MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Abdelhaq Sari

Follow by RSS

Sari champions a national framework on the durability and repairability of electronics and appliances, his Bill C-267, a safe social media act with a minimum age of 16 and penalties for platforms, the fuel tax suspension, and federal money for Quebec culture. He argues through everyday scenes: “Let me start with a simple image” of a broken dishwasher leading to a $1,000 bill. He also backs his points with figures, announcing program costs in dollars.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
B
79 / 100 over 48 statements
Signal 66 / 100
Relevance 73 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 90 / 100
Averaged over the 48 of 53 statements graded so far.

In their own words

Loses points more than most for

Loses points less than most for A remark off to the side of the point.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.Less often than most members.What the tags mean

Statements 53

Government Orders ·

Safe Social Media Act

In response to a question from Helena Konanz

“I want everyone to vote for this bill. It is a step forward and a world first. It covers social media, artificial intelligence, and safety design in ways that Australia did not.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for asking her question in such elegant French. I appreciate it. The unique thing about this bill is that it is a world first. It is a step forward, and I hope that everyone here will vote to support it. There are three aspects. Australia did not regulate all of the aspects I listed in my speech, including the issue of social media, AI and platforms, as well as safety by design.

In response to a question from Peter Schiefke

“I want this bill passed to protect children online. When a toy is dangerous, stores take it off the shelves. Parents cannot watch what their kids do online all day, but social media companies have the tools to do it and should be required to.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who represents the riding neighbouring mine, for that great question. It is very simple. As I mentioned, I have a 14-year-old son. We know full well that when a toy is dangerous, it is taken off the market and off of store shelves. My son spends most of his time in front of a screen. I think we need to address this issue much more seriously. I cannot ask parents in Bourassa and across Canada to monitor their children’s online activities 24 hours a day, seven days a week. That is virtually impossible. However, the platforms have the means to do so, they have the algorithms to do so, and they must do just that.

In response to a question from Gabriel Ste-Marie

“Social media companies must be required to follow the rules, and they must face penalties if they do not. Without penalties, rules are just suggestions. We need this bill to protect children, and big international companies will not stop us.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is yes. However, it is not just about cooperation. It is also an obligation, one that has to come with penalties. When obligations are imposed without accompanying penalties, then they are just a suggestion. That is not the intent of Bill C-34, quite the contrary. The bill aims to protect our children. Everyone knows as well as I do that protecting our children is essential. International companies will not stand in the way of the government’s determination.

In response to a question from Amanpreet Gill

“Experts, not politicians, will run this commission, and they care about our children's future. This bill sets the minimum age for social media at 16.”
  • 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
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his highly relevant question. We need to bear in mind who is going to sit on this commission. It will not be politicians or decision-makers from the House of Commons, but experts who, obviously, care about our children’s future. My colleague talked about age. Let me say again that the minimum age for social media will be 16. That is what the bill provides. Let me also say again that the commission will be composed of experts.

“I support this bill to protect children online. Parents cannot stop platforms designed to be addictive. The bill requires companies to build safer platforms, removes the worst harms quickly, and sets a minimum age of 16. It protects free speech and private messages while preventing harm before it happens.”
  • A repeated line

    “Our laws have not kept pace.”

