House Publications
The Debates are the report—transcribed, edited, and corrected—of what is said in the House. The Journals are the official record of the decisions and other transactions of the House. The Order Paper and Notice Paper contains the listing of all items that may be brought forward on a particular sitting day, and notices for upcoming items.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
45th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • No. 124
CONTENTS
Thursday, May 28, 2026
House of Commons Debates
Volume 152
No. 124
1st SESSION
45th PARLIAMENT
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Thursday, May 28, 2026
Speaker: The Honourable Francis Scarpaleggia
Routine Proceedings
[Routine Proceedings]
[Translation]
Supplementary Estimates (A), 2026-27
A message from Her Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates (A) for the financial year ending March 31, 2027, was presented by the Minister of Health and read by the Speaker to the House.
[English]
Government Response to Petitions
[Translation]
Committees of the House
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the following two reports of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women: the fourth report, entitled “Preventing Violence Against Women: Criminal Code Peace Bonds, Bail and Sentencing Reforms in Canada”, and the fifth report, entitled “Main Estimates 2026‑27: Votes 1 and 5 under Department for Women and Gender Equality”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the fourth report.
[English]
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the members of our committee worked very hard, and now I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, entitled “Proposals from the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages Regarding the Draft Proposed Regulations Under Part VII of the Official Languages Act”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is issuing a dissenting opinion to ensure that the draft proposed regulations require the government to comply with its own new language law, which stipulates that measures to promote French in Quebec must be implemented as part of official language support programs.
Since 2020, several ministers have acknowledged that French is in decline in Quebec and that measures must be taken not only to protect English but also to protect French in Quebec. The Official Languages Act was reformed in 2023, but no new measures for French have been implemented. There is a section that specifies that the purpose of the act is to “advance the existence of a majority-French society in a Quebec where the future of French is assured”. Several other sections prescribe asymmetrical measures for French in Quebec.
It is therefore high time that the government stopped focusing solely on the anglicization of Quebec through its language law, at a time when French is under greater threat than ever. That is why the draft proposed regulations must make it very clear that positive measures to promote French in Quebec must be taken as soon as possible
[English]
Environment and Sustainable Development
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, entitled “Sustaining Canada’s Freshwater for Today and Tomorrow”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table the Conservative dissenting report on the study of fresh water. Let me be clear: The problem with this report is not that it takes water too seriously but that it confuses ambition with action. It recommends more federal strategies, more federal frameworks, more federal tables and even legal personhood for the St. Lawrence River. That is a dangerous legal theory that will end in disaster.
Conservatives believe that freshwater policy should be grounded in results, not more government bureaucracy. Conferences do not fix pipes, global declarations do not end boil water advisories, and no farmer ever irrigated a field, drained a ditch or protected an acre with a stack of federal forms. Canada does not need a bigger bureaucracy. We need water systems that work, rules that are enforced, and respect for the provinces, municipalities, indigenous communities and farmers who actually know their watersheds. Conservatives support clean water, clear responsibility and real results.
[Translation]
Connected Care for Canadians Act
[English]
Corrections and Conditional Release Act
moved for leave to introduce Bill S-205, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to introduce Bill S-205, an act to amend the Corrections and Correctional Release Act, also known as Tona's law. The purpose of Tona's law is to ensure oversight of and remedies and alternatives to isolation in federal prisons, also known as solitary confinement or segregation, which is something that has been called out in international law as a form of torture, in fact. It is something that is still practised in federal prisons today and is something that we know causes irreversible harm to people.
The purpose of prisons is to rehabilitate people, but we know, with recidivism rates, that people in prison come back into communities not rehabilitated but more likely to offend. It is not surprising that more than 80% of former inmates actually return to prison.
I would like to thank Senator Pate and advocates for carceral reform across the country, and I want to honour the memory of the late Tona Mills, a survivor of more than 10 years in solitary confinement, for whom the bill is named. May she rest in peace.
(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)
Petitions
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Today I am presenting two petitions. The first is on behalf of the Iranian community in Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.
I had the opportunity to meet with Vahab Nazeri and many other people from the Iranian community. They point out the oppressive Iranian regime and all that it has done, a terroristic regime that has killed so many people and inflicted so much damage. They are very proud people, but they recognize that since the ayatollahs took over, there has been no democracy.
Petitioners call on the government to recognize the democratic will of the Iranian people and to engage with Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi as the legitimate transitional authority.
Madam Speaker, the second petition, which 51 signatories have signed, notes that Canadians travel worldwide for all sorts of reasons, that viruses such as measles are significantly increasing, that when people return home they are often subject to diseases we do not experience here, and that people do not know about travel health advice being available.
Petitioners therefore call upon the House of Commons to integrate travel vaccine, medicine and health education into the public health system in Canada, to establish a reasonable user fee, to ensure appropriate health data collection and to recognize that public trust can be built in travel medicine and screening.
Madam Speaker, I rise to table two petitions today. The first is in support of the Indian Residential School Survivors Society.
The petition has been signed by more than 2,600 people calling on the Government of Canada to honour the TRC calls to action and the national inquiry for women and girls.
Petitioners are calling for the government to respect residential school survivors, their families and their communities. They call on the government to keep its promises to avoid gaps in survivor-centred services. They call for sustained and stable core funding for the Indian Residential School Survivors Society to prevent program lapses, including funding for indigenous-led healing, wellness and crisis support programs related to residential school impacts. They also call on the government to work with the society, the indigenous community and partners for a stable, long-term framework that reflects the actual service needs.
Madam Speaker, the second petition I am tabling is signed by Canadians from communities including Vancouver, Surrey, Toronto, Ottawa and Gatineau.
Petitioners are concerned that Trump's military is bombarding small boats and their crews in the Caribbean and in the Pacific Ocean, claiming without evidence that they are narco-terrorists. Such actions are illegal, they have noted, yet Canadian-made equipment has been used to commit these extrajudicial killings, due to the massive loophole in Canada's arms export laws.
Whereas Canada respects the rule of law, the petitioners therefore call on the Canadian government to require the same rules of licensing of Canadian military exports to Trump's military that are applied to every other country.
Madam Speaker, I rise to present petition e-7115, a petition on behalf of Canadians and, more importantly, the great people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, who are concerned about the security and reliability of the digital systems that Canada depends on every day, specifically government digital systems. As we move more online, the software behind those systems must be built with strong safeguards from the beginning.
Petitioners are asking the Government of Canada to take a more consistent approach to secure coding across all federal departments and Crown corporations so public services, sensitive information and taxpayer dollars are better protected. They have provided a detailed list of provisions to facilitate much-needed solutions.
Questions on the Order Paper
Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website]
Government Orders
[Business of Supply]
[English]
Business of Supply
Opposition Motion—Elimination of the Streaming Tax
That, given that,
(i) the Liberal-appointed CRTC recently ordered online streaming services to pay 15% of their annual Canadian revenues to the government, up from the current 5%,
(ii) this tax increase will be passed on to consumers who are already struggling with the rising cost of living,
(iii) the tax will discourage business activity and investment in Canada,
(iv) the tax is a trade irritant with the United States ahead of the upcoming CUSMA review,
the House call on the Liberal Cabinet to use their powers under the Broadcasting Act to reject the CRTC’s streaming tax increase and eliminate the streaming tax.
She said: Madam Speaker, I wish to split my time with the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South.
After 11 years of the Liberal government, Canadians are paying more for just about everything. They are paying more for groceries, gas, housing, electricity and, now, simply watching their favourite show or listening to their favourite music. Just last week, the Liberal-appointed CRTC announced plans to triple the streaming tax, taking it from 5% to 15% on online streaming services such as Netflix, Spotify and Disney+.
This question must be asked: Who will pay for this? The answer is that it will not be government, the CRTC bureaucrats or the Liberal ministers sitting across the way. Instead, it will be everyday, hard-working Canadians who will foot the bill. Every dollar of this tax will ultimately be passed on to consumers, who are already struggling under the weight of rising costs under current government policy.
In fact, Canadians are already seeing the impact. Just a few days ago, Spotify notified subscribers that they would see an increase in their rates coming into effect in July. A few extra dollars here and there may not be that much to those across the way, but for Canadians who are working hard, skimping and saving, and trying to make ends meet, those dollars matter.
Canadians should not be forced into a false choice between affordability and a few small pleasures in life. Families should be able to afford the essentials, such as food, clothing and shelter, while still being able to enjoy a few of those tiny comforts. After a decade of Liberal policies, affordability in Canada has only gotten worse, and this streaming tax is simply the latest Liberal attack on affordability.
What makes this even harder for Canadians to accept is the growing disconnect between what ordinary Canadians are experiencing and what they see from those in positions of power. Recently released invoices show that the Prime Minister spent nearly $200,000 just on inflight food in one year. On one trip alone to Rome, taxpayers were billed almost $94,000 for meals in the air. What did these meals include? They included things like beef tenderloin, salmon, crème brûlée and fine wines.
For many Canadian families, the majority actually, $94,000 would cover groceries for years, not just a few small meals. It is ludicrous. It is completely out of touch with Canadians. While families are deciding whether or not they can afford a few extra dollars on their Spotify account, the Prime Minister is spending $94,000, of taxpayer money I should add, on meals for one trip.
The Liberals tell Canadians that the solution is to simply consume less. The former finance minister suggested that Canadians cancel their Disney+ account, for example, so they could save those few extra dollars each month to make ends meet. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister spent $94,000 on inflight meals for one trip. The irony here is impossible to miss.
This decision is not only wrong with respect to affordability, but also wrong economically. It is wrong for investment and for Canada's future. That 15% tax puts Canada among the most expensive jurisdictions to do business with streaming companies. That sends a dangerous message to investors that Canada is becoming more costly, less predictable and not worth investing in because it is not competitive. Investment matters because we need to draw it into our country rather than chase it away.
Here is what happens when investment thrives. The member across the way is shaking his head, but it creates jobs, raises wages, drives innovation and creates opportunities for everyday, hard-working Canadians. That is what happens when we are able to draw investment into our country, but the government seems committed to the opposite, which means that projects, capital, jobs and opportunities go elsewhere while the Canadian people ultimately suffer.
