxime Laporte is the MNA for L'Assomption, and Isabelle Blais is the MNA for Maskinongé. I would like to welcome them. We are going to have a great working relationship over the next few years. I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge Élodie Murphy‑Gauthier and Jean Pellerin, who were elected in the Mauricie region. I endorsed several candidates in the Mauricie region. I want to send a shout-out to René Branchaud. We came very close. I would like to tell my friend that we will meet again next time. I am certain that he will be there and that it will work out. I would be remiss if I did not mention my former colleagues as well. Simon‑Pierre Savard‑Tremblay was my comrade-in-arms for several years on our supply management bill. I really enjoyed working with him. I have no doubt that he will do an excellent job as a minister in Quebec City. Of course, I must mention our former House leader, Alain Therrien, who is an inspiration to all of us. If there is one person who really helped me manage the unmanageable and deal with the frustrations and the lack of control over our environment that we sometimes feel as new members, it is him, so I tip my hat to him. We are very proud of him, and we are sure that he will do a bang-up job.

I will now address the crux of today's issue. It is simply outrageous. The government really needs to stop pretending.

I have not been in such a good mood lately. I will tell the House what happens when I am not in a good mood. This is a very personal part of my life that I did not expect to talk about in the House, but I cannot pretend. That is not in my nature. When something is bothering me, the people around me immediately ask what is wrong. They ask me what is going on. In life, I do not pretend. I simply cannot do that. I think it stinks when people pretend. That is polite enough language for me to say in the House. It really grinds my gears. I am tired of watching the Liberal government pretend that it thinks culture is important.

Amid artful gestures and eloquent speeches, they will roll out a dreamy outdoor backdrop complete with just enough breeze to tousle the hair, and they will announce how generous they are for giving $600 million to the desperately needy cultural sector. Meanwhile, just a day earlier, they will have robbed that same sector of more than $2 billion because they lacked courage, bowed down and surrendered. That expression of the Prime Minister's, “elbows up”, also applies to someone lying prostrate on the ground with only their elbows sticking up. That will not stop the United States from using us as a doormat.

I have quoted Pierre Falardeau several times in the House, but I really like this quote. Falardeau used to say that someone who stands up will be hated but respected, while someone who prostrates themselves on the ground will just be used as a doormat. That is not the exact wording, but my colleagues get the idea.

I would rather stand up and have people hate me but call me “sir”. I think that Quebeckers prefer that, as Canadians do. Maybe we should stop taking everything lying down. This is what we have been seeing from the very beginning. What is more, the Liberals have the nerve to stand up and ask what the Bloc Québécois is complaining about. They did it earlier during oral question period. They say they have made a major $600-million announcement. The whole bunch of them are patting themselves on the back and looking all proud.

This will seem like a sound bite, but it is important to know the backstory. Where will that $600 million come from? It will come out of our pockets.

The levy stemmed from a decision made by the CRTC. By the way, people may not know this, but the CRTC is supposed to be independent. It can receive general guidelines coming from the political sphere, but then its members, who are all thoughtful individuals, sit down and analyze the situation.

The CRTC came to a conclusion. It saw that the media landscape was changing. A lot has changed in the last 10 or 15 years. We know that. Very few people now subscribe to traditional television. Traditional media outlets are forced to contribute to the system. Online media outlets contribute nothing but get most of the advertising revenue. That is the situation.

I do not always applaud the CRTC's decisions, but that one made a lot of sense. It said that they had to pay a minimum percentage. It was increased from 5% to 15%, but that was not enough. Web giants would have to invest in the creation of French-language content to the tune of 30%. We certainly applauded that.

How did the Prime Minister respond? He said that it had to be scrapped or else Donald Trump would get angry and not give us anything.

I challenge the parliamentary secretary, who is listening to me, to rise later and tell me what they got from the United States in return.

Since the 2025 election, when our saviour, Mr. Canada, the man who was supposed to get us out of this mess, was elected, we have not gotten anything.

I have no objection to grand speeches being given on the international stage. The case for the role of middle powers can be a compelling one, particularly when it comes to bilateral and especially multilateral relations in international forums. That is why we look forward to the day when Quebec can take its place among them and bring its own voice, political clout and vision to the world.

Some ideas make sense, such as strengthening ties with Europe. We have been advocating that for a long time. It would be particularly worthwhile when it comes to environmental and trade standards, as the proposals that we put forward in committee are often blocked by members from the other Canadian provinces.

I served for many years on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, and I believe that we could learn a great deal from European policies. That would be quite interesting. Ultimately, however, what matters is action. Governments are not judged by what they say. They are judged by what they do and by what they have done.

The government announced $600 million in funding taken from taxpayers' pockets. I want to point out what happened just before that. By overturning the CRTC's policy, it deprived the media sector of more than $2 billion.

Let us dig just a little deeper. I know that may be difficult for some members here, but let us try. Let us go back to the day before yesterday. The Liberals scrapped the digital services tax to please the orange man. We got nothing in return. This time, it was worth more than $7 billion over five years.

Now they have the nerve to stand up, look at us and smugly say that they are being generous to the cultural sector. That is rich.

This week, I took part in a press conference with the House of Commons interpreters, translators and terminologists. They are in contract talks. The same government that says culture, the French language and official bilingualism are important wants to cut 25% of the Translation Bureau's resources over the next five years. The thing is, the Translation Bureau's budget is a tiny fraction of the total federal budget. It is $160 million. This is a joke.

Francophone elected officials like us know that working in the Parliament of Canada is a huge daily challenge, because 90% of everything that happens here is done in English. That is fine; it is their language and their right. We have a right to work in our language, too. We have a right to quality interpretation. These are qualified professionals who are currently being treated with disdain. They are being told that artificial intelligence will replace them.

I hope everyone saw this morning's article about how AI translated TB, the abbreviation for the Translation Bureau, as “tuberculosis” in French. That is the big joke of the day. The worst part is that the English terms “should” and “must” both get translated into French by the same word: “doit ”. Imagine what the courts would do with those two words in a piece of legislation.

I hope that the judge would not say what I have heard before from a clerk at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, namely that the English version takes precedence. I hope that does not happen, because that is not supposed to be true. The two official languages are supposed to be equal, truly equal. The government needs to stop messing around when it comes to culture. Everyone needs to stop messing around. Let us find a way, stand up to the United States and accept the fact that we need these giants that make profits here to pay their fair share.

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

Mr. Speaker, when the member makes reference to the $600 million, that is a new commitment over and above another half a billion dollars that is out there to support our culture. That would include in excess of well over $100 million for Radio-Canada, for example. I will provide more details on that when I get the opportunity to address the House. I think it is important that we recognize that the $600 million is an interim solution until we are able to come up with a more permanent solution. I plan to expand on that when I get the opportunity to speak.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are so looking forward to hearing the parliamentary secretary's speech. What he just reiterated to the House, and the message he is sending to the media and culture sector, is that they were deprived of $7 billion over five years with the repeal of the digital services tax, that the CRTC's levies, which would have brought in more than $2 billion, have been cancelled, and that this is being replaced by a nice little $600 million that will come out of their own pockets.

[Dalwinder Gill, Conservative, Calgary McKnight, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister promised $600 million in immediate support, yet more than four months later the sector is still waiting. Does the member agree that a government running such a massive deficit should at least be able to deliver the funding it promised?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is indeed one of our requests. Can they at least pay the money they promised? In short, we do agree.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, anything can be debated in the House. Today, we are debating the issue of the digital services levy. We asked questions about this during oral question period. This week, when my colleague, the member for Drummond, asked the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture a question, the minister stood up and literally asked my colleague why he was whining when the minister had funded the poutine festival in his riding. When we brought up our cultural industry, his response was that he had funded the poutine festival and that we should stop whining. I have nothing against poutine, but when a minister speaks to us in that tone and gives us answers like that, what does that tell us about the government's commitment to francophone culture and Quebec culture?

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

Mr. Speaker, the answer is short and simple. The word he is looking for is “contempt”.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is also important to recognize that the global streaming services have international impacts. Canada is not alone. It is important as we move forward that we get it right. In the interim, while we work on that plan, we will provide that interim support over and above that $500 million, which equates to well over a billion dollars over the coming years. Would the member agree that is a positive thing?

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

Mr. Speaker, if the parliamentary secretary really meant what he just said, which is that we need to move forward, not backward, then he would not have backed down on the digital services tax. The $600 million is a very small amount of compensation. I would like my colleague to look at what is happening internationally, elsewhere in the world. How did the Europeans find a way to put a tax on digital products without causing subscription prices to go up? These multi-billion dollar corporations are paying their fair share to fund culture and media in those regions. Why is Canada unable to achieve the same result here?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief.

There are major events and festivals. Over the weekend, we were told that we needed to stop complaining and that festivals were being funded. However, we are still getting messages from organizers of major events and various cultural organizations. We in the Bloc Québécois are not the only ones complaining. So too are the organizations on the ground, which need more money. What does my colleague have to say to them?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague very much.

That is the reality on the ground. Some ministers respond to us in a contemptuous tone like that. We have talked about the poutine remark, but we could have talked about how we apparently spend most of our time sitting on our rear ends and just come here to collect our pensions. I think we could get rid of the contempt and work constructively. We need the money for our local organizations. Let us talk and work together.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of things to say about the opposition's motion. First and foremost, I will not be voting in favour of the motion because I believe it is at conflict with what the government is attempting to do. It is important to recognize that at the outset.

I also want to recognize at the beginning that, in terms of global streaming services, it is not a question of if but how we ensure contributions go to our cultural sector. It is not a question of if. It is how it is going to be done. I go back to the last federal election. I can assure the member opposite that we had candidates all over the nation, with a focus on candidates in the province of Quebec, talking about culture, affordability and many other issues, the primary one being Canadian sovereignty.

When we think of Canadian sovereignty, we have to think about our culture as it is part of our identity. When we talk about negotiations, there is the French factor, if I may put it that way, in the culture and heritage we have today, which is a major aspect in all things we do. As a collaborative federal government, we continue to work at ways to build a stronger economy and society. It is one of Canada's greatest strengths, which I talk a lot about, both inside and outside the chamber. It is something all of us should be very proud of. I love the fact that many people I represent, including young people and children, can speak not one, not two, but three languages. I think of a child graduating from Stanley Knowles School who is able to speak Tagalog, English and French. Many members of our Punjabi heritage community can speak Punjabi, English and French. The amount of French being spoken in Manitoba has never been as high as it is today.

I am very proud of the culture in Manitoba's heritage and what we have to offer especially on the French language aspect. If we drive through St. Boniface in Winnipeg, we will find a very strong and healthy francophone community or if we drive in rural Manitoba, areas like St-Pierre-Jolys. Manitoba is not alone. I have a niece in Alberta who is not only fluent in French and English but is one of the strongest advocates for the French language in Alberta. This is something in which we all have a sense of pride.

The Province of Quebec is leading the way in protecting and ensuring Canada continues to grow in its diversity, incorporating French and recognizing the importance of our arts and culture. When we talk about global streaming services, they are not just impacting Canada. They are impacting countries around the world.

We attempted to deal with it, but as we have seen, it has not been doing what the government expected of it. Our current Prime Minister is determined to ensure that our cultural communities are receiving the funds necessary to protect that industry.