    Said 4 times by 4 members since October 28.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure, a sense of responsibility and, above all, gratitude that I rise today to speak to Bill C-34. To explain why this bill matters, I would like to begin with an image that is familiar to every parent in the House here in Ottawa. It is 11 o’clock at night. The house is quiet. The lights are off, and yet, beneath our child’s bedroom door, there is still a faint blue glow—a screen still lit, a thumb continuing to swipe, scrolling and scrolling and scrolling. We believe our child is safe. They are at home, under our roof, only a few metres away from us, but in reality, at that hour, they could be anywhere, with anyone, facing all kinds of risks. It is for that child that I rise today to support Bill C-34, the safe social media act. I have spent my professional life at the intersection of information technology and public safety. I taught in the field of technology, particularly artificial intelligence. I served on Montreal’s city council for eight years and on the city’s public safety commission. I also worked as an adviser to the Montreal police service. If I have learned anything, it is that behind every statistic is a face. As we look at the numbers, let us think about the faces. According to the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, 52% of Canadian teens have received unwanted sexual images online and 44% say they have been pressured to share or send these types of images. That is one in two teens. Let us imagine a high school classroom. Every other row of students has experienced this. In only one year, 2023, Canadian police recorded 19,516 incidents of online child sexual exploitation, a 59% increase over the previous year and a 500% increase over 2014. Among young people aged 15 to 24, in a single decade, depression has doubled and anxiety has quadrupled. In addition, young people who are victims of online harm are three times more likely to consider suicide. Yes, three times more likely to consider suicide. I am not just quoting statistics here. I am talking about our children, children in Montreal, Calgary, Rimouski, Ottawa and all across Canada. I am talking about all of our children, including my own. For far too long, parents have been told to keep a closer eye on their children, set limits, check their phones, check their computers, and check their electronic devices and smart phones. Let us be honest, parents are already overwhelmed. We cannot ask them to monitor their children’s digital lives 24 hours a day, seven days a week, especially when, on the other side of the screen, there are systems specifically designed by the world’s top engineers, with input from sociologists and behavioural experts, to capture our children’s attention and never let go: endless scrolling, autoplay, algorithms that learn what catches a child’s attention and keep serving them more and more of it. Online harm does not stem solely from individual misbehaviour. It also stems from the way these systems and services are designed. Let us talk about what is known as safety by design. This is a very important concept that Bill C-34 is set to implement, and one that has been emphasized quite a bit by our colleagues in the Conservative Party. I will come back to this later. I would also really like for us to talk about AI, chatbots that talk to children, virtual companions that mimic friendship and even affection, that respond to young people at three o’clock in the morning when no one else is there for them and that sometimes give young people in distress the worst possible advice and answers. When a toy is dangerous, it is pulled from store shelves. When a car has a defect, it is recalled. When an infant car seat fails safety tests, it is never put on the market. Why then should social media platforms, where children spend hours and hours each day, be the only exception? These platforms had a chance to take action voluntarily. They did not do enough. Our laws have not kept pace. We have laws that punish after harm has been done, but we have almost nothing to prevent harm in the first place. Bill C-34 changes all that. This bill is based on a simple idea: safety by design. I am going to list three duties that will help achieve that. First, there is the duty to protect children. We need age-appropriate safeguards built into the products. Companies need to mitigate addictive features, add warnings and provide safe search settings. I repeat: This is a duty that begins at the design stage. Second, there is the duty to act responsibly. Companies must identify and reduce risks, provide effective blocking and reporting tools, and label deepfakes and content created by AI. Canadians deserve to know what is real and what is not. Finally, there is the duty to make the most serious types of content inaccessible: child sexual abuse material and intimate images shared without consent. Once reported, such content must be removed within 24 hours. If the platform does nothing, the victim will no longer be alone. They can turn to the digital safety commission of Canada. Chatbots need a crisis protocol. When a young person expresses an intention to harm themselves or others, the bot will no longer be able to simply continue the conversation. It will be required to refer the person to appropriate help. For social media, users will have to be at least 16 to open an account. However, the door is wide open for platforms to be granted an exemption if they can demonstrate that their service is safe for children. The message is simple: Platforms are welcome to seek an exemption if they can prove that their product is safe and truly reliable for users. I talked about it with my 14-year-old son. I told him that our government was planning on imposing a minimum age of 16 for the use of social media. It sparked quite a discussion, but my son eventually came around to the view that this objective was very noble, because protecting young people is so important. All of this will be overseen by Canada’s new digital safety commission, which will be independent and made up of three to five expert members. It will review the safety plans published by the platforms, handle complaints, support victims and have the power to impose fines of up to 3% of global revenues. I am hearing some concerns today. They are legitimate, and I want to address them frankly and clearly, but above all in a responsible manner. With respect to freedom of expression, it is protected by the charter, and this bill does not restrict it. The bill covers seven categories of harmful content, each of which is deliberately narrowly defined. The bill does not cover debate, disagreement or criticism, even when expressed in the strongest possible terms. What is more, the commission will have no power to arrest anyone. With respect to privacy, private messaging is specifically excluded. Data collected for age verification purposes must be protected and then promptly destroyed. It can be used for only one purpose: to prevent harm. This bill does not target what Canadians say. It focuses on how platforms are built. Seventy-seven per cent of the population wants us to take action, so that is what we are doing. Pediatricians want us to take action, and so does everyone else. I will return to the image of the faint blue glow under the door. I do not long for a world without screens. That world is gone. Digital media offers a marvellous opportunity for our young people—if it is used right.

