“I support the law that makes online streaming services support Canadian content. People watch shows online now instead of on cable. Large foreign streaming companies make a lot of money in Canada, so they should help pay for Canadian and French-language creators, just like traditional broadcasters have always done.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my time with the MP for Scarborough Southwest. I am very pleased to rise today to speak to the Online Streaming Act, the modernization of Canada’s broadcasting system and the importance of ensuring that the stories told by Canadian creators remain a centrepiece of the modern broadcasting landscape. At the core of this problem is a simple reality that we are all familiar with: The way Canadians consume content has changed at lightning speed. The Broadcasting Act was designed for a world of television, radio and cable channels and prime-time audiences. This world has not disappeared entirely, as shown by the millions of Canadians who gathered to watch the Montreal Canadiens during the playoffs. However, it is a thing of the past for most of the Canadians consuming content nowadays. Children no longer run off to get a snack during the commercial breaks, as we did when we were kids. They bring their phones with them and watch whatever they want, whenever they want, provided their parents let them. This change has had some huge benefits. Canadians can access content from around the world more easily than ever before. We can watch Korean dramas, Mexican heist dramas, British bake-offs and singing competitions from around the world. American movies, TV shows and music are also widely available in Canada, and Canadians continue to consume this content extensively every day. There is no denying this reality. This is not necessarily a problem in and of itself. Canadians value choice, and the Online Streaming Act does not take that choice away from them. The act ensures that, in this new content-rich environment, Canadian stories are also supported and showcased. It incorporates the key online streaming services that operate and generate revenue in Canada into a modernized accountability framework. Just as traditional broadcasters have long been expected to contribute to Canadian culture, so too must today’s broadcasters. Through the Online Streaming Act, the House modernized the Broadcasting Act to ensure that foreign streaming companies support our creators, our stories and Canadian music for generations to come. The act establishes a fair and simple regulatory framework under which comparable broadcasting services are subject to similar regulatory requirements. The government has made it clear that the Online Streaming Act and the CRTC’s implementation of regulatory measures are consistent with Canada’s trade obligations, including those under CUSMA. The Online Streaming Act was drafted with Canada’s international obligations and commitments in mind. I want to emphasize that the act is not intended to discriminate against non‑Canadian services. It applies to all undertakings that provide online broadcasting services to Canadians. It is not a matter of nationality, but rather of participating in the Canadian broadcasting system and profiting from it here at home. Far from being discriminatory, the act does exactly the opposite. It requires each company to contribute appropriately to the creation and presentation of Canadian programming, in proportion to its presence and importance in the system. It is a matter of fairness. If a business generates income in Canada, it is expected to contribute fairly and equitably. That is why it is misleading to claim that the act targets U.S. companies. In reality, it aims to create a fair, flexible framework for online streaming services operating in Canada that complies with Canada’s international commitments. Although it requires the CRTC to ensure that online streaming services contribute significantly to the broadcasting system, it does not put U.S. content streamers or creators at a disadvantage. In fact, Canadian streamers are still expected to spend a higher percentage of their revenues on Canadian content than foreign streamers. In the not-to-distant past, online streamers were not required to support Canadian music or stories while contributing to other major broadcasting objectives. Under the CRTC’s Canadian programming expenditure framework, Canadian broadcasting ownership groups are subject to a 25% Canadian programming expenditure requirement, while unaffiliated and non-Canadian online broadcasting ownership groups are subject to a 15% requirement, which includes the 5% base contribution. The framework applies to groups operating in Canada with annual Canadian broadcasting revenues of $25 million or more. This means that small businesses, such as local stations that are often the only sources of information in regional areas, newly launched television services, or specialized streaming television services targeting small audiences, will not be subject to this requirement. It is also important to remember that Canadian broadcasters have long been subject to significant spending and programming obligations and that their obligations to contribute to the system remain in place. Those that generate the most revenue, the major players that are increasingly capturing the public’s attention, will be expected to contribute more and will serve as major windows into Canadian and Quebec culture. Only the major players who can afford to do so are expected to make proportional contributions. The new regulations do not penalize streaming services for operating in Canada. Why would they? The reality is that foreign broadcasters have enriched the broadcasting landscape and provided opportunities for Canadian talent. It is a question of fairness. If a company benefits from its operations in the Canadian market, if it reaches Canadian audiences and if it earns significant revenue from Canadian subscribers and viewers, it is entirely reasonable that it should contribute to the sustainability of the system in which it operates. This is not a radical idea. For decades, Canada maintained an outdated broadcasting policy; it recognizes that culture is not simply a commodity like any other. Broadcasting helps shape the way people understand their country, their communities and one another. It ensures that Canadians can see and hear themselves reflected in the programming available to them. Now more than ever, we need to hear stories that come from here. We need to see ourselves on screen. Our government will never stop supporting Canadian artists and culture. It is high time to pass Bill C-11 and bring it into force as soon as possible. I want to talk about Quebec. It is getting harder and harder for French-language content to break into American channels. We do business with the giants of this world, but the giants of this world are centred on the English language. Bill C‑11 will ensure that we get a fair shake when it comes to our content and promoting the French language in Canadian content. For Quebeckers who want to showcase and promote francophone culture, I can attest that this bill is up to date and good for the Quebec community, the Canadian community and the community that wants to promote Canadian content and see it reflected in our young people, in our future and in young audiences currently consuming the major networks’ products. Bill C-11 is here to stay and here to make us work for our future. I look forward to answering questions.”