We are already seeing what investment can do when the government gets out of the way. Earlier this year, Netflix opened a major animation studio in Vancouver. That is under question now, due to this increase in tax. Nevertheless, Netflix created this. It has spurred thousands of jobs, and it is bringing significant economic investment into Canada to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. That is exactly the kind of growth that we should be encouraging.
Instead, the Liberals are putting up more barriers and more costs that threaten future investment in Canada's film, television and digital production sectors, production hubs like Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal and, increasingly, Atlantic Canada. Members opposite might want to sit up and listen to that. They rely on a healthy mix of Canadian talent and international investment, working together to create jobs and world-class content here at home, but this tax begins to call that into question. When Canada becomes a higher-cost, more regulated environment, we risk slowing the momentum and limiting opportunities for Canadians. Even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has strongly condemned the Online Streaming Act and the CRTC's most recent decision warning that Canada is moving toward rigid one-size-fits-all regulation that discourages investment.
Conservatives support Canadian artists. We support creators, musicians, filmmakers and storytellers. We want them to thrive, but we do not strengthen Canada's culture by making life more expensive for Canadians. In fact, the opposite is what happened. We do not support creators by discouraging investment. We do not build a stronger economy by punishing growth. In fact, a strong culture requires a strong economy. If we want the cultural sector to thrive, then we need to build a thriving economy, a thriving ecosystem for these folks. Prosperity will happen.
There is also a serious democratic problem here. For centuries, parliamentary democracy has been built on a simple principle and that is that taxes should only be imposed by elected representatives accountable to the people, not by unelected regulators such as the CRTC and not by bureaucrats operating at an arm's length from the minister. However, the Liberal-appointed CRTC has effectively imposed a massive new tax burden on Canadians without Parliament even voting on it. If the government believes that Canadians should pay higher streaming taxes, then the minister should come into this place, call for a vote and allow themselves to be held accountable. They should be transparent before the Canadian people. Instead, they are choosing to stand behind a regulator and let them do their dirty work.
On top of all of this, the Liberals could not have chosen a worse time internationally to provoke this fight. Canada is heading into an important CUSMA review with the United States. The streaming tax has already been identified by the American officials as a major trade irritant. The American ambassador to Canada has warned that tripling the streaming levy is “making a bad situation worse.” At precisely the moment when Canada should be reducing trade tensions and strengthening economic co-operation, the Liberals are escalating the dispute. This weakens Canada's position when it comes to negotiations. At a time when economic uncertainty persists, Canada should be focused on becoming more competitive, not less. We should be attracting investment, not driving it away. We should be expanding trade, not creating more disputes. We should be making life more affordable for Canadians, not more expensive.
This is the choice that is before the House today, and I would urge my colleagues to choose Canadians. After 11 years of Liberal inflation, Liberal gatekeepers and Liberal tax hikes, Canadians are exhausted. They are tired of paying more while getting less. They are tired of being told to lower their expectations while government spending continues to rise. They are tired of watching opportunity leave this country because the government refuses to get out of the way and allow people to thrive.
Canadians are calling on the government to make a decision with their, the people's, best interests in mind. They are calling on the government to make life more affordable for them. It starts by scrapping this tax.
Madam Speaker, the CRTC, at arm's length from government, made a decision. The decision is not quite as simple as the Conservatives try to portray it.
At the end of the day, we have tens of thousands of jobs throughout our nation that are very much directly connected with our culture and our heritage. It is a part of who we are, our Canadian identity, and how different of mediums can influence that.
I can appreciate that the Conservatives do not give a darn about that aspect, but I am wondering if the member could recognize that those jobs are valuable jobs that contribute to every region of our country and that protecting our Canadian heritage does mean something for a lot of Canadians?
Madam Speaker, I will acknowledge that when we draw investment into this country through good policies that include less taxation and less regulation, it does in fact allow our cultural sector to thrive. That is a truth. The member opposite, however, is contending that the government should be more punitive, put more taxes in place and put more regulation in place. Somehow, the member feels that is what is going to spur growth within the cultural sector and somehow encourage Canadians to be rooted and established here in their production of content. That is false.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, tech giants are profiting from the Canadian market and raking in billions of dollars in profits. They already have the resources to adapt to the parameters of a legislation like the one Canada is proposing. They already have all the resources.
However, from what I understand of the Conservative motion, even before negotiating a trade agreement, the government should give up its convictions when it comes to defending Quebec's culture and identity.
Am I to understand that the Conservatives are so afraid of Donald Trump that, before they even start negotiating, they are abandoning their principles when it comes to culture and identity?
[English]
Madam Speaker, what the hon. member should understand is that when a government puts more regulation and more taxation in place and functions in a punitive manner toward a sector, that sector will no longer make investments in the country. That is the precipice on which we stand.
The culture sector in Canada is thriving. Companies like Netflix are making massive investments here, creating thousands of jobs on an annual basis. That is a good thing, and that needs to be celebrated and encouraged. Those folks need to be made more prosperous, not less. What the government is doing would drive investment out and take away jobs from those who are functioning within the cultural sector.
Madam Speaker, listening to the heckling from the other side, we get a sense of what is actually going on here. The issue is what I consider a mafia mentality from a Liberal government that does not let anything happen in the country. It blocks things with regulations and taxes people into oblivion because that makes people and businesses dependent on the government for an announcement where the Liberals get to stand up and say, “See how much we love the cultural sector.” They get to pick the winners and losers that way.
I wonder if my colleague would agree that it is not just this sector that is run this way but virtually all sectors of our economy.
Madam Speaker, the hon. member is exactly right. Bill C-11, the Online Streaming Act, went through several iterations before it finally was passed. Many concerns were raised during that time. The biggest of them was that the government would end up choosing which parts of our cultural sector succeeded and which parts would get held back, who would be rewarded and who would be thwarted. That is the way the bill is drafted, and that is precisely what the government is doing. It is determining who gets to win and who must lose within the cultural sector in Canada. Instead, it should be up to the Canadian people. We, the people, determine our culture, not the government.
Madam Speaker, it is a great privilege, as always, to rise on behalf of the people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, especially because we have seen the benefits of film production in Canada in our part of the country.
It is great that we have Canadian productions. It is great that we have American productions that choose to set up shop in Canada. The one thing that I think is often missing in this conversation is that the Liberal government has never met a tax it does not like. When it tries to control Canadians and their viewing preferences and listening preferences, the only one who wins is government, not industry, not film production and not the people who work in television and media in this country.
The Liberal-appointed CRTC has come out with a declaration that to enforce the Liberal legislation that the Conservatives warned about vociferously, Bill C-11, the Online Streaming Act, it will triple the amount of money the streaming services that Canadians enjoy, such as Netflix, Amazon Prime and Apple TV, will have to spend to 15%, up from 5%, as the levy they will have to pay to fund Liberal government-approved productions and Liberal-approved content.
This is so important because when Bill C-11 first came through the House, Conservatives warned that it was not actually going to be about Canadian storytelling; it was going to be about the government picking and choosing winners, picking and choosing which types of stories get to be told, which ones get the support of government, who gets supplemented and supported and who gets suppressed. One of the biggest powers of Bill C-11 that we warned about was, basically, the requirement that streaming sites, including, for example, YouTube, would have to manipulate their algorithms so that they are serving up content that the Liberal government wants Canadians to see. While the Liberals say they are not manipulating algorithms, we know that the consequences of what they are forcing streaming platforms to do necessitate that.
We have already heard, quite recently, from streamers who have noticed changes. Content they used to produce and generate that would do very well all of a sudden is not. Podcaster Jasmin Laine, among others, has pointed to this. We have heard from officials that there are still very many conversations going on, and the Liberal government tries to play coy on these things. Even now, we have heard from one Liberal member of Parliament that this is all the CRTC's actions at arm's length and not something the Liberal government is controlling, ignoring the fact that the Liberal government has the power under the Broadcasting Act to step in and stop this streaming tax immediately. It has the power to do this. This is a consequence of the government's own legislation.
What is this going to mean? It is easy to get up and say that, in theory, we can put this levy in place and triple it from 5% to 15% and all these big American streaming platforms are going to have to pay it. That is the type of rhetoric we hear from people who do not understand how business works. They do not understand how markets work. To be fair, I have seen the budgets the Liberals put forward. I know they do not understand how business works.
This money will not be absorbed by the Netflixes and the Amazons. It will be passed along to consumers. All of a sudden, the amount of money people have to pay to Netflix to watch some shows they like will go up. The amount of money we have to pay to subscribe to these platforms will go up. This tripling of the tax will be passed on to consumers, who, because of everything the Liberal government has done to the country, deserve the chance to kick back and watch something for fun. They deserve the chance to watch some television shows and some movies. However, when the Liberal government is saying that we need to penalize companies that are offering a service to Canadians that Canadians pay for, and that the money will go toward content the Liberal government approves of, Canadians know this will result in more government control or in companies pulling out of the Canadian market altogether.
Members should remember that Bill C-11 did not come in isolation. It came alongside the Online News Act, which similarly tried to extort companies for being utilized by Canadian companies. In that case, it was journalism and news outlets. What did Meta do in response to this? It said, “Why are we going to be penalized because newspapers want to share their content on our platform?” Meta pulled news out of the Canadian market. To this day, Canadians cannot share a news article about Liberal corruption, among other things, or any news article on Facebook or Instagram. It is very conceivable that streaming companies could take similar retaliatory action if the Liberal government makes it so that their business model is no longer viable.
This is not about the American companies. This is not about streaming services. What this is actually about is Canadians' ability to access content they want and shows they want.
One of the great things about streaming services is that they bring together content from around the world. We often think about the need to safeguard this term we hear, “cultural sovereignty”, but in actuality, Canada, as we often hear from the Liberal government, is a very diverse country. Streaming services allow Canadians of all backgrounds to watch shows in different languages and from different countries. In fact, my favourite show of all time was not an American production imposed on me but a Spanish show that I learned about through a streaming service. I cannot understand it in the original Spanish; perhaps I will get to that at another point. I hate the idea that the only content we would get is Canadian productions when we should be able to have access to everything.