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

In response to a question from Braedon Clark

“Our tax deductions help businesses buy new machinery and vehicles. This creates jobs and brings more investment to Canada.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 43 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, to answer the question, I will just talk about the mega deduction, although there is also an opportunity to attract investors. For example, I had an opportunity to host a round table in Bourassa’s industrial area. Industrialists and businesses want to invest, and the mega deduction will help them upgrade their fleets and machinery. That will create jobs. It is good both for employment in our ridings and for our industries. To repeat what I said earlier, this is about our ability to attract investment, as we did at the first-ever summit. I think the future will be a lot more promising because we can attract a lot more investment, because of our potential and, as I said in the previous answer, because of our values.

In response to a question from Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

“Canada will stick to its values no matter who we do business with. We need to trade with more countries, like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and nations in Europe. We can protect our economic interests in these places without giving up our values.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, once again, I would like to say what a pleasure it is to sit alongside my colleague on the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs. The first answer is very clear and simple: The Government of Canada will uphold its values, no matter which country it does business with. Economically speaking, we are in a situation where we need to diversify our trade. Of course, without compromising our Canadian values, we have economic interests in other countries such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and throughout Europe, with which a summit will soon be held. We are going to pursue that with the values that Canada is known for. People want to invest in Canada for its values, its economic strength and the opportunities we give to our investors.

In response to a question from Burton Bailey

“Interest costs are going up all around the world. Canada is handling this well. We have the lowest debt compared to the size of our economy in the G7, our top credit rating keeps borrowing costs low, and our deficit is going down.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, here is what Canadians watching us need to know about interest charges: They have increased, but they have increased around the world. Given the rise in rates that the whole world has experienced, the real question is this: Who is weathering it best? That is the real question, not whether interest charges have exceeded health transfers. As I just said, Canada has the lowest net debt‑to‑GDP ratio in the G7 and a AAA credit rating. That rating is what keeps our borrowing costs as low as possible. In addition, our deficit is on a downward path.

“Canada is in a strong financial position, with a top credit rating and a low debt-to-GDP ratio compared to our peers. We are managing public money responsibly, bringing in hundreds of billions of dollars in new investments, and cutting our deficit.”
  • Speech on a motion

    Relevance 27 of 100

    None of this speech addressed the specific motion under debate.

    See full analysis
  • A repeated line

    “We have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7.”

