“I am honouring Sylvain Bergeron for his long work helping unemployed and vulnerable people in my riding. I want the House to pass our motion to fund Quebec culture and put levies on big tech companies. Quebec identity is based on our French language and culture. Big tech companies hurt that culture, but the government dropped levies on them because it was afraid of Donald Trump. Now the government plans to spend $600 million of public money instead of making rich web giants pay. Just like it does with big oil companies, the government protects greedy corporations instead of helping Quebeckers.”

“Madam Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to talk about a very decent man. Sylvain Bergeron is a tireless advocate for the rights of the unemployed in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. I can assure the House that he has probably assisted in more EI cases than all the members here combined, and that is saying something. He also advocates on behalf of the most vulnerable. He has been involved in numerous social justice campaigns. He is a source of inspiration for people working in community-based organizations in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. This is a guy who puts pressure on members like me to effect change. I wanted to recognize him today because he has requested medical assistance in dying, and he is inviting people to visit him today and tomorrow at the Chicoutimi hospital to say goodbye. On behalf of the people of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, I want to acknowledge his exceptional work and bid him the fondest farewell. Getting back to today’s motion, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Montcalm, who is anything but calm. Why are we moving a motion today on levies and funding for culture? Perhaps I will start with a fairly simple answer: It is to defend Quebec’s identity. We know that culture is a strong driver of identity. Why do the government and the opposition seem unsympathetic to our demands? I sense that people do not fully understand what Quebec culture and identity entail. I know that this may bother some federalist friends, but I think there is a clear distinction between the Quebec identity and the Canadian identity. I will give a very simple, mundane example that may seem a little unserious. Then we will get back to serious things. To understand the difference between Quebec identity and Canadian identity, take one of the Liberal Party’s slogans from the last election: “elbows up”. When Quebeckers are told to lift their elbow, they understand “have a drink”. I know many Quebeckers who wondered whether the government was suggesting they take a shot to forget about the tariff crisis during the election campaign. This is anecdotal but true. To illustrate this difference between Quebec identity and Canadian identity, I would like to go back to the early 2000s. When I began my master’s degree at the University of Ottawa, I learned about a major study that had been carried out across Canada. This study was trying to distinguish between Canadian identity and American identity. It was looking at what made Canadians different from Americans. This question was asked in all of the Canadian provinces, and the answers were very interesting. When Canadians were asked what made them different from Americans, the first thing that they said was that they had a public health care system. That was the most common answer. The second most common answer was that Canada is multicultural, not a melting pot. These are two very institutional things. When Quebeckers were asked the same question about what made them different from Americans, the first thing they said was language. The second thing they said was culture. The third thing was our soap operas. I found that quite funny. In the early 2000s, Quebeckers felt that their soaps were part of their identity. Quebec identity is strongly rooted in our language and culture. That makes sense because we are a national minority within Canada and throughout the Americas. We speak French and our cultural products are very different. Why am I saying this? It is because it is clear and it is a fact that even my federalist colleagues should be able to recognize: Quebec culture is fundamentally different from Canadian culture. Why are people today indifferent to calls for levies to support the cultural sector? It is because it does not affect them. The cultural products consumed by English-speaking Canadians are essentially the same as those consumed by Americans. They are perfectly happy with platforms like Netflix and Disney+. They consume the same type of cultural content. It is very different for Quebeckers, and that is where we see this indifference on the part of the federal government. Since it only affects Quebeckers, why bother making an effort? Why risk making Mr. Trump unhappy? Since it only affects Quebeckers, let us just let it slide. That is what we have seen. Earlier, in a question, I referred to the letter from the leader of the official opposition to the Prime Minister, asking him to end the levies so as not to upset Mr. Trump, which the prime minister did. He abolished the levies to avoid upsetting Mr. Trump and, in doing so, demonstrated his indifference toward Quebec culture. While the Conservatives and Liberals fear retaliation from Donald Trump, what we fear, clearly, is the decline of Quebec culture. We are in the midst of a tariff crisis, which is very tough, but I would say that there is a much bigger crisis: the fact that the rise of the web giants weakens our culture and may put it at risk. Perhaps we should address this issue first. I encourage my Quebec MP friends, whether Conservative or Liberal, to honestly ask themselves this: Do we want to further weaken Quebec culture? Instead of making web giants pay, what they are doing today is making all Quebeckers pay. In a way, it contributes to weakening Quebec culture. In that sense, we need to put an end to the spurious argument that I have heard from many colleagues: the affordability argument. People have been saying all day that if we had kept the levy system, the web giants would have passed the bill on to consumers, so it had to go. Instead, the government came up with $600 million. We have to wonder, where does that $600 million come from? It does not appear out of thin air. Where does the government get its money from? It comes out of taxpayers’ pockets. It is a bit spurious to say that the government does not want levies because people will be stuck with the bill, but on the other hand, it says that it is going to take $600 million in taxes and try to redistribute it. That has not yet happened, as everyone has pointed out. I find it pretty spurious. I would like to draw an analogy. When I look at the situation today, I see the federal government treating the web giants the same way that it treats the oil and gas sector. Their goal is to protect the greedy corporate giants. The web giants make roughly $4 billion a year on average, but the federal government does not want to require them to pay levies. In much the same way, it funds infrastructure for the oil industry, which raked in $131 billion in profits between 2020 and 2024. The federal government protects these greedy corporations that are awash in public money. It pays for their infrastructure, but it does not stand up for Canadian and Quebec taxpayers. Instead, it prefers to give those greedy corporations free rein. This analogy is important because it reflects the federal government’s response to the worst crisis that we are currently facing, which is the tariff crisis. The federal government’s response has been to support the only sector that has not been hit with tariffs, the oil sector, by providing $44 billion in infrastructure to the greedy oil companies and give special treatment to the web giants that are raking in billions of dollars in profits while hollowing out our culture. As an elected member from Quebec, I find that shameful.”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Speech on a motion