“Artists in my area want more money invested in Canadian and Quebec content. Charging fees on content brings in money we can reinvest to make more of our own content at home. This bill does that.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague is asking an excellent question. I was just talking about Quebec content, but it is Canadian content that ensures that the money is reinvested in content. In my region, our artists are telling us that they want more investment in Canadian and Quebec content. That is exactly what the percentages levied on content are for. They ensure that we can reinvest them here at home to produce more Canadian content. This aligns perfectly with the bill.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 47 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“Our online streaming law supports Canadian and Quebec culture. It takes money from digital platforms and gives it to our local artists and creators.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think that my colleague and I share a Quebec culture and a Canadian culture, which the government greatly supports. Bill C‑11 does just that. That money will be reinvested in Quebec content. We will promote our artists. We will stand up for our creators. For the next generation, we will invest that money in Canadian and Quebec content. I am proud that we can reinvest what comes from digital content in our local and Quebec artists.”

“The Conservatives want to give up on protecting our arts and culture during trade talks. I want the member to explain why supporting the arts is important for Quebec and all of Canada.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague’s thoughts on how it is that the Conservative Party appears to want to surrender our sovereignty on this particular issue. The Conservatives are, in essence, saying that because of negotiations that are taking place, we should just capitulate and have nothing to do with protecting our arts, our performing artists and our culture. I am wondering if the member would provide his thoughts on how important our arts programs are for provinces such as Quebec, and across Canada, and how important it is to support them in the different ways we do.”