We can imagine if other countries imposed the same sort of cultural protectionism that the Liberals are trying to do. Then Canadian content could not be exported. People in other countries would not get to benefit from some of the great cultural exports of Canada, shows like Being Erica and Schitt's Creek, or speeches from the member for Winnipeg North, and all of these Canadian cultural exports that people from around the world may wish to tune in to. Not all Canadian content is good content, as the latter example shows, but we do not want the Liberal government to be the determining force in what types of content Canadians can see, and we do not want Canadian enterprise to suffer.
Again, the idea that the Liberals are presenting is that if we triple this levy, companies are just going to pay it, and it is going to go into creating jobs and opportunities in Canada. However, we know that is not what happens, and the Online News Act is, I think, a very good cautionary tale.
I would note that the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture has not really staked out a position on this. He said he will “carefully assess its impacts.” Now, that, I believe, translates from Liberal to “We do not know what we are doing, but we will carefully assess its impacts.” He says he wants Canadians “to see themselves reflected on [the] screen”. We do, but we also want Canadians to be able to afford to watch the content they want to watch and to afford things that have already gone up in price. It is more expensive to buy groceries now. It is more expensive to pay rent, to buy a house, to pay the gas bill and to fill up the gas tank. These are measures that, in a lot of ways, are within the Liberal government's control. Why is the Liberal government insisting on making everything more unaffordable?
In fact, there has already been some recognition from the Liberals of the effect that streaming services have on Canadian budgets. We may remember the former finance minister whose brilliant idea for how Canadians could cope with inflation was to cancel Disney+. Well, more Canadians will have to follow that advice because these services are going up in price because of something the Liberal government could rectify very easily. We have an opposition motion that calls on the Liberals to reject this streaming tax increase, to use their authority, which rests in the Broadcasting Act, to cancel this streaming tax once and for all.
I remember when Stephen Harper warned about the Netflix tax over a decade ago. The Liberals mercilessly mocked. They said, “No one is going to tax streaming services,” and here they are, not just taxing them but increasing the tax on these streaming services.
We will not protect anything in Canada if we take away more affordability from Canadians and take away choice, which needs to be front and centre in how Canadians choose to engage in whatever cultural product it is: a show, a movie, a song or anything else.
Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member can provide some fact with respect to the motion itself. It concludes by saying that “the House call on the Liberal Cabinet to use their powers under the Broadcasting Act to reject the CRTC”, which is at arm's length from government.
Where in the Broadcasting Act does it say that the cabinet has the authority to do what the Conservatives believe it can do?
Madam Speaker, it literally says the Governor in Council has the authority to do this. I would also note that the CRTC is made up of Liberal appointees. The Online Streaming Act is Liberal legislation. All of this is a consequence of a Liberal bill, so what I would love to see is Liberal legislation repealing Bill C-11. That would be, I think, the first order of business.
However, again, we also have to look at the broader context here. This is something that has been held up and has already been acknowledged as a trade irritant with the U.S. I thought of that because an irritant was on my mind after I heard that question.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I really do feel that these two parties are one and the same.
As members may recall, last January, this Liberal government completely abandoned the cultural sector by failing to implement the 3% tax on digital products, which would have generated an additional $1.5 billion for the cultural sector.
Why did the government do that? It was because Donald Trump posted a tweet. The Prime Minister thought that if the government did not implement this tax, the U.S. would return to the negotiating table. The result was a complete failure. Today's Conservative party proposal uses the same strategy—scrapping a tax that will generate revenue for the cultural sector—so as not to upset Donald Trump.
Why would a failed Liberal proposal work just because the Conservatives are suggesting it?
[English]
Madam Speaker, wanting Canadians not to be taxed more is about supporting Canadians and supporting Canadian interests.
I would note that Quebec has produced some cultural gems. If every other country in the world did what the Liberal government has done through the Online Streaming Act, it would actually be harder for that content to find its way into, for example, other francophone countries. When we block cultural imports, we are also blocking cultural exports. I choose to stand behind what Canadians are capable of producing and creating.
Madam Speaker, I would ask my colleague this. He talked about the fact that more government control equals more cost for the Canadian consumer and ultimately less choice, so more cost with less choice. That is what the government has done through Bill C-11, the Online Streaming Act. Ultimately, the government is picking and choosing winners and losers: which shows get promoted and which shows do not, which shows get to be in front of the eyeballs of Canadians and which ones get hidden. That ultimately, therefore, dictates to Canadians what their cultural choice should be.
Is it up to the government to determine Canadian culture, or should that maybe be left up to the Canadian people?
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Lethbridge, for her incredibly important work on this.
I know the minister responsible for this is the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture. This is the minister who thinks someone should be criminally charged if they quote a Bible verse that he does not like. This is the minister who stood behind the Canadian Museum for Human Rights' decision to malign parental rights as being a hateful discussion. This is the minister who is championing the return of the online harms act. We know the Liberal government has used that to weaponize the Canadian Human Rights Act against people for dissident opinions. Everything about the government's handling of the heritage file is about control and eliminating Canadians' freedom and choice.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, a moment ago, my colleague seemed to suggest that culture does not receive subsidies anywhere in the world. The opposite is true. Whether funded through taxes or other means, this happens all over the world, just as it does in Europe. Even the Americans subsidize culture. I do not understand this at all. The Conservatives are in favour of subsidizing oil, but they are not in favour of using our tax money for culture and for what defines us.
[English]
Madam Speaker, all of us in this chamber were elected. We went to Canadians and said, “We believe we have something for you. We can serve you.” Canadians chose to support us. Canadians elected us. This is what companies have to do every day in the private sector, and it is what cultural companies need to do as well. They need to say, “We are producing a product that you like. We are producing a product that you support.”
Madam Speaker, for those following the debate, since the start, we have heard from the far right. I mean, it is the extreme right. These people are more right than the Reform Party of the past. Talk about conspiracy theories. Two members are saying the government is trying to tell Canadians what to watch, that they cannot watch this or it is okay to watch that.
An hon. member: Thank you for telling people, Kevin.
Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the compliment from the member opposite.
Having said that, it is a fear factor, and no one does it better than today's Conservative right party. I have been around for 35-plus years as a parliamentarian, and I have never seen a political entity cater to the far right as much as this party has. We have clearly seen a demonstration of that this morning. What a way to start off a morning.
The member opposite says the government is telling people they have to be careful and they cannot say certain things regarding the holy scriptures. The Charter of Rights guarantees—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Order. While previous members were allowed to give their speeches without interruption, I would like the same courtesy to be accorded to the current speaker.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
Madam Speaker, the Charter of Rights guarantees religious freedom. One would think that the Conservative Party members would recognize that reality, because that is a reality, but it does not fit their political script. What they want to do is cause division and get people angry. How do they do that? They will say things like, the Liberals are trying to limit religious freedoms, even though the charter says differently. Now we are hearing them say that we want to tell Canadians what they can watch and what they cannot watch. There have been two speakers and the essence is there. Tin hats are out in full force on the Conservative benches.
Let me make a suggestion to the members opposite to take a look at what has actually taken place, and not only through the CRTC, which, by the way, is an independent, arm's-length organization that is not political. Conservatives try to simplify it by saying that it is a CRTC tax. I will provide comments on the issues where they try to give a false impression.
I posed a question to the member opposite in regard to the motion itself. At the very end, the motion says this, which is the essence of the motion:
the House call on the Liberal Cabinet to use their powers under the Broadcasting Act to reject the CRTC’s streaming tax increase and eliminate the streaming tax.
The Conservatives are calling on the cabinet to do this, but the cabinet does not have the authority to do what the Conservative Party is asking the cabinet to do. When I posed a question about this, what did the member say? The member made reference to the Governor in Council. The Governor in Council and the cabinet do not have the authority to do what the Conservative Party of Canada is asking to be done.
That is the reality, and yet the Conservative Party members still try to heighten it by saying that it is a tax and that the federal government can make the change. This is just like what they do on other government legislation, where they try to give the false impression that the government is trying to limit what people can watch on TV or that it tells Canadians what they can and cannot watch, whether it is on the Internet or TV. It does a great disservice, I believe, to Canadians as a whole to put that kind of information forward and spread that kind of misinformation.
However, I understand what the motivation often is for the Conservative Party members. It is not about good public policy. It is about how they can take an issue and generate thousands of emails, cause people to get angry and at the same time raise money for the Conservative Party of Canada. No one does it better than the Conservative Party of Canada, in terms of promoting fear and raising money based on misinformation. I have seen it first-hand, when I have received emails pumping up the fear factor and spreading misinformation.
That is the essence of the motion we are debating today. The first question I asked was about an industry that is so important to Canada. Let us just put the CRTC to the side right now. When it comes to industry, I would challenge members to think about the communities they represent and the many aspirations of young people and others who want to be involved in the arts and in the promotion of Canadian heritage and to be performers or singers. There is an industry that exists and that is healthy. In the government benches, we want it to grow and we support its growth. Supporting its growth means ensuring there is a level playing field, and that is what we want to see. We want to see a level playing field, because we know that our culture, heritage and arts industry can survive and do exceptionally well under a level playing field, but that is not the case in different areas.
The Conservatives talk about the CRTC increase that is being applied. They do not talk about the CRTC decrease for major broadcasting here in Canada. Why is that? We established the CRTC many years ago. The Conservatives had the opportunity, when they were in government, to get rid of it if they did not like it. They could have brought forward legislation to do so. They chose not to.
I would be interested in hearing whether the Conservative Party of today supports the CRTC. To what extent does it support the CRTC? My fear is that the far right has taken over the Conservative Party, and these types of organizations and corporations, these arm's-length organizations, would be on the chopping block. At the end of the day, in this particular area, the decision the CRTC has made really talks about the protection of our industries. It talks about levelling the playing field. That is important.
I made reference to the constituents we represent. I think of the aspiring individuals we have today. I think of the numerous success stories that have been there in the past. I think of the programming and the artists we see today. The CRTC has played a role. CBC has played a role, both radio and TV. Some members heckle. Some participated with CBC. At the end of the day, we see the potential within that industry.
I want to talk about Winnipeg. If someone wants to get a sense of the size and magnitude of the arts community, they should come to Winnipeg during Folklorama or during one of the many different arts festivals we have. I will focus on Folklorama and I will highlight two pavilions. Actually, there are four.