  Respect 96 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “demonstrated his indifference toward Quebec culture”.

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Speech on a motion

  Signal 38 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 →
• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “We are in the midst of a housing crisis.”

  Said 3 times by 2 members since May 25.

  Every time it was said →

“We vote on the whole budget, not just the parts we like. If a meal has good potatoes but rotten fish, you do not eat it. We voted against the budget because too much of it was bad.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that a budget contains a lot of things and that, ultimately, we vote on the whole package. Members cannot just pick one part like that and ask why we voted against the budget when the rest of it is unpalatable. If I were to offer my colleague rotten fish and tell her that the potatoes were good, would she eat the whole dish? I do not think so. The same applies when it comes to voting on a budget: When a significant portion of it is rotten, people vote against it.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  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 →
• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Members of Parliament from Quebec care about Quebec, but working within Canada forces them into compromises that hurt our culture and autonomy. That is why I want my colleague to support Quebec independence.”

“Mr. Speaker, this warrants harsh judgment. My colleague is absolutely right. I will, however, take this opportunity to say that I have no doubt that every MP from Quebec has a strong sense of belonging. The difficulty is that they are forced to make compromises within the Canadian framework. Too often, those compromises are made at the expense of Quebec culture and autonomy. That is why there is a fantastic project, one I invite him to take part in, and that is Quebec independence.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 16 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 →

“People keep talking about affordability and making giant web companies pay taxes. Can my colleague explain why this is about fairness, not affordability?”

“Mr. Speaker, throughout this debate, people have been raising the issue of affordability and the levies that should be paid by the billionaire web giants. I know that my colleague is very clear on the concept of fairness. Could he explain to us why this has nothing to do with affordability, but rather with fairness?”

“The government's $600-million plan makes all taxpayers pay, even if they do not use web giants like Netflix. Big tech companies make $4 billion a year, but they have no obligations to Quebec customers and are hurting our cultural sector. This is unfair, and the government should hold these companies accountable.”

“Mr. Speaker, the House leader of the Bloc Québécois gave a very good answer to a question about that earlier today. The $600 million that the government has proposed, but that no one has seen yet, will be paid by all taxpayers. Taxpayers who have no interest in Netflix or in these web giants will be forced to foot part of the bill. They will have no choice. Personally, I will never understand how companies that are raking in $4 billion a year can have no obligations whatsoever towards customers in Quebec who pay for their services, while at the same time those companies are being allowed to completely dismantle our cultural sector. This is an unacceptable injustice. In a few years’ time, the government will have to answer for this negligence.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The government must bring back the cultural levies. Also, because of how voting boundaries were redrawn, part of Lac-Saint-Jean is now in my riding of Jonquière.”