    Said 17 times by 13 members since April 29.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Scarborough Southwest. I am very pleased to rise today to speak to the motion put forward by the leader of the official opposition. It touches on an issue that affects all of us: the state of our public finances and what they enable us to do for Canadians. I believe there is at least one thing members on both sides of the House can agree on: The world is changing fast. It is changing unpredictably; trade tensions are on the rise, supply chains are being reshaped, and decisions made far from here are being felt in our kitchens, our factories and our small and medium-sized businesses. I see this in my riding of Bourassa every day. Families are carefully budgeting, and business owners on our main streets are wondering what tomorrow will bring. They do not expect slogans from us; they expect us to take this seriously. Faced with such uncertainty, what does a responsible government do? Our government is focusing on what it can control. It is strengthening the economy here at home. It is diversifying its trade relationships abroad. It is making strategic investments to build a stronger, more independent and, above all, more resilient economy. All of this rests on one essential condition, and one condition alone: a solid financial position. A sound financial position is not an end in itself. It is an asset for the country and a tool for the government. It is what allows us to protect Canadians when the storm hits. It is what gives us the means to respond to shocks. Above all, it is what allows us to invest in the future rather than simply endure it. The good news is that Canada is entering this period from a position of strength. The government is not the only one saying so; the International Monetary Fund, or IMF, agrees. It should be noted that the IMF does not engage in politics; rather, it produces calculations, figures and rather interesting performance indicators. According to its most recent projections, Canada will have the second-lowest deficit in the G7 this year as a share of its economy. That deficit will continue to decline over the coming years. It is expected to fall from 2.5% of GDP in 2026 to 2.4% in 2027, before falling to 1.7% by 2031. Across the globe, budgetary pressures are mounting, yet Canada remains among the strongest performers in the G7. We have the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the entire G7. Canada is one of only two G7 countries, alongside Germany, to hold a AAA credit rating from the major credit rating agencies. The AAA rating cannot be bought; it must be earned. This rating is not merely a badge of honour. It is a vote of confidence from investors around the world. This confidence has measurable value: It helps keep our borrowing costs as low as possible, and that directly protects taxpayers. There are other assets in addition to that. Canada is the best-connected economy in the world, with free trade agreements that open the door to 1.5 billion consumers. We offer by far the most competitive tax environment in the G7 for new business investment. We are not letting those strengths go to waste; we are putting them to work. In fact, last month, Canada hosted the first-ever Canada investment summit. We brought together some of the world’s biggest investors and gave them a simple message: Come and see what Canada has to offer. The result was nearly $500 billion in new funding and investment commitments in Canada. However, attracting investors is not enough. They need a reason to want to stay, to build and grow here in Canada. That is why we announced the new productivity mega deduction. What does a mega deduction actually mean? It means that businesses will be able to immediately and permanently write off their eligible investments in a broad-based range of assets. The percentage of assets covered will increase from about 15% to more than 65%. This measure would help an SME that is hesitating over whether to buy a new machine. There is an industrial area in my riding of Bourassa. If an SME wants to buy a new machine or modernize its systems, this measure is a reason to say yes to that investment. If a large company is torn between Canada and another country, this measure is a reason to choose our country, Canada. Whether small, medium or large, all our businesses benefit. Whether in Quebec, Alberta or elsewhere in the country, everyone benefits. When businesses invest in their equipment and their workers, our overall productivity improves. Canada has a financial advantage, and we are determined to protect it, because investing in the future does not mean spending recklessly. On the contrary, budget 2025 marked a real shift in how public finances are managed, and this plan is working. As the Prime Minister recently announced, the government is on track to balance its operating spending as early as 2027-28, a year earlier than our government had projected. We are also committed to rigorously implementing the efficiency measures set out in budget 2025. The Minister of Finance and National Revenue will table the 2026 budget on November 5. On November 5, we will not be tabling slogans. We will not be tabling a motion. We will be tabling a budget. The logic is very simple: fewer resources devoted to the day-to-day operations of government and more resources devoted to the things that build our economic capacity for decades to come, such as infrastructure, major projects and revenue-generating assets. Every family understands the difference between the money we spend to meet our day-to-day needs and the money we invest to build our future. A prudent family keeps a close eye on the former. A wise family never neglects the latter. That discipline is not optional. Our fiscal position is strong today, but in no way does that mean we can take it for granted. That is why the government has adopted two clear and essential rules. First, operating expenses must be balanced with revenues. Second, the deficit must remain on a downward path relative to the size of our economy. These are two simple, measurable rules, and our government is abiding by them. This brings me to my conclusion. Canada’s fiscal strengths are real. We have one of the strongest financial positions in the G7, with the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio and a AAA credit rating. Our responsibility is twofold. The first responsibility is to preserve these strengths. The second is to use them for growth. That means investing in infrastructure and major projects, attracting more private capital, empowering our businesses to grow, diversifying our trade so that we are less dependent on a single partner, and diligently managing our public finances. That is exactly what we are doing. As I was saying, we live in a rapidly changing world. Neither the Speaker of the House, nor I, nor the Prime Minister, nor any member of the House can control what happens outside our borders. However, we can control the choices we make, and our choice is clear. We are choosing to build on our strengths, invest in the future and build a more resilient and more prosperous economy for our children. We do not control the world, but we can control our choices.

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

In response to a question from Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault

“I voted for this budget along with 43 other Quebec members. Culture is important for our growth. Our government will always support Canadian and Quebec culture, including French-language art and media.”
Official Hansard

First of all, I would like to thank my colleague for his very eloquent and direct question. I would like to tell him that I was not the only Quebecker to vote for this budget. I was among 44 members who proudly represent Quebec, represent it well and defend Quebec culture on an ongoing basis. Culture is a vehicle for development that is very important, if not essential, to it success. I can reiterate and confirm once again that our government will always defend the Canadian and Quebec cultural sector in general. It will ensure that Canadians see themselves on screen, hear our voices and our official languages, including the French language, and celebrate what makes our country unique.

In response to a question from Gérard Deltell

“I want everyone to vote against this motion. Our government has consistently supported cultural groups with hundreds of millions of dollars, while the Bloc has voted against Quebec culture.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 30 of 100

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

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 32 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
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and congratulate him once again on his eloquence. Nonetheless, I would like to set the record straight. The results are clear. I have referenced them before, and I can do so again for everyone’s benefit. On top of the $600 million, there is another $550 million in concrete funding for CBC/Radio-Canada, Telefilm Canada, the Canada Media Fund, the Canada Music Fund, the National Film Board of Canada and the Canada Council for the Arts, as well as TV5MONDE. That being said, regarding consistency, there is something we need to keep in mind. Again, in my earlier remarks on artificial intelligence, I said that the context is changing very quickly. It takes a very agile government to adapt to this reality. I really hope that all my colleagues will vote against this motion, simply because it is inconsistent with the position of the Bloc, which voted against Quebec culture.

In response to a question from Luc Thériault

“I want to correct the member from the Bloc Québécois. The amount is 1.15 billion dollars, not 600 million dollars. That 600 million dollars is a government promise from outside the CRTC. The old CRTC approach did not work, and what works in other places does not always work here.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Bloc Québécois for his attention. Once again, I have to straighten a couple of things out. As I mentioned in my speech, it is not $600 million; it is $1.15 billion. There is a verb tense issue in my colleague’s question. He used the wrong tense. He should have said that the $600 million is a commitment from the government that will come from outside the CRTC. I hope that my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois will recognize that the previous CRTC approach did not work. I am using the correct verb tense: It did not work. Not everything that works elsewhere has to work here as well.

“Culture is vital to Quebec, and our creators need help right now. Streaming company fees are tied up in court, so artists are not getting that money. That is why our government gave $600 million a year in direct funding to the arts, on top of other budget investments. The Bloc voted against that budget, and their motion would only cause more court delays. We must reject this motion.”
  • A repeated line

    “$127.5 million for the Canada Media Fund.”

