Debates of May 28th, 2026

Opposition Motion—Elimination of the Streaming Tax

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, tech giants are profiting from the Canadian market and raking in billions of dollars in profits. They already have the resources to adapt to the parameters of a legislation like the one Canada is proposing. They already have all the resources.

However, from what I understand of the Conservative motion, even before negotiating a trade agreement, the government should give up its convictions when it comes to defending Quebec's culture and identity.

Am I to understand that the Conservatives are so afraid of Donald Trump that, before they even start negotiating, they are abandoning their principles when it comes to culture and identity?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, what the hon. member should understand is that when a government puts more regulation and more taxation in place and functions in a punitive manner toward a sector, that sector will no longer make investments in the country. That is the precipice on which we stand.

The culture sector in Canada is thriving. Companies like Netflix are making massive investments here, creating thousands of jobs on an annual basis. That is a good thing, and that needs to be celebrated and encouraged. Those folks need to be made more prosperous, not less. What the government is doing would drive investment out and take away jobs from those who are functioning within the cultural sector.

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

Madam Speaker, listening to the heckling from the other side, we get a sense of what is actually going on here. The issue is what I consider a mafia mentality from a Liberal government that does not let anything happen in the country. It blocks things with regulations and taxes people into oblivion because that makes people and businesses dependent on the government for an announcement where the Liberals get to stand up and say, “See how much we love the cultural sector.” They get to pick the winners and losers that way.

I wonder if my colleague would agree that it is not just this sector that is run this way but virtually all sectors of our economy.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is exactly right. Bill C-11, the Online Streaming Act, went through several iterations before it finally was passed. Many concerns were raised during that time. The biggest of them was that the government would end up choosing which parts of our cultural sector succeeded and which parts would get held back, who would be rewarded and who would be thwarted. That is the way the bill is drafted, and that is precisely what the government is doing. It is determining who gets to win and who must lose within the cultural sector in Canada. Instead, it should be up to the Canadian people. We, the people, determine our culture, not the government.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a great privilege, as always, to rise on behalf of the people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, especially because we have seen the benefits of film production in Canada in our part of the country.

It is great that we have Canadian productions. It is great that we have American productions that choose to set up shop in Canada. The one thing that I think is often missing in this conversation is that the Liberal government has never met a tax it does not like. When it tries to control Canadians and their viewing preferences and listening preferences, the only one who wins is government, not industry, not film production and not the people who work in television and media in this country.

The Liberal-appointed CRTC has come out with a declaration that to enforce the Liberal legislation that the Conservatives warned about vociferously, Bill C-11, the Online Streaming Act, it will triple the amount of money the streaming services that Canadians enjoy, such as Netflix, Amazon Prime and Apple TV, will have to spend to 15%, up from 5%, as the levy they will have to pay to fund Liberal government-approved productions and Liberal-approved content.

This is so important because when Bill C-11 first came through the House, Conservatives warned that it was not actually going to be about Canadian storytelling; it was going to be about the government picking and choosing winners, picking and choosing which types of stories get to be told, which ones get the support of government, who gets supplemented and supported and who gets suppressed. One of the biggest powers of Bill C-11 that we warned about was, basically, the requirement that streaming sites, including, for example, YouTube, would have to manipulate their algorithms so that they are serving up content that the Liberal government wants Canadians to see. While the Liberals say they are not manipulating algorithms, we know that the consequences of what they are forcing streaming platforms to do necessitate that.

We have already heard, quite recently, from streamers who have noticed changes. Content they used to produce and generate that would do very well all of a sudden is not. Podcaster Jasmin Laine, among others, has pointed to this. We have heard from officials that there are still very many conversations going on, and the Liberal government tries to play coy on these things. Even now, we have heard from one Liberal member of Parliament that this is all the CRTC's actions at arm's length and not something the Liberal government is controlling, ignoring the fact that the Liberal government has the power under the Broadcasting Act to step in and stop this streaming tax immediately. It has the power to do this. This is a consequence of the government's own legislation.

What is this going to mean? It is easy to get up and say that, in theory, we can put this levy in place and triple it from 5% to 15% and all these big American streaming platforms are going to have to pay it. That is the type of rhetoric we hear from people who do not understand how business works. They do not understand how markets work. To be fair, I have seen the budgets the Liberals put forward. I know they do not understand how business works.