“Mr. Speaker, in less than 15 seconds, all I can say is that they must reinstate the levies. I would also like to say to my colleague that, unfortunately, the electoral map has been redrawn in a way that does not respect communities of interest. As a result, a significant portion of Lac-Saint-Jean now falls within the riding of Jonquière. It is always nice to learn something new.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 13 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 44 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 government backed down to American streaming companies and cancelled fees that support our culture. Now it wants taxpayers to cover that $600 million instead. I want the House to pass our motion to pay that promised $600 million right now and force online streaming services to pay their share.”

“Mr. Speaker, Quebec is a nation, one to which this House sometimes pays lip service in order to downplay the legitimate aspirations of Quebeckers. Here in North America, we are a minority and are different: the village of the indomitable Gauls, francophones drowning in a sea of anglophones. We need to nurture and cherish that difference, despite the fact that the Meech Lake accord and the Charlottetown accord did not recognize even the concept of a distinct society. Culture, our culture, is one of the pillars that shape our identity. It is a force that brings us together to laugh, reflect, cry, create and work. The cultural industry is a treasure that showcases and presents who we are. Despite its claims to the contrary, culture is far from a priority for the current government, which is using concessions on this file in a futile attempt to curry favour with the U.S. administration to the benefit of the major U.S. digital platforms. By going ahead with abolishing levies for online streaming platforms, the government is causing experts such as Catalina Briceño to wonder whether it is putting our cultural ecosystem at risk of being dismantled. She warns that by exempting online streaming platforms from levies intended to support Canadian content, Ottawa is putting an entire industry at risk. As she explained, after the Prime Minister stressed the importance of being “at the table” when international decisions are being made, he now risks putting our cultural gains “on the menu”. He is doing so without the slightest hesitation. We cannot and must not accept that. That is why, on this opposition day, the Bloc Québécois is asking the government to make the interim payment of $600 million promised to the cultural sector for the current year and to uphold the CRTC’s decisions imposing levies on streaming services. There are some things in this life that are inevitable and money is one of them. To survive and thrive, the cultural sector also needs a real infusion of funding, stable financial support that will help it reach its full potential. Unfortunately, since money does not grow on trees, on May 21, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, issued a regulatory policy based on the Broadcasting Act that was intended to force online streaming companies to triple their investment in Canadian programming by allocating 15% of their revenue to the creation of local content, rather than 5%. This CRTC policy sparked a rather predictable outcry from the major American streaming platforms who consider local culture to be a thorn in their side. That caused a chain of three reactions. First the American companies refused to contribute. Second, the Conservative Party defended the United States and digital billionaires. Third, the Liberal government backed down, overturned the CRTC’s decision and basically apologized to the U.S. government for existing. The major American streaming platforms pitched a fit and Ottawa backed down. The president of the Union des artistes, Tania Kontoyanni, said it well: “It is devastating and utterly disheartening to let the tech giants intimidate us like this.” The irony is that, in society, we rightly condemn and denounce intimidation. However, the government bends over backward for the bully and ends up grovelling before it, using spurious arguments to justify its cowardice. The Liberal government has already backed down like this before. Indeed, on June 29, 2025, the Liberal government formally scrapped the digital services tax—the infamous Netflix tax—in order to advance trade negotiations with the United States. As we can see, the government’s main excuse at the time was not the cost of living crisis but the trade dispute, and it got us nowhere. More than a year later, the Liberal government’s trade negotiations with the United States have been about as productive as trying to grow a plastic decorative tree from Walmart. The last time it backed down, on June 3, 2026, the Liberal government offered a very different explanation. The official reason now invoked by Ottawa is that the fees paid to broadcasters and streaming platforms would be passed on to consumers in the form of price increases, and the government did not want that to happen. The government attempted to justify its decision by saying, “At a time when Canadians face cost-of-living pressure, now is not the time to make culture and entertainment more expensive.” Who could possibly be against virtue? We, too, want to make culture and entertainment accessible, but not by kowtowing to American cultural and financial hegemony. While he was at it, the Liberal Prime Minister might as well have said that Quebec culture is too expensive, and that American entertainment is so much better. It is all well and good to play the tough guy by claiming an “elbows up” political stance, but it is hard to land a blow when kneeling before one’s bully. Sadly, in the face of the appetites of American web giants, the Liberal Prime Minister has decided to put Quebec’s cultural industry on the menu and has relinquished Canada’s ability to defend its cultural sovereignty and to enact laws that apply to everyone equally and that legitimately aim to support Quebec culture and ensure the discoverability of Quebec cultural productions. To me, politics is a noble pursuit. The Liberal government must respect citizens and stop treating them like idiots. I find it insulting when I hear the government say that it abolished levies on American broadcasters and platforms to save taxpayers money. Let us think about this for a moment. At the same time as it backed down in the face of American pressure, in order to save face, the Liberal government announced a commitment to provide $600 million annually to Canada’s audio and audiovisual sectors. Those funds are intended to replace the revenues that would no longer be generated through levies on online streaming platforms to support Canadian culture. If I understand correctly, on behalf of the online streaming services, Ottawa will now pay the contributions that were supposed to support Canadian content creation. In other words, taxpayers will be expected to shoulder the burden instead of American tech. The Liberal government is therefore passing the web giants’ financial responsibility on to Canadians while claiming that it is doing so in the name of affordability. Let us be clear about the logic here. Canadians are being asked to pay so that Canadians do not have to pay. That is the rationale behind the Liberal decision not to require the digital giants to contribute. The only difference is that the government is doing it in a way that it hopes will go unnoticed. I find that level of hypocrisy deeply troubling. The reality is that the federal government does have a responsibility to support the cultural sector as it competes with online platforms, just as various industries have received assistance in coping with the tariff dispute. However, in the interest of fairness, that support should not be provided as a substitute for the fair contribution that should be made by American platforms. That is why the Bloc Québécois is calling on the government to immediately disburse the $600 million in emergency support that the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture promised to the cultural sector on June 3, 2026, and to uphold the CRTC’s decisions imposing levies on streaming services, as set out in the Broadcasting Act. The Bloc Québécois motion calls for two simple things: respect the authority of the CRTC and make the $600 million payment immediately.”

