“I want the government to make big online streaming companies pay fees to support our cultural sector. I also want the government to pay the cultural sector the $600 million it promised for this year. Quebec and Canadian culture are facing a serious crisis, and big tech companies should help pay for it instead of regular taxpayers.”

“moved: That, given that,(i) culture is central to Quebec’s identity,(ii) the cultural sector plays a critical role in Quebec’s economy,(iii) the media and cultural production sectors are facing serious pressures that hamper their development,(iv) the government nevertheless abolished the Digital Services Tax levied on the U.S. digital corporate giants,the House call on the government to:(a) uphold the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s decisions imposing levies on streaming services, as set out in the Broadcasting Act; and(b) make the interim payment of $600 million promised to the cultural sector for the current year. He said: Mr. Speaker, today is an important day because we are once again bringing an issue to the floor of the House that is very important to us, namely culture, and, more specifically and as a priority, Quebec and francophone culture. Before I begin my speech, I would like to extend my heartfelt congratulations to the MNA for Matane-Matapédia-Mitis in the Quebec National Assembly, Pascal Bérubé, who was appointed Minister of Culture, Heritage, Communications and the French Language. Pascal Bérubé is a highly capable and passionate man, as we saw at his swearing-in ceremony yesterday, and certainly someone who will fight for culture with the same passion and commitment to Quebec identity for which he is so well known. Today’s motion is important to the Bloc Québécois. It is also of vital importance to the cultural sector. Earlier this week, the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, or CDCE, was on Parliament Hill, accompanied by dozens of representatives from its member organizations. I took the opportunity to get a sense of their mood and take stock of the situation, since it is important to do that from time to time. I wanted to know whether the concerns and priorities we are advancing on behalf of the cultural sector are still relevant. I also wanted to find out whether we are, as my former colleague from La Prairie always said, “on the right track”. It is worse than I thought. The cultural sector is facing an unprecedented crisis. What is particularly troubling is that we have been warning about this crisis for years, yet the sector continues to receive little more than piecemeal support, despite the widely recognized urgent need for adequate, fair, sustainable, predictable, long-term funding. We can pile on all the adjectives we want. It is simply unacceptable that culture be left in this state of precariousness year after year, budget after budget. The motion that we are tabling today is not that complicated. First, we want to speak out against this government’s abandonment of culture, an abandonment that, in my view, has been almost systematic since it entered office in April 2025. The Liberals have done nothing but backtrack on cultural issues. Let me explain, although I suspect they will rise later to tell me that significant amounts were allocated to culture in budget 2025 and will be announcing good news in the coming weeks. Not abandoning culture involves more than giving away money now and then. It involves a commitment to fund the cultural sector in a meaningful way. First, we are facing an economic situation involving a southern neighbour ready to rock the boat at every opportunity. Our economic situation demands that we strengthen our sectors as much as possible. When we can, we must. When it comes to culture, we can. We have the means; they have been requested and demonstrated and they constitute a logical choice for ordinary, average people. Failing to act would be alarmingly irresponsible. Even the Liberals have been campaigning for years to bring in a system to ensure fairness in the broadcasting and cultural sector. Bill C-11, which I had the pleasure, so to speak, of working on for several years, was drafted in collaboration with and at the request of this Liberal government. However, the conclusion of that study, that work, was to give the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, the responsibility, under the new Online Streaming Act, of establishing a system that would ensure that American digital companies—those multibillion-dollar companies that call the shots wherever they go and that governments lack the courage to regulate—contribute their fair share. The most logical approach is the one that has been used for decades with the traditional broadcasters and that is to impose some form of levy. That is what the CRTC has done. The CRTC worked on this for a long time, as it usually does, holding hearings and listening to representations from various stakeholders in the industry, and concluded that the right approach was to impose a 5% levy, a decision that was subsequently revised, resulting in a 15% levy. What did the government do? It did not say, finally, a fair way to establish a framework to ensure that companies making billions of dollars off our culture and our broadcasting system contribute so that people can continue to create and produce content that reflects who we are and ensures that Quebec culture, francophone culture and Canadian culture remain very much alive and can develop, continue to evolve and be the envy of many countries around the world in this ever-changing digital landscape. I mentioned earlier that the government will boast about having invested funds in budget 2025. It did invest in a number of sectors, including the audiovisual sector, and that was certainly appreciated. However, while the budget provided hundreds of millions of dollars to various areas of the cultural sector, some sectors facing even more acute challenges than others were completely overlooked. There was unanimous support for increasing the budget of the Canada Council for the Arts by $140 million. It received $6 million. Sectors such as entertainment presenters, cultural presenters, the visual arts and the performing arts were entirely ignored in this budget, and yet they are on the front lines sustaining culture, theatre, dance and other artistic disciplines. We need to support the entire cultural sector. It is not a collection of isolated groups. It is an ecosystem, an integrated whole that must function effectively and generate benefits throughout the sector. When the cultural community as a whole is properly supported, all of its sectors thrive. It is a vital part of both the Quebec and Canadian economies, and one that we simply cannot do without. The evidence is clear. I am fed up with hearing that the cultural sector is being funded or subsidized. That is not what is being done. We invest in culture, and that brings in billions of dollars for the Canadian economy. We cannot do away with that, especially at a time when we need to affirm our identity and protect our culture. We have been experiencing this in Quebec for decades now. I get the impression that, in Canada, people are also starting to realize that culture is important and that they need to protect their identity. Perhaps this would be a good time to learn from Quebec’s traditional demands on the matter. As I said earlier, CDCE representatives spent the week on the Hill. Their demands remain unanimous: They want the money they were promised, but they also want a system in place that will reassure them. The only way to reassure them is to have a funding system that is not subject to the government’s whims. The government cannot say that, this year, when it scrapped the 5% or 15% levies, it replaced that with $600 million, as promised. The government might say that this is great news because, next year, it intends to do the same thing and even index the amount. Next year, the amount would be $800 million. The government believes this should please the cultural sector. However, the year after that, the amount might drop to $200 million, which might put everyone into a bit of a pickle. Then, the year after that one, another government might be in power that is not interested in culture and might decide to get rid of it. We would be back at square one. It is unacceptable for the government to take this approach. It is important to create a system that reassures all cultural sector stakeholders. This means fair funding for culture and a significant contribution from big tech. There is the money, and then there is the principle. I hear the government saying that levies cannot be imposed on digital companies because they will simply pass the cost on to consumers. That is hogwash, so as not to use an expression that the Chair would reprimand me for. What a load of nonsense. Let us look at what has happened elsewhere, particularly in Europe. I was just at the French embassy yesterday with officials from the CDCE, and we discussed this very issue. Europe has imposed such levies. The European Union itself has imposed levies and has allowed other EU states to do the same, which France and others have done. The reality is that there has been no decrease in subscriptions to the digital platforms that are already generating billions of dollars in profits, and there has not been any dramatic increase in consumer costs. By choosing to fund culture itself rather than have the digital companies do it, the government is passing the bill on to Canadians. When Canadians are asked what concerns them the most right now, they point to the cost of living. Everything is becoming more expensive. However, Canadians are now being handed a $600‑million bill when the digital companies, which are raking in billions of dollars on the backs of our creators, are the ones that should be funding culture. That is the purpose of our motion today. I have a hard time imagining how the Liberal government, which has always claimed to support culture, or at least given the appearance of that, could oppose our motion. I would take a very dim view of that.”

• 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 →

“We voted against the budget because the government ignored all 11 of our recommendations, especially the ones about culture. We voted against it to stand up for our people and our culture.”

“Madam Speaker, a budget is like a big stew. There are all sorts of things in there. We can love corned beef but not cabbage. When we vote for a budget, we are voting for a series of measures. Before a budget is tabled, parties make requests. We have recommendations to make for the budget. The Bloc Québécois had 11 amendments, many of which were culture-related. None of the Bloc Québécois’s recommendations, particularly those concerning culture, were included in the budget. When the Liberals ask us why we voted against funding measures for culture, it is because they did not listen. They did not get the job done. They botched the job. In that case, we take responsibility, we stand up for our people and our culture, and we vote against it.”

• 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 has not yet kept its promise to give $600 million to Canada's cultural sector. This money is not just for Quebec, but for all of Canada. The cultural sector brings in hundreds of billions of dollars every year.”

“That is a very good question, Madam Speaker, and I thank my colleague for asking it. My colleague is obviously generalizing; he is really broadening the scope of the issue, but fundamentally, I understand that we are talking about broken promises. In our motion today, we are addressing a promise that, while not yet broken, has not yet been kept, and that is very concerning. I am talking about the $600 million. This $600 million is not a request from Quebec. It is an amount intended for Canada’s entire cultural sector. As a result, it is not just about a request from Quebec. Of course, the Bloc Québécois is more focused on Quebec’s demands, that is well known, but in this case, it is a promise to all Canadians and to Canada’s entire cultural sector, which, I would like to remind you, generates hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue annually.”

“I want my colleague to tell the House about the government's cultural failures as it tries to please Donald Trump.”

“Madam Speaker, my colleague has already kindly briefed me, in private, on all the government’s setbacks in the area of culture as it tries to please Donald Trump. Therefore, I would perhaps invite him to brief the House on all of these setbacks, since it is quite interesting and relevant, after all.”

“The government backed down on taxes that could have helped culture and broadcasting to please Donald Trump. We got nothing in return. Now the government looks bad because it gave up those taxes for nothing.”

“Madam Speaker, I am being asked for a brief answer to a question that would take several minutes to address, but I will simply talk about the digital services tax, which could have been used to fund the cultural and broadcasting sectors, as well as the backtracking on the levy of 5% to 15%. These concessions were made during negotiations with Donald Trump. What did we get in return? Nothing, period. Nothing. This is a somewhat awkward position for the government to be in now, saying that it will not reinstate the levy after having removed it to appease someone who never responded favourably to our request. I could go on, but I do not have enough time.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a comment in debate

  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 →

“We needed a tax on big foreign digital companies to help our media and culture. The government did not give the money to those sectors, and then it got rid of the tax. This wastes billions of dollars that could help our culture and our economy.”

“Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague very much, and I look forward to hearing his comments on today’s motion later on. We should remember that this tax was originally requested and required to fund the cultural sector and the media, this entire sector where American digital companies swoop in and get rich. In the end, it was not used for that purpose at all; it was used for something else entirely. It went into the consolidated revenue fund instead of serving the sectors that had been hit hard by those companies entering the market. Yes, as my colleague said, this kind of flip-flopping and back-and-forth is absolutely pointless. In the end, the tax was repealed. We are depriving ourselves of billions of dollars that could give some serious breathing room to our cultural sector, as well as other sectors.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 93 of 100

  Of this reply, 90% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“The government needs to pay the cultural sector the $600 million it promised right away. It must also let the regulator make online streaming giants pay fees to support our local culture. Instead of standing up to these big foreign companies, the government canceled the fees and made taxpayers pay the bill. That hurts Quebec's culture and our creators.”

