Business of Supply

Debate on a supply-day motion asking the government to reject the CRTC’s decision to increase the fee that online streaming services must pay toward Canadian content, from 5% to 15% of their Canadian revenues. Conservatives said the increase would raise costs for Canadians, hurt jobs in film and production, and strain trade relations with the United States, and they called on the government to cancel it. Liberals defended the fee, saying streaming companies should contribute to Canadian and French-language creators the way traditional broadcasters do, and accused the Conservatives of siding with American companies; Bloc members agreed web giants should pay their share and asked about the government’s cancellation of the digital services tax. Some time also went to a member’s inaugural speech on affordability and human rights, and to exchanges about trade negotiations with the United States. The bill title provided (the Military Justice System Modernization Act) does not match the subject discussed and is not part of this debate.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

66 statements

Jacob Mantle, York—Durham

Conservative
“Canadian culture is strong enough to stand on its own. We do not need to fear American movies, sports, or shows. Canadian artists are great, and their work can succeed around the world.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 42 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
  • 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, my hon. colleague takes such a dim view of culture in Canada, that it cannot stand on its own two feet. I am not afraid of American culture. I am not afraid of watching American sports. I am sure the member opposite watches U.S. films or TV and maybe even uses Netflix. It does not scare me because I have confidence in Canadian artists and Canadian cultural creators and confidence that our content is excellent. Just as Anne of Green Gables went worldwide, I believe the next Canadian author, streamer or musician can do the same.

Yves Perron, Berthier—Maskinongé

Bloc Québécois
“Big web companies should pay a share of their profits to support our culture. Traditional media had to pay fees to operate, but web giants pay nothing. Taking a small cut from them will help keep local news alive without hurting their independence. I want to hear the member's thoughts on this.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is not about being afraid of American cultural content. On the contrary, it is popular with plenty of people. That is not the issue. The issue is about levelling the playing field across the country, because the existing media outlets and institutions had to pay licence fees and infrastructure costs, while the web giants enter the market without any such costs. It is simply a matter of taking a small cut of the profits that they make and redistributing them to support our culture. Contrary to what the member seems to think, this is not about dictating content. The institutions will remain independent. However, one of the things that it will do is help maintain regional media outlets, which is very important for democracy. I would like to hear his comments on that.

Jacob Mantle, York—Durham

Conservative

Linked statement

“These tech companies already pay taxes, hire thousands of Canadians, and invest here. The government should not pick winners and losers, decide who gets funding, or force companies to change their algorithms to show only what the government likes.”
  • 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, these companies already pay taxes in Canada, employ thousands of Canadians and invest in our country. The member talks about balance. This is not balance; this is government picking winners and losers, choosing which Canadian content gets funding and choosing and forcing tech companies to manipulate their algorithms to show Canadians content that the Liberal government says is good.

Steven Bonk, Souris—Moose Mountain

Conservative
“I want to know why the government is doing this right now. It hurts our trade relations just when we need to work with our partners and review our trade deals.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 43 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague and I share a very keen interest in international trade. We are trying to understand by what logic the Liberals would bring forward something like this right when we are about to review CUSMA. This, as he has amply said many times, is a trade irritant at a time when we need to try to find common ground with our partners, and with another thing, Mercosur, in which they were also worried about backdooring products in from other parts of the world. At a time like this, why on earth would the government go ahead with something like this?

Jacob Mantle, York—Durham

Conservative
“The government is handling this year's most important negotiation very poorly. They are foolishly angering our ally during these talks.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 21 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
  • 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, it is a very good question, and there is no good answer other than that I do not think anybody is awake at the steering wheel. This is the most important negotiation that our country will engage in this year. Why would the Liberals go and poke our friend right in the eye, squarely and firmly, during this negotiation? It makes no sense.

Lisa Hepfner, Hamilton Mountain

Liberal
“Canadian artists need government support and rules that promote Canadian content to succeed. I want to know if the member opposite thinks Canadian culture is important.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the hon. member brought up Lucy Maud Montgomery’s Anne of Green Gables. I read all of those books when I was a little girl growing up. That was before the Internet, when Canadians were able to talk to each other and find Canadian content. We have heard at heritage committee, over and over again from Canadian artists in every genre, that they would have not made it as far as they did without the supports and the Canadian content rules we have in place today. Does the member opposite believe that it is important to have Canadian culture?

Jacob Mantle, York—Durham

Conservative
“I support Canadian stories and culture. But I do not want the government to pick which content succeeds, or force tech companies to show only what the government likes.”
  • 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, of course I believe that. I started my speech by reading from Lucy Maud Montgomery’s Anne of Green Gables. I believe in Canadian content. I do not believe in the Liberal government choosing which Canadian content should succeed and which should fail, or in forcing tech companies to regurgitate only the content that it chooses as acceptable.

Sandra Cobena, Newmarket—Aurora

Conservative
“The government's broadcast regulator tripled its fee on streaming services from 5% to 15%. This will make life more expensive for regular Canadians, hurt jobs in the film industry, and damage our trade relationship with the United States. I want the government to reject this fee increase.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of Canadians who feel that every month brings yet another bill. However, they cannot afford it. Canadians are tired of opening their bills and finding them higher than the last month. Families are tightening their belts, reducing subscriptions, delaying purchases and working overtime, yet somehow their bills keep growing and they cannot get ahead. What frustrates Canadians most is that so many of these rising costs are not accidents. They are policy choices. Today, we are talking about the CRTC’s decision to triple the streaming tax from 5% to 15% on online platforms like Netflix, Spotify, YouTube and others. However, let us be honest about what this really is. This is another example of a government and its agencies believing they know better than Canadians how Canadians should spend their own money. Let us be clear about what just happened. On May 21, the CRTC announced it was tripling the levy on online streamers, not increasing it modestly, not adjusting it to inflation, but tripling it, going from 5% to 15% in one announcement. Here is what makes that even more remarkable: The original 5% levy has not even cleared the courts yet. Streamers launched legal challenges against the original rate, challenges that are still before the courts today. The CRTC has not collected a single dollar from those original obligations, so what did the CRTC do? It tripled it anyway. That is a government agency operating without discipline, without accountability and without any apparent concern for the consequences its decisions have on real Canadians. Let us talk about those consequences. When we triple the tax on online streaming services, we do not hurt Netflix shareholders. We do not inconvenience executives in California. We do not stress out shareholders or investors. It is the single mother in Aurora, using Netflix at the end of a long day with her kids. It is the senior in Newmarket who cancelled cable years ago because streaming was more affordable. It is a young couple already wondering how they are going to manage rising rent and grocery prices in the dimming dreams of starting a family. For many Canadians, streaming is no longer a luxury. It is one of the few affordable forms of entertainment left. The government talks constantly about affordability. The Prime Minister himself campaigned on it, yet here we are: another tax, another cost, another burden placed on the backs of Canadians who are already carrying too much. Let us not pretend that this is the only one. It is the latest, in fact, in a long list of punitive measures from the Liberal government that, together, are squeezing Canadians in every direction. The cumulative weight of all these decisions lands on a family’s kitchen table, and they feel it. Now let me turn to the longer-term damage, because this is where it truly gets serious. When we triple the tax on online streaming services, Canada becomes one of the most expensive operating jurisdictions in the entire world for streaming services; not the most expensive in the G7, not among the most expensive in the western world, but among the most expensive on earth. What does that signal to investors? What does that say to a company sitting in a boardroom in Los Angeles, London or Seoul, deciding where to put its next production studio, its next animation facility or its next regional headquarters? It says Canada is expensive. It says Canada is unpredictable. Canada is harder