“The Conservatives want to vote against this bill even though it helps Canadian and Quebec artists. They also want to cut CBC and Radio-Canada. This bill helps keep our own content here and does more for Canadians.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. Obviously, it is easy for the Conservatives to target the bill and try to vote against something that helps our Quebec and Canadian artists. However, we must remember that it is also the Conservatives who want to abolish CBC/Radio-Canada and cancel the investments we are making in our Quebec and Canadian advertising. This bill enables us to bring content home and do more for Canadians and Quebeckers.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 19 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“Our bill takes money from broadcasting and spends it on Canadian culture and content in Quebec and across Canada. We are proud of this bill, but the opposition wants to cut funding for the arts.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to my colleague in French. It is clear, and I said it in response to his first question: The money invested that we collect from radio and television broadcasting will be reinvested in Quebec, reinvested in Canada and reinvested in Canadian content. That is exactly why the law is in place. It is to keep our culture at home. I know that my colleague is not happy about that, because he would like to do away with everything that involves the arts, artists or communications, but if there is one thing I would like to say, it is that we are proud of our bill.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 22 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 34 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“This is my first speech in the House. I am here to represent Scarborough Southwest, and I am the first Bangladeshi Canadian to serve here. People in my riding are struggling to afford food, rent, and medicine. Our government is taking action to lower these everyday costs and build more homes. We must also protect human rights around the world, including the innocent people suffering in Gaza and the West Bank.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the good people of Scarborough Southwest to deliver my inaugural speech in the House as their member of Parliament, and I do so with immense gratitude and humility. I want to begin by recognizing my constituents and everyone who helped our campaign in hopes of a better future. For nearly eight years, I have had the honour of serving our community as their member of provincial parliament. I sat with residents in my office, at community events and at town halls, listened to them at their doors and heard their stories of sacrifice, resilience, hope and hard work. I carry those stories with me into the House. I carry the trust of a community that has given me and this government one of the strongest mandates in history. Families, workers, seniors, newcomers, young people and small business owners in Scarborough Southwest all rallied together around the promise of a better future. They are the ones who sent me here, and my work here will be guided by that promise and that responsibility every single day. I also stand here today with a profound sense of history, as the first Bangladeshi Canadian elected to public office in Canada, and now the first of Bangladeshi origin to take a seat in this chamber. This moment is not mine alone. This moment belongs to every immigrant parent who travelled thousands of miles across oceans with fear of the unknown, but hope in their hearts. It belongs to every individual who worked long hours and made countless sacrifices, believing that their future generations could thrive. It belongs to every young person who has ever wondered whether their name, their story, their faith or their background could fit in spaces like this. I stand here today because of the very promise Canada made to families like mine: the chance to build a better future. I want to make sure every child in our country knows that they belong in the future we are building right here. Our job here is to protect that promise at all costs and renew it for the next generation. Scarborough Southwest is not just the riding I represent. It is the community that raised me, shaped my values and showed me what that promise means. Our community has been built by people from all walks of life who have been united by the belief that Canada offers a fair shot at a better life. However, right now, for too many, that promise seems out of reach. Many are working multiple jobs and are forced to stretch every single dollar just to get by. Affordability is not abstract in Scarborough Southwest. It is the painful choice of paying rent over buying groceries. It is kids saving on TTC fare by walking. It is prescriptions being left unfilled. It is the stressful calculation of cost after every paycheque to see if anything is left at the end of the month. This is why, over the past year, our new Liberal government has recognized that Canadians need immediate relief from these challenges and a long-term plan to build a stronger, more resilient economy. This is why our record on affordability matters. Recent measures like the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which will help millions of Canadians, the temporary pause on the federal fuel excise tax, and the strengthening of consumer protections are just some of the steps our government has taken to keep money in the pockets of hard-working Canadians. Affordability is also about lowering costs over time, creating good-paying jobs, fighting tariffs while strengthening and diversifying our economy, and giving families more security for the future. Our investments in infrastructure, more homes at lower costs, skilled trades, innovation and the critical sectors will shape our economy for decades. These measures address people’s everyday challenges while renewing Canada’s promise to future generations. As we speak about Canada’s future, we must also speak honestly about the world around us. In what is perhaps the most consequential speech of our time, the Prime Minister accurately stressed that Canada must be “both principled and pragmatic”: principled in our commitment to international law and human rights, and pragmatic in recognizing the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. The part that stuck with me was when the Prime Minister said that Canada has “something else...a recognition of what’s happening and a determination to act accordingly.” That means our conscience must also include protecting innocent, vulnerable people around the world. No child should grow up under constant fear or bombardment. No family should have to search through rubble for their loved ones. No single person should ever be denied food, medicine, safety, shelter or the basic dignity of human life. The horrific suffering of Gaza, and more recently the abhorrent treatment of the flotilla humanitarians, including Canadian humanitarian volunteers, and the illegal expansion of settlements in the West Bank, has shaken the conscience of so many Canadians. Canada’s strength is not just about the size of our economy, our resources or our alliances; our strength also comes from our values and our belief that justice cannot be selective in whose pain it recognizes. If we speak about “value-based realism”, then we must uphold our moral values while facing the world as it is. If we speak about human rights, then those rights must apply to everyone. If we speak about peace, then that peace must be rooted in justice and accountability. We have a choice: either to accept a world where the powerful do whatever they want and the weak pay the price, or to help build a better, more just world. I return to the promise Canada offers and our responsibility as members of this House to protect and renew that promise. That promise is renewed when we make sure that families can afford a life and that workers know their hard work pays off. It is renewed when seniors feel relieved thinking about their future and when we encourage young people to dream big for their future. It is renewed when a child of immigrants can stand in this House, knowing that she belongs here. Even more importantly, that promise is renewed when Canada looks at a broken world and does not choose indifference, but chooses to act with principles and courage.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Speech on a motion

  Relevance 13 of 100

  None of this speech addressed the specific motion under debate.