“Madam Speaker, it is always a bit intimidating to follow my esteemed colleague from Drummond, who enlightens us with his knowledge. We know that he is very passionate about the issue before us today, and that came through in his remarks. I will begin my speech with an analogy to explain the subject we are discussing today. Imagine a charming little village somewhere with several public parks that are the envy of many of the villagers in the surrounding areas. People gather there to play with their children. One day, a business from a neighbouring town decides that there might be some money to be made. It decides to organize festivals and parties in the small neighbouring village’s parks and it charges people to attend. This all happens little by little. People buy tickets and come have a good time. The business then leaves and continues paying municipal taxes in the other town. One day, the municipal councillors in the small village with the beautiful parks realize that they are paying to maintain these parks, which are deteriorating faster because they are being used for festivals. They then decide to bring a resolution before the municipal council proposing that a portion of the cost of maintaining the parks be charged to the company using them to make money. That makes perfect sense, so the village passes the resolution. One day, the mayor of the village stands up and says that he has veto power and that he is going to use it. He wants to maintain a good relationship with the mayor of the neighbouring town, so to avoid offending him, he is repealing the levy that his municipal council had imposed on the company from the other town. However, since the parks do still need to be maintained, he decides to raise taxes in his own village and make the folks there pay for maintaining the parks. I believe that if this were ever to happen in any village, there would probably be a public outcry, and with good reason. That is precisely the situation we are facing today, because the government has decided to overturn an order of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, imposing levies on web giants such as Netflix, Amazon and Disney+ that are making money in our territory without supporting the local cultural community that is suffering as a result of their actions. It is important to protect content creators in Quebec and across Canada, but especially in Quebec, because Quebec culture is not just another commercial product. As we know, French is a minority language in North America, and our way of compensating for our demographic reality is by making our culture vibrant and resilient. It is important to support it. By supporting content creators, we allow them tell our stories, and their voices will fall silent if we do not support them. If their voices are silenced, we will be left hearing only the stories of others, rather than the stories that have shaped who we are. I sincerely believe that our government colleagues share our views on the importance of protecting culture. If we asked them whether it is important to protect culture, I am sure that they would say yes and that they would mean it. That is not the issue. The issue is that they do not have the courage to make decisions that will actually protect culture. I am not trying to impute motives today. I am simply saying that they do not have the political courage needed to stand up to the United States and the web giants. There are two parts to our request today. First, the government must give the cultural industry the $600 million that it was promised and that has still not been paid out. The government is saying that the money is coming, but the clock is ticking. Since the government decided to abolish the levy of 5%, which was supposed to increase to 15%, the cultural industry has been left without support. This is urgent. As I was saying, there are really two parts to our request because that $600 million is not a lasting solution. We cannot truly ensure the survival of the cultural industry with money taken from taxpayers’ pockets and doled out by a government that could change at any time. The tariff crisis has reminded us of how important stability and predictability are for all industries, and that is especially true for the cultural industry. Moving forward, what we are asking the government to do is to respect the CRTC’s decision. The CRTC is an organization with its own governance structure and its own expertise. The CRTC holds public hearings and consultations. Citizens, businesses, artists, associations and community groups all participate. The CRTC knows what it is doing when it makes a decision, and the decision to raise the levy from 5% to 15% was based on concrete evidence. Ultimately, what we are asking the government to do is to respect its own law, which gives the CRTC full discretion to require the web giants to pay whatever amount it deems appropriate. What we hear in response is the completely misleading argument that the money collected from the tech giants would ultimately end up being passed on to taxpayers. When the government takes $600 million to partially offset this loss of revenue, where does that money come from? The government does not have any money of its own. Its money comes from taxpayers’ pockets. Ultimately, it passes the bill on to taxpayers and, what is more, it also passes it on to people who may have chosen not to subscribe to Netflix, Amazon or Disney because they want to support Quebec’s cultural sector. It passes this bill on to them to avoid making the American giants pay. The Liberals argue that this cost would simply be passed on to consumers, but it is worth noting that the European experience has already shown that that is not the case. There are a number of other factors that can contribute to higher subscriber fees, but I would like to quote an expert from the École des médias at the Université du Québec à Montréal on the issue of affordability. Professor Catalina Briceño has stated that the affordability argument raised by the Minister of Culture is misleading too. A private company can always justify a price increase on a wide range of grounds, including rising costs, shareholder expectations for profitability, required investments or other considerations. Unless Ottawa has secured an explicit commitment from these companies, which we would certainly like to see, there is no guarantee that subscriber fees will not increase in the short or medium term. The Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions has also pointed out that the experience of other countries, particularly in Europe, contradicts that argument. In other words, the amount consumers pay to companies like Amazon could still increase, even in the absence of government-imposed levies. As I mentioned, predictability is also important. Systematic levies on web giants would bring in billions of dollars in revenue, a far cry from the $600 million that the government is promising. What is more, this revenue would be ongoing and would not be subject to any dubious political discussions, as could happen with a future change of government. Ultimately, all this will serve absolutely no purpose. My colleague from Drummond mentioned the government’s backtracking on the digital services tax. This was done on the sidelines of the G7 summit in the hope of encouraging the U.S. government to refrain from adding tariffs and perhaps to come back to the negotiating table. However, it has been over a year and a half, and we see where things stand today. Did it change anything? The answer is absolutely not. In fact, it is probably perceived as a sign of weakness that the U.S. government can focus on, and there has been one step backward after another. It was all for nothing. The key thing to remember is that, for the web giants, Quebec and Canada are just a market and a way to make money. However, for the cultural community, the people of Quebec and Canada are channels through which they keep their stories, their endeavours and their culture alive. This is a reflection of the soul of our cultural agents. If the government cannot muster the courage to correct the inequity between the web giants and our content creators, unfortunately, a part of what we are and who we are is doomed to disappear. That is why the discussion we are having today in the House is so important.”