to do business in. I want to give the House a concrete example of exactly what is at stake here, because I think sometimes these debates can feel abstract. Let me make it tangible. Netflix recently opened Netflix Animation Studios in Vancouver. That facility created more than 450 good-paying jobs. It brought significant investment to British Columbia. It put Canadian artists, animators and storytellers to work doing world-class creative work right here at home. That is exactly the kind of investment we should be encouraging. That is exactly the kind of economic activity we should be competing to attract. The Online Streaming Act, combined with this triple levy, sends precisely the opposite message. It tells companies like Netflix to think twice before they build something here and to think twice before they hire here. If a company succeeds in Canada, we will tax it for it. That is devastating, not just for Vancouver and Toronto but for every Canadian who works in the film and television industry, and for every community that benefits from that investment. There is then the trade dimension. This may be the most reckless aspect of all. When one triples the tax on online streaming services, it is not in isolation. We are in the middle of a critical review of CUSMA, the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement. Our trading relationship with the U.S. is under more scrutiny than it has been in a generation. The Trump administration has been clear and consistent. It views the Online Streaming Act as a trade irritant. This is not speculation. This is not opposition talking points. The Americans have said so directly and repeatedly. Just recently, the United States Ambassador to Canada stated, and I am going to be careful to represent this accurately, that the “CRTC’s decision to triple the tax rate on leading streaming services is making a bad situation worse”, that it targets and taxes American companies, puts up new discriminatory trade barriers and worsens the investment climate for American businesses. That is a warning. What is the Carney Liberal government’s response? Its response is silence, indifference and a shrug. At the exact moment when Canada needs to be demonstrating to our largest trading partner that we are a serious, reliable and competitive economy, the government is escalating a fight that nobody in the country asked for over a policy that helps nobody in the country. That is negligence. I want to address something directly because I know that the government will raise it. When one triples the tax on online streaming services, it is a tax on investment in the arts and culture. Conservatives believe in Canadian culture and have defended it for a decade, over a decade, from Liberal postnational attacks. We believe in Canadian artists, storytellers and creators. We are proud of what the country produces in music, film, television and literature. That pride is real and it is not a partisan position. It belongs to us all. One does not strengthen Canadian culture by punishing investment. One does not support Canadian creators by driving away the platforms and production companies that employ them. One does not build a vibrant, creative economy by making Canada one of the most expensive places in the world to operate a streaming service. Real support for Canadian culture means creating conditions where great Canadian content can be made, can find an audience and can compete with the best in the world on its merits. It does not mean turning a government agency into an Internet czar that picks winners and losers, removes choice from viewers and tells Canadians what they should be watching. That is not cultural policy. That is paternalism and Canadians deserve better. Let me say something about the constitutional dimensions, as well. For over 800 years, the parliamentary tradition we have inherited, the tradition that is the foundation of this very institution, has been clear. The power to tax belongs to Parliament, not to agencies and regulators, not to appointed officials who are not accountable to the people of this country at the ballot box. The CRTC does not have a mandate from Canadians to triple a levy on streaming services. It was not elected and cannot be defeated at the polls, yet here it is making decisions with real tax consequences for millions of Canadians. The Prime Minister and the Liberal government must reject this decision.