  See full analysis →

“People of all faiths must have the freedom to be who they are, especially after what Jewish people have suffered. I condemn anyone who attacks that freedom. I support people of all religions and backgrounds.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from the other side for that question, because it allows me to say this publicly here. I have said in the Ontario legislature that people of all faiths, especially after the history that Jewish people have suffered, have to have the freedom to be who they are. Anyone who says anything like that should be condemned, so I condemn that and I stand with people of all religions and all backgrounds for their right to be who they are.”

“Our government is taking the right steps to help people with the problems they face, including trade tariffs. I want to work with other members on good policies, like those for artificial intelligence, that help everyone.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think our government is taking all the steps necessary, especially at the time right now, to address the challenges that people are facing. If I had had more time, I would have talked about more measures that our government is taking. Right now we are facing a very difficult time with tariffs, and just this morning, I was at the industry committee, where we talked about AI. I know my hon. colleague has sat with me at some of the committee hearings as well, so we will work together to make sure that we have policies that help everyone, and I look forward to doing that.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 20 of 100

  None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 28 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“I want to know what my colleague thinks about the opposition motion. It hurts our culture and French-speaking communities. Why should we vote against it?”

“Mr. Speaker, I also want to extend a warm welcome to my colleague for her maiden speech in the House. On that note, I want to ask my colleague what she thinks about the fact that the opposition really is pushing a motion to try to overstep culture and protection of culture for our communities here in Canada, especially for francophone communities. Can my colleague comment on why it is important that we oppose this motion?”

“We must do everything we can to protect both English and French, especially French. We also need to do our part to protect Indigenous languages from disappearing.”

“Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I found really inspiring, after being elected and being in this House, is practising my French. I had almost stopped using my French after my university days. I learned French and English at the same time, so both are my second languages. Unfortunately, I did not practise enough. I think we have to do everything possible to protect both of our languages, and we should do everything possible to work hard so that French is protected. I also want to take a moment to say that there are a lot of indigenous languages that may be going extinct, and we should do our part to make sure that we protect them as well.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 21 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“I am learning French and want to practise more. Our government is working to put more money into the pockets of working Canadians. I want to work with all members here to do that.”

“Mr. Speaker, I only speak a little French. I need to practise. I am learning, and I look forward to doing that in the coming months and years. Maybe my hon. colleague will help me learn and practise as well. I know that our government is taking action to make sure that more money goes into the pockets of hard-working Canadians. That is essentially the aim of every policy and every bill that we pass in this House. I look forward to working with every member in this House to do just that.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 48 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 0 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“The Conservatives are siding with American politicians and companies like Netflix instead of protecting Canadian arts and culture. They keep giving in to the United States.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat sad to see Canada’s official opposition surrender our arts and cultural sovereignty to the United States. That is in fact what we have been witnessing from Conservative members like the one who just spoke, who made it very clear why he wants everyone’s gung-ho support of this resolution. He is advocating for what we would expect to hear from American politicians or for advocates for Netflix. That is the kind of advocacy we are seeing coming from the Conservative Party. Okay, the Conservatives want us to capitulate. This is not the first time. I remember, on Trump one, that they wanted us to capitulate. Why are the Conservative Party members giving up on our culture and heritage communities?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 9 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“Canadian artists need government support and rules that promote Canadian content to succeed. I want to know if the member opposite thinks Canadian culture is important.”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the hon. member brought up Lucy Maud Montgomery’s Anne of Green Gables. I read all of those books when I was a little girl growing up. That was before the Internet, when Canadians were able to talk to each other and find Canadian content. We have heard at heritage committee, over and over again from Canadian artists in every genre, that they would have not made it as far as they did without the supports and the Canadian content rules we have in place today. Does the member opposite believe that it is important to have Canadian culture?”

