The debate focused on the government’s commitment to allocate $600 million to Canada’s cultural sector, which was originally intended to be supported by a digital services tax on large online streaming companies. Bloc Québécois members asserted that the government has failed to deliver these promised funds over the past 18 months and argued that large tech corporations should be required to pay into the cultural industry. Government representatives countered these claims by citing recent expenditures exceeding $770 million to support Canadian media and culture, while other opposition members challenged the government’s overall record of keeping promises on various initiatives. The discussion also touched on the importance of protecting the cultural sector and its role in national identity.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .
“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?”
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?
Loses points more than most for Partly on point×1.9Vague promise×1.9Loses points less than most for Procedure
David Myles, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages and to the Secretary of State (Nature)
LiberalLib
“We need to support our artists and cultural industry. Official decisions to help them were stalled by lawsuits. That is why we gave the industry $600 million when they needed it.”
“Madam Speaker, the question we need to ask ourselves is this: How are we going to support artists and the cultural industry? We agree that this is very important. It is also important to note that the CRTC’s decisions had not been implemented. They were stalled because there were too many lawsuits. We therefore decided to give the industry this $600 million in support because it was needed at that time.”
Madam Speaker, the question we need to ask ourselves is this: How are we going to support artists and the cultural industry? We agree that this is very important. It is also important to note that the CRTC’s decisions had not been implemented. They were stalled because there were too many lawsuits. We therefore decided to give the industry this $600 million in support because it was needed at that time.
“The government cancelled the digital services tax to help talks with the United States. Sixteen months later, those talks have made no progress at all. The government gave up this tax and got nothing in return.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He is obviously very articulate in both official languages, which is good for all Canadians, especially here in the House of Commons. Today we are talking about the digital services tax. The member is well aware that his government scrapped that tax in June 2025, claiming that it was doing so to help the negotiations with the United States. Sixteen months later, can the member tell us how the negotiations with the United States are going? At first glance, there has been no progress at all, absolutely none. The government scrapped a tax that helped it get elected. It scrapped the tax, but absolutely nothing changed.”
Official Hansard
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He is obviously very articulate in both official languages, which is good for all Canadians, especially here in the House of Commons. Today we are talking about the digital services tax. The member is well aware that his government scrapped that tax in June 2025, claiming that it was doing so to help the negotiations with the United States. Sixteen months later, can the member tell us how the negotiations with the United States are going? At first glance, there has been no progress at all, absolutely none. The government scrapped a tax that helped it get elected. It scrapped the tax, but absolutely nothing changed.
Loses points more than most for Partly on point×1.9Vague promise×1.9Loses points less than most for Procedure
David Myles, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages and to the Secretary of State (Nature)
LiberalLib
“We agree that online platforms should help fund Canadian culture. The old tax was not working, so we are taking time to find a new approach. We will also give immediate help to the cultural industry.”
“Madam Speaker, I love speaking or trying to speak in French whenever I have the opportunity. It is important to note that we are looking for a new policy direction. We agree that digital platforms must contribute to cultural production in Canada. It is not that the tax has been abolished, but we are going to take some time to find a new policy direction, because the tax was not working. We are also going to provide immediate support to the cultural industry, which needs it right now.”
Madam Speaker, I love speaking or trying to speak in French whenever I have the opportunity. It is important to note that we are looking for a new policy direction. We agree that digital platforms must contribute to cultural production in Canada. It is not that the tax has been abolished, but we are going to take some time to find a new policy direction, because the tax was not working. We are also going to provide immediate support to the cultural industry, which needs it right now.
“A screenwriter from my riding helped make the film my colleague mentioned. My colleague also talked about how important local media is. What is our government doing to support local media when there is so much misinformation?”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to point out that, in his speech, my colleague mentioned the animated short film The Girl Who Cried Pearls. I would like to note that one of the screenwriters who worked on the French adaptation is from the township of Lingwick in Compton—Stanstead. We are very proud of her. In fact, the short film was screened this summer with the co-screenwriter in attendance. It was very interesting. My colleague mentioned the importance of local media. I would him to tell us what our government is doing to support local media at a time when there is a great deal of misinformation.”