This money will not be absorbed by the Netflixes and the Amazons. It will be passed along to consumers. All of a sudden, the amount of money people have to pay to Netflix to watch some shows they like will go up. The amount of money we have to pay to subscribe to these platforms will go up. This tripling of the tax will be passed on to consumers, who, because of everything the Liberal government has done to the country, deserve the chance to kick back and watch something for fun. They deserve the chance to watch some television shows and some movies. However, when the Liberal government is saying that we need to penalize companies that are offering a service to Canadians that Canadians pay for, and that the money will go toward content the Liberal government approves of, Canadians know this will result in more government control or in companies pulling out of the Canadian market altogether.

Members should remember that Bill C-11 did not come in isolation. It came alongside the Online News Act, which similarly tried to extort companies for being utilized by Canadian companies. In that case, it was journalism and news outlets. What did Meta do in response to this? It said, “Why are we going to be penalized because newspapers want to share their content on our platform?” Meta pulled news out of the Canadian market. To this day, Canadians cannot share a news article about Liberal corruption, among other things, or any news article on Facebook or Instagram. It is very conceivable that streaming companies could take similar retaliatory action if the Liberal government makes it so that their business model is no longer viable.

This is not about the American companies. This is not about streaming services. What this is actually about is Canadians' ability to access content they want and shows they want.

One of the great things about streaming services is that they bring together content from around the world. We often think about the need to safeguard this term we hear, “cultural sovereignty”, but in actuality, Canada, as we often hear from the Liberal government, is a very diverse country. Streaming services allow Canadians of all backgrounds to watch shows in different languages and from different countries. In fact, my favourite show of all time was not an American production imposed on me but a Spanish show that I learned about through a streaming service. I cannot understand it in the original Spanish; perhaps I will get to that at another point. I hate the idea that the only content we would get is Canadian productions when we should be able to have access to everything.

We can imagine if other countries imposed the same sort of cultural protectionism that the Liberals are trying to do. Then Canadian content could not be exported. People in other countries would not get to benefit from some of the great cultural exports of Canada, shows like Being Erica and Schitt's Creek, or speeches from the member for Winnipeg North, and all of these Canadian cultural exports that people from around the world may wish to tune in to. Not all Canadian content is good content, as the latter example shows, but we do not want the Liberal government to be the determining force in what types of content Canadians can see, and we do not want Canadian enterprise to suffer.

Again, the idea that the Liberals are presenting is that if we triple this levy, companies are just going to pay it, and it is going to go into creating jobs and opportunities in Canada. However, we know that is not what happens, and the Online News Act is, I think, a very good cautionary tale.

I would note that the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture has not really staked out a position on this. He said he will “carefully assess its impacts.” Now, that, I believe, translates from Liberal to “We do not know what we are doing, but we will carefully assess its impacts.” He says he wants Canadians “to see themselves reflected on [the] screen”. We do, but we also want Canadians to be able to afford to watch the content they want to watch and to afford things that have already gone up in price. It is more expensive to buy groceries now. It is more expensive to pay rent, to buy a house, to pay the gas bill and to fill up the gas tank. These are measures that, in a lot of ways, are within the Liberal government's control. Why is the Liberal government insisting on making everything more unaffordable?

In fact, there has already been some recognition from the Liberals of the effect that streaming services have on Canadian budgets. We may remember the former finance minister whose brilliant idea for how Canadians could cope with inflation was to cancel Disney+. Well, more Canadians will have to follow that advice because these services are going up in price because of something the Liberal government could rectify very easily. We have an opposition motion that calls on the Liberals to reject this streaming tax increase, to use their authority, which rests in the Broadcasting Act, to cancel this streaming tax once and for all.

I remember when Stephen Harper warned about the Netflix tax over a decade ago. The Liberals mercilessly mocked. They said, “No one is going to tax streaming services,” and here they are, not just taxing them but increasing the tax on these streaming services.

We will not protect anything in Canada if we take away more affordability from Canadians and take away choice, which needs to be front and centre in how Canadians choose to engage in whatever cultural product it is: a show, a movie, a song or anything else.

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

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member can provide some fact with respect to the motion itself. It concludes by saying that “the House call on the Liberal Cabinet to use their powers under the Broadcasting Act to reject the CRTC”, which is at arm's length from government.

Where in the Broadcasting Act does it say that the cabinet has the authority to do what the Conservatives believe it can do?

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

Madam Speaker, it literally says the Governor in Council has the authority to do this. I would also note that the CRTC is made up of Liberal appointees. The Online Streaming Act is Liberal legislation. All of this is a consequence of a Liberal bill, so what I would love to see is Liberal legislation repealing Bill C-11. That would be, I think, the first order of business.

However, again, we also have to look at the broader context here. This is something that has been held up and has already been acknowledged as a trade irritant with the U.S. I thought of that because an irritant was on my mind after I heard that question.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I really do feel that these two parties are one and the same.

As members may recall, last January, this Liberal government completely abandoned the cultural sector by failing to implement the 3% tax on digital products, which would have generated an additional $1.5 billion for the cultural sector.

Why did the government do that? It was because Donald Trump posted a tweet. The Prime Minister thought that if the government did not implement this tax, the U.S. would return to the negotiating table. The result was a complete failure. Today's Conservative party proposal uses the same strategy—scrapping a tax that will generate revenue for the cultural sector—so as not to upset Donald Trump.

Why would a failed Liberal proposal work just because the Conservatives are suggesting it?

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

Madam Speaker, wanting Canadians not to be taxed more is about supporting Canadians and supporting Canadian interests.

I would note that Quebec has produced some cultural gems. If every other country in the world did what the Liberal government has done through the Online Streaming Act, it would actually be harder for that content to find its way into, for example, other francophone countries. When we block cultural imports, we are also blocking cultural exports. I choose to stand behind what Canadians are capable of producing and creating.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would ask my colleague this. He talked about the fact that more government control equals more cost for the Canadian consumer and ultimately less choice, so more cost with less choice. That is what the government has done through Bill C-11, the Online Streaming Act. Ultimately, the government is picking and choosing winners and losers: which shows get promoted and which shows do not, which shows get to be in front of the eyeballs of Canadians and which ones get hidden. That ultimately, therefore, dictates to Canadians what their cultural choice should be.

Is it up to the government to determine Canadian culture, or should that maybe be left up to the Canadian people?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Lethbridge, for her incredibly important work on this.

I know the minister responsible for this is the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture. This is the minister who thinks someone should be criminally charged if they quote a Bible verse that he does not like. This is the minister who stood behind the Canadian Museum for Human Rights' decision to malign parental rights as being a hateful discussion. This is the minister who is championing the return of the online harms act. We know the Liberal government has used that to weaponize the Canadian Human Rights Act against people for dissident opinions. Everything about the government's handling of the heritage file is about control and eliminating Canadians' freedom and choice.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, a moment ago, my colleague seemed to suggest that culture does not receive subsidies anywhere in the world. The opposite is true. Whether funded through taxes or other means, this happens all over the world, just as it does in Europe. Even the Americans subsidize culture. I do not understand this at all. The Conservatives are in favour of subsidizing oil, but they are not in favour of using our tax money for culture and for what defines us.

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

Madam Speaker, all of us in this chamber were elected. We went to Canadians and said, “We believe we have something for you. We can serve you.” Canadians chose to support us. Canadians elected us. This is what companies have to do every day in the private sector, and it is what cultural companies need to do as well. They need to say, “We are producing a product that you like. We are producing a product that you support.”

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

Madam Speaker, for those following the debate, since the start, we have heard from the far right. I mean, it is the extreme right. These people are more right than the Reform Party of the past. Talk about conspiracy theories. Two members are saying the government is trying to tell Canadians what to watch, that they cannot watch this or it is okay to watch that.

[An hon. member]

Thank you for telling people, Kevin.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the compliment from the member opposite.

Having said that, it is a fear factor, and no one does it better than today's Conservative right party. I have been around for 35-plus years as a parliamentarian, and I have never seen a political entity cater to the far right as much as this party has. We have clearly seen a demonstration of that this morning. What a way to start off a morning.