I am talking about the Pearl of the Orient Philippine Pavilion sponsored by Magdaragat, which has been around now for 50 years. I was at a celebration just the other day for 50 years of Magdaragat. That organization, the musicians, the dance performers and the curators have been there for years. Many of them were performers virtually from the beginning.
Those performers have participated on stages like the Rainbow Stage in Winnipeg. They have toured many other countries in the world, and they have even performed for royalty. This is just one pavilion. Members can take me up on it. If they come to Winnipeg during Folklorama, they will not just see two or four pavilions, but they will see over 45 different pavilions.
If members tour those pavilions, they will see a lot of young people wanting to stay in the arts program in one form or another. We should be encouraging that involvement. We see it at many of the events that we attend at professional, semi-professional and amateur levels. Why would we want to give up on an industry that has been there for Canadians, generated jobs and contributed to our Canadian identity?
That is the essence of what we are hearing from the Conservatives. The Conservatives are trying to simplify it by saying that it is all about taxation, as though this government does not care about the issues of taxation and affordability.
The very first action by this Prime Minister was getting rid of the carbon tax, which was a significant tax break to Canadians. Within weeks of being in session, prior to the summer after the federal election, this Prime Minister and government brought in legislation to give a tax break to 22 million Canadians. People were talking about the housing issue, and what did we do? We brought in a GST exemption for first-time homebuyers in order to make it more affordable for young people, which was a tax break for first-time homebuyers.
It does not stop there. In recent months, we have eliminated unfair telecom fees so consumers can get breaks when they are managing and looking for better plans and to prevent excessive fees being charged. What about the extension of the alcohol excise duty relief? We also decreased banking costs: Some of those basic charges have been reduced.
When we talk about the issue, the Conservatives say that it is simplified tax, or they call it a streaming tax, but it is actually meant to get Canadians thinking about the broader issue of taxation. I can tell members that there are many initiatives. I have not even made reference to the suspension of the federal fuel tax, by 10¢ a litre, very recently. That is something we have put into place.
There are opportunities where the government has taken advantage by providing substantial tax breaks. It is something the government is very much aware of and on top of. The government is not going to take the Conservative bait of using misinformation and trying to say the government has an authority through Governor in Council that it does not have, and do what is being asked for within this resolution.
I look forward to hearing other members of the Conservative Party stand up and give the specific citation for the cabinet having the authority that they are telling Canadians we have. I would like to hear specifically where that authority is coming from when they say that cabinet has the authority to change the decision of the CRTC.
I believe that the CRTC would have taken all considerations before making the decision to increase in certain areas and decrease, I am going to underline the word “decrease”, in other areas. I wonder what the position of the Conservative Party is about that decrease. That is one of the issues the Conservatives attempt to raise by bringing in this motion today. The other issue they are trying to raise is to plant the seed of fear or doubt in this government's ability to get a trade agreement with the United States, when nothing could be further from the truth. They implied in the resolution we have before us today that this is going to have a severe impact on the trade discussions with the United States.
I was listening to the member for Lethbridge, and what she had to say along with the member for Bowmanville—Oshawa North, who did not speak today but is the one who travelled to the United States. We remember that he spoke to the President and the vice-president and came back. Canadians will remember this. Can anyone imagine that leader of the Conservative Party had the member for Lethbridge and the member for Bowmanville—Oshawa North travel to the United States to negotiate on the issue of trade? We can talk about a fear factor. What did the member for Bowmanville—Oshawa North have to say about the issue after consulting with the President of the United States and the vice-president? He said that Canadians were having a “hissy fit”, trying to blame Canadians.
Then, let us look at the motion we have today. The Conservatives are trying to imply that the Government of Canada is not doing its job on such an important file and that we do not understand the impact that policy has in general. In a few words, I can assure members as we get through this debate. No doubt, the Conservatives will stand up and talk about trade between Canada and the U.S., and try again to give the false impression that the government is dropping the ball, when nothing could be further from the truth. That is what they will do and we will see that throughout the day.
What is the reality? At the end of the day, if I were to put it in a nutshell, we recognize that the government and the Prime Minister have made a commitment to not just settle for any deal. We are going to get the best deal that is in the best interests of Canadians when it comes to trade and CUSMA between Canada, United States and Mexico. We are in negotiations. The negotiations will continue in one form or another. We are very much concerned about issues like the tariffs situation and so much more.
Believe it or not, as a government, we can do more than one thing at a time as we have clearly demonstrated. They can look at the billions of dollars of investment coming into Canada in terms of commitments through the actions of this Prime Minister and other ministers. They can look at the agreements and legislation for trade agreements that have been achieved already. We have had commitments to further advance trade agreements. These are all tangible actions that would generate billions of dollars of investment and opportunities, especially if tied into the major projects that we have listed that would benefit every region of our great nation.
In conclusion, I tell my Conservative friends not to give up on our culture and our heritage. Support that industry. One of the best ways they can do that is if they want something—
Madam Speaker, that was quite something.
The member talked about levelling the playing field. Interestingly enough, the Broadcasting Act was put in place originally to try to make sure that the limited airwaves that were available through radio and television would be shared. There would be French and there would be English. The other thing that it did was make sure that traditional broadcasters contributed to a pot of money in order to create Canadian content. Those traditional broadcasters could also pull from that pot of money. They could apply for grants and contributions in order to produce that content.
Online streamers came onto the playing field and they did not have to do those things, so the government made the determination that it should be equally punitive to everyone. Everyone should have to pay a tax. Everyone should be limited in what they could produce. Everyone should have the government dictate what is Canadian and what is not Canadian in terms of content.
However, the government had another option. It could have levelled the playing field by actually giving everyone freedom to produce what Canadians want and freedom to stream what Canadians most want to view or listen to. That was the other choice. The choice was freedom and competition and in the interest of consumers. Why did the government not choose that option?
Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize that, domestically, we are talking about 25% compared to streamers that pay 15%. Levelling the playing field is important.
We need to recognize that through the CRTC and organizations like CBC, CTV, Global and others, at the end of the day, we have had some sensational programming. Two right off the top of my head are Schitt's Creek and Corner Gas. Both have been exceptionally successful. We can talk about artists from the past and current individuals like Céline Dion. There is so much talent in Canada. If it were up to the Conservatives, they would devastate that industry. By the actions, the talk and the speeches that have been delivered over the last number of years, the far-right Conservatives have clearly demonstrated that they do not support that industry, and I find that unfortunate.
I look to members who are a little more moderate in the Conservative caucus to stand up, defend that industry and tell us how they believe this motion or motions from the past from the Conservative Party are going to support it. I am not hearing that, and I think we should all be concerned about that.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, this is surprising, because the parliamentary secretary's main argument is that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, cannot be told what to do. He does not even say whether he agrees with the 15% or not. All he says is that the CRTC cannot be directed to do anything.
My colleague says that the cultural sector must not be abandoned. It remains to be seen whether past actions are any indication of the future, but in July 2025, the Liberals scrapped the digital services tax, which would have generated $1.5 billion that would have been reinvested in the cultural sector. If any government has let the cultural sector down, it is this Liberal government, which did so as recently as last year, because Donald Trump wrote a tweet and the government expected to go back to the bargaining table. The hope was that the government would get something in return for scrapping this tax.
Can the parliamentary secretary tell me what the government got in return for scrapping that 3% digital services tax?
I would like to hear his answer, because I think it was a big fat zero.
[English]
Madam Speaker, where I disagree with the member is with regard to any suggestion that there is a lack of support for the arts community.
I think of the province of Quebec. The member himself resides in Quebec and there are 44 members of Parliament who represent that province. I can assure everyone that there is advocacy to promote and encourage further growth of the industry there. In many ways, Quebec leads Canada in how we can enhance and grow our culture and heritage arts communities. I appreciate the many efforts that are taken in Quebec, and I like to think that other provinces could learn something in terms of the advocacy that we see in Quebec for our arts programming.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, it always makes me smile when I hear the Conservatives say they are interested in culture. I remember the Harper government's cuts to culture quite clearly. Some artists in my riding took to the streets to call for help, but the government of the day refused to listen.
Let me once again remind my colleagues what Stephen Harper said in the beginning. He said that artists were complaining with their mouths full and that regular people were not interested in culture. Imagine saying things like that about artists.
Of all the great investments that we have made in culture since 2015, the one nearest and dearest to my heart was the decision to fund National Acadian Day permanently and at double the amount.
I hope that my colleague can clarify for me what support we have provided to artists over the years.
[English]
Madam Speaker, I was in third party opposition when Stephen Harper was prime minister. His attitude toward supporting our arts was lacking, to put it nicely. I can say that the Conservative Party today has moved even further to the right and has virtually abandoned any sort of support for our arts community. That constantly comes from the Conservative benches.
My friend is very familiar with how important the arts community is to our nation. Not only does it provide opportunities for young people but also adds so much value to our economy in the form of jobs, not to mention the entertainment factor for every Canadian.
The Conservatives need to readjust where they stand on the political spectrum and, at the end of the day, recognize the value of a critically important industry to Canada and to every Canadian, with a special emphasis on our performers.
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. What I appreciate about this member is not what he says, but with how much volume he says it. I just do not know. We heard 20 minutes of ranting, raving and nothingness, but one of the things that really caught my ear is when he talked about trade and how they are going to get the best deal.
The government has not been to the negotiating table since October. The reason it has not been to the negotiating table since October is that it is scared of losing another MP or two and having to go to an election when times look good. The Liberals do not want to deal with the United States so that they can run against him rather than run on their disastrous record. Shame on that member. Shame on the government for not going to bat for Canadians. We need a deal. They are not trying to get one. He should be ashamed for that rhetoric in the House.
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to give notice, under Standing Order 43(2)(a), that all remaining Conservative caucus speaking slots are hereby divided in two.
Madam Speaker, I find it amazing that the member would even say something like that or even use the word “shame.” Let me remind him of what his good friend, the member of Parliament for Bowmanville—Oshawa North, when he travelled representing the Conservative caucus, had to say to Canadians about the U.S.-Canada trade situation. He said that we were having a “hissy fit.” That is what the Conservatives say when they go down to the States, and they are representing more of the American point of view than the interests of Canadians.
There is no shame in having a government that recognizes that it will take the time necessary in order to get the best deal for Canadians. The difference is we are putting Canada first. That is what we are doing. The NDP, on round one with Donald Trump, wanted us to capitulate back then. We did not do it then, and under this Prime Minister, I can assure the member we are not going to do it now, because we are determined to get the best deal for Canadians. In the interim, we will look at other opportunities to sell Canadian exports. Serious commitments have been coming in. Trade agreements have been achieved. We will continue to work every day of the week to achieve more.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I was surprised to hear the member for Winnipeg North essentially deliver two speeches. First, he gave a 20-minute speech, and then he basically gave another one in response to the questions he was asked.
Before I get started on today's completely ridiculous opposition motion—and let me be clear, by “opposition”, I mean the Conservative opposition—I want to point out that we in the Bloc Québécois would never have launched such an attack on one of the tools we have to defend Quebec culture and, yes, even Canadian culture.
Before I begin to discuss the Conservatives' ridiculous stubbornness in attacking anything that could possibly help our culture survive and even thrive in the new global digital environment, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the contribution of the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, not in his capacity as environment minister, as members did yesterday, but in his capacity as heritage minister.
He and I both won our seats in the 2019 election and, like everyone else, I figured he would immediately be given the environment portfolio because of his long-time passion and activism. What a surprise it was when the then prime minister put him in charge of Canadian Heritage. I am sure a lot of people—himself included—thought that was not his dream job, but I do admire how seriously he took it. During his time at the department, he made it clear that culture truly mattered to him. In fact, he was the one who introduced the first version of the bill to modernize the Broadcasting Act, Bill C‑10 at the time, which died on the Order Paper when an election was called the following year after weeks and months of excruciating Conservative filibustering.
Bill C‑10 became Bill C‑11 in the 44th Parliament, and again, against all odds and despite all the Conservatives' stalling tactics, we ended up passing the bill in 2022. That means it is partly the political legacy of the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie that we are defending here, because the CRTC decision that this motion is challenging stems from that act, which he introduced in November 2020. However, I doubt that this is an argument for today's cause. Still, I too would like to commend the contribution of this member, one of the few parliamentarians to stand up for their deeply held convictions and stay true to them, so much so that he chose to leave politics rather than swallow his frustration at his government's decisions and its lack of commitment to the environment and climate change.
I hope that this government and this Prime Minister will not cause the current Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture the same disappointment.
Let us get back to the Conservatives' motion, because we have to. We have no choice. Basically, what this motion is saying is that if people want to watch American shows, even if it means that Quebec and Canadian shows disappear, that is just fine. It is fine for American streaming giants to come here and make millions, if not billions, of dollars in Quebec and Canada without contributing to our broadcasting system. They think that is fine. Come to think of it, it would also be fine if there was no longer a Canadian and Quebec broadcasting system at all. Robert Charlebois, a great Quebec singer whom most of my Conservative colleagues have probably never heard of, used to sing that living in this country is like living in the United States.
The Conservative motion talks about the contribution that they are calling the Netflix tax, a commitment by American giants to use part of their revenues to ensure that original Canadian and Quebec productions are made, both in English and in French.
Given a choice between protecting Quebec and Canadian culture and artists and defending Netflix, Amazon Prime Video and Disney+, the choice is clear for the Conservatives, and that is most unfortunate.
I cannot believe that some Quebec Conservatives, whom I hold in high regard, are endorsing such a motion. It is embarrassing. Our artists are barely able to fund their work and our producers are struggling and being forced to trim not only the fat, but also the muscle, while American multinationals are making billions of dollars at their expense.
The CRTC's decision did not fix everything, far from it, but it is more than just a step forward. It is a necessary step if we want to be able to stand up to the cultural tsunami that is being unleashed by the web giants.
Forcing them to increase their contribution to original content is not a penalty or a tax. It is about catching up. It is a matter of fairness.
Our traditional broadcasters have always had clear obligations: fund local content, promote the French language and support the next generation. Only digital platforms are exempt from that.
Although this measure is necessary, it is not sufficient in and of itself. First, we need to ensure that the money collected is actually used to support the creation of Quebec content, particularly French-language content. Quebec must receive its fair share. Most importantly, Quebec needs to be able to decide for itself how the investments will be used, but I will come back to that later.
Second, we must also guarantee that this contribution is not limited to funding. Quebec content, French-language content and Canadian content must be discoverable. As anyone who has seen The Glass House on Prime Video can attest, our TV shows are outstanding. They must be available and they must be given a chance to be successful. I would add that they must also be given a chance to be aired by the licensed broadcasters, which have been contributing to the system for decades.These broadcasters are once again being harmed. They must be able to afford to broadcast our TV shows, our original content, our stories.
Lastly, it is important to beware of unintended consequences. We also do not want the platforms to pass on this increase to Quebec consumers in the form of price hikes. Once again, the public should not pay the price for the government's past inaction or for making contributions to original Quebec and Canadian productions more fair. The Bloc Québécois will continue to fight to ensure that every dollar contributed by the streaming platforms is used to strengthen our cultural identity, protect our language and support and develop Quebec's unique creativity.
That is why, today, we are reaffirming our clear and consistent stance that Quebec should have its own communications regulator, a CRTC that is just for Quebec. The current CRTC makes decisions that profoundly affect Quebec culture, but it does so within a Canadian framework where Quebec is just one minority among many. Even with the best of intentions, this structure cannot fully reflect Quebec's reality. It cannot give francophones the weight they deserve. It cannot prioritize our creators the way we would. It cannot fully grasp the complexity of our cultural ecosystem.
The result is that, all too often, CRTC decisions dilute Quebec's unique characteristics with a one-size-fits-all approach. A Quebec CRTC would be better at defending our culture. It would allow us to adopt rules tailored to our market. It would allow us to impose clear requirements for French-language content. It would allow us to provide greater support for our emerging artists. It would ensure that local content is truly discoverable. It is not enough simply to produce content; that content must also be seen, heard and discovered.
These days, the major platforms have algorithms that overwhelmingly favour dominant content, much of it in English and too much of it foreign. Our content is in there somewhere, but it is often invisible and hard to find. If Quebec had its own CRTC, it could implement concrete measures, such as spotlighting Quebec content, adapting quotas, mandating promotion and requiring algorithmic transparency. The Conservatives do not like that word, but it would not be a burdensome requirement; it would be a lifeline.
Let me go back to the CRTC decision. We do support that measure, but with clear conditions. First, the proceeds must truly benefit Quebec, not in theory or in some watered-down way, but concretely. The funds must not be folded into bigger federal programs that force Quebec culture to compete with vastly different contexts. Quebec must get its share, and it must be able to decide how to use the funds.
Second, these contributions must be used to strengthen French-language content, not just to fund Canadian content as a whole. The language issue is crucial to Quebec. Without decisive intervention, the presence and influence of French will decline.
Third, no matter what, the cost must not be passed on to consumers. We know full well how the web giants operate. When they are forced to meet new obligations, they either challenge them in court or try to pass on the cost to users. The Bloc Québécois is opposed to forcing Quebeckers to offset the web giants' contribution costs. These companies are making a profit from the market. They have to contribute.
If we want future generations to be able to keep living, creating and dreaming in French, we need to take concrete action, even if it seems draconian to some people. Increasing the streaming services' contribution is only one step. The Conservatives want to stop our cultural content from flourishing in the new digital environment. The Liberals must not follow their example. It would be a real shame if the new Prime Minister and the new Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture did to culture what they have done to the environment, in other words, if they completely destroy the legacy of the member for Laurier—Sainte‑Marie.
Madam Speaker, it is pretty clear to me that the Conservative motion is completely off base when it comes to Quebec and francophone culture and production, among other things.
I wonder if my colleague could talk about the fact that the Conservatives are not the only ones abandoning the cultural sector. This Liberal government also turned its back on culture when it eliminated the 3% tax on digital products last July. It was in the Liberal election platform, but barely three months after getting elected, they reversed course, hoping that would get them back to the negotiating table with Donald Trump.
I would like to ask my colleague the following question. How much revenue was ultimately lost because this government eliminated the digital services tax, despite its election promise to keep it?
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my insightful, eloquent, and personable colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean for his question.
It certainly took everyone by surprise when the government decided to simply scrap the digital services tax last July. That tax, which would have brought in between $1.2 billion and $1.5 billion annually, could certainly have helped support the media and the cultural sector.
They did this in the hope of securing concessions from the Trump administration, which turned out to be completely futile. What is more, the government stubbornly refuses to reinstate this tax in the form of a levy, which, once again, would generate funds that could literally save many sectors of the cultural industry that are currently struggling. It is stubbornness. It is a lack of goodwill.
What worries me right now is that this decision by the CRTC might be overturned, or that the government might ask the CRTC to go back to the drawing board and reverse this decision for the same reasons, that is, to kowtow a little more to the Trump administration.
I am deeply worried about the disengagement we have been seeing.
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and for his point of view, which was very well defined, but which we obviously have reservations about. Still, we respect what is known as parliamentary democracy.
At the end of his remarks, the member paid tribute to the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie. I can understand that, now that he seems to be neutral, the Bloc Québécois is congratulating him. Is the member aware that when the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie was a senior minister in this government, he voted for abolishing the carbon tax, for the throne speech that meant environmental projects would now have a single assessment and for Bill C‑5, which enables the government to enter into agreements with Alberta, among others? More importantly, is my colleague aware that the member for Laurier—Sainte‑Marie was the Minister of Canadian Heritage when this government abolished the digital services tax?
We, the Conservatives, saw no problem with that, but why pay tribute to a guy who was a senior minister for Canadian heritage and the environment, who held positions that differed from those of the Bloc Québécois?
Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to pay tribute to the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie for his career and his political commitment. I think that is very honourable. If there is any member who respects that, it must be my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk. However, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie was not the Canadian heritage minister when the digital services tax was abolished. That was last year, under the current Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture. The member for Laurier—Sainte‑Marie was the environment minister at the time.
That being said, my colleague is in a much better position than I am to know that a member of a major political party that has to represent interests across Canada, contrary to our mission as members of the Bloc Québécois, is forced to swallow a lot of bitter pills on a regular basis. Perhaps one day, my Conservative colleague will be tired of having to swallow the bitter pills that are the social convictions of his western colleagues.
I get the feeling that our colleague from Laurier—Sainte‑Marie was fed up with having to put up with the disappointing experiences he endured on the environmental front.
[English]
Madam Speaker, as I indicated earlier, I genuinely believe that Quebec leads the nation in terms of demonstrating just how important culture, heritage and arts programming are to our overall identity.
When I think of the CRTC or CBC, whether it is TV or Radio-Canada, these are important institutions that are there to protect one of the things that Canadians value very much, the fact that we are a bilingual nation. I always appreciated, for example, that CBC has both French and English throughout the country. Things of that nature are positive.
I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on that aspect of these independent, stand-alone organizations.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I take note of the question from my colleague from Winnipeg North, but first and foremost, I would like to acknowledge that my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk was absolutely right. The member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie had indeed returned to the Department of Canadian Heritage by then. I apologize to him. That was a public mea culpa.
My colleague from Winnipeg North talked about the fact that Canada is a bilingual country and that some institutions are independent. I fully agree with him. However, Quebec is a nation whose only official and common language is French. That is why extraordinary measures are sometimes needed to protect this distinctiveness.
I completely agree about the independence of the institutions established to regulate, as is the case with the CRTC and with CBC/Radio-Canada as the public broadcaster. That is what I hope this government will respect when it comes time to implement the decision that was just rendered by the CRTC. As I said in my speech, I believe that this decision is a step in the right direction, but it is just one step, and other measures will need to be added later on. As for the independence of institutions, I completely agree with my colleague.
[English]
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.
I listened to a question just a little while ago. Before I begin, I will try a bit of French here.
[Translation]
I thank my colleague for his speech.
[English]
I want to ask my hon. colleague from the Bloc a question. One question that is really central to what we are dealing with is tax and Canadians' being bitten, so to speak, by death by a thousand financial cuts. If we were to listen to the member from Winnipeg, Canadians have never had it so good because the Liberals gave a tax cut to 22 million people. Unfortunately, people are still lining up at food banks in record numbers. They cannot pay their mortgages, cannot pay their rent and cannot afford a seven-dollar head of lettuce. Unfortunately, that does not get into the rhetoric.
I wonder whether my hon. colleague agrees that we need to lower the cost of living, whether we are talking about digital streaming taxes or inflationary spending when it comes to the government. Does he not agree that we need to address what has become a cost of living crisis in this country?
[Translation]
Where should I start, Madam Speaker? The member brought up a lot of different issues.
First, yes, we are in a difficult economic situation. Yes, Quebeckers and Canadians are finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet and, yes, the lines at food banks are growing. We are aware of those problems. However, that is still no reason for us to be telling our artists, creators, broadcasters, performing arts producers and content creators that they are not important and that we are going to let them be steamrolled because we do not want to add to the burden of the multinationals that are coming here to make a quick buck.
If my colleague really wants government money to be better spent, then perhaps he should take a look at big oil, which is raking in tens of billions of dollars a year while benefiting from tax breaks and government subsidies. If we were to cut back a little on the billions of dollars that we are giving already-rich multinationals that have absolutely no need of our help, then perhaps we would have the means to provide a little more support to Quebeckers and Canadians who are currently struggling.
Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to explain to me why the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this motion.
Madam Speaker, I gave a 20‑minute speech to express just how important Quebec's francophone culture, and even francophone culture in Canada, is for protecting the French language and supporting our creators in Canada, whether they are anglophone or francophone. All content creators, broadcasters and artists are deeply troubled and affected by the arrival and dominance of digital giants that do not contribute to the broadcasting system. That is why we are going to defend our position and vote against this motion.
[English]
Madam Speaker, I want to start today by offering a short recap to those watching at home, because this is still a developing story. There is one important newsflash that I think Canadians ought to know. The message is to get ready for another Liberal tax. That is it. The government has already taxed our gas. It has taxed our groceries. It has taxed our capital gains. God knows it has taxed our income. It is now coming for our Netflix. That is really what today is about.
The Liberal-appointed CRTC, which is an unelected, unaccountable body that regulates streaming services and digital content in this country, just mandated that companies such as Netflix, Disney+ and Prime Video fork over 15% of their revenues to Ottawa. That is a 200% increase from where they were.
For someone watching at home, let us put a number on this and what it means for families. Netflix alone earns about $1.5 billion annually from Canadian subscribers, and 15% of that is $225 million. When passed on to consumers, that will be potentially three dollars or four dollars every single month per household, on top of everything else that Canadians pay. That might not sound like a lot of money, but that is exactly where the tax that Ottawa is collecting is going to go: directly to the consumer. At four dollars a month, that is $50 a year.
We know what happens when the Liberal government levies taxes on corporations. They simply get passed on to consumers. It is never a minister that pays them. It is never the government that pays them. It is always the consumer. Anybody who says that is not the case has not been here in the last 10 years.
The last thing that Canadians need right now is more taxes. On this side of the House, we will always advocate to get rid of every single one of them. Forty per cent of people in the country are within $200 of insolvency. They are within $200 of going broke. One-quarter of households are food insecure right now. We know that. We talk about it in this place all the time.
When streaming becomes more expensive, people do not stop watching; they turn to things like piracy. We know that too. Canada already has some of the highest rates of piracy in the G7. This tax, of course, will make that worse.
That is not a victory for Canadian creators. If we listen to the debate in the House, one would think that this was all about Canadian creators. Instead, it is a self-inflicted wound on the country. Of course, Conservatives will strongly and loudly oppose all the new taxes from this place, from Ottawa, on struggling families. We understand that when government takes less, families keep more of what they earn, businesses can invest and grow, and people have the freedom to make choices themselves rather than having unelected bureaucrats make those choices for them. It is a very simple argument, and I am sure that by the end of today, the folks on that side will understand it.
There is a broader narrative at play here too. This decision reveals something about how the government thinks or what the government's values really are.
First, this new Netflix tax is being levied under the guise of supporting so-called content creators. In the abstract, I think we can all agree that having more things made in Canada is good. Telling Canadian stories is a good thing. It is better for us, and it is better for our country.
However, we should consider what the argument ignores. Drake, The Weeknd, Schitt's Creek and Letterkenny are some of the most celebrated Canadian cultural exports in a generation. Beloved here at home and around the world, they succeeded not because the regulator mandated their existence but because they were actually good. They were brilliant, in fact.
We should also consider this: If we are making this argument today, I think we have to be honest about it. Off Campus is the number one show on Prime Video right now. It is filmed in Vancouver. It is based on a Canadian author's book. It features music from a Canadian band. By every common-sense measure, it is a Canadian story told by Canadians, but under the CRTC's own rules, it does not qualify as Canadian content. Not a dollar of this new tax flows to productions like it.
What exactly are we funding? We are not funding the things that Canadians are actually watching. Remember, it is the number one show. Folks in the House might not know it because it is a young adult audience, but that is what people are watching and celebrating.
Instead, we are funding what Ottawa has decided counts. It is a distinction that says everything about who this policy actually serves.
Canadian stories cannot and will not succeed just because we have taxed our way to cultural relevance. They will succeed because those stories are worth telling and people want to hear them.
Second, these taxes effectively shield broadcasters like the CBC and CTV from competition, rather than nurturing the creators who actually need the help. Over and over again, every independent analysis has proven that these funds disproportionately flow to established government institutions, the ones with relationships and high-priced government access payrolls, not the independent YouTuber in Calgary, the podcaster in Halifax and the digital filmmaker in Winnipeg who are building audiences on their own terms. They are now being penalized by the very subsidies that go to their better-connected competitors. That structure is not a recipe for a healthy, competitive marketplace, and we have discussed that in the House time and time again. It is how the Liberal government protects its cronies at the expense of our cultural ecosystem, and it says that anybody who disagrees with it must not like culture.
On that point, there is one really big foreign entity taking a very keen interest in the signals that this is sending, and that is the United States government. Let us put it plainly: Taxing American streaming giants is a provocation. We know that. They have said that. In fact, the Prime Minister admitted that himself when he rescinded the digital services tax. That was a 3% tax. This is a 15% tax. How do members think that is going to go over with the Americans? By the way, the Prime Minister did not get a single concession for rescinding that tax when times got tough. In all of this, the retaliation could fall again, and it could fall on Canadian agriculture, on Canadian lumber or manufacturing. These are industries that also employ hundreds of thousands of Canadians, who are waiting with bated breath for something from negotiations that have not taken place since October.
The Prime Minister often says that we can control what we can control, and I agree. The choice to bring in these new taxes is an entirely controllable one. Why are we voluntarily picking another fight with our largest trading partner at exactly the moment at which Canadian businesses and workers need stability, as they deserve? That makes no sense. The policy itself makes no sense, but the timing makes even less sense. Now the members opposite will try to caricature our position on this. They will say that opposing this tax means opposing Canadian culture. That is a false choice on the floor of the House of Commons, and Canadians really deserve better than that lazy argument.
Conservatives believe in Canadian stories, the ones that are worth telling. We simply disagree about how to get there, because there is another way. Instead of taxing streaming platforms and hoping the money trickles down to creators, we could expand direct production tax credits that put resources in the hands of the writers, of the directors and of the producers, not the hands of the bureaucratic behemoths this is going to fund. Instead of regulations that protect legacy broadcasters from competition, we could invest in co-production treaties with our allies, such as New Zealand, the U.K. or Australia. This would open international markets to Canadian stories and give our content creators a massive market to tell their stories.
Schitt's Creek did not succeed because a regulator forced it into a content fund. It succeeded because it was brilliant, it was funny and people chose to watch it. Our job is to create an environment in which the next Schitt's Creek gets made, not to tax Netflix and declare victory for Canadian culture on the backs of Canadian families. The Liberals never seem to learn the lessons that Canadians already know instinctively: We cannot tax a country into prosperity. Families are not variables on a spreadsheet, and artists are not government programs.
Conservatives believe in a free people, free markets and free expression. This means we will say no to yet another misguided attempt by the government to overreach into our media markets on the backs of Canadian families and charge them a brand new Netflix tax they simply cannot afford. We say not today, and not ever.
Madam Speaker, there is a great deal of contrast on the CRTC issue between the Conservatives and the government of the day. Can the member provide some clarification on what today's right Conservative Party's position is on the CRTC? Does it believe that it has a role? It seems to me that the Conservative positioning is to get out of the way.
What is the Conservatives' position on the CRTC?
The Conservative position, Madam Speaker, is often for the Liberals to get out of the way and let Canadians decide.
The member opposite and the government are saying that the CRTC is an independent decision-maker, which is where this is all going, and that its hands are tied. That is simply not true. The government has the power today to issue a directive. It can set the decision to the side entirely by an order in council.
The Prime Minister does not have a regulatory problem with the CRTC. He has a spending and a taxing problem with respect to Canadian families. He can hide behind the CRTC all he wants, but what Canadians ought to know is that they are getting a new tax and the Liberals are controlling that.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I often hear the Conservatives in committee criticizing what they perceive as government influence over what goes on at CBC/Radio-Canada, the public broadcaster. They often condemn what they see as a kind of collusion or the idea that the public broadcaster acts as a mouthpiece for the Liberal government and its policies. They are entitled to that view.
However, if the Conservatives believe that the government is interfering in the operations of the public broadcaster, which is an independent body, then why would they ask the government to interfere in a decision recently handed down by the CRTC, which is also an independent body? This matter clearly falls within its jurisdiction, as it concerns the application of legislation passed by Parliament.
I wonder why there is a double standard in this case.
[English]
Madam Speaker, I think the member opposite knows that the position of the Conservatives is very clear on the funding to the CBC.
We are talking about what the Prime Minister does and does not have control over. That is very simple. We have a motion in the House right now to ask the government to rescind its decision. While we are at it, it can rescind the decisions on Bill C-11, which has not worked, and Bill C-18, which has taken news out of the hands of Canadians and blocked them from local journalism. We can do all of that with this motion and with future motions. There is no regulatory problem for the government here. It is imposing a tax on Canadians, and the exact thing we are arguing today is that it should take that tax off of Canadian families.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, here is what I want to know. The fourth point of the Conservative motion basically says that we are scared of Donald Trump, that we should lower the tax and overrule the CRTC's decision because we are scared of Donald Trump. The Liberals did just that last July. They repealed the digital services tax out of fear of Donald Trump. They believed they would get something in return. In the end, they got diddly-squat. I love that expression.
If it did not work for the Liberals, why do the Conservatives think it will work for them?
[English]
Madam Speaker, I am not sure where the member was going with that question, but I will highlight what he highlighted.
The Prime Minister went to Washington last year and rescinded a 3% digital sales tax, getting nothing in return. Now we see the Liberal government imposing a 15% tax, many more times than 3%, on Canadian families for watching streaming services that the CRTC does not even count as Canadian content. It makes no sense. It makes no sense in our negotiations—
Madam Speaker, at a time when Canadians are barely getting by, here we are introducing another tax. I hear from residents all over my community about how they are barely getting by.
I also have a very vibrant arts community in Kitchener Centre. I would like my colleague to dive a little deeper into the Conservative solution on how we could better support our arts industry, rather than adding another tax that Canadians cannot afford.
Madam Speaker, I think the Liberals often confuse spending and protecting. The Weeknd, James Carroll, Lorne Michaels and Saturday Night Live did not come from the CRTC content fund. What protects Canadian culture and talent is the freedom to compete. We will continue standing up for Canadian creators and their freedom to compete and express themselves.
Madam Speaker, the Liberal government must reject the CRTC's massive increase imposed on our online streaming platforms such as Netflix, Disney+, Amazon Prime Video and Apple TV, an increase sometimes referred to as the “Netflix tax.”
The government may try to frame this as a technical broadcasting adjustment, but Canadians know what it really means. It means higher costs and another blow to affordability at a time when families are already struggling. The government could not even contain itself from taxing at-home leisure.
The CRTC has now increased the required contribution from major streaming services from 5% to 15% of Canadian revenues, tripling the burden imposed on these companies. The 15% levy now places Canada among the most expensive countries in the world for streaming services to operate in.
Let us be honest, business and Canadians do not operate alone or in a vacuum. When the Liberal government increases costs, those costs do not simply disappear. They erode the quality of leisure for hard-working Canadians.
The Liberal government will, of course, avoid answering a very simple economic question: Who ultimately pays for this massive increase in costs? There are only two possible outcomes. Either streaming platforms decide Canada is becoming too expensive and not worth investing in, or they pass the high costs directly on to Canadian consumers. In both cases, Canadians lose.
If productions move elsewhere, Canada loses jobs, investment and economic activity. This industry is highly mobile. Streaming companies can produce content almost anywhere in the world. Governments everywhere are competing aggressively to attract these productions, because they generate high-quality jobs and billions of dollars in economic activity.
Why is the government increasing costs at a time when Canada is already struggling to attract investment? Canada already has a growing reputation internationally for being expensive, over-regulated and increasingly difficult to do business in. We have already seen capital leaving sectors such as energy, manufacturing and resource development. This policy discourages investment in Canada and is particularly damaging for major film and television production hubs like Vancouver and Toronto.
If the government believes companies will simply pass the costs on to consumers, then let us call the policy what it really is, which is an indirect tax on Canadians. The Liberals may insist this is not technically a tax because the money does not flow directly into government revenue, but if government policy deliberately increases costs for companies and companies then raise prices for consumers, the effect on Canadians is exactly the same: Families pay more. Whether it appears on a tax form or on a monthly streaming bill, it is still more money coming out of the pockets of Canadians during a cost of living crisis.
The Liberals may argue that the increase per household is small, but Canadians are tired of being told every increase is small. A few dollars more for streaming, a few dollars more for groceries, a few dollars more for fuel and a few dollars more for utilities, and eventually, those small increases become a major burden for families already living paycheque to paycheque. The total amount involved is not small.
Reports indicate the new framework could extract hundreds of millions of additional dollars annually from the Canadian market, potentially approaching $600 million overall in contribution obligations. That is money Canadians could otherwise spend in the broader economy. That money could go toward groceries, restaurants, children's clothing, mortgage payments or supporting small businesses.
Instead, the Liberals are squeezing more money out of consumers during a cost of living crisis.
While the government talks about supporting industry, these platforms are already major contributors to the Canadian economy. Netflix alone has stated that, between 2021 and 2024, its activities generated approximately $6.5 billion in economic impact in Canada. These productions support thousands of jobs: camera operators, editors, visual effects artists, drivers, construction workers, caterers and countless small businesses connected to film production.
This is especially important for major urban centres, such as Vancouver and Toronto, where the screen production industry has become a major economic engine. Netflix recently opened Netflix Animation Studios in Vancouver, creating more than 450 jobs in the city and bringing significant investment into British Columbia.
This issue matters deeply to my riding of Richmond Centre—Marpole. Richmond and the broader Metro Vancouver region are directly connected to British Columbia's growing film and streaming industry. Many residents in my community work directly or indirectly in these sectors. In Richmond alone, filming activities take place almost every day of the year. When productions expand, jobs are created. When investments slow, local workers and businesses feel the consequences.
Conservatives believe Canada should be a country that attracts investment, rewards innovation and creates jobs. However, once again, the Liberals are moving in the opposite direction. Every time a sector becomes successful, this government seeks another opportunity to impose higher costs and heavier regulations. At a time when Canada desperately needs economic growth, productivity and investor confidence, this government is making Canada less competitive. Canadians are the ones who will pay the price, through fewer jobs, less investment or higher monthly bills.
This increase is the wrong policy at the wrong time. Canadians deserve affordability. Canadians deserve economic opportunity. Canadians deserve a government that understands growth cannot come from squeezing more money out of consumers and businesses.
Conservatives will continue standing up for affordability, investment, jobs and common sense.
Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting learning process in terms of what the Conservative members have been speaking about this morning. There is definitely a reaffirmation in terms of a lack of commitment to the CBC, as an example, and reaffirming their commitment to take away financing. When I asked the former speaker about their position on the CRTC and its future here in Canada, that question was sidestepped.
I am very much interested in trying to flush out the Conservative position on the CRTC as an arm's-length organization of the Government of Canada. Does the member or does the Conservative Party support the CRTC in general?
Mr. Speaker, let us see who is sidestepping here.
From 2021 up to now, we have seen numerous occasions where the government intervened with decisions made by the CRTC. Now the Liberals are trying to hide behind the argument that the CRTC is an arm's-length organization.
Let us be clear. We are not talking about the CRTC's mandate here today. We are talking about affordability and the burden on the people with this increase in levy.
Let me ask a simple question: Does the government agree that this increase would impose an additional burden on the people? Also, will the government support this additional burden on the people?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the area I come from, the Sudbury area, has actually become a pretty major Ontario film hub over the last 10 to 15 years, namely for Shoresy, which is a spinoff of Letterkenny.
How does my colleague think this increase in tax will impact our communities and what damage might it do?
Mr. Speaker, I think my city and his riding are in a similar situation. We have a growing film industry, and we are creating jobs and economic activities in our community, which is very beneficial to people. I think we have to keep this economic growth going.
If this kind of levy is imposed on companies creating jobs for our communities, I think it will hurt people. We have to safeguard and encourage the film industry, and not have it destroyed by this kind of additional cost for businesses.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, by claiming that standing up for culture is a trade irritant, as the Conservatives do in point (iv) of their motion, they are also giving up on linguistic and cultural diversity and, above all, accepting English American culture as the standard.
If the Conservatives do not have that cultural sensitivity, is it because they have already embraced that standard?
Is it because, for them, the culture we are talking about is the U.S. culture?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the comments that my Bloc colleague made earlier that the Liberals are a major threat to the cultural sector in Canada. Imposing that kind of levy with an increase is not going to make the cultural sector stronger.
Also, I believe we are focusing too much on Trump. We are talking about our own production and our own film industry in our country. Very often, Trump is being used as an excuse or as a defence, which again sidesteps the issue.
We have to encourage investments coming into our country for the cultural sector, so that those investments and their efficiency through competition will make Canada's culture be more widely broadcast, not by government intervention, but by the market economy.
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Milton East—Halton Hills South.
