“Big tech companies make billions in Canada and can easily follow our rules. The Conservatives want to give up protecting Quebec's culture and identity before trade talks even start, just because they are afraid of Donald Trump.”

“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?”

“Both the Liberals and the Conservatives refuse to tax big digital companies because they are afraid of Donald Trump. That tax would give $1.5 billion to our cultural sector. The Liberals failed with this plan, and the Conservatives are making the same mistake.”

“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?”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Respect 78 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “The Prime Minister thought that if the government did not implement this tax, the U.S. would return to the negotiating…”.

  See full analysis →

“Countries all over the world fund arts and culture. The Conservatives want to give tax money to oil companies, but not to our own culture.”

“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.”

“The Liberals let down the cultural sector by dropping the digital services tax, which cost our artists 1.5 billion dollars. They gave up this tax because Donald Trump complained. I want to know what the government actually got in return for dropping it. I think the answer is nothing.”

“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.”

“I oppose the Conservative motion. American streaming companies make millions here and must help pay for local TV and movies. This money protects French and Quebec culture. Quebec should also control its own broadcasting rules so our shows do not disappear.”

“Madam Speaker, I was surprised to hear the member for Winnipeg North essentially deliver two speeches. First, he gave a 20-minute speech, and then he basically gave another one in response to the questions he was asked. Before I get started on today’s completely ridiculous opposition motion—and let me be clear, by “opposition”, I mean the Conservative opposition—I want to point out that we in the Bloc Québécois would never have launched such an attack on one of the tools we have to defend Quebec culture and, yes, even Canadian culture. Before I begin to discuss the Conservatives’ ridiculous stubbornness in attacking anything that could possibly help our culture survive and even thrive in the new global digital environment, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the contribution of the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, not in his capacity as environment minister, as members did yesterday, but in his capacity as heritage minister. He and I both won our seats in the 2019 election and, like everyone else, I figured he would immediately be given the environment portfolio because of his long-time passion and activism. What a surprise it was when the then prime minister put him in charge of Canadian Heritage. I am sure a lot of people—himself included—thought that was not his dream job, but I do admire how seriously he took it. During his time at the department, he made it clear that culture truly mattered to him. In fact, he was the one who introduced the first version of the bill to modernize the Broadcasting Act, Bill C‑10 at the time, which died on the Order Paper when an election was called the following year after weeks and months of excruciating Conservative filibustering. Bill C‑10 became Bill C‑11 in the 44th Parliament, and again, against all odds and despite all the Conservatives’ stalling tactics, we ended up passing the bill in 2022. That means it is partly the political legacy of the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie that we are defending here, because the CRTC decision that this motion is challenging stems from that act, which he introduced in November 2020. However, I doubt that this is an argument for today’s cause. Still, I too would like to commend the contribution of this member, one of the few parliamentarians to stand up for their deeply held convictions and stay true to them, so much so that he chose to leave politics rather than swallow his frustration at his government’s decisions and its lack of commitment to the environment and climate change. I hope that this government and this Prime Minister will not cause the current Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture the same disappointment. Let us get back to the Conservatives’ motion, because we have to. We have no choice. Basically, what this motion is saying is that if people want to watch American shows, even if it means that Quebec and Canadian shows disappear, that is just fine. It is fine for American streaming giants to come here and make millions, if not billions, of dollars in Quebec and Canada without contributing to our broadcasting system. They think that is fine. Come to think of it, it would also be fine if there was no longer a Canadian and Quebec broadcasting system at all. Robert Charlebois, a great Quebec singer whom most of my Conservative colleagues have probably never heard of, used to sing that living in this country is like living in the United States. The Conservative motion talks about the contribution that they are calling the Netflix tax, a commitment by American giants to use part of their revenues to ensure that original Canadian and Quebec productions are made, both in English and in French. Given a choice between protecting Quebec and Canadian culture and artists and defending Netflix, Amazon Prime Video and Disney+, the choice is clear for the Conservatives, and that is most unfortunate. I cannot believe that some Quebec Conservatives, whom I hold in high regard, are endorsing such a motion. It is embarrassing. Our artists are barely able to fund their work and our producers are struggling and being forced to trim not only the fat, but also the muscle, while American multinationals are making billions of dollars at their expense. The CRTC’s decision did not fix everything, far from it, but it is more than just a step forward. It is a necessary step if we want to be able to stand up to the cultural tsunami that is being unleashed by the web giants. Forcing them to increase their contribution to original content is not a penalty or a tax. It is about catching up. It is a matter of fairness. Our traditional broadcasters have always had clear obligations: fund local content, promote