The member opposite says the government is telling people they have to be careful and they cannot say certain things regarding the holy scriptures. The Charter of Rights guarantees—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Order. While previous members were allowed to give their speeches without interruption, I would like the same courtesy to be accorded to the current speaker.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Charter of Rights guarantees religious freedom. One would think that the Conservative Party members would recognize that reality, because that is a reality, but it does not fit their political script. What they want to do is cause division and get people angry. How do they do that? They will say things like, the Liberals are trying to limit religious freedoms, even though the charter says differently. Now we are hearing them say that we want to tell Canadians what they can watch and what they cannot watch. There have been two speakers and the essence is there. Tin hats are out in full force on the Conservative benches.

Let me make a suggestion to the members opposite to take a look at what has actually taken place, and not only through the CRTC, which, by the way, is an independent, arm's-length organization that is not political. Conservatives try to simplify it by saying that it is a CRTC tax. I will provide comments on the issues where they try to give a false impression.

I posed a question to the member opposite in regard to the motion itself. At the very end, the motion says this, which is the essence of the motion:

the House call on the Liberal Cabinet to use their powers under the Broadcasting Act to reject the CRTC’s streaming tax increase and eliminate the streaming tax.

The Conservatives are calling on the cabinet to do this, but the cabinet does not have the authority to do what the Conservative Party is asking the cabinet to do. When I posed a question about this, what did the member say? The member made reference to the Governor in Council. The Governor in Council and the cabinet do not have the authority to do what the Conservative Party of Canada is asking to be done.

That is the reality, and yet the Conservative Party members still try to heighten it by saying that it is a tax and that the federal government can make the change. This is just like what they do on other government legislation, where they try to give the false impression that the government is trying to limit what people can watch on TV or that it tells Canadians what they can and cannot watch, whether it is on the Internet or TV. It does a great disservice, I believe, to Canadians as a whole to put that kind of information forward and spread that kind of misinformation.

However, I understand what the motivation often is for the Conservative Party members. It is not about good public policy. It is about how they can take an issue and generate thousands of emails, cause people to get angry and at the same time raise money for the Conservative Party of Canada. No one does it better than the Conservative Party of Canada, in terms of promoting fear and raising money based on misinformation. I have seen it first-hand, when I have received emails pumping up the fear factor and spreading misinformation.

That is the essence of the motion we are debating today. The first question I asked was about an industry that is so important to Canada. Let us just put the CRTC to the side right now. When it comes to industry, I would challenge members to think about the communities they represent and the many aspirations of young people and others who want to be involved in the arts and in the promotion of Canadian heritage and to be performers or singers. There is an industry that exists and that is healthy. In the government benches, we want it to grow and we support its growth. Supporting its growth means ensuring there is a level playing field, and that is what we want to see. We want to see a level playing field, because we know that our culture, heritage and arts industry can survive and do exceptionally well under a level playing field, but that is not the case in different areas.

The Conservatives talk about the CRTC increase that is being applied. They do not talk about the CRTC decrease for major broadcasting here in Canada. Why is that? We established the CRTC many years ago. The Conservatives had the opportunity, when they were in government, to get rid of it if they did not like it. They could have brought forward legislation to do so. They chose not to.

I would be interested in hearing whether the Conservative Party of today supports the CRTC. To what extent does it support the CRTC? My fear is that the far right has taken over the Conservative Party, and these types of organizations and corporations, these arm's-length organizations, would be on the chopping block. At the end of the day, in this particular area, the decision the CRTC has made really talks about the protection of our industries. It talks about levelling the playing field. That is important.

I made reference to the constituents we represent. I think of the aspiring individuals we have today. I think of the numerous success stories that have been there in the past. I think of the programming and the artists we see today. The CRTC has played a role. CBC has played a role, both radio and TV. Some members heckle. Some participated with CBC. At the end of the day, we see the potential within that industry.

I want to talk about Winnipeg. If someone wants to get a sense of the size and magnitude of the arts community, they should come to Winnipeg during Folklorama or during one of the many different arts festivals we have. I will focus on Folklorama and I will highlight two pavilions. Actually, there are four.

I am talking about the Pearl of the Orient Philippine Pavilion sponsored by Magdaragat, which has been around now for 50 years. I was at a celebration just the other day for 50 years of Magdaragat. That organization, the musicians, the dance performers and the curators have been there for years. Many of them were performers virtually from the beginning.