Official Hansard
Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to point out that, in his speech, my colleague mentioned the animated short film The Girl Who Cried Pearls. I would like to note that one of the screenwriters who worked on the French adaptation is from the township of Lingwick in Compton—Stanstead. We are very proud of her. In fact, the short film was screened this summer with the co-screenwriter in attendance. It was very interesting. My colleague mentioned the importance of local media. I would him to tell us what our government is doing to support local media at a time when there is a great deal of misinformation.
Loses points more than most for Partly on point×1.9Vague promise×1.9Loses points less than most for Procedure
David Myles, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages and to the Secretary of State (Nature)
LiberalLib
“Canadian creators and journalists need our support. We gave them a record amount of money in the last budget, and we plan to give them more in the next one.”
“Madam Speaker, I believe this issue affects us all. What I find interesting, from a journalism and cultural perspective, is that we have creators and journalists all across Canada. We need to find ways to support them across the country. That is why we included historic investments in budget 2025. Additional investments are also planned for budget 2026, which will be tabled in the coming weeks.”
Official Hansard
Madam Speaker, I believe this issue affects us all. What I find interesting, from a journalism and cultural perspective, is that we have creators and journalists all across Canada. We need to find ways to support them across the country. That is why we included historic investments in budget 2025. Additional investments are also planned for budget 2026, which will be tabled in the coming weeks.
“Our government has supported Quebec's culture, including in the budget. I want my colleague to explain what we have done to support it.”
“Madam Speaker, our government has implemented several measures to support Quebec’s cultural sector, including in budget 2025. Can my colleague tell us about the measures that have been put in place to support Quebec’s cultural sector?”
Official Hansard
Madam Speaker, our government has implemented several measures to support Quebec’s cultural sector, including in budget 2025. Can my colleague tell us about the measures that have been put in place to support Quebec’s cultural sector?
Loses points more than most for Partly on point×1.9Vague promise×1.9Loses points less than most for Procedure
David Myles, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages and to the Secretary of State (Nature)
LiberalLib
“Our budget invested historic amounts of money in arts and culture, including millions of dollars for CBC/Radio-Canada, Telefilm, and Canadian music and film. We will keep supporting this sector in Quebec and across Canada.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very pertinent question. As I said earlier, the investments set out in budget 2025 were historic. They included $150 million for CBC/Radio-Canada, $150 million for Telefilm Canada, $127.5 million for the Canada Media Fund, $48 million for the Canada Music Fund, $26.1 million for the National Film Board and $600 million to support the purchase of Canadian content for TV5MONDEplus. There were historic investments in budget 2025. We will continue to provide this support to the cultural sector, which is extremely important in Quebec and Canada.”
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very pertinent question. As I said earlier, the investments set out in budget 2025 were historic. They included $150 million for CBC/Radio-Canada, $150 million for Telefilm Canada, $127.5 million for the Canada Media Fund, $48 million for the Canada Music Fund, $26.1 million for the National Film Board and $600 million to support the purchase of Canadian content for TV5MONDEplus. There were historic investments in budget 2025. We will continue to provide this support to the cultural sector, which is extremely important in Quebec and Canada.
“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?”
Official Hansard
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?
Loses points more than most for Partly on point×1.9Vague promise×1.9Loses points less than most for Procedure
David Myles, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages and to the Secretary of State (Nature)
LiberalLib
“Supporting Canadian authors and creators is very important. I will see what is in the budget to help them, and we will support this sector.”
“Madam Speaker, I also have books at home from publishing houses such as Goose Lane. I actually believe that is the oldest independent publisher in Canada. We will be there to have these extremely important discussions. This is a very important issue, and we will see what is in the budget. I do not know the details of the budget at this point, but it is certainly an important issue, as is support for creators and authors across Canada. We will be there to support this sector.”