That industry is present throughout our nation. In many ways, it is led by the province of Quebec, but it is present throughout the nation. If I reflect on the province of Manitoba, I have often had the opportunity to talk about Folklorama. Whether it is through the Métis pavilions, pavilions from Europe or pavilions from Asia, from all over the world, Winnipeg and Manitoba get to showcase their diversity. That diversity is cherished by a vast majority of Canadians, and we want to see it grow.

We want to see Canadian faces on TV, on YouTube and on Facebook. We have the artists. We have the actors and actresses, the technicians and the people who pull it together. I think we underestimate not only how that identifies who we are as a nation, but the magnitude of the jobs within that industry. I can tell members who are following this debate that, whether it is the Prime Minister or this government, we recognize it in a very tangible way.

Going out of the election, a number of policy changes took place, and I believe we are on the right track. If I were to give a really good example, I would talk about when the Prime Minister and the government made the decision to get rid of the carbon tax. It was a big issue. I have not had one person in my riding tell me that it was wrong for the Prime Minister to change that policy, not one person.

[An hon. member]

It was just a little late, by 11 years.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

The Prime Minister was elected less than 18 months ago.

Mr. Speaker, if we take a look at the issue we have before us today, even if we factor in the CRTC, we need to recognize what the government is saying. The government is not saying we are going to let global streaming services have whatever they want and go rogue in Canada, far from it. The Prime Minister has been very clear on the issue. When it comes to global streaming services, they will contribute to our cultural sector. That is not at issue. The issue is how we best do that. That means it might take some time, as we work with what other international partners are doing on the issue and see how we can evolve a plan that is going to be effective and is going to ensure that we get that money directly to our culture community.

At the same time, we are investing $600 million to provide support. It is an interim measure, because the long-term goal is to get that plan, and I believe we will get it. We have a budget coming up on November 5, and whether that measure is incorporated into the budget or not, I have absolute faith, based not just on wishful thinking but on the reality of things that have taken place since the last federal election, that it will provide the cultural industry a sense of comfort that the Government of Canada is not going to ignore that industry.

I said in a question that the $600 million would be over and above the other half a billion dollars that was budgeted for in the last federal budget, the first budget of the new government and our new Prime Minister. We can a look at where some of that money is going. I have a few select places that I would like to list off.

There is $192 million in 2025-26 for CBC/Radio-Canada. Whether it is Radio-Canada and the important role it plays in Quebec or it is CBC in general, it is absolutely critical for Canadian sovereignty that we have funding going to that institution. There is no dispute coming from the government on that. The Prime Minister has been very clear on it, even though we get pressure from the Conservative Party, which is threatening and making very clear that if they were in government, they would get rid of it. I would hope that a more progressive-thinking official opposition, understanding the impact that would have, would reverse that position, because Radio-Canada and CBC as a whole play a very important role in our society.

For Telefilm Canada, there is $150 million over three years. We can talk about how Telefilm Canada is helping our arts community. These are just federal dollars that are being provided.

We have the Canada Media Fund. Over a three-year period, there is over $125 million for it. As a government, we are recognizing the value of this institution and why it is so important for us to continue with the funding of it.

For the Canada music fund, there is close to $50 million over the next three years.

We can talk about the National Film Board of Canada, which is getting $26 million over that same period of time. It is truly amazing the data bank of films that the National Film Board of Canada has and the many contributions it has made through that data bank and Canadian films to many of the people it has been able to serve in virtually every different sectors of our arts community and cultural community, whether directly or indirectly.

The Canada Council for the Arts, over that same period of time, will be given $6 million, recognizing the work that it does to protect one of the things that are so critically important.

Our sovereignty is an issue that this government takes very seriously. I know it is on the minds of many, because we hear the comments coming from both the Bloc and the Conservatives. They try to mock us. In a previous speech, someone said “Mr. Canada”, referring to our Prime Minister. I can tell my friends in the Bloc that there is a team Canada approach to building a stronger province of Quebec and a stronger province of Alberta.

In every region of the country, we have seen federal co-operation and collaboration, recognizing that it is the people of Canada who benefit when governments work together. I would challenge members opposite to point to a time when we have seen this much collaboration within the first 18 months of being in government.

[An hon. member]

Well, that would be Harper.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Harper was not even close.

Mr. Speaker, there are many examples I could give on Stephen Harper. The one that comes to my mind right away, because I always advocated for it, is the CPP. In order to enhance people's pensions, we needed to work with the provinces and get an agreement. It was never achieved back then. There are many different examples.

I have been a parliamentarian for over 30 years at the provincial and federal levels. I cannot recall ever seeing a prime minister and stakeholders, along with our premiers, provinces, territories and indigenous leaders, work as a team Canada in trying to deal with the issue of sovereignty.

That takes many forms. As we saw not that long ago, the Prime Minister was talking with the president. It looked like there was the possibility of an agreement, but we were not prepared to bend in regard to some of the things that were coming out, including the issue of French on labels, I believe, but do no quote me on that. There was an important issue there, along with a few others, that ultimately stopped the negotiations from being able to continue.

No matter how long it takes, we are here to work at achieving an agreement, but that agreement has to be achieved in the best interests of Canadians as a whole. That means if it is going to take a while, we will wait a while. While we are waiting, there are actions we can take, and protecting our culture is one of those actions. That is one of the reasons we have seen the types of investments we have had in culture. It is because we recognize that this is part of who we are as a nation.

There are so many things we can be very proud of in the different regions. My family ancestry goes back to the province of Quebec. I am a nationalist first and foremost. I believe in Canada as a nation first. That means that I love my city and I love my province, but I love the province of Quebec too. Quebec and Alberta are both worth standing up for.

When we think of our culture, I want the distinct, unique culture that comes from the province of Quebec not only to be there, but to grow. I believe the Prime Minister and every member of the Liberal caucus wants to see that happen too. We understand the issue of culture. We understand the impact that global streaming services are having. We have and we will come up with a detailed plan because we also believe that global streaming services must contribute. It is not an option to our cultural sector. It is not a question of “if”. It is about “how”, and we will make it happen.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what really bothers me about this issue is that our Liberal friends say one thing but do the opposite. The Prime Minister has said he wants to defend French in the negotiations with the United States, yet he is spending $120 million a year from the official languages budget for Quebec to support English in Quebec, when it is French that is under threat.

The CRTC wanted to require U.S. digital platforms to pay a levy. Instead of enforcing this, however, the Prime Minister is making grand speeches in Europe. Europe requires digital platforms to pay a levy, but here, we just kowtow to them. To support Quebec culture, the culture of the only French-speaking nation in North America, the government will use tax dollars rather than ask U.S. digital platforms to pay their fair share.

What does my colleague think about that?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleague across the way that every member of the Liberal caucus values the uniqueness and the distinct nature of the province of Quebec and how the arts and cultural community makes Quebec the wonderful province it is. As a nationalist, I am very proud of the province of Quebec. I made reference to how it as a province helps identify us as one of the greatest nations in the world to call home.

I also believe that through federal co-operation and collaboration, not only with the Province of Quebec but also with other jurisdictions in Canada, we can do an even better job of not only protecting our French language but also expanding it. It is something all of us should be proud of.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the simple question I would like to ask the hon. parliamentary secretary is this: How many empty promises will it take before the Liberals admit that announcements and press conferences are not the same as results?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the member. The Prime Minister promised to get rid of the carbon tax. It is gone. He made a promise to suspend the excise tax on gasoline. It was done. He made a promise to 22 million Canadians to reduce the tax rate. It has been done. He made a commitment to 400,000-plus children in Canada to make the school food program permanent. It has been done. He made promises to look for other markets beyond the Canada-U.S. border. Not only are we continuing to do it, but it has already been done, and we continue to push to get more done.

The problem is that I am going to be limited on the number of things I can say, because of time constraints, but I can assure the member that the government, in the last 18 months, has done a great deal to fulfill its promises to Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy about the parliamentary secretary's passion for culture across the country. For example, on September 15 to 20 next year, the international plowing match is coming to Sarnia—Lambton-Bkejwanong. If anyone has not experienced this kind of agricultural culture, they need to be there.

The question I have for my hon. colleague is this: Can he expound on the many ways in which our government is promoting and supporting culture across the country and in Quebec?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I applaud my colleague because she raises a very important point. Culture and heritage take many different forms. We can talk about our agricultural community and how it is very different from communities in other nations with respect to leading technologies, environmental sensitivity or how the whole family attitude is celebrated in Canada

We need to continue to have a wide spectrum of different types of celebrations, even though today, for me personally, it is a lot more about culture of diversity through ethnicity and language.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite boasts about helping culture by helping Radio-Canada, among others. We have nothing against Radio-Canada. The issue is that, too often, the government's support completely ignores local and community media, which are part of Quebec's cultural and media ecosystems. Not enough is set aside for them. However, they are among the first to pay the price for this injustice. On top of not paying their share, the web giants are also collecting all the advertising revenue, which is hurting local media on the ground. On top of that, there is a double loss. Since there are fewer local media outlets, who is going to talk about culture, about what is happening at home, in Granby, if not the local media? Who is going to talk about what is happening in the Gaspé and Abitibi? Local media plays an essential and important role, but it is being completely ignored by the government.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is really important for us to recognize that Radio-Canada is an absolutely critical institution in dealing with Canadian sovereignty, and there is so much more than just Radio-Canada. There are 44 members of Parliament from the province of Quebec, and I can assure the member opposite that they are a vocal bunch. They understand how important this is.

There are many wonderful things that have come out of Quebec and contributed to the arts throughout the world, not just in Canada. One of my favourite examples is Céline Dion, but there are so many others, such as the late Leonard Cohen, who gave us beautiful music. All sorts of things have come from the province.

Supporting our community newspapers is also very important. Our rural caucus members, in particular those from Quebec, constantly raise the importance of our rural newspapers and making sure we have news agencies. That is one of the reasons I highlighted Radio-Canada as an important institution that supports good news and so many other things, such as community activities.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we talk a lot about broken promises. I remember it was only about 18 months ago when the member across the way was speaking very passionately about what Bill C-5 would do and how it would accomplish all these big projects. He talked about the promises that were made at that time. Unfortunately, now we are going to also be looking at Bill C-39, because apparently Bill C-5 did not do it. It was another broken promise.

The Prime Minister promised he would have a trade deal with the United States, saying that he was a master, world-class negotiator. We know that has not happened. We have had a lot of broken promises by the Liberals. It reminds me of a farmer in spring after he has his seed in the ground. The member for Sarnia—Lambton was talking about agriculture, which made me think of that. The seed is in the ground, and the farmer sees a cloud on the horizon. He knows there is rain coming, but then the cloud comes and there is no rain. That is how I think a lot of Canadians feel with the broken promises: There is a promise of rain, but nothing comes.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the misinformation that comes out of the House of Commons through political parties never ceases to amaze me.

At the end of the day, Bill C-5 did actually have an impact. The Majors Projects Office is located in Calgary, and a couple of dozen projects have been advanced to it, some of which are well in progress. Think about it from a national perspective.

Think in terms of, let us say, the province of Quebec and the port of Montreal. We can look at the province of Ontario and nuclear energy. We could talk about Saskatchewan's copper mining or Alberta and the pipeline debate and the MOU. In the province of B.C., there is mining and LNG. If we want to talk about the province of Manitoba, we can say that a lot of us are hoping that the Churchill project, though this is not in the Major Projects Office, will get off the ground.