• Echo ×4

  A repeated line

  “As set out in the Broadcasting Act.”

  Said 4 times by 4 members since October 22.

  Every time it was said →

“The government needs to collect fees from tech giants through the CRTC. That would raise billions of dollars for culture. Then the government could spend its $600 million on other sectors hurt by tariffs instead. Giving in to American tech companies makes no sense.”

“Mr. Speaker, the problem is that failing to implement the levy solution through the CRTC amounts to foregoing billions of dollars that could be used to support all the sectors the member just mentioned. The government claims that it cares so much about culture and that a one-time injection of $600 million would solve the problem in the midst of a tariff crisis. In the same breath, it says that other sectors also need support. This does not add up. A solution that would generate billions of dollars for the cultural sector is available. Other sectors need investment. If the levies had been implemented, the $600 million earmarked for culture could have been directed to those sectors during this tariff crisis. The government’s position is illogical, and it is kowtowing to the U.S. tech giants.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 38 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“In Europe, a 20% fee on streaming services did not make life more expensive for French taxpayers.”

“Mr. Speaker, the European experience shows that a 20% levy has no impact on affordability for French taxpayers.”

“The government's plan takes $600 million from Canadians and Quebeckers instead of taxing web giants that make $4 billion a year. I want my colleague to explain why taxing these big tech companies is a better solution.”

“Mr. Speaker, in his excellent speech, my colleague demonstrated the government’s cowardice. Today, it is trying to pass off taking $600 million directly out of the pockets of Quebeckers and Canadians as a solution, when the fact is that the web giants make $4 billion a year. I would like my colleague to talk to us about how levies might be a better solution than what the government is currently proposing.”

“The government is giving up $4 billion by refusing to make American web giants pay fees. Instead, it is using $600 million of taxpayers' money to help our cultural sector. The government is giving in to bullies. I want the House to pass our motion so our cultural industry gets that $600 million right now.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is the context. We are forgoing $4 billion by not standing up to the Americans and the web giants that come here and make money at our expense. The Liberals say this will strengthen their position in trade talks. They are prepared to make concessions. The government talks about how much it cares about the cultural sector and says that is why it is offering $600 million in lieu of the levies. The thing is, that $600 million is taxpayers’ money. On top of that, the government would have people believe that affordability is the reason it is not moving forward with the CRTC’s decision, even though the CRTC has the authority to impose these levies on billionaire web giants. That is the problem. The government is not standing its ground. It is not being “elbows up”. Instead, it is yielding to the bully and trying to sugarcoat a bad decision with this $600 million. By the way, our motion is about getting that $600 million out the door right away because the cultural industry has been waiting for 16 months.”

“Web giants make billions of dollars in Canada. The government should make them pay into our culture sector instead of using taxpayers' money. Other countries make them pay, and it does not raise prices for users. I want the government to explain why it will not make these companies pay.”

“Mr. Speaker, we should remember that web giants, the billionaires such as Netflix and Amazon Prime, make $4 billion in profits in Canada. Instead of imposing levies on those who rake in billions of dollars in profits, the government is proposing to take Canadians’ money, $600 million, and invest it in culture. The government has not yet paid that out; the sector is still waiting for that money. Can my colleague explain to me why taxpayers should be forced to pay instead of companies that are making billions of dollars in profits? Elsewhere in the world, including in Europe and France, these companies are forced to pay levies. However, that has not made any difference to the cost of people’s subscriptions. This is not a matter of affordability. These companies can afford to pay. The government needs to explain why it refuses to make them pay.”

“The government promised $600 million for culture this year, but never gave the money. Major festival groups in Quebec got more funding under the previous Conservative government than they do now. I want the member to explain that.”

“Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, we are talking about $600 million that was promised for this year but never delivered. My colleague spoke so highly of culture, festivals and whatnot in his speech that I seriously doubt that this opposition day motion will yield any sort of solution. Maybe my colleague has not spoken with groups like Quebec’s REMI, the Regroupement des événements majeurs internationaux, and Festivals and Major Events Canada, or FAME. Honestly, these groups had a lot more funding during Stephen Harper’s era. What does my colleague have to say about that?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 41 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 →

“Big tech companies make $4 billion in profit each year. We should make them pay a tax to support our culture, instead of taking $600 million from regular taxpayers. How can the member justify this to the people he represents?”

“Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague, and I would simply like to point out to him that the $600 million that has not yet been distributed is far less than what could have been collected through the levy. Does he think it is acceptable to reach into the pockets of all Quebeckers and Canadians instead of asking the greedy tech giants, which make $4 billion in profits each year, to do their part to support our cultural sector? How can he justify that to his constituents?”

“Quebec needs the power to protect its own culture. The government is letting foreign streaming companies ignore our culture, and it cancelled the digital tax on these tech giants. The government must make streaming services pay into our system, and it must immediately pay the $600 million it promised to our cultural sector.”