Madam Speaker, I also have books at home from publishing houses such as Goose Lane. I actually believe that is the oldest independent publisher in Canada. We will be there to have these extremely important discussions. This is a very important issue, and we will see what is in the budget. I do not know the details of the budget at this point, but it is certainly an important issue, as is support for creators and authors across Canada. We will be there to support this sector.
“The government said it urgently needed to give $600 million to Canada's cultural sector after cutting taxes on big tech companies. Almost 18 months have passed, and no one has received any of that money. I want to know why this money has not been paid out.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague for his excellent French in answering questions today. However, my colleague’s response was somewhat inconsistent. He said that when his government abolished the levies imposed on the web giants, there was an urgent need to provide the cultural sector with the $600 million in question. However, here we are, nearly 18 months later, and, to the best of my knowledge, not a single player in Canada’s cultural sector has received any of those funds. How can he say it is urgent to provide this money when no one has seen a penny to date? Was this yet another empty promise from the Liberals?”
Official Hansard
Madam Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague for his excellent French in answering questions today. However, my colleague’s response was somewhat inconsistent. He said that when his government abolished the levies imposed on the web giants, there was an urgent need to provide the cultural sector with the $600 million in question. However, here we are, nearly 18 months later, and, to the best of my knowledge, not a single player in Canada’s cultural sector has received any of those funds. How can he say it is urgent to provide this money when no one has seen a penny to date? Was this yet another empty promise from the Liberals?
Loses points more than most for Partly on point×1.9Vague promise×1.9Loses points less than most for Procedure
David Myles, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages and to the Secretary of State (Nature)
LiberalLib
“The minister said several times this week that this money is coming very soon. That is good news.”
“Madam Speaker, as the minister has said on several occasions this week in the House, this money will be coming very soon. That is good news.”
Official Hansard
Madam Speaker, as the minister has said on several occasions this week in the House, this money will be coming very soon. That is good news.
“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.”
Official Hansard
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.
Loses points more than most for Partly on point×1.9Vague promise×1.9Loses points less than most for Procedure
David Myles, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages and to the Secretary of State (Nature)
LiberalLib
“It has not been 18 months. This is important, and the money will be handed out very soon.”
“Madam Speaker, just to be clear, it has not been 18 months. This is an important matter, and, as the minister indicated, the funding will be distributed very soon.”
Madam Speaker, just to be clear, it has not been 18 months. This is an important matter, and, as the minister indicated, the funding will be distributed very soon.
“The Liberal government makes promises but gets no results. It failed to stop American tariffs, and groceries cost more. Government offices also have long delays that hurt local businesses, and a minister attacked me politically for writing to her about it. I want everyone in the House to agree to let me table that letter.”
“Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk. We are debating a motion today that perfectly illustrates how this Liberal government operates. In fact, I should say how it fails to operate, because since this new version of the old Liberal government was elected, we have heard a great deal of promises but seen very few results. We have heard grand promises, significant promises. The first was the Prime Minister’s promise that he would be the right person to resolve the tariff dispute with our neighbour to the south, Donald Trump, and that, because he is a prominent banker and has a wealth of experience, he would be able to find a solution that would ensure Canadians pay fewer tariffs. Eighteen months later, have we seen any improvement? When I speak to businesses in my riding, unfortunately they tell me quite the opposite. Every time that this government takes a step forward, it seems that the U.S. government and Donald Trump use it as an opportunity to raise tariffs. The first misleading claim by this government and this Prime Minister pointed to his long list of credentials and past experience to say that he was the right person for the job. Unfortunately, we have seen that he has been unable to reach an agreement with the Americans, and Canadians are left paying the price. The second major promise he made was that he would be judged by the prices at the grocery store. Of all the people I have spoken with, not one has told me that groceries have become less expensive over the past 18 months under this new Prime Minister from the same old Liberal government. I think that everyone understands what I mean. Once again, we have a government that talks a lot. Our leader likes to say that this Prime Minister is all talk and no action. Personally, I would say that he is all talk, a bad negotiator and short on results, because nothing is getting done. That is the