Debates of Oct. 22nd, 2026

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.