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“Other big countries regulate streaming services just like we do, and they do not back down. The Conservatives are siding with American companies like Netflix instead of standing up for Canadian artists.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight a couple of things. Canada is one of seven countries that make up the G7, but it is not the only one that deals with this streaming issue. A number of other countries in the G7 do, countries like France and others. I don’t believe that they are going to allow themselves to be intimidated. The Conservatives are prepared to capitulate and say that we should get rid of any sort of streaming, that we should just stop it. They are advocating from an American perspective. They sound more like representatives of Netflix than members of Parliament advocating in the best interests of Canadians. When will the Conservatives start advocating for Canadians, in particular our arts community?

Sandra Cobena, Newmarket—Aurora

Conservative
“I oppose this fee. People in the film industry want investment, and this fee will scare money away and hurt the industry.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the question reflects how disconnected the member is from the film industry. I used to finance many of these projects and have spoken to people on the ground. What they are saying is that they want opportunity. They want investment. They want the opportunity to showcase their work and their talent. Allowing for this levy, which will chase away investment and shrink the industry, is not going to be helpful. That is what this comes down to.

Alexis Deschênes, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj

Bloc Québécois
“I agree with my colleague. The Conservatives are siding with American companies instead of helping our culture and media, which are losing advertising money. It is not fair that American companies can make money off our culture without paying taxes here.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, on the whole, I agree with my colleague. We are witnessing a pathetic display of obsequiousness by the Conservative Party today. It has decided to champion the interests of American companies in the House even as our culture and media sectors are being hit hard by an unprecedented advertising revenue crisis. We have to support them. Some American companies are going to use our cultural products to make a profit here, yet we should not tax them. How is that fair?

Sandra Cobena, Newmarket—Aurora

Conservative
“I am not trying to help American companies. I want to protect investment and opportunities for Canadian artists and creators so they can share their work.”
  • 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 would like to reassure the member that this is not about American companies. It is disappointing to hear the question framed as if a Canadian would put the interests of an American company ahead of the people we represent. That is unacceptable. The principle we are talking about here is chasing away investment and opportunity for Canadians and Canadian content. That is what this is about. Whether it is an American or a European company investing here, it does not matter. At the heart of this debate are the Canadian creators and artists who are fighting for a chance to showcase their work.

Fred Davies, Niagara South

Conservative
“When the government picks winners and losers, businesses take their money elsewhere. The broadcast regulator does not understand how business or investment works. How will this proposal hurt investment in Canadian culture?”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Respect 75 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “She knows full well”.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for that thoughtful presentation. She knows full well that when governments pick winners and losers, capital flees. Capital flows to where certainty exists. In this regime, under this proposal, there is no certainty. The CRTC is oblivious to economics, trade or capital flow. Can the hon. member tell me how she thinks the decision can negatively impact investment in Canadian production and Canadian culture?

Sandra Cobena, Newmarket—Aurora

Conservative
“A Canadian business lost a European contract to an American company, even with the same quality and price. The buyer chose the American company because Canada is known as a hard place to do business.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 45 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I have one clear example. I talk a lot to entrepreneurs on the ground, one of whom in particular said they had been trying to open up markets in Europe. They had competed with respect to quality and price, yet they still lost the contract. A good company and smart entrepreneur would seek feedback once they had lost a contract, so they contacted the buyer to ask why they lost out. In this case, they lost out to an American company. The buyer said that they were identical with respect to quality and price, but, unfortunately, as Canada is known to be a country that is very difficult to do business with, they decided to buy American.

Tatiana Auguste, Terrebonne

Liberal
“Foreign streaming companies make money in Canada, so they should help pay for Canadian TV and movies. This funding protects jobs across the country. I want the House to vote against this motion.”
  • A repeated line

    “The audiovisual production sector supports hundreds of thousands of direct and indirect jobs in Canada.”

    Said 3 times by 3 members since May 28.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise for the first time since the recent election to represent my constituents and to speak on their behalf. I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for Taiaiako’n—Parkdale—High Park I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of a broadcasting system that continues to invest in Canadian workers, Canadian creativity and in Canada’s economic growth. Despite the rhetoric we have heard, this debate is not really on a so-called online streaming tax. This is about whether global streaming giants that generate substantial revenue from our Canadian audiences should make a fair and reasonable contribution to the Canadian broadcasting and production ecosystem from which they benefit. This principle is neither radical nor new. For decades, companies participating in the Canadian broadcasting system have contributed financially to the creation and presentation of the Canadian programming on which they depend. These contributions have helped build one of the most respected production sectors in the world. Today, Canada is internationally recognized as a major centre for film, television, animation and documentary production, as well as digital and interactive media. Talented Canadians work on productions that are being watched all over the world. Our studios are full, we have world-class crews and our creators are winning international awards. This success did not happen by chance. It happened because successive governments and regulatory bodies understood that Canadian stories and Canadian production capacity matter just as much economically as they do culturally. The motion before the House fails to take this reality into account. It frames contributions to Canadian programming as though they were merely a burden or a penalty, but these contributions are investments in jobs, infrastructure, intellectual property, skills development and economic activity across the country. Furthermore, spending on Canadian programming is not a punishment. We are not asking companies to throw money down a bottomless pit. We are asking them to invest in some of the best programs in the world. We are asking them to continue making The Glass House, Shoresy, Heated Rivalry and North of North. They cannot claim that Canadian-produced programs are not worthy of their services. The film production sector supports hundreds of thousands of direct and indirect jobs in Canada. These are not abstract jobs. These are good-paying, highly skilled jobs, filled by Canadians in every region of our country. They include camera operators, lighting specialists, sound engineers, visual effects artists, editors, costumers, set carpenters, studio managers, caterers, truck drivers, musicians, actors, writers, producers, translators, production specialists, and the list goes on. The economic impact extends far beyond the film set itself. When productions are shot in a community, people rent hotel rooms, eat at local restaurants, use transportation companies, rent facilities, hire local workers and generate interest in tourism and regional economic development. Entire local economies benefit from a strong production sector. In cities like Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal, the production industry has become a major economic driver, but production has also created opportunities in small rural communities across the country, including in the Atlantic provinces, the Prairies, northern Canada and indigenous communities. That is why the framework established under the Online Streaming Act is important. The world has changed dramatically since the first Broadcasting Act was drafted. Traditional broadcasters continue to contribute to Canadian content obligations while facing growing competition from major foreign content streaming services that now dominate audience share and subscription revenue. The problem the legislation set out to solve was simple: The regulatory system had not kept pace with technological change. Canadians are consuming more and more programs online rather than on legacy broadcasting platforms, but the contribution framework traditionally applied primarily to Canadian broadcasters. That imbalance was unsustainable. If Canadian broadcasters are required to contribute to Canadian programming while foreign streaming platforms generating significant Canadian revenue are exempt, the financial foundation supporting Canadian production will begin to erode. However, contributions to the broadcasting system are not new and they are not unique to Canada. Many countries around the world require streaming services to contribute to national production ecosystems. Governments across Europe have adopted similar frameworks to ensure the viability of local production sectors in the digital age. Despite these obligations, global streaming companies continue to heavily invest in these markets. Why? Companies invest where there is talent, stability, infrastructure and opportunities. Canada offers all those things. We have world-class teams. We have creative talent that is respected around the world. We have competitive production environments. We have advanced visual effects and post-production sectors. We have good schools that train qualified workers. Above all, we have a long-established production ecosystem built through decades of public and private investment. Ironically, many of the people who are now criticizing the contribution requirements celebrate the economic success of Canada’s film and television industry without recognizing the policies that helped create it. We cannot separate the success of Canada’s production industry from the public policy framework that supported its growth. What we do know, however, is that there is a real economic cost to not maintaining Canada’s production capacity. When domestic production weakens, jobs disappear. Creative workers leave the industry or even the country. Investment in infrastructure slows down. Independent production companies burn out and Canada becomes increasingly dependent on foreign-produced content without maintaining its own creative industrial base. That is not a recipe for long-term economic resilience. This motion also raises concerns about trade relations with the United States as we approach the CUSMA review. Canada has always defended the principle that cultural policy holds a unique place in public policy. Successive governments from all political stripes have defended Canada’s ability to promote Canadian voices, Canadian creators and Canadian cultural industries. There are good reasons for that. Canada shares a border with the world’s largest cultural exporter. Without supports for domestic creation and discoverability, Canadian voices can easily be drowned out in an increasingly concentrated global market. Again, it is not just a cultural issue but also an economic one. Countries that invest in domestic production develop exportable industries. Canadian productions are making their mark on the world stage. Canadian creators are developing intellectual property that can be marketed worldwide. Canadian studios are attracting foreign investment. Canadian crews are gaining competitive expertise across the country, and Canada is consolidating its position in the rapidly growing audiovisual economy. Weakening our production ecosystem would not make Canada economically stronger. Rather, it would make us more economically dependent. I believe that Canadians understand what fairness means. They understand that when companies benefit from access to Canadian audiences, talent, infrastructure and markets, it is reasonable to expect them to contribute to the sustainability of the system they benefit from. They also understand that Canada’s production industry is not just a fringe cultural undertaking disconnected from the economy. It is a major economic sector. It creates jobs, supports small businesses, boosts tourism, generates exports, develops a highly skilled workforce, strengthens regional economies and helps maintain Canada’s competitiveness in one of the fastest-growing global sectors at a time when countries around the world are in an intense competition to attract production investment and creative talent. Now is not the time to weaken the foundations of our domestic industry. This means ensuring that the economic benefits generated by this broadcasting system continue to support Canadian jobs for Canadian production and Canadian stories. For these reasons, I urge all members of the House to reject this motion.