“Other big countries regulate streaming services just like we do, and they do not back down. The Conservatives are siding with American companies like Netflix instead of standing up for Canadian artists.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight a couple of things. Canada is one of seven countries that make up the G7, but it is not the only one that deals with this streaming issue. A number of other countries in the G7 do, countries like France and others. I don’t believe that they are going to allow themselves to be intimidated. The Conservatives are prepared to capitulate and say that we should get rid of any sort of streaming, that we should just stop it. They are advocating from an American perspective. They sound more like representatives of Netflix than members of Parliament advocating in the best interests of Canadians. When will the Conservatives start advocating for Canadians, in particular our arts community?”

“Foreign streaming companies make money in Canada, so they should help pay for Canadian TV and movies. This funding protects jobs across the country. I want the House to vote against this motion.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise for the first time since the recent election to represent my constituents and to speak on their behalf. I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for Taiaiako’n—Parkdale—High Park I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of a broadcasting system that continues to invest in Canadian workers, Canadian creativity and in Canada’s economic growth. Despite the rhetoric we have heard, this debate is not really on a so-called online streaming tax. This is about whether global streaming giants that generate substantial revenue from our Canadian audiences should make a fair and reasonable contribution to the Canadian broadcasting and production ecosystem from which they benefit. This principle is neither radical nor new. For decades, companies participating in the Canadian broadcasting system have contributed financially to the creation and presentation of the Canadian programming on which they depend. These contributions have helped build one of the most respected production sectors in the world. Today, Canada is internationally recognized as a major centre for film, television, animation and documentary production, as well as digital and interactive media. Talented Canadians work on productions that are being watched all over the world. Our studios are full, we have world-class crews and our creators are winning international awards. This success did not happen by chance. It happened because successive governments and regulatory bodies understood that Canadian stories and Canadian production capacity matter just as much economically as they do culturally. The motion before the House fails to take this reality into account. It frames contributions to Canadian programming as though they were merely a burden or a penalty, but these contributions are investments in jobs, infrastructure, intellectual property, skills development and economic activity across the country. Furthermore, spending on Canadian programming is not a punishment. We are not asking companies to throw money down a bottomless pit. We are asking them to invest in some of the best programs in the world. We are asking them to continue making The Glass House, Shoresy, Heated Rivalry and North of North. They cannot claim that Canadian-produced programs are not worthy of their services. The film production sector supports hundreds of thousands of direct and indirect jobs in Canada. These are not abstract jobs. These are good-paying, highly skilled jobs, filled by Canadians in every region of our country. They include camera operators, lighting specialists, sound engineers, visual effects artists, editors, costumers, set carpenters, studio managers, caterers, truck drivers, musicians, actors, writers, producers, translators, production specialists, and the list goes on. The economic impact extends far beyond the film set itself. When productions are shot in a community, people rent hotel rooms, eat at local restaurants, use transportation companies, rent facilities, hire local workers and generate interest in tourism and regional economic development. Entire local economies benefit from a strong production sector. In cities like Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal, the production industry has become a major economic driver, but production has also created opportunities in small rural communities across the country, including in the Atlantic provinces, the Prairies, northern Canada and indigenous communities. That is why the framework established under the Online Streaming Act is important. The world has changed dramatically since the first Broadcasting Act was drafted. Traditional broadcasters continue to contribute to Canadian content obligations while facing growing competition from major foreign content streaming services that now dominate audience share and subscription revenue. The problem the legislation set out to solve was simple: The regulatory system had not kept pace with technological change. Canadians are consuming more and more programs online rather than on legacy broadcasting platforms, but the contribution framework traditionally applied primarily to Canadian broadcasters. That imbalance was unsustainable. If Canadian broadcasters are required to contribute to Canadian programming while foreign streaming platforms generating significant Canadian revenue are exempt, the financial foundation supporting Canadian production will begin to erode. However, contributions to the broadcasting system are not new and they are not unique to Canada. Many countries around the world require streaming services to contribute to national production ecosystems. Governments across Europe have adopted similar frameworks to ensure the viability of local production sectors in the digital age. Despite these obligations, global streaming companies continue to heavily invest in these markets. Why? Companies invest where there is talent, stability, infrastructure and opportunities. Canada offers all those things. We have world-class teams. We have creative talent that is respected around the world. We have competitive production environments. We have advanced visual effects and post-production sectors. We have good schools that train qualified workers. Above all, we have a long-established production ecosystem built through decades of public and private investment. Ironically, many of the people who are now criticizing the contribution requirements celebrate the economic success of Canada’s film and television industry without recognizing the policies that helped create it. We cannot separate the success of Canada’s production industry from the public policy framework that supported its growth. What we do know, however, is that there is a real economic cost to not maintaining Canada’s production capacity. When domestic production weakens, jobs disappear. Creative workers leave the industry or even the country. Investment in infrastructure slows down. Independent production companies burn out and Canada becomes increasingly dependent on foreign-produced content without maintaining its own creative industrial base. That is not a recipe for long-term economic resilience. This motion also raises concerns about trade relations with the United States as we approach the CUSMA review. Canada has always defended the principle that cultural policy holds a unique place in public policy. Successive governments from all political stripes have defended Canada’s ability to promote Canadian voices, Canadian creators and Canadian cultural industries. There are good reasons for that. Canada shares a border with the world’s largest cultural exporter. Without supports for domestic creation and discoverability, Canadian voices can easily be drowned out in an increasingly concentrated global market. Again, it is not just a cultural issue but also an economic one. Countries that invest in domestic production develop exportable industries. Canadian productions are making their mark on the world stage. Canadian creators are developing intellectual property that can be marketed worldwide. Canadian studios are attracting foreign investment. Canadian crews are gaining competitive expertise across the country, and Canada is consolidating its position in the rapidly growing audiovisual economy. Weakening our production ecosystem would not make Canada economically stronger. Rather, it would make us more economically dependent. I believe that Canadians understand what fairness means. They understand that when companies benefit from access to Canadian audiences, talent, infrastructure and markets, it is reasonable to expect them to contribute to the sustainability of the system they benefit from. They also understand that Canada’s production industry is not just a fringe cultural undertaking disconnected from the economy. It is a major economic sector. It creates jobs, supports small businesses, boosts tourism, generates exports, develops a highly skilled workforce, strengthens regional economies and helps maintain Canada’s competitiveness in one of the fastest-growing global sectors at a time when countries around the world are in an intense competition to attract production investment and creative talent. Now is not the time to weaken the foundations of our domestic industry. This means ensuring that the economic benefits generated by this broadcasting system continue to support Canadian jobs for Canadian production and Canadian stories. For these reasons, I urge all members of the House to reject this motion.”

• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “The audiovisual production sector supports hundreds of thousands of direct and indirect jobs in Canada.”

  Said 3 times by 3 members since May 28.

  Every time it was said →

“I oppose this motion because it hurts support for Canadian arts. I want to keep investing in Canadian culture, Quebec culture, and French-language productions so they can be shared around the world.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. My colleagues can rest assured that they have in me a strong advocate for Canadian culture, Quebec culture, and above all, French-language culture. All of this will be promoted through the CRTC’s work. In my view, the motion before us seems unreasonable because we must continue to support Canadian production. I think my colleague will agree with me when I say that, as a Quebecker, I believe we must above all support all French-language productions that are exported, because French is not only a magnificent language for us, but also one that deserves to be exported around the world. This will happen thanks to the investments currently being made in Canada.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 45 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“I will vote against this motion. Streaming companies should pay their fair share so we can make Canadian shows for everyone to enjoy.”

“Mr. Speaker, as I just said, it is important for these companies to pay their fair share. They have a right to serve Canadian viewers, but by making them pay their fair share, we will be able to produce Canadian content that all Canadians can enjoy. In my view, that is the goal. That is why I will be voting against the motion.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“I want to know how these funds and policies can help young Black creators, filmmakers, and musicians in the member's riding.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague from Terrebonne a question. She did a great job of describing the challenges that francophone creators face. I think these funds and policies can also help young Black creators, filmmakers and musicians in particular. In her opinion, how can these policies help young Black creators in her riding?”

“My community has a strong arts scene. We need to support local artists so young people can enjoy plays and shows made in Quebec and Canada.”

“Mr. Speaker, Terrebonne is fortunate to have a very lively cultural sector. We have La nouvelle société, which is amazing at promoting content that is not only independent and made by young artists, but also unique to Quebec. I remember last year, when Terrebonne was treated to a fantastic stage adaptation of Les Boys. That is the kind of content we want to see. Les Boys is from a previous generation, but we want to see the new generation fall in love with purely Quebec and purely Canadian content. Those are the kinds of things we will be able to do.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 46 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →