Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on behalf of the Bloc Québécois on the issue of web giants, culture more broadly, Quebec identity and, of course, the funding that the Liberal government should provide, but not at the taxpayers’ expense. First of all, I would also like to congratulate my colleague Meggie Richard, an MNA from my region, on the Côte-Nord, who has just been appointed minister responsible for regions and land use and minister responsible for the Côte-Nord region. As my colleague, the member for Laurentides—Labelle, said, we are very proud to see in our National Assembly, which is my own parliament, MNAs and ministers who care deeply about our culture, language and identity, and who will defend them tooth and nail, just as we in the Bloc Québécois do here in the House of Commons. Obviously, what happens here has an impact on what happens in Quebec. I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate our minister of culture, communications, and the French language, Pascal Bérubé, who was appointed minister yesterday. Of course, I know that he will also be a staunch defender of Quebec’s identity. That brings to mind words often repeated by my leader, the member for Beloeil—Chambly, who has said on numerous occasions that a nation must not place all authority over its culture, its language and its identity in the hands of another nation. To do so is to put them at risk. The only nation that can protect and promote a culture, a language and an identity is the nation itself, the one that lives through that identity, that language and that culture. For us, of course, being able to debate the motion before us on this opposition day is essential. I could summarize that motion, but I will simply take a moment to read it into the record. It is very brief and, in essence, reiterates the points I made earlier: That, given that, (i) culture is central to Quebec’s identity, (ii) the cultural sector plays a critical role in Quebec’s economy, (iii) the media and cultural production sectors are facing serious pressures that hamper their development, (iv) the government nevertheless abolished the Digital Services Tax levied on the U.S. digital corporate giants, the House call on the government to: (a) uphold the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s decisions imposing levies on streaming services, as set out in the Broadcasting Act; and (b) make the interim payment of $600 million promised to the cultural sector for the current year. The term “interim payment” mentioned in the motion is important. My colleague brought up an issue that my colleague from Repentigny also raised in his questions, and that is the government’s weakness when it comes to cultural measures. The government wanted—at least that is what it said—to ensure that levies were paid so that the money could be used to help our cultural enterprises and broadcasters. The government decided to simply cave to the U.S. government. At least, that is the pretext, if not the exact reason. It said that it might be a good idea to perhaps give in on this point to facilitate negotiations. That is a huge sum. As we have heard, these companies made $4 billion in profits last year. In this country, they pay nothing. At the same time, they will be competing, unfairly I would say, with our own cultural enterprises and creators. The government agreed to levy a tax to help our broadcasters, enterprises and creators to create content here at home. As I said earlier, creating content here at home meets our need to show our identity and continue to increase its vitality. As I was saying, there was some political will. The companies, however, refused to give in to that. The Conservative Party, meanwhile, decided to stand up for the Americans and the billion-dollar corporations. The government overturned the CRTC’s decision to collect these amounts. I talked about nations earlier. No one else can defend and promote our culture as well as we can ourselves. It sounds obvious, but we still have to debate it here. Even though it seems evident, we still have to fight these battles. Quebec’s identity is already in the hands of Canada. After that, it is in the hands of the United States, to a certain extent, since we are caving in to pressure from the Americans as well as from businesses. We are a long way from having the tools we need to defend and promote our culture and to create content here at home that can be broadcast here, in accordance with our own needs and preferences. We are a long way from that. I would say that it goes even beyond governments, because we are bowing to pressure from foreign, multi-billion-dollar corporations, which care less about our culture and more about their profits. Our culture is not part of their mandate or their primary objective. We are a long way from cultural sovereignty. I will echo what my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle said. She talked about the “Canada strong” thing that some people go on and on about here in the House. A nation with an identity fights for that identity and is prepared to defend it at every turn. It will never yield to blackmail by governments or corporations. That is out of the question. Identity is not for sale. In my opinion, this is proof. A lot of people talk about how the Prime Minister is standing up to the United States very vigorously. This may be a cliché, but I think the government is just talking the talk. It is not walking the walk, and we believe that jeopardizes Quebec’s culture and its development. That is one point. Next, it seems that, to put it simply, in an effort to defuse the situation, the government is admitting that it has yielded to pressure from the U.S. and the tech giants, and is asking the CRTC to back down, but it will provide $600 million. My colleague from Jonquière—Hébertville—Pays-des-Bleuets said earlier that it is less than what we would get in royalties. That $600 million is already not enough. That is not even what we would have had with the levies. What is more, these $600 million come from taxpayers’ pockets. One of the arguments used by the government and the Conservative Party was that it would cost far too much, as a member opposite mentioned earlier. However, academics and researchers have debunked the argument that the services we get from the tech giants would be less affordable. Currently, measures are being implemented in Europe, and the costs have not actually changed. However, taking those $600 million from taxpayers’ pockets is really just taking their money instead of taking the tech companies’ money. That is basically what it is. The government is paying for these companies and covering them instead of doing its job as a sovereign state when it comes to culture. That is really what it is doing. That is why the Bloc Québécois is not simply asking for $600 million. I mentioned at the outset that the word “interim” is important. At the end of the day, we want the tech giants to pony up that money. We do not want the government or ordinary citizens to foot the bill. We want the tech giants to do so. We also want—and I emphasize this because it is absolutely fundamental to us—to retain control over our culture, content discoverability, our creative output and our language. We need that funding to support our culture. I hope that my colleagues will vote for what sounds to me like common sense.