reality. I will ask my Bloc Québécois colleagues for their indulgence, as I will return to the motion in a moment, because I want to say that I was asked this week about the fact that I had written to a minister of this Liberal government. It is as though there were something wrong with a member of Parliament writing to a minister because their department is not functioning properly to offer potential solutions. Unfortunately, the minister chose to use that letter to play partisan politics in the House. The Minister of Jobs and Families used a letter that I had sent her on behalf of three businesses in my riding to score political points, claiming that we say one thing and do another, when nothing could be further from the truth. Since I was unable to table this letter, I would like to read three short paragraphs expressing what I wanted to tell the minister. Here is an excerpt: The current delays at ESDC [Employment and Social Development Canada] are hard to fathom for businesses that rely on the processing times published by the department. In most cases brought to our attention, these processing times are not being met. Worse still, they sometimes end up twice as long as expected. A little further on, I wrote the following about one company’s experience: An LMIA [labour market impact assessment] for three workers was submitted last March 25. More than 90 days after it was filed, the business was still awaiting a reply, and two of the three workers involved were no longer able to work. Here is a passage concerning another business that illustrates a different issue deserving the minister’s attention: The company waited more than 150 days for a response to an LMIA. After more than five months, the file still had not been processed and, according to information sent to my office, had not even been taken in charge by ESDC. That is what I was telling the minister. I would not have made the letter public. I would not have brought it up here because I thought we could still sort things out with the Liberal ministers. However, it seems that we can no longer trust exchanges between a member who represents a riding and the ministers of this Liberal government. I think that is wrong and that there should seriously be a cabinet shuffle somewhere so that the people who are in those seats realize that they have a responsibility to all Canadians, not just Canadians in their ridings but Canadians in all ridings. That is what democracy is all about. They are government ministers who must represent everyone. I really wanted to get that on the record. I would also like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to table the letter if my colleagues agree.”
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk. We are debating a motion today that perfectly illustrates how this Liberal government operates. In fact, I should say how it fails to operate, because since this new version of the old Liberal government was elected, we have heard a great deal of promises but seen very few results. We have heard grand promises, significant promises. The first was the Prime Minister’s promise that he would be the right person to resolve the tariff dispute with our neighbour to the south, Donald Trump, and that, because he is a prominent banker and has a wealth of experience, he would be able to find a solution that would ensure Canadians pay fewer tariffs. Eighteen months later, have we seen any improvement? When I speak to businesses in my riding, unfortunately they tell me quite the opposite. Every time that this government takes a step forward, it seems that the U.S. government and Donald Trump use it as an opportunity to raise tariffs. The first misleading claim by this government and this Prime Minister pointed to his long list of credentials and past experience to say that he was the right person for the job. Unfortunately, we have seen that he has been unable to reach an agreement with the Americans, and Canadians are left paying the price. The second major promise he made was that he would be judged by the prices at the grocery store. Of all the people I have spoken with, not one has told me that groceries have become less expensive over the past 18 months under this new Prime Minister from the same old Liberal government. I think that everyone understands what I mean. Once again, we have a government that talks a lot. Our leader likes to say that this Prime Minister is all talk and no action. Personally, I would say that he is all talk, a bad negotiator and short on results, because nothing is getting done. That is the reality. I will ask my Bloc Québécois colleagues for their indulgence, as I will return to the motion in a moment, because I want to say that I was asked this week about the fact that I had written to a minister of this Liberal government. It is as though there were something wrong with a member of Parliament writing to a minister because their department is not functioning properly to offer potential solutions. Unfortunately, the minister chose to use that letter to play partisan politics in the House. The Minister of Jobs and Families used a letter that I had sent her on behalf of three businesses in my riding to score political points, claiming that we say one thing and do another, when nothing could be further from the truth. Since I was unable to table this letter, I would like to read three short paragraphs expressing what I wanted to tell the minister. Here is an excerpt: The current delays at ESDC [Employment and Social Development Canada] are hard to fathom for businesses that rely on the processing times published by the department. In most cases brought to our attention, these processing times are not being met. Worse still, they sometimes end up twice as long as expected. A little further on, I wrote the following about one company’s experience: An LMIA [labour market impact assessment] for three workers was submitted last March 25. More than 90 days after it was filed, the business was still awaiting a reply, and two of the three workers involved were no longer able to work. Here is a passage concerning another business that illustrates a different issue deserving the minister’s attention: The company waited more than 150 days for a response to an LMIA. After more than five months, the file still had not been processed and, according to information sent to my office, had not even been taken in charge by ESDC. That is what I was telling the minister. I would not have made the letter public. I would not have brought it up here because I thought we could still sort things out with the Liberal ministers. However, it seems that we can no longer trust exchanges between a member who represents a riding and the ministers of this Liberal government. I think that is wrong and that there should seriously be a cabinet shuffle somewhere so that the people who are in those seats realize that they have a responsibility to all Canadians, not just Canadians in their ridings but Canadians in all ridings. That is what democracy is all about. They are government ministers who must represent everyone. I really wanted to get that on the record. I would also like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to table the letter if my colleagues agree.
“The Liberal government makes promises it cannot keep. It backed down to American tech companies instead of making them help pay for Canadian culture. Now Canadian taxpayers are on the hook for $600 million instead, and the government is 16 months late paying it. The government gave up a lot and got nothing in return.”
“Madam Speaker, I suspected that would be the answer. That is the Liberal government in a nutshell: grand statements, high-profile press conferences and promises. The Prime Minister tells us he will stand up for Canada’s interests and honour its commitments. There is a big difference between talking tough and negotiating tough. The Liberals seem to excel at making announcements. The problem is that they are unable to turn those announcements into results. Let us talk about the gift the Liberals handed to the digital giants in the U.S. What did Canada receive in return? Normally, a skilled negotiator makes concessions on some points in order to secure gains on others. A negotiator who walks away from the table without gaining anything should consider a different line of work. Am I suggesting that the Prime Minister should change jobs? I will let him draw his own conclusions. Let us review the facts. The Liberal government backed down under U.S. pressure when it came to the major digital platforms helping to fund Canadian culture. Netflix, Disney+ and other digital streaming giants had been expected to contribute 15%. Washington opposed that measure. What did the Liberal government choose to do? It chose to reverse course in June 2025. What has the government announced to try to smooth things over? It announced that $600 million would be paid to the cultural sector. That money is coming out of the pockets of Canadian taxpayers. Instead of taking that money out of the pockets of the American tech giants, the government is taking it out of the pockets of Canadian citizens. Earlier, the parliamentary secretary told us that this money would be paid out quickly. He was right to issue a correction. It has not been 18 months, it has been 16 months. This money should have been paid to businesses in the cultural sector 16 months ago, not 18 months ago. That is still a 16-month delay, 16 months too late, if we are to believe the Liberals’ promise. In other words, what the government did was cut costs for the American tech giants and ask taxpayers to make up the gap, but we got absolutely nothing in return. U.S. tariffs have not gone away and Canadian businesses continue to feel the consequences of the trade war. We made major concessions. What did we get in return? Nothing. Donald Trump got something. He got his concessions. The tech giants got a break. Canadians got left with the bill. However, we do not know when that bill will come, because no one has been paid. In short, it is a bad deal all around. What a negotiator he is. Artists, producers, creators and those who work in the cultural sector are the ones being left behind. They likely had high expectations with this announcement. On one hand, they have not received a single cent of the levies that were supposed to be paid out. On the other hand, none of the Liberals’ promises have materialized. The government promised a swift resolution, but instead it has created uncertainty. Raising people’s hopes only to disappoint them later is not how you run a country. Even the promised compensation has yet to materialize. This is not an isolated incident. I have pages and pages of examples where the Liberals have failed to keep their promises. It has become this government’s trademark. The Liberals table a bill promising to protect creators, yet nothing happens. They promise to help businesses by resolving the tariff crisis, but it is not working. They promise to lower the cost of groceries, but there are 2.35 million monthly visits to food banks. The government lectures Canadians about fiscal discipline when they themselves are incapable of it. One need only look at the PBO’s figures to see that. In closing, I would just like to say one thing: Never buy into a Liberal promise.”