“The government must deliver the investments it promised. It must also make big tech companies pay their fair share instead of letting them take from our market and give nothing back.”

“Madam Speaker, I mentioned it in my speech. Our request is twofold. Yes, we are asking that the investments promised by the federal government be delivered. If they are included in a budget, and if the federal government makes additional investments, all the better. What we are saying, however, is that it will never replace the share that should be paid by the web giants, which pillage the market and give nothing in return. The government is selling us out for cheap without even collecting on the deal. That is what is shameful.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 35 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 Liberals always break their promises. We have been waiting months for the $600 million they promised to the cultural sector. They are also breaking their promises to protect the environment.”

“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for making an effort to speak in the language of Molière. I grant that French is not an easy language. It is a very broad question that may go beyond today’s topic, but it is still related to it. Unfortunately, we know the Liberals have a history of broken and unfulfilled promises, as my colleague, the member for Drummond, mentioned. We have been waiting for the $600 million they promised for the cultural sector for months. It is also very much the government’s style to break with tradition, even though that tradition has, in fact, been typical of the Liberals on a number of issues, like the environment. After all, the current Prime Minister is the former UN special envoy on climate action and finance. What we are seeing in Bill C‑39 when it comes to protecting the environment is nothing more than broken promises and shattered illusions.”

• 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 →

“Big tech companies were supposed to pay $600 million to help our culture, but the government stepped in to pay it instead. Other businesses are struggling with tariffs and need help too. What message does it send to them when the government suddenly finds $600 million for this?”

“Madam Speaker, it is my turn to thank my colleague from Saint-Jean for her excellent speech and for her passion. I believe the House can see that that passion is shared by all Bloc members when we talk about culture and the French language. The government has decided to step in for the digital giants, which were supposed to pay out $600 million in compensation. In my colleague’s view, what message does this send to the other sectors of the Quebec and Canadian economies that are struggling with the impact of tariffs? Businesses are looking to the government for support in the face of the tariff threat that constantly hangs over their heads. Meanwhile, there was already a funding mechanism for the cultural sector that made sense to everyone. The government is capable of coming up with $600 million. What must the other sectors of the economy be thinking when they see this money appear, just like that?”

“The government should give businesses money to help them pay for unfair duties. This would cost the government nothing in the end, because it would get the money back once trade courts rule on the disputes. We sent this idea to the government, but it has not even answered us.”

“Madam Speaker, a lot of people must be thinking that it is time something was done for them as well. Earlier on, we were talking about the long-standing softwood lumber crisis, which started long before the tariff crisis and for which we submitted proposals to the government. Furthermore, if the government gave businesses an advance to offset the countervailing duties and give them some breathing room, it would be a zero-cost measure, since we know that international trade tribunals will eventually hand down a decision and the government will be able to pay itself back out of the proceeds. These proposals would help our sectors and cost nothing in the end. However, we are having a hard time getting so much as an acknowledgement of receipt from the government. I think that a number of sectors must be justifiably disappointed by some of the government’s actions.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 44 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“We cancelled the digital services tax to end the tariff war. We are still waiting for that war to end.”