Those performers have participated on stages like the Rainbow Stage in Winnipeg. They have toured many other countries in the world, and they have even performed for royalty. This is just one pavilion. Members can take me up on it. If they come to Winnipeg during Folklorama, they will not just see two or four pavilions, but they will see over 45 different pavilions.

If members tour those pavilions, they will see a lot of young people wanting to stay in the arts program in one form or another. We should be encouraging that involvement. We see it at many of the events that we attend at professional, semi-professional and amateur levels. Why would we want to give up on an industry that has been there for Canadians, generated jobs and contributed to our Canadian identity?

That is the essence of what we are hearing from the Conservatives. The Conservatives are trying to simplify it by saying that it is all about taxation, as though this government does not care about the issues of taxation and affordability.

The very first action by this Prime Minister was getting rid of the carbon tax, which was a significant tax break to Canadians. Within weeks of being in session, prior to the summer after the federal election, this Prime Minister and government brought in legislation to give a tax break to 22 million Canadians. People were talking about the housing issue, and what did we do? We brought in a GST exemption for first-time homebuyers in order to make it more affordable for young people, which was a tax break for first-time homebuyers.

It does not stop there. In recent months, we have eliminated unfair telecom fees so consumers can get breaks when they are managing and looking for better plans and to prevent excessive fees being charged. What about the extension of the alcohol excise duty relief? We also decreased banking costs: Some of those basic charges have been reduced.

When we talk about the issue, the Conservatives say that it is simplified tax, or they call it a streaming tax, but it is actually meant to get Canadians thinking about the broader issue of taxation. I can tell members that there are many initiatives. I have not even made reference to the suspension of the federal fuel tax, by 10¢ a litre, very recently. That is something we have put into place.

There are opportunities where the government has taken advantage by providing substantial tax breaks. It is something the government is very much aware of and on top of. The government is not going to take the Conservative bait of using misinformation and trying to say the government has an authority through Governor in Council that it does not have, and do what is being asked for within this resolution.

I look forward to hearing other members of the Conservative Party stand up and give the specific citation for the cabinet having the authority that they are telling Canadians we have. I would like to hear specifically where that authority is coming from when they say that cabinet has the authority to change the decision of the CRTC.

I believe that the CRTC would have taken all considerations before making the decision to increase in certain areas and decrease, I am going to underline the word “decrease”, in other areas. I wonder what the position of the Conservative Party is about that decrease. That is one of the issues the Conservatives attempt to raise by bringing in this motion today. The other issue they are trying to raise is to plant the seed of fear or doubt in this government's ability to get a trade agreement with the United States, when nothing could be further from the truth. They implied in the resolution we have before us today that this is going to have a severe impact on the trade discussions with the United States.

I was listening to the member for Lethbridge, and what she had to say along with the member for Bowmanville—Oshawa North, who did not speak today but is the one who travelled to the United States. We remember that he spoke to the President and the vice-president and came back. Canadians will remember this. Can anyone imagine that leader of the Conservative Party had the member for Lethbridge and the member for Bowmanville—Oshawa North travel to the United States to negotiate on the issue of trade? We can talk about a fear factor. What did the member for Bowmanville—Oshawa North have to say about the issue after consulting with the President of the United States and the vice-president? He said that Canadians were having a “hissy fit”, trying to blame Canadians.

Then, let us look at the motion we have today. The Conservatives are trying to imply that the Government of Canada is not doing its job on such an important file and that we do not understand the impact that policy has in general. In a few words, I can assure members as we get through this debate. No doubt, the Conservatives will stand up and talk about trade between Canada and the U.S., and try again to give the false impression that the government is dropping the ball, when nothing could be further from the truth. That is what they will do and we will see that throughout the day.

What is the reality? At the end of the day, if I were to put it in a nutshell, we recognize that the government and the Prime Minister have made a commitment to not just settle for any deal. We are going to get the best deal that is in the best interests of Canadians when it comes to trade and CUSMA between Canada, United States and Mexico. We are in negotiations. The negotiations will continue in one form or another. We are very much concerned about issues like the tariffs situation and so much more.