“Mr. Speaker, first off, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Côte‑Nord—Kawawachikamachi—Nitassinan. First, I would like to warmly congratulate my new colleagues in Quebec’s National Assembly who were elected on October 5. In the Laurentians, from the La Vérendrye wildlife reserve to the Rivière des Mille Îles, nine sovereigntist MNAs were elected. As a sovereigntist, the member for Laurentides—Labelle and a proud member of the Bloc Québécois, I wish to reiterate that I intend to work closely with my counterparts in the Parti Québécois for the future of our nation. The future of our nation depends on promoting what lies at the very heart of who we are: our culture. I understand the federalist strategy all too well. Control over our cultural destiny is seen as a threat to Canadian unity. That is why the affirmation and promotion of our culture have always been filtered through the lens of federalist policies. The preservation of our heritage and cultural autonomy represents a real and tangible challenge to the broader project of Canadian nation-building. Faced with Anglo-American cultural hegemony and pushes toward uniformity, Quebec must have the tools necessary to ensure its cultural sovereignty: produce its own works, promote them and make them available to its citizens, and showcase its world view across the globe. Its ability to choose its own cultural destiny depends on it. When the government backtracks on important legal pillars that have real, tangible and major effects on some of the population’s culture, we have every right to question the intentions behind these decisions. As an opposition legislator, it is my duty to do so. The government will definitely tell us that it has increased CBC/Radio-Canada’s funding. It did, and we are very glad it did. CBC/Radio-Canada is a public broadcaster. I am happy to know that in the coming weeks or months, hopefully, Radio-Canada will have reporters based in the Laurentians. We do not have any right now. Let us turn to TVA, Noovo and private production companies. How can they compete against Netflix, Amazon, Disney+ and the others? When production and distribution of cultural products fall into the hands of foreign giants, we risk losing more than just part of our identity. What we are asking for is not complicated. We must not give up the key ways in which we define our cultural priorities. We must maintain our presence in the public space and make our voice heard around the world. In 2026, as American platforms share their content globally and play a pivotal role in our cultural life, the government is choosing to scrap the digital services tax. Wow. It is choosing to give up one of the few levers at its disposal to get these giants to contribute to the cultural ecosystem where they make their profits. Imagine that. This choice puts commercial interests ahead of cultural interests. Yes, commercial interests come before cultural interests. Refusing to exercise the powers of the state means accepting the power relationship and letting these platforms set the ground rules on their own. This abdication is an admission of weakness and a profound disdain for francophone culture in North America. Let me be clear. Without the Bloc Québécois, no one here would take such a strong stand on Quebec culture. I am turning to my Liberal Party or Conservative Party colleagues here, and asking them where they stand on this issue. Defending Quebec culture involves defending the economy. They go hand in hand. Defending Quebec culture involves protecting jobs. Defending Quebec culture involves negotiating with the European Union. We have to stop assuming that protecting culture and creating jobs are mutually exclusive. The Prime Minister wants to to create closer ties between Canada and the European Union. We can also turn to the EU’s defence of culture for inspiration. Europe oversees huge platforms and ensures that its creative works are present and visible on streaming services. A number of its member states have also taken action on a fiscal level. Let us be bold, and let us take pride in Quebec culture. I know that the Prime Minister understands the value of soft power. I say to him: Let us take pride in seeing Quebec walk the red carpet at Cannes, shine at the Oscars and showcase its artists on the world stage. However, that kind of success does not happen on its own. Without funding, culture cannot thrive. From Théâtre du Marais in my riding in the Laurentians to Quebec TV series that are reaching audiences around the world, every link in the chain matters. We need to support our culture and to show the world what Quebec has to offer. Our culture deserves the government support it needs to create, renew, be passed on to future generations and flourish. That is why it is essential that the government uphold the CRTC’s decisions imposing levies on streaming services, as set out in the Broadcasting Act, and that it make the interim payment of $600 million promised to the cultural sector for the current year. How many questions have we asked? It should be possible to do this within days. Governments know how to move quickly when they want to invest. The question that I put to my colleague earlier focused on festivals. Culture, cultural events, festivals and tourism development are indeed part of who we are. It is not enough merely to express concern for them or to say that we value them. We must back those words with action. Quebec’s cultural sector, like its tourism sector, deserves recognition proportionate to its contribution to Quebec’s and Canada’s economies and to our collective identity. This is necessary.”

• Echo ×4

  A repeated line

  “As set out in the Broadcasting Act.”

  Said 4 times by 4 members since October 22.

  Every time it was said →

“I want the government to support our motion and release the $600 million for culture right now. Words are not enough. We need action.”

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

• 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 →
• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 33 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 support this proposal for cultural groups and festivals. I do not understand why the Conservatives oppose it.”

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

• 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 want the member to say more about making big tech companies pay taxes. The government gave in to Donald Trump and dropped these taxes. Europe has these taxes, and they did not raise monthly subscription costs. Saying this is about affordability is not true.”

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

“We are having this debate because the government is ignoring the rules on broadcasting. Other places like the European Union and Australia chose to protect their culture, but Canada did not.”

“Mr. Speaker, my answer to my colleague is that this is exactly why we are having this opposition day. We are asking for the bare minimum, because the government is definitely not considering the Broadcasting Act. It says it wants to build Canada strong, but we can still look to what is being done elsewhere and draw from it. The EU and Australia, for example, chose culture. We did not.”

“Our culture and identity are priceless. We should not make economic choices that hurt our culture. The economy and culture must work together.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. Her French is as excellent as always. When it comes to our identity, who we are, our values, culture is priceless. That is exactly what I just said. Economic decisions are made at the expense of culture, while both should go hand in hand. This is about our very essence.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 12 of 100

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

  See full analysis →