the French language and support the next generation. Only digital platforms are exempt from that. Although this measure is necessary, it is not sufficient in and of itself. First, we need to ensure that the money collected is actually used to support the creation of Quebec content, particularly French-language content. Quebec must receive its fair share. Most importantly, Quebec needs to be able to decide for itself how the investments will be used, but I will come back to that later. Second, we must also guarantee that this contribution is not limited to funding. Quebec content, French-language content and Canadian content must be discoverable. As anyone who has seen The Glass House on Prime Video can attest, our TV shows are outstanding. They must be available and they must be given a chance to be successful. I would add that they must also be given a chance to be aired by the licensed broadcasters, which have been contributing to the system for decades.These broadcasters are once again being harmed. They must be able to afford to broadcast our TV shows, our original content, our stories. Lastly, it is important to beware of unintended consequences. We also do not want the platforms to pass on this increase to Quebec consumers in the form of price hikes. Once again, the public should not pay the price for the government’s past inaction or for making contributions to original Quebec and Canadian productions more fair. The Bloc Québécois will continue to fight to ensure that every dollar contributed by the streaming platforms is used to strengthen our cultural identity, protect our language and support and develop Quebec’s unique creativity. That is why, today, we are reaffirming our clear and consistent stance that Quebec should have its own communications regulator, a CRTC that is just for Quebec. The current CRTC makes decisions that profoundly affect Quebec culture, but it does so within a Canadian framework where Quebec is just one minority among many. Even with the best of intentions, this structure cannot fully reflect Quebec’s reality. It cannot give francophones the weight they deserve. It cannot prioritize our creators the way we would. It cannot fully grasp the complexity of our cultural ecosystem. The result is that, all too often, CRTC decisions dilute Quebec’s unique characteristics with a one-size-fits-all approach. A Quebec CRTC would be better at defending our culture. It would allow us to adopt rules tailored to our market. It would allow us to impose clear requirements for French-language content. It would allow us to provide greater support for our emerging artists. It would ensure that local content is truly discoverable. It is not enough simply to produce content; that content must also be seen, heard and discovered. These days, the major platforms have algorithms that overwhelmingly favour dominant content, much of it in English and too much of it foreign. Our content is in there somewhere, but it is often invisible and hard to find. If Quebec had its own CRTC, it could implement concrete measures, such as spotlighting Quebec content, adapting quotas, mandating promotion and requiring algorithmic transparency. The Conservatives do not like that word, but it would not be a burdensome requirement; it would be a lifeline. Let me go back to the CRTC decision. We do support that measure, but with clear conditions. First, the proceeds must truly benefit Quebec, not in theory or in some watered-down way, but concretely. The funds must not be folded into bigger federal programs that force Quebec culture to compete with vastly different contexts. Quebec must get its share, and it must be able to decide how to use the funds. Second, these contributions must be used to strengthen French-language content, not just to fund Canadian content as a whole. The language issue is crucial to Quebec. Without decisive intervention, the presence and influence of French will decline. Third, no matter what, the cost must not be passed on to consumers. We know full well how the web giants operate. When they are forced to meet new obligations, they either challenge them in court or try to pass on the cost to users. The Bloc Québécois is opposed to forcing Quebeckers to offset the web giants’ contribution costs. These companies are making a profit from the market. They have to contribute. If we want future generations to be able to keep living, creating and dreaming in French, we need to take concrete action, even if it seems draconian to some people. Increasing the streaming services’ contribution is only one step. The Conservatives want to stop our cultural content from flourishing in the new digital environment. The Liberals must not follow their example. It would be a real shame if the new Prime Minister and the new Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture did to culture what they have done to the environment, in other words, if they completely destroy the legacy of the member for Laurier—Sainte‑Marie.”

“Neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals support Quebec and French-language culture. The Liberals broke a campaign promise and dropped the 3% tax on digital products to appease Donald Trump. I want to know how much money the government lost by dropping that tax.”

“Madam Speaker, it is pretty clear to me that the Conservative motion is completely off base when it comes to Quebec and francophone culture and production, among other things. I wonder if my colleague could talk about the fact that the Conservatives are not the only ones abandoning the cultural sector. This Liberal government also turned its back on culture when it eliminated the 3% tax on digital products last July. It was in the Liberal election platform, but barely three months after getting elected, they reversed course, hoping that would get them back to the negotiating table with Donald Trump. I would like to ask my colleague the following question. How much revenue was ultimately lost because this government eliminated the digital services tax, despite its election promise to keep it?”

“The government cancelled the digital services tax to please the Trump administration, and it failed. That tax would have brought in over a billion dollars a year to support our media and arts sectors. The government refuses to bring it back, and I worry it will keep giving in to the United States.”

“Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my insightful, eloquent, and personable colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean for his question. It certainly took everyone by surprise when the government decided to simply scrap the digital services tax last July. That tax, which would have brought in between $1.2 billion and $1.5 billion annually, could certainly have helped support the media and the cultural sector. They did this in the hope of securing concessions from the Trump administration, which turned out to be completely futile. What is more, the government stubbornly refuses to reinstate this tax in the form of a levy, which, once again, would generate funds that could literally save many sectors of the cultural industry that are currently struggling. It is stubbornness. It is a lack of goodwill. What worries me right now is that this decision by the CRTC might be overturned, or that the government might ask the CRTC to go back to the drawing board and reverse this decision for the same reasons, that is, to kowtow a little more to the Trump administration. I am deeply worried about the disengagement we have been seeing.”

“I want to honour the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie for his political work. It is hard to belong to a national party where you must often accept decisions you disagree with. I think he was tired of being disappointed by his government's environmental choices.”

“Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to pay tribute to the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie for his career and his political commitment. I think that is very honourable. If there is any member who respects that, it must be my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk. However, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie was not the Canadian heritage minister when the digital services tax was abolished. That was last year, under the current Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture. The member for Laurier—Sainte‑Marie was the environment minister at the time. That being said, my colleague is in a much better position than I am to know that a member of a major political party that has to represent interests across Canada, contrary to our mission as members of the Bloc Québécois, is forced to swallow a lot of bitter pills on a regular basis. Perhaps one day, my Conservative colleague will be tired of having to swallow the bitter pills that are the social convictions of his western colleagues. I get the feeling that our colleague from Laurier—Sainte‑Marie was fed up with having to put up with the disappointing experiences he endured on the environmental front.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 20 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 →
• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I apologize to the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie for getting a fact wrong earlier. Quebec's only official language is French, so we need special rules to protect it. I agree that groups like the CRTC and CBC/Radio-Canada must stay independent, and the government should respect their decisions. The recent CRTC decision is a good start, but we need more action.”

“Madam Speaker, I take note of the question from my colleague from Winnipeg North, but first and foremost, I would like to acknowledge that my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk was absolutely right. The member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie had indeed returned to the Department of Canadian Heritage by then. I apologize to him. That was a public mea culpa. My colleague from Winnipeg North talked about the fact that Canada is a bilingual country and that some institutions are independent. I fully agree with him. However, Quebec is a nation whose only official and common language is French. That is why extraordinary measures are sometimes needed to protect this distinctiveness. I completely agree about the independence of the institutions established to regulate, as is the case with the CRTC and with CBC/Radio-Canada as the public broadcaster. That is what I hope this government will respect when it comes time to implement the decision that was just rendered by the CRTC. As I said in my speech, I believe that this decision is a step in the right direction, but it is just one step, and other measures will need to be added later on. As for the independence of institutions, I completely agree with my colleague.”

“People are struggling to afford food and housing, but we should not cut support for artists and creators. If we want to save money to help people, we should stop giving tax breaks and subsidies to rich oil companies and other big corporations.”

“Where should I start, Madam Speaker? The member brought up a lot of different issues. First, yes, we are in a difficult economic situation. Yes, Quebeckers and Canadians are finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet and, yes, the lines at food banks are growing. We are aware of those problems. However, that is still no reason for us to be telling our artists, creators, broadcasters, performing arts producers and content creators that they are not important and that we are going to let them be steamrolled because we do not want to add to the burden of the multinationals that are coming here to make a quick buck. If my colleague really wants government money to be better spent, then perhaps he should take a look at big oil, which is raking in tens of billions of dollars a year while benefiting from tax breaks and government subsidies. If we were to cut back a little on the billions of dollars that we are giving already-rich multinationals that have absolutely no need of our help, then perhaps we would have the means to provide a little more support to Quebeckers and Canadians who are currently struggling.”

“I want the member to explain why my party will vote against this motion.”

“Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to explain to me why the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this motion.”

“I will vote against this motion. Big online companies hurt French culture and Canadian artists by not paying into our broadcasting system.”

“Madam Speaker, I gave a 20‑minute speech to express just how important Quebec’s francophone culture, and even francophone culture in Canada, is for protecting the French language and supporting our creators in Canada, whether they are anglophone or francophone. All content creators, broadcasters and artists are deeply troubled and affected by the arrival and dominance of digital giants that do not contribute to the broadcasting system. That is why we are going to defend our position and vote against this motion.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Conservatives complain that the government interferes with CBC, which is independent. But now they want the government to interfere with the CRTC, which is also independent. I want to know why they have this double standard.”