    Said 3 times by 3 members since October 21.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to mention that I will be sharing my time with the member for Edmonton Strathcona . There are things that cannot be measured in dollars. There is a refrain that an entire people knows by heart, a show that unites three generations in front of the same screen, a news report that forces us to face the truth; that is culture. It is not a luxury that people treat themselves to when everything is going well. It is the thread that connects us to one another and that obviously connects Quebec, la belle province, to the world. I would like to thank my Bloc Québécois colleagues for dedicating this day to culture. We completely agree on the facts: Culture is at the heart of Quebec’s identity; it sustains our economy, and it is now weathering a storm. I am from Montreal North, Bourassa. Where I come from, culture is not an abstract concept. It is a young artist recording their first track in their basement. It is a teenager filming her neighbourhood with her phone because no one else is telling its story. It is a family newly arrived in Quebec discovering the Maison culturelle et communautaire de Montréal-Nord and the artists who give voice to their new community. For these young people, culture is often the first door that opens. It is a path to self-confidence, to a career and, ultimately, to a full and equal place in Quebec society. The question, then, is not whether we should support culture; of course we should. The real question is how can we support it here and now, in practical terms, without leaving our creators by the wayside. What exactly is at stake? Let us remember what is at stake. In 2024, audiovisual and interactive media generated more than $20 billion in gross domestic product and more than 172,000 jobs. Sound recording and music publishing generated over $542 million and some 5,500 jobs. Behind these figures are faces, screenwriters, sound engineers, film crews and local journalists. Around them are workshops, suppliers and restaurants that depend on every production and every event for their existence. That talent shines. This year, the National Film Board of Canada won the Oscar for best animated short film with The Girl Who Cried Pearls. The money we are talking about today is tied up in court, but let us not lose sight of reality while Quebeckers are watching us. The Online Streaming Act brought platforms into our system. In 2024, the CRTC required them to contribute 5% of their revenue from their sales in Canada. That decision has since been challenged in court. In May, the CRTC increased the requirement to 15%, but everyone knew that a new court battle would ensue. In the meantime, who is paying the price for the wait, for the delay? Who is really paying the price for this opportunity cost? It is not the platforms; it is the creators. No money comes from levies stuck in court. No movie production can be funded. No newsroom can be saved. That is why, on June 3, our government made a clear, informed and responsible choice to give $600 million a year to the audio and audiovisual sectors. That is $600 million a year now, not in five years or following a legal proceeding. This is a firm commitment from the government. As we are permitted to under the act, we also provided the CRTC with new policy directions that set out clear priorities: French content, local news, indigenous stories and official language minority communities. As a government, we are refusing to let families foot the bill. In my riding of Bourassa, people are counting every penny. Culture must therefore remain accessible to everyone, not just those who can afford it. We are talking about an additional amount here. What has been added? This $600 million is on top of the investments in the most recent budget. That brings me to the comments that I heard from my Bloc Québécois colleagues today. When stating facts and quoting numbers, it is better to take the entire amount into account. The sum total is not $600 million. The calculation must include every other investment, ant the total then becomes $1.15 billion: CBC/Radio-Canada got some money; $150 million over three years for Telefilm Canada; $127.5 million for the Canada Media Fund; $48 million for music; not to mention the National Film Board, the Canada Council for the Arts and TV5MONDE+, which showcases French-language original content. That channel is really dear to me. Before I came to Quebec, my window into Quebec culture was TV5MONDE. It was really important for me to mention it. Unfortunately, the Bloc Québécois voted against that budget and blocked it. They cannot ask for resources to support culture after blocking all the investments I just listed. They support culture in the morning and vote against it in the evening. That is critical: There needs to be some consistency between what they are saying today and how they voted previously. They obviously should have voted for the investments announced by the government, not against them. An important point must also be made. I encourage all members to read the recent articles published by Radio-Canada and La Presse on misinformation, because culture also includes access to reliable information. In an age of misinformation, an independent journalist who verifies facts, conducts investigations and provides context is a safeguard for our democracy. Journalism is one of the pillars of our democracy. That is why we are undertaking consultations on extending the labour tax credit for journalism to audio and audiovisual production. Let us now turn to the future. We are also paving the way for the next generation. An advisory group is currently examining the modernization of our audiovisual institutions. No decisions have been made, but one guiding principle remains clear: Creators must retain ownership of their work and the value it generates. Having taught at university and worked in artificial intelligence, I say with conviction that AI will profoundly transform cultural and artistic creation. It is up to us to ensure that it serves our artists rather than replacing them. We must ensure that it acts as a tool that strengthens and supports their work rather than displacing it. Achieving that goal requires investment in training and respect for the work of creators. I want to go back to the motion itself. The Bloc Québécois is asking us to respect the CRTC. We respect its independence, but the law also gives the government the responsibility of giving it direction. That is what we are doing openly before the House. Locking in a framework that is bogged down in court is not protecting culture. It is prolonging the wait and creating delays. The Bloc Québécois is asking us to provide $600 million. We share their sense of urgency. It is precisely because we share that sense of urgency that we have opted for direct funding rather than waiting for the litigation to be resolved. In closing, I want to go back to this young man from Montreal North, leaning over his microphone in his basement. I want him to know that his story matters, that his voice matters, that his language matters and that, tomorrow, there will be a strong industry ready to welcome him. The choices we make today, as a government, are not just about jobs and businesses. They decide what stories we tell and what stories we will tell our children, our young children, and what stories the world will hear from us.

Statements by Members ·

Jacinthe Sicotte

“I want to thank Jacinthe Sicotte as she retires. She spent 45 years working for credit unions, including 12 years managing our local branch. She helped our community, supported education, and I wish her a happy retirement.”
  • A repeated line

    “On behalf of the residents of Bourassa.”