Business of the House

[Stephen Fuhr, Liberal, Secretary of State (Defence Procurement)]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to designate next Tuesday, October 27, as an opposition day, and also as the day appointed for the conclusion of the debate on the motion to concur in the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, pursuant to Standing Order 66(2).

Designation of Order of the Day

[Stephen Fuhr, Liberal, Secretary of State (Defence Procurement)]

Mr. Speaker, furthermore, pursuant to Standing Order 83(2), I request that an order of the day be designated for the presentation of the budget to be delivered in the House at 4 p.m. on Thursday, November 5, 2026.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Funding of the Cultural Sector

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my friend and excellent colleague, the member for Shefford. I am really looking forward to hearing what she has to say.

I was not as eager to hear what the parliamentary secretary had to say, but I listened carefully to his speech. I do not remember what he is the parliamentary secretary of. He is probably the parliamentary secretary of everything. I mean that as a compliment, by the way, and I hope he takes it as one. What he essentially told us is that an election was held and, after the last election, important public policy changes were made. He told us that there was a new government, but we all know that it is not really new. New Liberal members crossed the floor of the House, but the government is essentially the same. He told us that some policy changes were made.

I am thinking back to the election campaign and I do not recall a time when voters gave this government a mandate to create tax injustices. I do not remember that. There is a principle that Quebeckers hold dear, and I believe Canadians are probably also pretty attached to that principle. I am talking about the principle that everyone has to pay their fair share of taxes. As my colleague from Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj said earlier, when we go to a restaurant or buy goods such as cars or other things we need in our daily lives, we pay taxes. When people go to work, they pay income tax. People pay their taxes.

In today's digital economy, some players do not pay their share of taxes. Let me provide some context. The Prime Minister keeps telling us that the world has changed and that we must adapt to those changes. That is what he said. The Minister of Finance and National Revenue has echoed that message hundreds of times. As we know, the world of communications has changed too, because the world has gone digital. Back when Parliament first passed laws to regulate broadcasting and support Canadian television and radio production, there was cable, relatively few channels and limited foreign competition. People paid to subscribe. Viewers funded a significant portion of the production, while the government also provided production subsidies. Today, however, we live in the age of the Internet, where information travels very quickly, over vast distances and in very large volumes, with international competition.

The concept is this. When a foreign company provides digital services in Canada, it is providing something unique. If I buy an apple grown in the United States, it is imported. Naturally, the best apples come from Saint‑Joseph‑du‑Lac, but the point is, buying an apple means a transaction takes place at a specific point in time. We know where the value was originally created. The apple grew on an apple tree, it was transported, and we know where the transaction took place. We know the economic value of this transaction because we know where it took place. When it comes to digital services, however, the place where the service is produced and the place where it is consumed are two different places. There are companies that are not based here, yet they carry on economic activities here. Therefore, the prevailing tax principle is that, because these companies are based in California or elsewhere in the United States, they need answer only to U.S. tax authorities.

What do these companies that come here actually do? Social media platforms such as Facebook and the like steal content. The government has taken certain actions. They steal segments of news programs, TV dramas, and movies that someone produced and paid for. In that context, who is going to produce cultural products when our own cultural products are allowed to be stolen? Similarly, there are companies that operate here but do not pay their fair share of taxes, the idea being that, even though the service is consumed here, for tax purposes, the economic value lies in the United States, where the service is produced. As for the transaction, we do not know where it takes place. It takes place in two places simultaneously.

These companies are therefore generating billions and billions of dollars in revenue on Canadian soil. That means Canadians are the ones footing the bill. That revenue is not taxed. Meanwhile, we have this outdated regulatory framework that was written back when no one knew the Internet even existed. Maybe people knew it existed, but they did not know it would grow to such a scale, and the framework did not include these digital services.

If the government had known at the time that today's technological environment would be what it is, it would have included that in the framework, so that is what the Liberal government did, and we supported it. It said that we would have tax fairness and that these people would simply pay Canadians a portion of their sales in Canada. These people were going to contribute to the media ecosystem and take some pressure off our overtaxed media.

I do not presume to know what the Speaker thinks, but I know there are Conservatives here who do not like taxes. However, if we scrap this levy, as the government is currently doing, we will end up overtaxing our own media. The Liberals have decided to put an end to this, to violate their own act, to override the rule of law, to override democracy and to say that this is a new government, so the laws passed by previous parliaments can get thrown out.

They decided to take even more money out of taxpayers' pockets. Do my colleagues care about the cost of living? American multinationals worth billions do not want to pay, so the government is going to tax people instead. Why did they do that? They did it because they caved to Donald Trump, and not for the first time.

Consider the digital services tax. Donald Trump said that Americans did not like Canada's digital services tax, so the Liberals viewed it as a sticking point in trade talks. They rolled over and let Donald Trump walk all over them. They said it would help them in the negotiations, but it did not.

As for the levies on digital services, they acted in the middle of summer when everyone was on vacation, just like they did with the by-elections. They went to Washington and came back, concluding that it displeased the U.S. President, even though the U.S. is our largest trading customer, so the government caved, allowed itself to be pushed around and let the president use Canada as a doormat. This was coming from “Mr. Canada”, who said “elbows up”. The government then scrapped the levy. They figured that if Donald Trump's U.S. multinationals did not want to pay, then Canadians would foot the bill instead. After all, they were able to do it. They have no problem paying rent or buying groceries, so they are making Canadians pay.

The Standing Committee on Finance raised the issue of the global minimum tax, which would also affect digital companies because they do not pay their fair share of taxes. They use transfer pricing and all sorts of tax schemes to avoid paying their fair share, anywhere in the world. The government is considering a global minimum tax on the sales made in Canada by massive, profitable companies. The Minister of Finance moved an amendment at the Standing Committee on Finance and said that only the Americans would be exempt, because they have their own system and tax themselves, as they see fit, even for economic activity generated in Canada. Now he wants to exempt the Americans. Canada is bowing down, and Donald Trump is using us as a doormat. That is exactly what is happening.

What did we get in return? We got absolutely nothing. At the same time, fundamental principles, such as respect for the rule of law, our institutions and acts of Parliament, are being violated. The one violating those principles today is the U.S. government.

We are simply asking the CRTC to uphold the law and require these multinationals to contribute 15%. That is less than the 20% to 30% paid by our own companies, incidentally. They are already getting a discount. Now the government is saying that, because it rolled over for Donald Trump, it is now going to apply Donald Trump's principles, violate its own laws, circumvent the rulings of its own administrative tribunals and turn its back on decisions made by previous governments. It is going to do exactly what the Americans are asking for.

When told that he was violating these principles, the minister across the way, the “minister of poutine”, says that he funded the poutine festival and so people need to stop whining and complaining. It is unbecoming of a government to tell people in the cultural sector struggling with sustainable financing and an outdated system that the poutine festival is receiving funds so they can just shut up. Basically, it shows that the government has no answer. It shows that the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture is uneasy. I am sure that does not sit well with Quebeckers in the Liberal caucus, because the decision is a Canadian decision and unacceptable for our cultural ecosystem.

The levy needs to be reinstated.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked a lot about Donald Trump. I know that discussions between Canada and the United States are ongoing, but I am very proud of our Prime Minister, who rejected U.S. moves that threatened the French language and Quebec culture.

Is the member as proud as I am and very happy about that?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we will never know what happened in the final days of the negotiations. Supposedly the Prime Minister had a deal. It was confidential. We do not know what was in it. He met with the provincial premiers, and Quebec seemed unhappy with it.

How do we know it was not the Prime Minister himself who stomped on Quebec's culture? How do we know it was not Quebec itself that said no? Implementing these free trade agreements also requires the co-operation of the provinces. How do we know? We do not know, and we will never know, because this government is not transparent.

What we do know is that there is a list of concessions. Time and again, the Canadian government chose to capitulate to Trump. He got a call, and he folded. Taxpayers are paying the price, and Donald Trump is using Canada as a doormat.

What have we obtained so far in exchange for these very real and costly concessions? The answer is absolutely nothing.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question. Why should Quebeckers have confidence in another Liberal commitment when the government's record, across multiple policies, continues to raise questions about delivery?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a pretty broad question. Why should we have confidence in the Liberals? Personally, I put my face on a blue poster. There are many shades of blue.

I believe that today's Liberals are using fear as their weapon of choice. They are using Donald Trump. He is their main political ally. Fear has allowed them to consolidate support. That is why they are able to walk back their promises. That is why they are able to implement policies that were never even mentioned during the election campaign. It is fear that affords them this freedom.

However, this freedom that the Prime Minister grants himself ought to be tempered by a respect for democracy, but the Prime Minister does not seem to have that. He appears to believe that, because the political winds are currently in his favour, he can do as he pleases and take full advantage of it. Does that mean that I, as an MP who is witnessing this, who knows the details of the policies and who is informed about the finer points, have confidence in the Prime Minister? The answer is unequivocally no.

I believe these are people who say one thing and do another. I also believe that this tendency is deeply embedded in the DNA of the Liberal Party of Canada.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech, which very accurately described the hypocrisy that we are seeing.

The Prime Minister has told us that he considers French to be non-negotiable in tariff negotiations. Furthermore, federal language policy is supposed to have been changed, since there is a new Official Languages Act that is supposed to strengthen the position of French in Quebec. However, last year $120 million from the official languages budget went to promote and strengthen English in Quebec.

Two days ago, there was a press conference with people from the Translation Bureau. They said that there is no budget for translation and that 340 positions will be cut. We are seeing much the same thing here. The government says that it does not want to impose levies on digital platforms because they might pass the cost on to consumers, so they plan to pay those levies with taxpayers' money instead.

What does my colleague think about that?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said it in a speech: If we are not at the table, we are on the menu.

I think today's debate shows that francophone culture in Canada is on the menu. It was devoured by these negotiations. To me, that is obvious. The Prime Minister decided to scrap the digital services tax and the levy to please the U.S. government. Clearly, these measures bothered the U.S. government; they were bargaining chips. Instead of negotiating, the Prime Minister chose to cave.

What did we get in return? We got absolutely nothing, except tariffs and additional costs for our industries.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Mirabel is a tough act to follow.

That said, I would like to point out that there are excellent apples in the riding of Shefford. I thank my colleague for giving me this opportunity to salute all the apple growers, who have wrapped up a great harvest season, one that is so important to the economy and agri-tourism in Shefford.

Today I am speaking on a topic that is not discussed enough here in the House, but which is so very important to our identity: culture. Having studied journalism, I naturally have a particular interest in the media, especially local media. Furthermore, as the member for Shefford, I am fully aware of the magnificent cultural ecosystem that exists in the riding of Shefford. Examples include the Festival international de la chanson de Granby, the École nationale de la chanson at Cégep de Granby, the Palace—a magnificent cultural institution in Shefford—and the Maison de la culture de Waterloo. They breathe life into our economy, and I would like to pay tribute to all those who contribute to this magnificent cultural ecosystem.

In the Bloc Québécois, we are keen to talk about our culture here in the House. We are also looking forward to working on this issue with our colleagues who have just been elected to the National Assembly. Like my colleagues, I want to take this opportunity to welcome them. In particular, I want to welcome Jean‑François Arsenault, the new MNA for Granby; Nathalie Boisclair, the new MNA for Daniel-Johnson; and Camille Pellerin‑Forget, the new MNA for Iberville, who has just joined the cabinet.

I am sure that we will find allies willing to talk about culture because it is important. Even so, these are tough times for those working in the cultural sector.

That is why this Bloc Québécois motion seeks to restore the funding sources for culture that the Liberal government took away from Quebec artists and cultural enterprises when it abandoned its policies and regulations because the major American streaming platforms refused to comply with them. However, let us not forget that those platforms' business activities in Canada generate billions of dollars in profit every year. We are asking them to comply with Canada's laws.

I will give a bit of background. Let us remember that on May 21, 2026, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the 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%. Thirty per cent of that amount was to be allocated to French programming. This CRTC decision is particularly important when it comes to the discoverability of French content. It was also intended to ease the burden on traditional broadcasters by decreasing their current contribution of 30% to 45% to just 25%.

Thus, the modernized framework proposed by the CRTC set this contribution at 25% for traditional broadcasters and 15% for online streamers. Total contributions were to represent a stable contribution level of over $2 billion for Canadian programming, a figure that would serve as a floor, not a ceiling. What is more, companies in both these sectors with annual revenues of $100 million or more were also required to allocate a minimum of their revenue to programming produced by francophone minority communities. Let us not forget that Canadian revenues earned by U.S. streaming platforms such as Netflix, Disney+, Amazon and Prime Video are estimated at no less than $4 billion, which is quite a significant amount.

Following the release of the CRTC's cultural policy, there was a political chain reaction. Three things happened. First, the American companies refused to contribute. Second, the Conservative Party defended the United States and digital billionaires. Third, the Liberal government backed down and overturned the CRTC's decision.

The major American streaming platforms got up in arms. Apple, Amazon and Spotify were already before the courts to challenge the previous obligation to contribute only 5%. What is more, Meta is still blocking the sharing of news on Facebook and Instagram, which has an impact on local media. I would like to commend Marie‑Ève Martel for her book entitled Extinction de voix, which reminds us of the importance of local media. It is certainly not easy to get advertising when news stories are not shared. In short, things are starting to get complicated for local media in today's media ecosystem.

In fact, the Conservative Party sided with the U.S. web giants, citing fears of U.S. retaliation, and called on the government to block the CRTC's decision so as not to require Netflix, Disney+, Amazon and others to invest 15% of their revenue in Canadian local content.

The leader of the Conservative Party even expressed concern that Donald Trump might increase tariffs in response to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, decision. He even wrote a letter to the Prime Minister, and the Liberal Prime Minister listened.

Let us not forget that, under the CRTC's policy, Canadian companies contributed more than American companies. However, between American and Canadian companies, the two leaders made a choice: They chose American companies.

Faced with the appetite of U.S. web giants, the Liberal Prime Minister decided to put Quebec's cultural industry on the menu. As we know, on June 3, 2026, less than two weeks after the CRTC adopted its Broadcasting Regulatory Policy 2026, the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture ordered the CRTC to review its new policy. However, by announcing the new requirements for large foreign streaming services, the CRTC was acting pursuant to the Online Streaming Act, which was passed in 2023 and sought to modernize the Broadcasting Act to include and regulate online streaming platforms.

The act requires the CRTC to modernize the broadcasting framework and ensure that online streaming services contribute significantly to Canadian content. The reasoning behind the Online Streaming Act and the CRTC's regulatory policy remains just as valid.

The transformation of the ways people can access cultural content has moved a significant portion of audiences toward digital platforms. That has to be acknowledged. Audience habits have changed. Traditional broadcasters are required to contribute to the funding of the broadcasting system, but digital platforms are not subject to the same rules. The Online Streaming Act aims to fix this by making all companies that benefit from the Canadian market contribute.

By suspending the CRTC's policy, the government is doing more than undermining the democratic process that led to the adoption of the act and the levies policy. It also raises serious concerns about the CRTC's mandate and its role in shaping cultural and communications policy.

The CRTC regularly holds hearings or public consultations, at which members of the public, businesses, artists, associations and community groups have their say. In other words, government intervention is actually quite a shift away from the usual model of governance for culture and communications. One might even say that this is yet another setback for democracy. This is precisely why Catalina Briceño, a professor at the School of Media at the Université du Québec à Montréal, said that the argument of affordability used to justify scrapping levies for online platforms is misleading, because online companies can still raise their prices and the government has gained nothing in return for scrapping the levies. It has not even secured a commitment from the platforms to not raise prices.

The liberal argument regarding affordability can also be refuted based on the European experience, where similar policies have not caused prices to go up. The European Union stood its ground. It adopted the Audiovisual Media Services Directive, enabling member states to impose financial obligations on online streaming platforms. France requires contributions of up to 20% of revenue generated within its territory, a point also raised as an argument by the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions.

Time is running out. Bloc Québécois members could talk about this for a long time because we are passionate about protecting our culture and our language.

At the end of the day, the Liberal Prime Minister may as well have said that Quebec culture is too expensive and American entertainment is better. That is what prompted Union des artistes president Tania Kontoyanni to describe the whole situation as catastrophic and deeply discouraging.

To save face when it suspended the levy on web giants, the Liberal government pledged $600 million per year in public funds for Canada's audio and audiovisual industries. That money has yet to materialize.

Even more absurd is the fact that Ottawa is offering to pay, on behalf of streaming platforms, the levies that fund Canadian content creation. In other words, taxpayers will have to foot the bill instead of American billionaires. This is completely absurd. Essentially, the government is offloading its responsibilities—adopting regulations, raising enough revenue and properly supporting culture—onto Canadians.

This is why the Bloc Québécois motion calls on the government to “make the interim payment of $600 million promised to the cultural sector for the current year” and to “uphold the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission's decisions imposing levies on streaming services”.

What is really sad is the fact that the government not only sacrificed culture, but got absolutely nothing in return. We will continue to speak out against that.

With that, I am ready to answer my colleagues' questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have an affordability crisis in this country right now. I think that if we add on expenses for the CRTC, or Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, costs will rise for all Quebeckers.

What makes this a good time for that? I do not think it is warranted.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I wonder whether my colleague even listened to my speech. I think we have shown that, although the government gave in to the web giants, there is no guarantee that they will not increase their rates or that taxpayers will not ultimately pay twice. They will pay for the increase, but mostly for something the government will have to fund.

It is therefore a false argument. I clearly explained the affordability issue, but I want people to remember Europe's example. These countries stood their ground and it did not lead to higher rates or higher costs for taxpayers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her remarks, which were very clearly stated, naturally.

That is the beauty of parliamentary debate. Every party and every opinion can be heard. That said, one thing is important: When someone commits to doing something and the results are not there, they need to acknowledge it. We should remember that this government was elected on the promise to go to the White House with its elbows up. Ultimately, there were no elbows up at all; what we got were thumbs up. As a result, the government decided to abolish the digital services tax, thinking that this would have a positive impact on negotiations. It has already been 16 months since then. Sixteen months later, there are zero results.

What are my colleague's thoughts on this reality?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, for whom I have a great deal of respect. I know that he also comes from a media background, and he clearly has a genuine passion for the cultural sector. I salute him.

This was predictable. Fifteen months have passed, and all we have seen are setbacks. We were told it was time for “elbows up”. Earlier today, I met with businesses that are deeply concerned. The consequences are being felt across the cultural sector and by small and medium-sized enterprises throughout Quebec. Worse still, everyone is worried. Not only has the government failed to achieve any meaningful progress, but it gave in. It has tried to make up for that with token measures like this $600 million. That is nothing compared to the billions forfeited through its capitulation to the web giants. Even that $600 million remains undelivered. It amounts to little more than a band-aid on a gaping wound.

I hope the government will be able to acknowledge this, deliver the $600 million and then engage in much deeper reflection. It is time we stood our ground.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague. That was an excellent speech.

Whenever today's topic comes up in the House, ministers and members stand up and read lists of everything that the Department of Canadian Heritage has funded in Quebec, like festivals and events and so forth. Essentially, they are telling us that we cannot put forward meaningful proposals or carry out our role as the opposition simply because the Department of Canadian Heritage exists. As long as this department exists and spends money on festivals, we will not be allowed to put forward meaningful proposals.

However, this government claims, with great arrogance, that the opposition does nothing but complain and is not constructive. What we are calling for is tax fairness. We are asking whether the system as a whole that is used for funding the media ecosystem reflects the reality of today's new technologies. This is a profound and necessary change that must be sustainable.

What are we to make of a government that, in 2026, decides to support culture and, in particular, the television industry and the radio sector, using methods from the 1980s?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is now 2026. This is not the 1980s anymore, and times have changed.

As I demonstrated earlier, the example of media funding is striking. We have nothing against the CBC, but local and community media outlets have made it very clear to us that there is simply too little left for them. A better balance should have been found given that circumstances have changed. Local and community media are now struggling to compete with these greedy web giants.

Here is an example of a policy that is no longer relevant in 2026. The government boasts about supporting events. However, I recently met with Festivals and Major Events Canada, who told us that although they did receive a little more funding, it was not enough to keep pace with inflation and rising costs. They need more support. There is also a direct link between tourism and major events, and between culture, which has a powerful ability to attract—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Order.

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 St. Albert—Sturgeon River, Health; the hon. member for Calgary Crowfoot, The Economy.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun.

I want to start by discussing one of the statements in today's opposition motion. It says that “culture is central to Quebec's identity”. However, culture is also central to the identity of communities across Canada. I think every community is shaped by its culture. Culture is what enlivens communities and brings them to life. This reality affects not only Quebec, but also Canada and all the communities that make it up.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to talk about this motion and inform not only Quebeckers, but also all Canadians of the commitments we have made to support creators and cultural workers, as well as the communities that benefit every day from their work. Think of the filmmaker telling the history of their region, the musician recording their first songs, or the journalist giving a voice to the people in their community. To complete their project, they need resources, partners and a long-term vision. Through their work, we learn about experiences that are different from our own. We are introduced to places, voices and stories that are hard to find elsewhere but that contribute to the vitality of our communities.

However, we know that the conditions under which this work is accomplished are often difficult and that audience habits are changing. Revenue streams are shifting and funding is becoming more uncertain. Artists, production teams, businesses and local media are all affected by this pressure. Communities are also affected when a project cannot be carried out or when a story is at risk of not being told. When a news team scales back its activities, a region may lose some of its local coverage.

As a government, we take these challenges very seriously. Culture is part of what brings us together here in Canada. A song can remind us of our childhood or stay with us for many years. A TV series can give us a glimpse into the life of another community that we are not familiar with.

I would like to take this opportunity to return to the topic of Ishaka, the dance troupe I mentioned this week during members' statements. I noted that it is a group of Burundian Canadians. Some of its members were born here in Canada, while others have brought Burundi's rich culture to this country. Today, thanks to the cultivation and transmission of songs, poems, and the entire cultural heritage preserved by our elders, we see the youngest members of the Burundian community learning about this culture. They can now speak Kirundi and French, because in Burundi, the primary languages are Kirundi and French. They are learning songs that their grandparents sang many years ago.

Last week, I had the opportunity to go on stage and dance with them. Even though I had never danced a Burundian dance in my life, I was lucky enough to share that moment with the members of Ishaka. I was able to reconnect with the culture passed down to me by my ancestors and parents and bring it back to life right here, in my own country, in the city of Ottawa. Above all, I was able to perform on the same stage at the National Arts Centre in Ottawa that superstars like Céline Dion have graced. It was a moment that moved me deeply. What touched me most was seeing young children, little girls and boys aged four of five, embracing this culture. The production brought together nearly 300 people and featured 54 songs on stage, all inspired by Burundian Canadian culture. The goal was not only to pass on Burundian culture but also to adapt it to modern times, within the context of our lives today, here in Ottawa.

As I was saying, our government understands the importance of culture, the importance of language, the importance of songs, the importance of sharing poems and information, whether in French, English or any other language. Earlier, my colleague mentioned Punjabi, a language he uses and hears in his community. He also talked about the Filipino community in his riding. All of these cultural expressions need to be passed on through the networks and resources we have.

That is why, as a government, we take the importance of funding and supporting our communities very seriously, so that they can continue to tell these stories, sing these songs and disseminate information in the languages spoken in communities across Canada and Quebec.

These experiences create shared cultural references, bring generations closer together and strengthen a sense of belonging, as I just mentioned. We want creators from across Canada to be able to nurture these connections and we want new voices to be heard. This also means safeguarding the jobs and skills that make their work possible.

In 2024, the audiovisual and interactive media sector contributed more than $20 billion to Canada's GDP and accounted for more than 172,000 jobs. Sound recording and music publishing contributed more than $542 million to GDP and accounted for about 5,500 jobs.

Behind these numbers are actors, technicians, editors and directors. There are also the businesses and suppliers that help sustain the economies of the regions where these productions are made. We want these people to be able to build careers here and pass on their knowledge to the next generation.

Widespread appreciation for our musical talent, for example, shows what we can achieve. The accolades received by Charlotte Cardin, Louis-Jean Cormier and Talk are an excellent example.

When it comes to supporting our musical artists, the Canada Music Fund is the main financial support program for commercially driven Canadian music. It aims to connect a wide range of Canadian artists with audiences around the world. The program provides financial support to Canadian artists and to music companies and music organizations owned and controlled by Canadians for a variety of activities that enhance the visibility of Canadian artists at home and abroad.

In the last budget, we committed $48 million over three years to the Canada Music Fund, starting in 2026-27, to advance our artists' careers while strengthening the music sector's competitiveness and stability.

The fund's entire budget is redistributed by non-profit organizations like the Foundation Assisting Canadian Talent on Recordings, in the anglophone market, and Musicaction, in the francophone market.

The music industry generates economic activity through performances and drives other important economic sectors, including tourism, entertainment and advertising. It is also crucial to support Canada's francophone music sector. The sector is confronting major challenges, and its listenership has dropped significantly. Supporting our francophone artists is essential.

I would add that it is thanks to the determination of London's francophone community that there are now 11 French-language elementary schools in London, Ontario. This community has long fought to keep this culture alive. I have a child who attends a French-language school, who can live their life in French, who can work in French, and who listens to music by French-Canadian artists. That is only possible because we have invested in preserving our culture, which is important. When I left Montreal to move to London, there were only four or five francophone elementary schools. Today, there are 11. Not only have we been able to continue living in French and preserve the francophone culture, but we have also seen that culture grow; the francophone community in London continues to grow. There are several reasons for this, of course, but it is partly because we work hard to live in French, continue speaking French and listen to music in French.

I could speak at length about the importance of preserving francophone culture both outside and within Quebec. Unfortunately, I do not have enough time. With that, I am ready to take questions from my colleagues.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Parti Québécois MNAs who were elected in my riding, La Pointe-de-l’Île, which is now entirely blue. Paul St-Pierre Plamondon was re-elected in the riding of Camille-Laurin. He is also the Premier of Quebec and the minister responsible for combatting homelessness. Stéphane Paquet was elected in the riding of Pointe-aux-Trembles. He is also the minister for economic development, innovation and energy and minister responsible for Montreal and the Montreal region. I am very pleased and very proud of them. I believe we will be able to work together, particularly to defend Quebec culture, the culture of the Quebec nation.

That said, I feel that my colleague's speech completely missed the point. She talked about different cultures, which is great. We agree on that. However, does she realize that, by instructing the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission not to impose levies on American digital platforms, the government has undermined all those cultures?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, although I have the utmost respect for my colleague, I still find it sad to hear him say that discussing London's francophones is off topic when it comes to culture. The reason I am able to keep my language, preserve my francophone identity and live fully in French with my family today is because our government continues to support francophone culture both within and outside Quebec. It saddens me a little to hear my colleague say that the messages or experiences of the people of London, Ontario, are irrelevant in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague for her speech, which was very moving because she shared her story and her family's story. I thank her family for choosing Canada.

Now, we are here to discuss a fiscal reality, a political reality, and also a reality that affects the cultural community that she holds so dear.

Let us not forget that the political party she represents has gone back and forth a few times. At first, it was against the tax, and then it was for it. Then it used it to placate Donald Trump and convince him to strike a good deal with Canada. The reality is that when this government decided to abolish the digital services tax, it was really just to please Donald Trump.

Now, 16 months later, the results are non-existent. What are my colleague's thoughts on that?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate my colleague's questions. I do not think that the question he is asking has a set answer. What we have been saying for a while is that we are working to ensure that we do not add any costs that would be passed on to Canadians. The goal is to help our artists and to keep and protect productions in Canada. The goal is not to make Canadians' lives more complicated, but really to ensure that no costs are passed on to them.

I think that my colleague would also agree that, during a crisis that we did not ask for and that we are currently experiencing across Canada, we must protect Canadians. We want to make sure that Canadians do not continue to pay unnecessary fees. That is what our government is doing.

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

Mr. Speaker, our government introduced a number of measures in budget 2025 to support the cultural sector in Quebec and across the country, and I hope we will do the same again in budget 2026.

Could my colleague share her thoughts on those measures?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to my colleague for her question.

Obviously, as has already been mentioned in the House, our government continues to support CBC/Radio-Canada, for example, as well as festivals across Canada and content produced by Canadian artists. We are protecting our artists in budget 2025. I am sure that in the upcoming budget 2026, there will even be more announcements that will continue to protect our Canadian cultural content, especially content made by francophones.

[Claude Guay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to talk about the importance of the cultural sector, its future and its workers. I am pleased to do so.

The cultural sector provides 172,000 jobs across the country for artists, creators, broadcasters, writers and video game programmers. They perform a multitude of roles in front of and behind the camera, on stage and behind the scenes. Behind a show are screenwriters, crews and sound and editing specialists. Behind an album are artists, directors, technicians and partners who work to bring it to audiences. Each new project creates work for those teams. It allows businesses to draw on their suppliers, gives emerging professionals an opportunity to gain experience, and enables established workers to pass on their know-how. That is how an industry is through: through a continuous stream of projects, the experience gained along the way and the capacity to reinvest in future opportunities.

We want to preserve that expertise in Canada. We want to empower businesses to build on their successes. We want Canadian artists, workers and cultural enterprises to be able to build their future here. We want their talents to translate into projects, jobs and opportunities for growth both at home and abroad.

Their contribution, through their creativity, expertise and dedication, extends far beyond the economy. These are the people who bring to life the stories that define us, that reflect the diversity of our experiences and that showcase Quebec and Canadian culture at home and abroad. Our talented artists have demonstrated their ability to connect with audiences around the world. In recent years, television series such as Empathie and Heated Rivalry have enjoyed great success. Artists such as the members of Angine de Poitrine, whose alien language is somewhat beyond me, are making their mark all over the world. Robert Lepage, Denis Villeneuve and Yannick Nézet‑Séguin are all artists who are a source of pride for us and who are recognized both here and abroad. Their success raises the profile of our creators and the expertise of our teams. We want others to be able to follow in their footsteps and develop their careers.

We recognize, however, that the sector is facing significant challenges. Traditional media revenues are under pressure, audience habits continue to evolve, and companies must adapt their business models. When a production is delayed, the consequences are felt by the whole team; contracts become less frequent and income less predictable. The next generation may find fewer opportunities to learn and gain initial experience. In the long term, this uncertainty may jeopardize our ability to retain talent and keep experienced teams in place.

We must address immediate needs while laying the groundwork for future growth. Last June, our government announced a $600-million investment to provide stability and immediate support to the audiovisual sector. We recognize the importance of this investment, which will be distributed to the sector as soon as possible. This is a commitment the government has made. We want to support the ability to create and distribute Canadian content. We also want to keep services accessible and affordable so that families can continue to watch Canadian movies and TV shows and listen to our artists.

The sector's strength also relies on fair contributions by all broadcasting system participants, including online streaming services, to support the creation and promotion of Quebec and Canadian content. The Online Streaming Act made it possible to incorporate these services into the broadcasting framework. The CRTC developed the regulatory obligations applicable to the audio and audiovisual sector. We announced our plans to review certain requirements, draft new policies and maintain strong support for our content while taking the different business models and the cost of services to households into account.

We are also looking for ways to modernize our institutions and the funding mechanisms that support the audiovisual industry. We want our policy tools to better support companies throughout their development, from the creation of a project to its dissemination to audiences. The advisory group that met this year underscored the importance of intellectual property, distribution, audience development and revenue. We want Canadian businesses to be able to keep more of the value inherent in their creations.

This would enable them to reinvest, develop new projects and strengthen their presence in the market. We are also looking into creating a new federal body that would merge Telefilm Canada, the National Film Board and the Canada Media Fund and broaden their mandates. However, a decision has not yet been made in that regard.

The sector's future also depends on skills and workers. Artificial intelligence, which is important to mention, and all the changes in technology have changed the way things are done. What we want is for workers to be able to continue learning, for the next generation to develop its expertise and for businesses to have the ability to experiment and innovate. We want the regions and groups that face more barriers to also benefit from these opportunities. It is also important to mention indigenous sovereignty, as well as inclusion and fairness, which must also guide this discussion.

We are also giving equal attention to people who work in our media sector. Producing accurate news requires journalists, production teams and time to investigate, verify facts and explain what is happening. Preserving this capacity is essential to democratic life, particularly when misinformation spreads quickly.

In the spring economic update, we announced our intention to consult on expanding the Canadian journalism labour tax credit to include audio and audiovisual production. We want the future of these sectors to offer opportunities in all communities. Francophone creators must be able to create and reach their audiences. Indigenous creators must be able to share their stories and languages. Official language minority communities must see their realities reflected in our media. This diversity fuels creativity and enriches the content available to the public. It contributes to our sense of belonging and strengthens the bonds between communities. We therefore want to support an industry capable of offering opportunities to these workers, developing talent, and helping local businesses in this sector to grow.

As we prepare for this future, we will support jobs and the expertise that is so valuable. We are also preserving our ability to create right here in Canada, from coast to coast to coast. We want to tell our stories, the stories of all the different communities in our beautiful country, and share them with the world, not just here at home.

I will now answer my colleagues' questions.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out once again that we are talking about culture, of course.

Personally, what I would have liked to hear my colleague talk about is the fact that the cultural sector is currently being deprived of significant revenue from levies and, above all, the $600 million that had been promised to them as compensation has still not been paid out. My colleague talks about the media. As I mentioned earlier in my speech, local media outlets, in particular, are struggling to attract advertising because, obviously, it is the greedy web giants that are taking the lion's share of the revenue. What is more, they are not paying their fair share here, while local and community media outlets are trying to find ways to get by.