“Madam Speaker, I often hear the Conservatives in committee criticizing what they perceive as government influence over what goes on at CBC/Radio-Canada, the public broadcaster. They often condemn what they see as a kind of collusion or the idea that the public broadcaster acts as a mouthpiece for the Liberal government and its policies. They are entitled to that view. However, if the Conservatives believe that the government is interfering in the operations of the public broadcaster, which is an independent body, then why would they ask the government to interfere in a decision recently handed down by the CRTC, which is also an independent body? This matter clearly falls within its jurisdiction, as it concerns the application of legislation passed by Parliament. I wonder why there is a double standard in this case.”

“The Conservatives want us to change our policies because they are scared of Donald Trump. The Liberals already tried doing that and got nothing in return. It will not work for the Conservatives either.”

“Madam Speaker, here is what I want to know. The fourth point of the Conservative motion basically says that we are scared of Donald Trump, that we should lower the tax and overrule the CRTC’s decision because we are scared of Donald Trump. The Liberals did just that last July. They repealed the digital services tax out of fear of Donald Trump. They believed they would get something in return. In the end, they got diddly-squat. I love that expression. If it did not work for the Liberals, why do the Conservatives think it will work for them?”

“The Conservatives say protecting our culture hurts trade. That means they are giving up on our language and culture, and just accepting American culture instead.”

“Mr. Speaker, by claiming that standing up for culture is a trade irritant, as the Conservatives do in point (iv) of their motion, they are also giving up on linguistic and cultural diversity and, above all, accepting English American culture as the standard. If the Conservatives do not have that cultural sensitivity, is it because they have already embraced that standard? Is it because, for them, the culture we are talking about is the U.S. culture?”

“The Liberals say they cannot step in on the CRTC's decision because it is independent. I want to know what they would do if they could step in. Would they ask to overturn the decision to protect culture, or not?”

“Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my Liberal colleague’s speech. He is telling us that the Liberals want to defend culture. From the beginning, the Liberals’ argument about the Conservative motion has been that they cannot intervene in the CRTC’s decisions, since it is an independent body. The logical question is this: If they cannot intervene, that is one thing, but if they had the power to intervene, what would they do? Would they ask the CRTC to reverse that decision or not? That is the important question. Their answer will tell me whether or not they are protectors of culture.”

“I want an answer to my question. What did the government get in return for cancelling the digital services tax?”

“Mr. Speaker, I did not get an answer to a question that was quite straightforward and specific. I am going to give my colleague another chance to answer a very specific question. The Liberal government scrapped the digital services tax on July 1, 2025. I would like my hon. colleague to tell me what the government got in return for repealing that tax.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“The Conservative motion insults Quebec and French speakers. It treats our language and culture like an annoying trade problem. We have a distinct culture, and we are already the ones hurt most by American tariffs.”

“Mr. Speaker, this is outrageous. I do not know if the Conservatives realize that their motion is an insult to Quebeckers and francophones. I hope they have talked to their Quebec colleagues, because this motion is insulting. Essentially, they are saying that we francophones are an international trade irritant. Ask anyone what the difference is between English-speaking Canadian culture and American culture, and they will say that there is no difference. They watch the same movies and listen to the same music. Ask a francophone, and the answer will be very different. That is what the member is saying even though we are the ones bearing the brunt of the U.S. tariffs on aluminum and lumber. On top of that, they have the nerve to tell us that our culture is an irritant. If I were them, I would be ashamed.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 43 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 oppose the Conservative motion. It attacks Quebec culture. Without rules that set aside funding for our culture, Quebec would be completely taken over by American media.”

“Mr. Speaker, when I read the Conservatives’ motion this morning, I nearly fell off my chair because I see it as nothing short of an attack on Quebec culture. I am not sure if they realize it, but without certain rules ensuring that a portion of the budget and certain investments are allocated to Quebec culture, we would be completely buried under content from the United States. That is all there would be. Maybe they do not care because that is already the case. What solutions do they propose for Quebec culture? Do they want us to consume mostly American products and become American like they do in English Canada?”

“The Conservative motion attacks Quebec culture to please the Americans, just like the old Harper cuts. But I am even more worried that the Liberals are too weak to defend our culture and taxes. I want to know what my colleague thinks about the government being so unsure of itself.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her speech today. I must say that, while I am extremely disappointed by the Conservative motion we are debating today, I am not entirely surprised by it. It is a painful reminder of the Harper years, when cuts were being made to culture left, right and centre. However, this is even worse. They are doing the Americans’ bidding and launching yet another full-scale attack on our culture, Quebec culture, and perhaps even Canadian culture, if such a thing exists. However, I have even greater concerns about the government. It was unable to stand its ground on the much-discussed 3% digital services tax, and it refused to commit to the CRTC’s decision, despite being publicly questioned on the matter. What does my colleague think of the fact that the Liberals do not seem overly sure of their position?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 42 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 →