Yves Perron, Berthier—Maskinongé

Bloc Québécois
“The government cancelled the tax on big tech companies to help talks with the United States, but it did not work. We could collect seven billion dollars from these companies to support our local media and culture. Will the member push her government to bring this tax back?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the content of my colleague’s speech. I think we are on the same wavelength. We understand that there are funds that need to be reinvested in our local culture. I have a question for my colleague. Her government scrapped the tax on tech giants last year, supposedly to facilitate negotiations with the U.S. president, yet we can see that it has yielded no results. Should this tax not be reinstated? Does she agree with the idea of recovering these colossal sums—as I recall, it was $7 billion over five years—which could allow us to support our regional media? Will she commit to working within her caucus to convince her government to reinstate this tax, which had been adopted and was the result of sound legislation?

Tatiana Auguste, Terrebonne

Liberal
“I oppose this motion because it hurts support for Canadian arts. I want to keep investing in Canadian culture, Quebec culture, and French-language productions so they can be shared around the world.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 45 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. My colleagues can rest assured that they have in me a strong advocate for Canadian culture, Quebec culture, and above all, French-language culture. All of this will be promoted through the CRTC’s work. In my view, the motion before us seems unreasonable because we must continue to support Canadian production. I think my colleague will agree with me when I say that, as a Quebecker, I believe we must above all support all French-language productions that are exported, because French is not only a magnificent language for us, but also one that deserves to be exported around the world. This will happen thanks to the investments currently being made in Canada.

Bernard Généreux, Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata

Conservative
“The government is adding a 15% tax on digital cultural products. Who is actually going to end up paying for it?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the member the same question I asked her colleague earlier. This 15% tax that the government is about to charge on cultural products will in fact be foisted on the public. Who is really going to pay this 15% tax on digital products at the end of the day?

Tatiana Auguste, Terrebonne

Liberal
“I will vote against this motion. Streaming companies should pay their fair share so we can make Canadian shows for everyone to enjoy.”
  • 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, as I just said, it is important for these companies to pay their fair share. They have a right to serve Canadian viewers, but by making them pay their fair share, we will be able to produce Canadian content that all Canadians can enjoy. In my view, that is the goal. That is why I will be voting against the motion.

Karim Bardeesy, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry

Liberal
“I want to know how these funds and policies can help young Black creators, filmmakers, and musicians in the member's riding.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague from Terrebonne a question. She did a great job of describing the challenges that francophone creators face. I think these funds and policies can also help young Black creators, filmmakers and musicians in particular. In her opinion, how can these policies help young Black creators in her riding?

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 124

  1. Government Orders Business of Supply 114 statements
  2. Oral Questions Foreign Investment 13 statements
  3. Oral Questions Justice 6 statements
  4. Oral Questions Canadian Identity and Culture 6 statements
  5. Oral Questions The Economy 4 statements
  6. Oral Questions The Environment 4 statements
  7. Oral Questions Finance 6 statements
  8. Oral Questions Agriculture and Agri-Food 4 statements
  9. Oral Questions Steel and Aluminum Industry 2 statements
  10. Oral Questions Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship 6 statements
  11. Oral Questions Aerospace Industry 8 statements
  12. Oral Questions International Trade 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions Seniors 4 statements
  14. Oral Questions Public Safety 6 statements
  15. Oral Questions Oil and Gas Industry 3 statements
  16. Oral Questions Labour 2 statements
  17. Oral Questions Climate Change 2 statements
  18. Oral Questions Air Transportation 2 statements
  19. Oral Questions Business of the House 2 statements
  20. Government Orders Business of Supply 66 statements
  21. Oral Questions Health 4 statements
  22. Private Members' Business Canada Revenue Agency Act 12 statements
  23. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  24. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  25. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  26. Government Orders Business of Supply 462 statements