    Said 5 times by 4 members since April 23.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, some journeys are a tribute to strength, commitment and staying true to one’s values. Jacinthe Sicotte’s journey is one of them. Today, I would like to acknowledge her retirement as general manager of the Caisse Desjardins de Sault-au-Récollet-Montréal-Nord. She joined Desjardins as a student at the Caisse de Granby and devoted 45 years of her life to the co-operative movement. During her 12 years as general manager, Ms. Sicotte’s actions remained laser-focused on co-operative values, education and student retention. She believed in Montreal-Nord, a proud, engaged and resilient community. She helped it grow and thrive. Today, on behalf of the residents of Bourassa, I thank her. I want to wish Ms. Sicotte a happy retirement. Montreal-Nord will remember her. We already know that she still has more to give to Quebec and Canada.

Oral Questions ·

Health

“We cut red tape for clinical trials, which brought in $3.3 billion and saved drug companies $16 million. What else is the Minister of Health doing to help Canadian innovation?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, in these difficult, unprecedented times, Canadians’ creativity and genius must not be held in check by red tape. Our government was supposed to make that happen, and it did. Earlier this year, we modernized the clinical trials framework, attracted $3.3 billion in investments in the process, and saved the pharmaceutical industry $16 million. That is what we were supposed to do. I have a question for the Minister of Health. What other measures is the government taking to unleash Canadian creativity?

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

In response to a question from Anna Roberts

“We are helping people right now. Gas prices dropped by 11 cents a litre right away, which helps families and small businesses save money. The opposition's ideas are not measurable and are not responsible.”
  • Reply to a comment in debate

    Signal 31 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
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I noted several points, but the most important one was when she asked for measures to be taken now. That is just what we are doing: taking measures now. Prices fell by 11¢ per litre on day one. That is for the mom who wants to fill up her car. That really makes a big difference to her wallet. That is for someone who uses their car for their company, for their own small or medium-sized business. That has a real impact here and now. What the members on the other side of the House are asking for is not measurable in terms of the impact it can have on taxpayers, and, above all, it is not responsible. With that, I will say it again: We are going to have an economy that is resilient but, above all, responsible.

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“We need a strong economy that can handle hard times. Lowering gas prices is good, but we are doing more. We are helping people buy food, own homes, earn better pay, and get school meals for 400,000 kids.”
  • 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
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, first of all, I thank my colleague for the question. I think it is relevant because the watchword here is resilience. We need a resilient economy. A resilient economy must have clear, concrete solutions that go beyond today’s topic. As I mentioned earlier, beyond the affordability of gas prices, we have put measures in place to help with groceries, to support access to home ownership, to address pay, to help 400,000 young people with school meals, and, of course, to promote equity and access to information regarding government assistance. With these actions, we are building a resilient, balanced and, above all, responsible economy.

In response to a question from Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

“I want to pass this bill. It does not interfere with Quebec's powers or its carbon market, and we are not giving up on our environmental promises.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 48 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his eloquence, but I would like to stay on topic. So as not to mislead anyone, it is very important to note that Bill C-38 does not affect Quebec’s jurisdictions or its carbon market. It does not affect any portfolio. It is also important to point out that our government is not reneging on its environmental commitments; far from it.

“I do not support the opposition's motion. World events are driving up prices, but our government is helping right now. We suspended the federal fuel tax to lower gas prices, cut income taxes, and created a national school lunch program. We are giving families real help today, while the opposition only offers slogans.”
  • A repeated line

    “This means that a family of four will receive up to $1,890 this year and about $1,400 a year for the next four years.”