Madam Speaker, I suspected that would be the answer. That is the Liberal government in a nutshell: grand statements, high-profile press conferences and promises. The Prime Minister tells us he will stand up for Canada’s interests and honour its commitments. There is a big difference between talking tough and negotiating tough. The Liberals seem to excel at making announcements. The problem is that they are unable to turn those announcements into results. Let us talk about the gift the Liberals handed to the digital giants in the U.S. What did Canada receive in return? Normally, a skilled negotiator makes concessions on some points in order to secure gains on others. A negotiator who walks away from the table without gaining anything should consider a different line of work. Am I suggesting that the Prime Minister should change jobs? I will let him draw his own conclusions. Let us review the facts. The Liberal government backed down under U.S. pressure when it came to the major digital platforms helping to fund Canadian culture. Netflix, Disney+ and other digital streaming giants had been expected to contribute 15%. Washington opposed that measure. What did the Liberal government choose to do? It chose to reverse course in June 2025. What has the government announced to try to smooth things over? It announced that $600 million would be paid to the cultural sector. That money is coming out of the pockets of Canadian taxpayers. Instead of taking that money out of the pockets of the American tech giants, the government is taking it out of the pockets of Canadian citizens. Earlier, the parliamentary secretary told us that this money would be paid out quickly. He was right to issue a correction. It has not been 18 months, it has been 16 months. This money should have been paid to businesses in the cultural sector 16 months ago, not 18 months ago. That is still a 16-month delay, 16 months too late, if we are to believe the Liberals’ promise. In other words, what the government did was cut costs for the American tech giants and ask taxpayers to make up the gap, but we got absolutely nothing in return. U.S. tariffs have not gone away and Canadian businesses continue to feel the consequences of the trade war. We made major concessions. What did we get in return? Nothing. Donald Trump got something. He got his concessions. The tech giants got a break. Canadians got left with the bill. However, we do not know when that bill will come, because no one has been paid. In short, it is a bad deal all around. What a negotiator he is. Artists, producers, creators and those who work in the cultural sector are the ones being left behind. They likely had high expectations with this announcement. On one hand, they have not received a single cent of the levies that were supposed to be paid out. On the other hand, none of the Liberals’ promises have materialized. The government promised a swift resolution, but instead it has created uncertainty. Raising people’s hopes only to disappoint them later is not how you run a country. Even the promised compensation has yet to materialize. This is not an isolated incident. I have pages and pages of examples where the Liberals have failed to keep their promises. It has become this government’s trademark. The Liberals table a bill promising to protect creators, yet nothing happens. They promise to help businesses by resolving the tariff crisis, but it is not working. They promise to lower the cost of groceries, but there are 2.35 million monthly visits to food banks. The government lectures Canadians about fiscal discipline when they themselves are incapable of it. One need only look at the PBO’s figures to see that. In closing, I would just like to say one thing: Never buy into a Liberal promise.
Loses points more than most for Aside×2.0Hidden agency×1.9Unearned certainty×1.7Loses points less than most for Vague promise
Mario Simard, Jonquière—Hébertville—Pays-des-Bleuets
Bloc QuébécoisBloc
“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?”
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?
“My leader makes good decisions because he thinks about families who cannot pay their bills. A new report shows more people are using credit cards to buy food. Conservatives do not believe in raising taxes and making life cost more. The government should not take more money from taxpayers.”