“Madam Speaker, I have a very simple answer. The digital services tax was scrapped in exchange for an end to the tariff war. We are still waiting for that war to end.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 49 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The member's speech was full of good intentions, and it showed his knowledge.”

“Madam Speaker, I was almost moved by the first part of my colleague’s speech. It was a litany of good intentions. It shows his knowledge—”

“The government chose to spend 600 million dollars of public money instead of making big foreign streaming websites pay a fee. They claimed this was to keep things affordable. It makes no sense to make the public pay so that the public does not have to pay.”

“Madam Speaker, as I was saying, I was almost moved by the first part of my colleague’s speech, by the litany of good intentions. I thought he would come to the same conclusion as us, but that is not the case. Nevertheless, it is reassuring to hear from someone who is aware of this issue. By the way, when it comes to the CRTC’s decision to impose a levy on the web giants, the online streamers, the government initially said it would take a pragmatic approach. Given that the government had to negotiate with the Americans and did not want to upset them too much, it decided that instead of imposing a levy, it would provide $600 million in funding, although this money has not yet reached its intended recipients. Affordability was also cited as a reason. The government’s current logic is that it should make the public pay so that the public does not have to pay. That is the logic behind the Liberals’ decision not to make the web giants pay. How does that make sense?”

• 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 →

“Quebec's book sector has asked for $10 million for years to support libraries and local books. The government wants to spend $43 billion on a pipeline instead. I want to know why the government will not grant this simple request.”

“Madam Speaker, the government obviously has many intentions, and we appreciate this openness. However, concrete action is needed. For example, Quebec’s book sector and Livres Québec have been asking for $10 million for years, for reasons such as supporting libraries and promoting the purchase of books from Quebec and even from Canada. That is not a huge amount. One could compare it to the $43 billion the government wants to invest in a pipeline. That would cover quite a few books. Let us get back to the $10 million. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say. What is the government waiting for to respond to such a simple request, which would be concrete and very beneficial for culture?”

“The government has promised for 18 months that this money is coming soon. There is $600 million sitting there, and the government will probably add another $600 million in the next budget. The government needs to act and put the CRTC's decision into place.”

“Madam Speaker, they have been saying that the money will be coming very soon for 18 months now. The government does not want to implement the CRTC’s decision, yet $600 million has been sitting on the table for the past 18 months. I am guessing they will earmark another $600 million in the next budget. That will bring the total to $1.2 billion, while we wait for the government to get its act together and finally implement the CRTC’s decision.”

“The Conservative leader asked the Prime Minister to stop making demands of big tech companies because he feared American tariffs. Does my colleague from Quebec agree that his leader made a bad decision, especially given Quebec's unique culture?”

“Madam Speaker, I have a very simple question for my colleague. We know that the Leader of the Opposition sent a letter to the Prime Minister asking him to put an end to the entirely legitimate demands that the government was making of the web giants because he was afraid that the Americans would retaliate with more tariffs. Does my colleague agree with that as a Quebecker, given our cultural specificity? Does he not think that his leader made a bad decision in this case?”

• Vague
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Clarity 34 of 100

  Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

  See full analysis →

“My colleague says making big web companies pay fees will make things cost more for people. But France charges them a 20 percent fee, and it did not make costs go up there. I want him to explain why he thinks these fees hurt affordability.”

“Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to explain something to me. He says that there would be affordability issues if web giants, which are making billions of dollars, were required to pay levies. Currently, there are none. If we look at the European experience, we see that in France, levies are 20%, and there is no correlation between the cost of these services to the public and the fact that a 20% levy is charged. How can he say that this affects affordability?”

“Canadian taxpayers will end up paying the $600 million being talked about. I want to know if my colleague agrees with making big American tech companies pay fees instead.”

“Madam Speaker, my colleague pointed to the Prime Minister’s lack of resolve in dealing with the U.S. giants, claiming at the time that the issue was one of affordability. However, the $600 million in question ultimately comes out of taxpayers’ pockets. Does my colleague agree with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s solution of imposing levies on billion-dollar U.S. digital platforms?”