    Said 12 times by 9 members since April 30.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Mississauga—Lakeshore. I am grateful for this opportunity to talk about the official opposition’s motion, which addresses the reality of the cost of living. High prices are a daily reality in my riding of Bourassa and in many Montreal neighbourhoods. In Montreal North, families are counting every dollar at the grocery store every day. Workers are wondering whether they will be able to fill up their tank before their next paycheque. Retailers are absorbing price increases they never chose. These people do not want slogans like the ones we are hearing from the opposition. They want initiatives and results. We live in an unstable world. Wars on the other side of the world, trade tensions and weakened supply chains have impacts that trickle down to our kitchens and gas pumps. Canada did not trigger these crises, but it has a duty to respond, and our government is responding. We chose to act here and now. We chose to take action with Bill C‑38. Bill C-38, the Canadian fuel affordability act, extends the suspension of the federal excise tax on gasoline, diesel and aviation fuel until January 31, 2027. Zero, not a penny, as we say back home in Quebec. This suspension has been in effect since April 20. Members opposite surely remember that. From day one, the price at the pump fell by an average of 11¢ a litre. In practical terms, that means savings of about $5 on a 50-litre fill-up. We are doing this responsibly. We are doing it, of course, because we are thinking about Canadian families. The tax will be gradually reintroduced in February and March 2027 at half the regular rate: five cents per litre for gasoline and two cents for diesel. There will be no shock and no surprises. The impact goes far beyond the family vehicle. From truck drivers and farmers to delivery companies and grocery stores, the entire supply chain that feeds the country will benefit. Yes, diesel prices have risen around the world, but let us set the record straight and correct a few points that have been raised by the other side of the House. Diesel costs less in Canada than in most G7 countries. Since the end of February, prices have increased less here than in the United States, and the provincial diesel taxes, which range from roughly nine cents to more than 20¢ per litre, are not necessarily up to Ottawa. Let us talk about affordability. That has to do with more than just the price per litre. The opposition wants to talk about fuel, so let us talk about it, but affordability is not just about fuel. It does not come down to just the price per litre. It is measured in a number of ways. I will quickly list them off and go through them in more detail afterward. Affordability also comes down to groceries, home ownership, pay and our children’s lunch boxes. It is also measured in equity. Let us talk about groceries. The new Canada groceries and essentials benefit provides 25% more than the old GST credit. It is tax-free, and it benefits more than 12 million low- and modest-income Canadians. A payment is coming up this week. With this summer’s supplement, a family of four will receive up to $1,890 this year and about $1,400 a year for the next four years. The amount for a single person is $950 this year and about $700 for the next four years. Affordability is measured in home ownership. For first-time homebuyers, there is no GST on homes up to $1 million, and it is reduced for homes between $1 million and $1.5 million. That means up to $50,000 in the pockets of our young dreamers who really want to make their dream of owning a home and getting on the property ladder a reality. It is also measured in terms of pay, as I said earlier. We cut the tax rate for the first bracket of personal income from 15% to 14%. This has benefited 22 million Canadians. It puts $420 per year per person in their pockets, or $840 for a dual-income household. It is reflected in a child’s lunch box. Allow me to make a quick aside: It is a shame to hear people on the other side of the House say that this measure, which helps many young people and schoolchildren, is garbage. Canada’s national school food program, which is now permanent, provides meals for approximately 400,000 children each year. It saves a family with two children nearly $800 a year on groceries. It is also measured by our work and actions in the area of equity. Thanks to the automation of federal benefits, 5.5 million low-income Canadians will automatically receive the support to which they are entitled, such as the Canada groceries and essentials benefit and the Canada child benefit. A benefit that is not claimed because of a lack of information is, unfortunately, a benefit that is lost. In closing, we have no control over the global forces driving up prices, but we do have control over the measures we must put in place here and now and over our government’s initiatives, which must be just, fair, sincere, and, above all, responsible. This responsibility aspect is exactly I am so uncomfortable with the motion that has been introduced by the party across the way. Our response is to take meaningful, measured action and, as I just said, to act responsibly. The opposition is proposing long-term solutions to a problem we are facing today. We are delivering results today while building a stronger economy for tomorrow. Making life affordable and strengthening our economy is not a choice between two goals. It is a single, unified commitment to families in Bourassa and across the country.

Government Orders ·

Building Canada Strong Act

“This bill gives us the plan to build projects faster and stronger. We all agree on that goal. I want to know if the Conservatives will help pass this bill through committee quickly.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    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
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, before I ask my question, I would like to explain something very important to my colleague. Bill C-5 opened the door or laid the foundation, but Bill C-39 is what puts the framework in place to help our projects move forward. That is something I wanted to clarify. I see that the members opposite want us to move on projects more quickly, to build faster and stronger. We all agree on that. My question is very simple. Can we count on them to move things along more quickly in committee too?