“Madam Speaker, I will let you in on a secret. My leader always makes good decisions. Why? It is because my leader thinks about the families who cannot afford to pay their bills at the end of the month, who are just $200 away from being unable to make ends meet, who are being forced to borrow money. We saw it again this morning in the report from Dalhousie University: More and more people are being forced to use their credit cards to pay for their groceries because they do not have any money. It is clear that raising taxes and driving up the cost of living is just not in the Conservatives’ DNA. There are perhaps different choices that this government could have made to help the cultural industry, but taking more money out of taxpayers’ pockets should certainly not have been one of them.”
Madam Speaker, I will let you in on a secret. My leader always makes good decisions. Why? It is because my leader thinks about the families who cannot afford to pay their bills at the end of the month, who are just $200 away from being unable to make ends meet, who are being forced to borrow money. We saw it again this morning in the report from Dalhousie University: More and more people are being forced to use their credit cards to pay for their groceries because they do not have any money. It is clear that raising taxes and driving up the cost of living is just not in the Conservatives’ DNA. There are perhaps different choices that this government could have made to help the cultural industry, but taking more money out of taxpayers’ pockets should certainly not have been one of them.
The usual mix, except that they lose points less than most for Motive imputedHidden agencyMockery
Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
LiberalLib
“I disagree that the Conservative leader always makes good decisions. He suggested firing the head of the Bank of Canada, and he told Canadians to buy cryptocurrency, which caused people to lose a lot of money. He also votes against help that makes life more affordable.”
“Madam Speaker, the member opposite said the leader of the Conservative Party always, and he emphasized the word “always”, makes good decisions. I disagree, and I will give two very clear examples. Does the member really believe that the leader of the Conservative Party was right when he suggested that we should fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada? Does the member opposite really believe that the leader of the Conservative Party was right when he recommended that Canadians buy cryptocurrency, which ultimately ended up in losing tens of thousands of dollars for people? That was his recommendation back then. I wonder if the member opposite believes that was a good thing for the leader of the Conservative Party to do, let alone opposing all the affordability measures that the leader of the Conservative Party continues to say no to.”
Madam Speaker, the member opposite said the leader of the Conservative Party always, and he emphasized the word “always”, makes good decisions. I disagree, and I will give two very clear examples. Does the member really believe that the leader of the Conservative Party was right when he suggested that we should fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada? Does the member opposite really believe that the leader of the Conservative Party was right when he recommended that Canadians buy cryptocurrency, which ultimately ended up in losing tens of thousands of dollars for people? That was his recommendation back then. I wonder if the member opposite believes that was a good thing for the leader of the Conservative Party to do, let alone opposing all the affordability measures that the leader of the Conservative Party continues to say no to.
“The government's economic plans have failed. Millions of people are using food banks and cannot afford basic groceries. I want the Liberals to stop ignoring this problem.”
“Madam Speaker, yes, I agree. It was actually the former governor of the Bank of Canada, who is no longer there. If my colleague had listened to my leader’s advice, he might be rich today and might no longer be here in the House, to the great relief of many opposition members. At the time, cryptocurrency had lost value, but I would point out that that is no longer the case today. If the measures my colleague is talking about had worked, there would not be millions of people using food banks. I would not hear stories from people who start crying at the grocery store checkout because they are short of money and are forced to take essentials out of their cart. I would not get calls from people asking me personally what they are going to do, because they tried to pay the cashier, but their card was declined and they were ashamed that they could not pay. That is the reality, and I do not understand why the Liberals are ignoring it.”
Madam Speaker, yes, I agree. It was actually the former governor of the Bank of Canada, who is no longer there. If my colleague had listened to my leader’s advice, he might be rich today and might no longer be here in the House, to the great relief of many opposition members. At the time, cryptocurrency had lost value, but I would point out that that is no longer the case today. If the measures my colleague is talking about had worked, there would not be millions of people using food banks. I would not hear stories from people who start crying at the grocery store checkout because they are short of money and are forced to take essentials out of their cart. I would not get calls from people asking me personally what they are going to do, because they tried to pay the cashier, but their card was declined and they were ashamed that they could not pay. That is the reality, and I do not understand why the Liberals are ignoring it.