In this context, I would have preferred to hear my colleague commit to handing over the $600 million as soon as possible.

[Claude Guay, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government, I am pleased to share its commitment to provide the $600 million that my colleague mentioned. A lot more information will be provided in the coming days. I look forward to it.

That said, I also want to inform my colleague that in addition to the $600 million, another $550 million has already been distributed: $192 million to the CBC/Radio‑Canada; $150 million to Telefilm Canada; $127 million to the Canada Media Fund; $48 million to the Canada Music Fund; $26 million to the National Film Board of Canada; and $6 million to the Canada Council for the Arts. Most of these amounts, except for the funds provided to CBC/Radio‑Canada, will be spread out over three years, although the distribution has already started.

I thank my colleague for her question and for the opportunity to share this information.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is the third time I have put a question to a government MP. I hope that, this time, I will receive a clear answer.

Here are the facts. In June 2025, the government announced its intention to withdraw the digital services tax. The objective was clear: facilitate negotiations with the United States.

Fifteen months later, can the member tell us what tangible results have come from the decision to withdraw the digital services tax? Has it had a positive effect on the negotiations, yes or no?

[Claude Guay, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight my colleague's remarks earlier this afternoon in this debate. I completely agreed with him when he said that it is necessary to learn. When things change, it is necessary to adapt. It is a bad idea to always fall back on formulas that do not work.

By the way, I did not hear the discussion, but the money that was supposed to come from those media outlets was not distributed. No one in the cultural sector benefited from it, because there were lawsuits. It went to court. That money could not be distributed to the cultural sector. Our cultural environment did not benefit from it.

That is why we decided to take a different approach.

[Tatiana Auguste, Liberal, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, many members on this side of the House stood up for culture and requested funding in budget 2025. In the end, we got it.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about some of the other members of the House's culture-related requests.

[Claude Guay, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question, which will give me the opportunity to clarify what has happened in recent months and over the past year.

As members know, the Conservative Party did not make any culture-related requests. The Conservatives even wanted to take a step backward and cut funding for CBC/Radio‑Canada. They never mentioned providing more funding for French content or for culture.

It is also important to note that the motion was moved by the Bloc Québécois, who did not make any culture-related requests in the last budget. I find it a bit rich that we have this motion before us today to debate when the Bloc did not make any specific culture-related requests at budget time.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, that is incorrect; the Bloc Québécois has made requests related to culture. Second of all, the real issue is that the CRTC was following the new Broadcasting Act and wanted American digital platforms to pay their fair share, which would have resulted in $2 billion more in revenues for Quebec and French-language media and culture. So the question is—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt hon. members because the time allotted for this debate has expired. Hon. members who wish to discuss it further will have to do so outside the chamber.

It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to request a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, October 26, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

I see that the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent at this time to call it 5:30 p.m. so we can begin private members' hour.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from May 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-247, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canada Labour Code

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, this is a pivotal moment for Canada and Canadians. Global economic uncertainty continues to challenge workers, employers and communities across our country. Supply chains have been tested. Trade relationships have faced new pressures. Industries that Canadians depend on every day have had to adapt to significant change.

Through all this, Canadians have demonstrated the resilience and determination that define our country. Our responsibility as a Parliament is clear. We must protect Canadian workers while strengthening Canada's economic resilience. We must build a strong economy with the workers who keep it running. Our economy runs on Canadian workers, and we must protect workers with an economy that remains competitive, reliable and capable of withstanding shocks. Workers are the backbone of a strong Canadian economy. It is with that in mind that I rise today to speak to Bill C-247.

First, I would like to thank the sponsor, the member for Winnipeg Centre, for her continued advocacy on behalf of working Canadians. While we will not always agree on how to proceed, the Government of Canada shares her commitment to ensuring that workers are treated fairly and that the collective bargaining process remains strong.

The spirit behind Bill C-247 aligns with the objectives that our government strongly supports. We believe the right to strike is fundamental. We believe that negotiated agreements are always the best outcome. We believe that the responsibility for reaching those agreements belongs first and foremost to the employers and the unions. We believe that collective bargaining must remain the foundation of Canada's labour relations system. It is a constitutional right, it is hard-fought and it is essential. I also believe in balance, prudence and tools of last resort, so I prefer to fix section 107, not to scrap it.

Bill C-39 was designed with this goal: to add guardrails to section 107's use, strengthen collective bargaining, improve labour management relationships, identify and address risks earlier and increase the likelihood that employers and unions reach negotiated agreements at the bargaining table. That is the context of the broader purpose of Bill C-39: to protect our country and its workers in turbulent times, and to ensure broad prosperity for all workers.

Our economy is only as strong as our workplaces, and our workplaces are only as strong as the relationships that exist within them. More than one million employees and over 22,000 employers operate within the federally regulated private sector. They deserve a labour relations framework that is modern, balanced and effective. They deserve a system that supports good-faith bargaining, and they deserve a framework that helps parties identify problems earlier, address risks before positions become entrenched, and find solutions together.

The labour measures contained in Bill C-39 are built on what we heard directly from stakeholders. The government conducted two rounds of consultations this year with unions, labour organizations, employers, employer representatives, indigenous partners and other stakeholders from across the country. We received more than 300 written submissions. Participants expressed diverse views on many issues, but some points emerged with remarkable consistency. Everyone agreed that collective agreements are best achieved through good-faith negotiations between employers and unions at the bargaining table. We also heard that Canada's collective bargaining framework is working well in most circumstances.

In fact, approximately 95% of collective bargaining relationships conclude without a work stoppage. This is an important success. Bill C-39 builds upon that. It is important that parties can resolve disputes themselves without disruption and without outside intervention. The bill addresses key risks in labour relations and would provide additional supports, tools and opportunities for parties to reach negotiated settlements earlier. It would also limit the use of section 107.

Parties negotiating a first collective agreement would receive additional support from the federal mediation and conciliation service and access to binding dispute resolutions after nine months of unsuccessful bargaining. The bill would also provide additional support in bargaining relationships where experience suggests negotiations may be more challenging. This includes situations where parties experienced a strike or lockout during the previous round of bargaining. It includes situations where a binding dispute resolution process was previously required.

When a strike, lockout or imposed dispute resolution process occurs, it can signal deeper relationship challenges that require additional attention. In these higher-risk situations, parties would participate in postdispute remediation with the federal mediation and conciliation service and begin bargaining earlier, creating more time and opportunity to address issues before positions become entrenched.

Time can often be the difference between impasse and agreement. Bill C-39 would extend the conciliation period from 60 days to 90 days, giving parties more opportunity to resolve difficult issues at the bargaining table.

Taken together, these measures provide more support, more time and more opportunities for parties to reach their own agreements. Bill C-39 would prevent and resolve disputes earlier, strengthen labour management relationships and preserve free collective bargaining as the primary means of resolving workplace issues.

That brings us to section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. Bill C-39 would fetter government intervention, strengthen collective bargaining and help parties reach agreements themselves. Labour measures are directed towards that objective.

Views on section 107 diverge among stakeholders. Some believe that a tool should continue to exist for the most exceptional circumstances, others expressed concerns about how section 107 has been used in the past. We heard, repeatedly, a desire for greater clarity, greater transparency, stronger safeguards and clearer limits on when this authority could be considered. That is a desire common to Bill C-247 and Bill C-39.

Stakeholders told us that, if section 107 was to remain in the Code, meaningful guardrails were needed around its use. That is what Bill C-39 would do. It would constrain ministerial discretion, raise the threshold for intervention and create a structured and transparent process that would have to be followed before intervention could even be contemplated.

This is perhaps the most important point of this debate. Under Bill C-39, the vast majority of collective bargaining relationships would never reach a point where section 107 could even be considered. That is because there are significant gates that must first be passed. The first gate is process. A special mediator must be appointed. In the vast majority of negotiations, a special mediator will never be appointed.

As I noted earlier, approximately 95% of collective agreements are successfully negotiated without a work stoppage. With the reforms proposed in Bill C-39, we are confident that that percentage will grow even higher. For the relatively small number of disputes where a special mediator is appointed, their mandate is to work intensively with both parties to help them reach their own agreement. The purpose of the special mediator is not government intervention but to help workers and employers resolve the disputes themselves.

The second gate is impact. If, despite the support of a special mediator, the parties cannot reach an agreement, there must be a determination that the dispute has consequences that extend beyond the bargaining parties and rise to the level of national significance. In other words, the impacts must reach well beyond a single workplace and affect broader economic or social interests. Those impacts must be weighed alongside the importance of free collective bargaining and the charter-protected right to strike. Even then, a strike or lockout must already be under way.

Only after those thresholds have been met could a minister consider whether further action may be necessary. Those are meaningful constraints, and they are consistent with strengthening labour. Those requirements introduce a degree of transparency and accountability that does not exist today.

If a special mediator is appointed, the process itself is equally important. The mediator would have 21 days to work intensively with both parties. The objective throughout that process would be to reach a negotiated settlement. If an agreement cannot be reached, the mediator will prepare a report outlining the issues in dispute, the position of the parties and recommendations for moving forward. The parties will receive that report and have further opportunity to continue negotiation. If the dispute remains unresolved, the report would become public. Canadians would be able to understand the issues, the challenges and the basis upon which the decisions were made.

That transparency is one of the central reforms contained within Bill C-39. The minister would then have to consider the mediator's report, assess the broader impacts of the dispute, weigh the importance of free collective bargaining and the charter-protected right to strike and determine whether reasonable alternatives remain available. In other words, the minister would have to demonstrate why intervention may be necessary.

Let me be clear about what this would mean in practice. Most collective agreements will remain on a normal collective bargaining path. Most negotiations will never require a special mediator. Most disputes will never reach the threshold of national significance. As a result, the vast majority of bargaining relationships will never enter a process where section 107 could even be contemplated. Workers and employers will continue to do what they have always done, which is negotiate agreements directly with one another at the bargaining table. That remains the heart of Canada's labour relations system. That remains the preferred outcome. That remains the objective of Bill C-39.

Bill C-247 raises important questions about the future of section 107. Our government's response is clear. The best way to protect collective bargaining is not to focus exclusively on exceptional circumstances; it is to strengthen the system as a whole, and Bill C-39 does that.

Bill C-39 encourages earlier engagement, helps parties identify risks before they escalate, strengthens labour management relationships and introduces greater transparency and accountability into the system. It also places meaningful guardrails around section 107 so that it remains a true measure of last resort. Most importantly, it preserves and strengthens free collective bargaining as the foundation of Canada's labour relations framework. That is what stakeholders told us they wanted and what Bill C-39 delivers, which is why I encourage all members of the House to support Bill C-39 when the time comes.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to stand in the House and speak on behalf of the good, hard-working people of Windsor.

Before I get into the bill, I want to recognize the bargaining team at Unifor Local 444, led by James Stewart, and the hard work they are putting in as they negotiate with Stellantis. The people of Windsor appreciate them.

I also want to recognize the workers in Brampton who are waiting for answers about the future of their plant, their jobs and their families. They want to know when the government is going to deliver on its promises and hold Stellantis accountable. Windsor's workers are standing with them, because they understand that when one community of auto workers is left in limbo, it affects all of us. That is what solidarity looks like on the ground.