Believe it or not, as a government, we can do more than one thing at a time as we have clearly demonstrated. They can look at the billions of dollars of investment coming into Canada in terms of commitments through the actions of this Prime Minister and other ministers. They can look at the agreements and legislation for trade agreements that have been achieved already. We have had commitments to further advance trade agreements. These are all tangible actions that would generate billions of dollars of investment and opportunities, especially if tied into the major projects that we have listed that would benefit every region of our great nation.

In conclusion, I tell my Conservative friends not to give up on our culture and our heritage. Support that industry. One of the best ways they can do that is if they want something—

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

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Lethbridge.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, that was quite something.

The member talked about levelling the playing field. Interestingly enough, the Broadcasting Act was put in place originally to try to make sure that the limited airwaves that were available through radio and television would be shared. There would be French and there would be English. The other thing that it did was make sure that traditional broadcasters contributed to a pot of money in order to create Canadian content. Those traditional broadcasters could also pull from that pot of money. They could apply for grants and contributions in order to produce that content.

Online streamers came onto the playing field and they did not have to do those things, so the government made the determination that it should be equally punitive to everyone. Everyone should have to pay a tax. Everyone should be limited in what they could produce. Everyone should have the government dictate what is Canadian and what is not Canadian in terms of content.

However, the government had another option. It could have levelled the playing field by actually giving everyone freedom to produce what Canadians want and freedom to stream what Canadians most want to view or listen to. That was the other choice. The choice was freedom and competition and in the interest of consumers. Why did the government not choose that option?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize that, domestically, we are talking about 25% compared to streamers that pay 15%. Levelling the playing field is important.

We need to recognize that through the CRTC and organizations like CBC, CTV, Global and others, at the end of the day, we have had some sensational programming. Two right off the top of my head are Schitt's Creek and Corner Gas. Both have been exceptionally successful. We can talk about artists from the past and current individuals like Céline Dion. There is so much talent in Canada. If it were up to the Conservatives, they would devastate that industry. By the actions, the talk and the speeches that have been delivered over the last number of years, the far-right Conservatives have clearly demonstrated that they do not support that industry, and I find that unfortunate.

I look to members who are a little more moderate in the Conservative caucus to stand up, defend that industry and tell us how they believe this motion or motions from the past from the Conservative Party are going to support it. I am not hearing that, and I think we should all be concerned about that.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is surprising, because the parliamentary secretary's main argument is that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, cannot be told what to do. He does not even say whether he agrees with the 15% or not. All he says is that the CRTC cannot be directed to do anything.

My colleague says that the cultural sector must not be abandoned. It remains to be seen whether past actions are any indication of the future, but in July 2025, the Liberals scrapped the digital services tax, which would have generated $1.5 billion that would have been reinvested in the cultural sector. If any government has let the cultural sector down, it is this Liberal government, which did so as recently as last year, because Donald Trump wrote a tweet and the government expected to go back to the bargaining table. The hope was that the government would get something in return for scrapping this tax.

Can the parliamentary secretary tell me what the government got in return for scrapping that 3% digital services tax?

I would like to hear his answer, because I think it was a big fat zero.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, where I disagree with the member is with regard to any suggestion that there is a lack of support for the arts community.

I think of the province of Quebec. The member himself resides in Quebec and there are 44 members of Parliament who represent that province. I can assure everyone that there is advocacy to promote and encourage further growth of the industry there. In many ways, Quebec leads Canada in how we can enhance and grow our culture and heritage arts communities. I appreciate the many efforts that are taken in Quebec, and I like to think that other provinces could learn something in terms of the advocacy that we see in Quebec for our arts programming.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, it always makes me smile when I hear the Conservatives say they are interested in culture. I remember the Harper government's cuts to culture quite clearly. Some artists in my riding took to the streets to call for help, but the government of the day refused to listen.

Let me once again remind my colleagues what Stephen Harper said in the beginning. He said that artists were complaining with their mouths full and that regular people were not interested in culture. Imagine saying things like that about artists.

Of all the great investments that we have made in culture since 2015, the one nearest and dearest to my heart was the decision to fund National Acadian Day permanently and at double the amount.

I hope that my colleague can clarify for me what support we have provided to artists over the years.