However, frankly, after months of warnings from the industry minister about holding Stellantis accountable, workers in Brampton are still waiting for answers and meaningful results. They cannot feed their families with press releases. They cannot pay their mortgages with a promise. If public money was provided in exchange for commitments to Canadian manufacturing, workers and taxpayers have every right to ask whether those commitments are being honoured and what the consequences are of not upholding those commitments. The Liberal government needs to stop talking about accountability and start demonstrating it for a change.

There is something else that the Liberal government needs to remember about these workers. They are not just workers; they are taxpayers too. Every payday, they send their hard-earned dollars to Ottawa. They expect that money to be spent responsibly. They expect their government to respect the work they do, the taxes they pay and the commitments made in their names. Canadians are expected to show up for work, meet their obligations, pay their taxes and play by the rules. They have every right to expect the Liberal government to be held to the same standard.

Is it any wonder that Bill C-247 has made its way to the House floor today? When workers see their bargaining power weakened by a government intervention and when their concerns about job security go unanswered, their frustration is understandable. The government cannot keep saying to workers “trust us” while giving them very little reason to believe that their concerns are being taken seriously.

I want to approach this debate from a perspective I know well. I spent three decades in policing, and during that time, I was a member of a police union. I understand collective bargaining. I understand why workers need a voice, why they need representation and why negotiations matter. I have also attended picket lines as a police officer, helping maintain peace when emotions were running high. I have seen the anger and frustration. I have seen people worried about their livelihoods, their families and what the future holds.

A labour dispute is never just about the numbers on a page. It is about a worker who has spent 20 or 30 years at a job and is suddenly worried about what comes next. It is about a family that has built its life around a steady paycheque. It is about people who feel they have done their part and are asking for a fair deal.

As a police officer on a picket line, my job was not to take sides. My job was to help maintain peace, protect people's safety and ensure that everyone could exercise their constitutional rights, but maintaining peace and taking away someone's right to stand up for themselves are two very different things. That brings me to section 107 of the Labour Code.

Let me put this in plain language. A screwdriver is a tool. We use it to fix things, tighten screws and get a job done. If somebody takes a screwdriver and uses it to hurt another person, do we outlaw that screwdriver? We do not. We hold the person who misused the tool accountable. The problem is not necessarily the tool; the problem is how it is being used.

Section 107 has existed for decades as a mechanism the government can use to help address labour disputes and maintain industrial peace, but the Liberal government has repeatedly misused it to intervene in disputes and shoehorn everyone toward binding arbitration, taking away workers' ability to use a strike as leverage. My colleague from Dufferin—Caledon raised these concerns in his speech on May 27, and I understand why unions are angry. I understand why they are concerned that the government is stepping in before workers have had a fair opportunity to negotiate an agreement.

Let us think about it from the workers' perspective. They sit across the table from their employer, they negotiate, they make compromises and they try to reach an agreement. What happens if they believe that the employer is not listening? What happens if they have tried everything else and the only leverage they have left is the possibility of a strike? What happens if the government steps in and takes that leverage away? They are left wondering whether the bargaining process was ever fair in the first place.

Nobody wants a strike. Workers lose wages, businesses lose production, families face uncertainty and communities feel the impact. However, the fact that a strike causes disruption does not mean that the right to strike is the problem. Sometimes that disruption is what brings the parties back to the table and forces them to find a solution. The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized the right to strike as an essential component of meaningful collective bargaining under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I know the importance of collective bargaining from my own experience as a member of a police association.

Workers are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for a meaningful voice in decisions that affect their working life. That is a principle that we as Conservatives will defend without hesitation. We believe that people should have the opportunity to work, earn a living and provide for their family. We believe that businesses should be able to invest, grow and create jobs. However, those goals do not require us to weaken workers' bargaining rights. A strong economy needs successful businesses. It also needs skilled workers who believe they are being treated fairly.

Let us look at the WestJet mechanics dispute. The government referred the matter for binding arbitration, yet the parties ultimately reached their own agreement. There is a lesson there. When employers and workers have to sit down and work through their differences, they have an incentive to find a solution they can both live with. Collective bargaining is not easy. Neither side gets everything it wants. It requires compromise. However, there is a difference between helping the parties reach an agreement and stepping in to take away their bargaining power. There is also a difference between getting people back to work and actually resolving the issues that caused the dispute.

Unions have raised serious concerns about government interventions involving railways, Canada Post and airlines. We should listen to them. I do not believe that every union position is automatically right, nor do I believe that the employers are always wrong, but workers deserve to be heard. The rules should be fair, and the government should not reach for the easiest way out whenever negotiations become difficult.

Some members will ask, if section 107 is being misused, why not repeal it altogether? I understand the argument behind Bill C-247. I understand the frustration that has led many union members to support the repeal, but I come back to the screwdriver. If a tool has a legitimate purpose and the government misuses it, I believe we should hold the government accountable and put proper safeguards in place. We should not automatically assume that eliminating the tool is the only answer.

We should strengthen mediation, make extraordinary interventions transparent and ensure that workers' constitutional rights are respected. There may be exceptional circumstances where intervention is necessary to protect public safety or essential services, but those circumstances must be treated carefully. Economic inconvenience or crony capitalism alone should not become an excuse to take away workers' bargaining leverage.

I want to bring this back to Windsor and Brampton. In Brampton, workers are waiting for answers about their plant and their future. In Windsor, workers are standing with them, demanding that Stellantis honour its commitments and that the federal government do its job. Those workers are not asking for a handout; they are asking for accountability. They have put in the hours, they have developed the skills, they have built the vehicles and they have helped make this country prosperous.

As I said, I spent three decades as a police officer and as a member of a police association. I know the importance of rules and accountability. I know that when tensions rise, the best way forward is to deal with people fairly and consistently. This bill, the way it would be used by the government, is not fair and not equitable either.

Workers do not need lectures about keeping the economy moving. They are the people who keep it moving. They build our vehicles, keep our factories running, support their family, contribute to their community and pay their taxes for public services. They deserve a government that respects their contributions, honours its commitments and protects their rights.

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

Madam Speaker, what were the striking workers in Murdochville demanding in 1957? Why did 1,000 striking workers, 1,000 people working at the Murdochville mine in 1957, go on a long, seven-month, violent strike?

They were demanding decent working conditions and a decent wage. Normally, what people want is to be able to obtain decent working conditions through negotiations, through a process of dialogue between the employer and union members, where they discuss each other's objectives. The employer lays its cards on the table a bit regarding the economic reality, and everyone tries to find ways to share the profits.

However, that is not at all what happened in Murdochville in 1957. It remains one of the most significant labour disputes in Quebec's history. There were violent incidents in Murdochville that year. In April, 27 police officers were sent to stop picketing because, at the time, a Superior Court judge had ruled that the strike was illegal. A box of dynamite was later found in Murdochville. It is hard for me to imagine how violent it was, because I go there quite often.

After the discovery of the box of dynamite, which authorities feared might be used for criminal purposes, 50 police officers were sent to Murdochville. After that, the picketing resumed, and on July 14, 1957, Henri Bernatchez, a striker, died in a dynamite explosion on the grounds of the Murdochville mine. Two other strikers were seriously injured.

The dispute escalated. It spread to Quebec City. A large march took place in front of the National Assembly in September 1957. There were 7,000 workers from all over Quebec, but still, nothing was really resolved. It was a confrontational strike, a violent strike that unfortunately ended very badly for the strikers.

Why am I telling this story?

The goal is to find a balance in labour-management relations. We need to ensure that people talk to one another and that we encourage them to reach compromises rather than resorting to discouragement and violence.

There was a lot of that in what happened in Murdochville. The employer really did have a very anti-union attitude. Some of the strikers were also very demanding.

What we have seen in recent years, and what is particularly relevant to today's debate, is a growing tendency on the part of the federal government to intervene in labour disputes using a rather unexpected mechanism. One has to acknowledge the ingenuity of the government's legal advisers, who determined that section 107 of the Canada Labour Code could be used to bring an end to a labour dispute. That provision grants the minister considerable discretion. Traditionally, when a government has chosen to intervene to end a strike, it has done so through special legislation. Such intervention is never ideal, as the preferred outcome is always for the parties to reach a negotiated agreement.

The federal government has decided to use section 107 several times in recent years, so much so that it has almost become a habit. It is like when you get a new tool, so you want to use it all the time until you end up over-using it.

A number of strikes have been scaled back or brought to a swift halt by the federal government over the past two or three years. That was notably the case with WestJet in 2024. There was also the case of the national railways in August 2024. At the same time, there was the case of Canadian Pacific workers. After that, in November 2024, it was the dock supervisors at a B.C. port. There was also the case of the Port of Québec, where the strike was ended by the federal minister on November 12, 2024, using section 107. Members will recall that, in December, the Canada Post strike was interrupted.

More recently, one last really important example is the Air Canada strike. In August 2025, the Air Canada strike was on the horizon. We are talking about 10,000 flight attendants who were ready to go on strike. Within hours of the strike starting, the minister used section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. Basically, section 107 states that the minister can take action by referring the matter to the Canada Industrial Relations Board, which can order an end to the strike. It is a fast track to end a strike and take away workers' rights. The circumstances at Air Canada were not the same as those in Murdochville. Nevertheless, the strike began and, within hours, the minister invoked section 107. The Canada Industrial Relations Board then issued an order requiring the employees to return to work. However, Air Canada flight attendants refused to comply. They did not comply with that decision and, ultimately, within hours, an agreement was reached. Personally, I see a slippery slope there because, as I was saying, if there is no balance, if people are not respected, conflicts can sometimes escalate. Although the goal is to encourage people to make compromises, sometimes we end up achieving the exact opposite.

What makes this situation somewhat unusual, and the reason we support Bill C-247, is that in 2015, in Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to strike is essential. This was an important decision that clarified that the right to strike is “an essential part of a meaningful collective bargaining process”.

The Supreme Court says that, in order to participate meaningfully in the pursuit of their goals, workers must have the right to strike. It states that the right to strike is constitutionally protected under the right to freedom of association enshrined in section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I would like to share a few short passages:

The right to strike is essential to realizing these values through a collective bargaining process because it permits workers to withdraw their labour in concert when collective bargaining reaches an impasse. Through a strike, workers come together to participate directly in the process of determining their wages, working conditions and the rules that will govern their working lives.

The right to strike also promotes equality in the bargaining process.

While strike activity itself does not guarantee that a labour dispute will be resolved in any particular manner, or that it will be resolved at all, it is the possibility of a strike which enables workers to negotiate their employment terms on a more equal footing.

Here is one more excerpt, which is perhaps the most striking:

...the ability to engage in the collective withdrawal of services in the process of the negotiation of a collective agreement is, and has historically been, the irreducible minimum of the freedom to associate in Canadian labour relations.

The right to strike is the “irreducible minimum of the freedom to associate in Canadian labour relations”. Section 107 creates a fast track to removing workers' right to strike. It throws off the balance.

Today's proposal to simply repeal section 107 does not take all power away from the federal minister, because she can act in other ways, including by appointing conciliators. The idea of special legislation is not off the table either, although this section 107 has been challenged before the Canada Industrial Relations Board, and I suspect in federal court as well. I found no decisions when I was doing my research. I no longer have access to some of the tools I used to use. I did not find a ruling in the open-source database, but this use of section 107 would certainly have warranted judicial examination. I think that the idea of simply repealing it outright would restore the balance of power, without taking away all powers to intervene, yet getting rid of a tool that is too readily accessible and that, unfortunately, has been somewhat misused in recent years.

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

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre has five minutes for her right of reply.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, to start out, I will note that it has been over a year since I tabled my bill, Bill C-247, to protect the right to strike in Canada and to repeal the Liberal government's go-to strikebreaking tool: section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. Section 107 lets the minister violate workers' charter-protected right to strike by simply sending an email, which the Liberals have done 10 times in the past three years alone. In fact, with Air Canada, they sent flight attendants back to work in less than 12 hours, caving to the CEO, who had no intention of bargaining with workers, workers who, I might add, were primarily women.

Every time the Liberals have used section 107, they have told CEOs everywhere that if they refuse to bargain in good faith, the federal government will come to their rescue and shut down workers' strikes. The use of section 107 contradicts rulings by the Supreme Court and the International Court of Justice that protect the right to strike. The NDP has been clear: Section 107 has no place in our democracy.

During the time we have debated my bill to uphold the right to strike, the Liberals have taken their attacks on workers' rights to a whole other level in Bill C-39. This bill tries to justify the government's unconstitutional attacks on the right to strike and enshrine the Liberal government's strikebreaking tactics into law, which would cause even more frequent strikebreaking. It is no surprise that this is happening under the watch of the new governing party, which is run by the Bay Street boys. Unions across Canada have condemned this bill's attack on the right to strike. They include CLC, Canada's Building Trades Unions, CUPE, PSAC, CUPW, Unifor, Teamsters and more.

The Liberals are not building a strong country through these attacks on workers. Instead, they are creating new divisions throughout our society at the direction of big business, including corporate giants in the U.S. and beyond. As Bea Bruske, president of the CLC, stated, “we cannot defend Canada with our hands tied at the bargaining table.” She continued, “A right you cannot exercise is not a right. Canada's unions fought for the right to strike, and we will fight to defend it.” CUPE National has meanwhile passed a unanimous resolution vowing to defy the Liberal government's Bill C-39 if passed unamended through Parliament.

After years of violating workers' right to strike through the abuse of section 107, this Labour Day, the Liberal Minister of Jobs had the audacity to celebrate the historical progress of workers' rights, which was, in her words, “fought for by generations of workers and union members who organized, stood together, and pushed Canada forward.” She would have already been aware of the sweeping violations of collective bargaining rights contained in Bill C-39, which her government presented in Parliament just weeks later.

This is exactly the type of hypocrisy we are used to after years of the Liberals' attacks on collective bargaining rights. They say they support workers, only to violate their constitutional rights and prevent them from reaching fair deals through collective bargaining. If the Prime Minister cared about workers, he would be protecting and advancing collective bargaining rights, which are workers' tried and tested means of bringing home a livable wage. This starts with repealing section 107 and ending attacks on the right to strike.

Workers across the country are watching whether the government will support their rights and vote in favour of this NDP bill. I know that NDP members of Parliament will continue to stand up without qualification for the right to free collective bargaining and the right to strike in Canada.

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

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we would request a recorded vote.

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

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 28, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Health

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise to follow up on a question that I posed to the Minister of Health regarding the outrageous compensation paid to Michael Green, the CEO in charge of the Liberals' $300-million PrescribeIT debacle.

PrescribeIT, of course, is the Liberal government's program that was supposed to digitize and streamline prescriptions across Canada. It is now $300 million later, and there is almost nothing to show for it at PrescribeIT. Instead of streamlining and digitizing prescriptions, PrescribeIT accounts for only a meagre 5% of prescriptions across Canada. On top of that, fully 200 million tax dollars are missing and unaccounted for. That is 200 million tax dollars that literally went into a black hole.

For all of that, the CEO, Mr. Green, was awarded compensation of $1 million a year, including, in his last year, receiving a $215,000 performance bonus. He received $1 million of compensation for no work, with nothing to show for it other than 200 million tax dollars that literally went into a black hole. All of this occurred under the watch of the current health minister and previous Liberal health ministers, who all turned a blind eye.

Since this scandal became public, the Liberals have been in full cover-up mode. Despite all of the attempts to cover up all that went on at PrescribeIT, including the outrageous compensation that was awarded to Mr. Green, we have been doing some digging. The more we dig, the more we learn and the worse it gets.

Court filings reveal that Mr. Green was actually awarded $600,000 in performance bonuses between 2022 and 2025 for work that was characterized as exceeding, thriving and delivering. We cannot make this stuff up. The Minister of Health pats herself on the back for terminating Mr. Green, but she only did so after this scandal came to light and she, effectively, had no choice. What the health minister failed to disclose, which we subsequently learned upon obtaining Mr. Green's termination letter, is that he received $1 million on his way out the door, a $1-million golden parachute.

How do the Liberals justify any of this?

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, we, in the House, have had this question come up a number of times, and I am happy to reiterate some of the basic facts and maybe get into them in the returns.

The reality is simple. When the minister found out, the minister acted. It is not reasonable to expect the minister to act before she found out on its surface. It is important that tax dollars are used properly. That is a fundamental principle of any democracy. That is a fundamental principle of any government. We have an independent review of the organization's governance and structure under way in a third-party audit of the organization's findings.

This is the start of any such process. This is what proper governance looks like. The Auditor General would agree, as she found that doing a study herself would be “duplicative and therefore of limited added value for Parliamentarians and Canadians.” There is a process under way. We follow the rules in this country. We follow due process in this country.

I look forward to hearing the results, as I know all Canadians do, and to making sure that we can further protect the spending of Canadian dollars.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Madam Speaker, is the member talking about further protecting the tax dollars of Canadians? There has been $300 million to a failed program and 200 million tax dollars that went unaccounted for during 10 years under the Liberal government's watch, and the parliamentary secretary says, “Well, the minister acted when she found out about it.” What was she doing all this time? What were Liberal health ministers doing all this time? What part of ministerial responsibility does the minister not accept?

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Madam Speaker, this is a question that has come up a number of times. The minister acted when she found out. There is an independent review under way. The Auditor General has found that additional action by the Auditor General would not add value. At this point, that is where the record stands.

The Economy

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, a few weeks ago, I asked the government if it would adopt the Conservative plan to repeal its antidevelopment laws, remove capital gains taxes on investment gains reinvested in Canada and remove its industrial carbon tax.

The response from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship was quite remarkable. He rose in this place and said, “We used to build things in this country.” I thought what a telling response that was, what a strange response from a parliamentary secretary speaking for a government that has been in power for 11 years, to concede that under the Liberals' watch, Canada has indeed become a country where things do not get built.

It was quite surprising, and I could not help but say then that the parliamentary secretary is going to be really upset when he finds out who has been in charge for the last 11 years. It is as if the government were having an out-of-body experience, viewing what has transpired in Canada and the transformation that has occurred in Canada during its tenure.

The parliamentary secretary must be really upset to find out now that the government for which he is a spokesperson brought in a ministerial order, immediately upon taking office, to cancel the northern gateway pipeline, that the government brought in a bill, Bill C-48, to slam the door shut on a northern pipeline by banning shipping traffic, or to prevent shipping traffic coming into either the port of either Kitimat or the port of Prince Rupert. He must have been really disappointed that the government passed Bill C-69 in 2019, which, following several years of continual moving of goalposts, made it absolutely impossible for any private sector proponent to propose, gain approval for and build a pipeline in Canada.

The parliamentary secretary must have been very disappointed that the government chased TransCanada Pipeline out of the country. It changed its name to TC Energy and focused its energy and investment activity in Mexico and the United States. He and the other Liberals must be very disappointed to suddenly learn that their government has presided over a decline in per capita GDP growth during the time they were in office and that they have presided over a now continual collapsing of housing starts, which they keep promising are going to increase but do not. This is the record. It is the Liberals' responsibility, and it is during their tenure that we became a country where we failed to build projects.

I do implore the Liberals to adopt the Conservative plan to actually repeal the laws that prevent projects from getting built, instead of their approach, which is to grant themselves more power to then politically interfere by declaring which projects the laws of Canada will not apply to.

I will have to leave it at that, and we will see what the parliamentary secretary has to say in response.

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and appreciate his work on natural resources.

There are a number of things I want to go through that he discussed. I will take them in the order that he presented them.

He discussed a number of different things that occurred over the last 10 years. He failed to mention, however, that the regulatory burden has increased in Canada, yes, but it had increased, in an unbroken sense, through the Harper years as well. What we are doing with Bill C-39 is rationalizing systems that have become burdensome, not just under the Trudeau government but under many governments before. That is work we should all support in the House.

The member talked about the northern gateway pipeline and purported to say that it was killed by a Liberal government. I would observe that the approval was actually struck down by the Supreme Court first because of the failure of a Conservative government to follow due processes there. That is a reminder to us that we need to make sure that in this Canadian context, we are doing things prudently and wisely. Running things through is not how things get built in Canada. Things get built in Canada through collaboration between a federal government and the provinces, first nations and those who have come after. Collaboration is the name of the game.

The member also mentioned the tanker ban. While the tanker ban was enshrined in law during the Trudeau years, it has existed since the 1980s under the Mulroney, Campbell, Chrétien, Martin and Harper governments, before it was enshrined in law. In fact, it was never tested in that time. There is often misinformation going around that tankers are still running through that area. That is not the case. I have heard it many times, so I will pre-empt that.

When the member talked about pipelines not being built, he failed to mention TMX, a pipeline that was built and in fact reduced our reliance on the United States significantly. It is the only reason we are not 100% reliant on the United States for export.

I will also say that while I too have my challenges with the approach to energy generation and production in the Trudeau years, we did see oil production increase by 34% in Canada at a time when global oil production increased in the same period by six per cent. We did that while reducing emissions by six per cent, while the population increased 15%. Although the record is mixed, there are many positives in there as well.

We are currently seeing record oil and diesel production. If we want to talk about our region of Calgary, as the member and I share a region, we are seeing a lot of positivity. Housing prices are down, rents are down, and there has been an increase of 62,000 jobs since the start of this calendar year.

It seems to me that our plan is working.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, time did not allow me to talk about TMX in my remarks.

The government seems to seek extraordinary credit for nationalizing and building TMX at a 500% cost overrun from what a private builder would have built with private money after the government chased that private developer out, which is astounding. The debacle of TMX is a further example of the failed approach of the government. The northern gateway pipeline was conditionally approved. Almost literally, the first thing the government did when it was elected in 2015 was kill it with an order in council.

The government has a history of failing to allow projects to be built, and we will judge it by the shovels in the ground, of which there are currently none.

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will also mention northern gateway. The Harper government's failure to properly manage the consultations on that was one of the consequences that led to TMX being such an expensive project. We have learned a lot. We have developed as a nation. Jurisprudence has gone along there. Even though the costs were high, I will also say that TMX is an incredibly profitable pipeline in a real sense and also in the economic lift sense.

There is much going on that many Canadians are very excited about. We are seeing development occur. The member talked about shovels in the ground. There are a number of projects with shovels in the ground. We have the sunrise pipeline, for example. We have a number of other pipelines moving. There are about four that have started construction and have had those shovels in the ground the member is looking for since this summer. I think we can anticipate more.

As has already been discussed, we are shooting for shovels in the ground on the big pipeline, Pacific link, that west coast pipeline, by September of next year.

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

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:07 p.m.)