I am pleased to rise today to speak against this motion and in support of broadcasting systems that continue to invest in Canadian workers, Canadian creativity and Canadian economic growth. Despite the rhetoric we have heard today, this debate is not truly about the so-called streaming tax. In fact, it is about whether the global streaming giants, which earn substantial revenues from Canadian audiences, should contribute in a fair and reasonable way to the Canadian broadcasting and production ecosystem from which they benefit.
That principle is neither radical nor new. For decades, companies participating in Canada's broadcasting system have contributed financially to the creation and presentation of the Canadian programming on which they rely. Those contributions 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, in addition to digital and interactive media. Talented Canadians from coast to coast to coast work on productions viewed around the globe. Our studios are full, our crews are world-class, and our creators are winning international awards. This success did not happen by accident. It happened because successive governments and regulators understood that Canadian stories and Canadian production capacity matter economically, as well as culturally.
The motion before the House, in my opinion, ignores that reality. It frames contributions to Canadian programming as though they are simply a burden or a penalty, but these contributions are investments. They are investments in jobs, infrastructure, intellectual property, skills development and economic activity across this country. Not only that, but expenditures on Canadian programming are not a punishment. They are not being asked to shovel money into a bottomless pit. We are asking them to invest in some of the best programming in the world. We are asking them to continue to make some of the great shows that we talked about here today: Shoresy, Heated Rivalry and North of North. We want more of that. They cannot argue that the programming being made in Canada is unworthy of their services.
The screen-based production sector supports hundreds of thousands of direct and indirect jobs in Canada. These are not abstract jobs. They are good-paying, highly skilled jobs held by Canadians in every region of this country. They include camera operators, lighting technicians, sound engineers, visual effects artists, editors, costume designers, set builders, location managers, caterers, truck drivers, musicians, actors, writers, producers, translators and post-production specialists.
The economic impact extends well beyond the production set itself. When productions film in a community, they rent hotel rooms, use local restaurants, contract transportation companies and use facilities throughout the community they are filming in. I can attest to this. Little Lorraine, a movie that was filmed on Cape Breton Island, was a huge success at the box office, but in terms of economic development, it provided a boost to the Cape Breton Regional Municipality. In cities like Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal, the production industry has become a major economic engine, but places like Cape Breton Island have been home to many movies. Again, what it contributes, not just to the economy of the country, not just to the regional economy, but to the local economy, is quite substantial.
This is why the framework established under the Online Streaming Act matters. The world has changed dramatically since the original Broadcasting Act was drafted. Traditional broadcasters continue to contribute to Canadian content obligations while facing increasing competition from large foreign streaming services that dominate audience share and subscription revenues. The problem the legislation sought to address was straightforward: The regulatory system has not kept pace with technological change. Canadians are increasingly consuming programming online rather than through conventional broadcasting platforms, yet the contribution framework that historically applied primarily to Canadian broadcasters is still an item.
This imbalance is not sustainable. If Canadian broadcasters are required to contribute to Canadian programming while foreign streaming platforms generating significant Canadian revenues are exempt, eventually the financial foundation supporting Canadian production begins to erode.
Contributions to broadcasting systems are not new, and they are not unique to Canada. Many countries around the world require streaming services to contribute to domestic production ecosystems. Jurisdictions across Europe, for example, have adopted similar frameworks to ensure that local production sectors remain viable in the digital era. Despite these obligations, global streaming companies continue to invest heavily in these markets. Why? Companies invest where there is talent, stability, infrastructure and opportunity.
Canada, our country, offers all of those things. We have world-class crews. We have globally respected creative talent. We have competitive production environments. We have advanced visual effects and post-production sectors. We have strong educational institutions producing those skilled workers. Importantly, we have a long-established production ecosystem built through decades of public and private investment.
I think today we have heard some really interesting dialogue in terms of the focus here. The focus is obviously on affordability when dealing with the Americans. We are focused on that. I could go through the measures we have produced and the ones we are working on, but we also have to look at the creative arts as a major force of economic development. It is essential. I see it first-hand on Cape Breton Island. I have seen the impact it has had on the economy. I have seen the impact it has had on families and jobs. We need to look at this not as an ideological argument, but one of economic development, one where we are not just protecting the creative arts but focused on enhancing them.
With that, I yield the floor.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my Liberal colleague's speech. He is telling us that the Liberals want to defend culture. From the beginning, the Liberals' argument about the Conservative motion has been that they cannot intervene in the CRTC's decisions, since it is an independent body.
The logical question is this: If they cannot intervene, that is one thing, but if they had the power to intervene, what would they do? Would they ask the CRTC to reverse that decision or not?
That is the important question. Their answer will tell me whether or not they are protectors of culture.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I would put all that power into this one Cape Bretoner, because all the production would happen on Cape Breton Island. I will say that the main focus of this government is not just on protecting this sector and those jobs and movies that take place in Quebec, Manitoba or Cape Breton, but enhancing them. Where we are focused is how we build equity and fairness into the system to ensure that these companies, the actors and all of those skilled people I talked about recently are given a leg up. That is what we are going to be focused on.
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, the filming industry in my area, in Sudbury, managed to come about and grow because of tax credits, incentives and so on.
I listened to the member, and I would like to ask him whether he is for or against this tax.
Mr. Speaker, I think the fundamental, foundational piece here is what I just mentioned about equity and fairness. Where we need to focus is how we reinvest in our own people, our own talent and our own ability. I want to see more movies and shows in Sudbury, where I have not been, but I hope to go. I want to see more of that.
What we need to do is continuously focus on this: where the equity is not there, to make sure it is there. That is what a sound government does, and that is what a responsible government will do.
Mr. Speaker, Conservatives often go to great lengths in the House to speak about eliminating all taxes. As a member from rural Canada, could the member explain what impact it would have on many development opportunities in rural areas if the government was not there to support economic opportunity all across this country?
Mr. Speaker, I will go back to what I said earlier. The fact of the matter is that if we just make this an argument about ideology, conspiracy theories and trickle-down economics, we are missing the point. The fact is that government does have a role to support: not to be the sage on the stage, but to be a guide on the side. That is what good governments do. They allow those production companies and those movies to know what we know here in Canada: that we have the best actors, production crews and companies in the world.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I did not get an answer to a question that was quite straightforward and specific. I am going to give my colleague another chance to answer a very specific question.
The Liberal government scrapped the digital services tax on July 1, 2025. I would like my hon. colleague to tell me what the government got in return for repealing that tax.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I would be remiss not to say, “Go, Habs, go.” I know we are down 3-1, but I think we are going to come back, and I hope we do.
The reality is that sometimes we have to pivot, not just in politics but in the economic realm. What we are not going to pivot on is supporting an industry that is so important to Canada: the fine arts, the creative arts and the film industry. We are going to be there in lockstep.
Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Milton East—Halton Hills South.
Today I rise to speak in support of the Online Streaming Act and its implementation by the CRTC.
On May 21, 2026, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission released two regulatory policies implementing Bill C‑11, the Online Streaming Act. Those rulings focused on a modernized framework for Canadian programming expenditures, the discoverability of Canadian content, and support for television services of exceptional importance. The CRTC decision reduced the obligations on Canadian companies that are losing market share, while imposing for the first time Canadian expenditure requirements on streaming companies. The CRTC struck a balance between those producing Canadian television and those of us who watch it. The decision creates a fair, flexible and adaptable framework that supports Canadian artists and the growth of Canadian creative industries.
I am not here to defend the CRTC's decision. Rather, I am here to talk about the important work of future-proofing the Canadian broadcasting sector, which started almost a decade ago. This recent CRTC ruling is just one milestone, significant as it is, in a long journey to modernize the Canadian broadcasting system. It is the culmination of several years of work from legislators in this very House and the CRTC.
Let us take a look back. As members know, the Online Streaming Act was the first major reform of the Broadcasting Act since 1991. Thirty-five years ago, Canada was still building its place in the global screen sector. We were still fighting for space and recognition.
[Translation]
Today, Canada has one of the strongest and most respected audiovisual ecosystems in the world. It includes film and television, animation and documentaries and, increasingly, digital and interactive content. We are a global production hub, we develop world-class talent and we have built institutions that have supported generations of creators. This is a source of pride. Canada has one of the strongest audiovisual sectors in the world, and that did not happen by accident.
[English]
Our culture is the result of deliberate decisions made by Canadians to support it, and the Broadcasting Act is no exception. It is an essential cultural legislative text. Thanks to this system, generations of Canadians have grown up listening to Canadian music on the radio and watching Canadian shows and films on television. A distinctly Canadian space allows us to share our stories in order to better understand each other and to better grasp what it means to be Canadian.
Before the Broadcasting Act was modernized, we were clearly at an inflection point. The industry was evolving faster than our policy frameworks were designed for. Business models were upended. Audiences were fragmenting. Technology was transforming how content is created, financed, distributed and discovered. That pace of change was not slowing down.
As the revenues of traditional radio and television broadcasters stagnated and declined, so did the level of support for Canadian music and stories, and for the creative professionals behind them. Changing viewing habits put the future of Canadian audiovisual content at risk, as audiences moved away from traditional broadcasters, who are subject to Canadian content requirements, toward foreign, largely United States-based online streaming services. These streaming platforms had no obligation to support Canadian content, until the Broadcasting Act was updated by the Online Streaming Act.
Let us review the role of CRTC.
[Translation]
Through the Online Streaming Act, the government sought to give the CRTC the powers and tools needed to regulate online broadcasters fairly, including by imposing regulatory requirements by way of conditions of service.
[English]
The act established the foundations for all service providers, including streaming services, to contribute fairly to the broadcasting system. Canadian studios and creators should not be disadvantaged. Canadian culture deserves a supportive and conducive environment for its flourishing both online and off-line. This is what the Online Streaming Act has made possible.
How were the online streaming services brought into the system in the first place? The Online Streaming Act modernized the Broadcasting Act by confirming that online broadcasters are subject to Canada's regulatory framework. In November 2023, the government issued policy directions to guide the CRTC during its implementation of the Online Streaming Act. Those directions required the CRTC to ensure that streaming services would make meaningful contributions to the broadcasting system and that there would be robust consultation with industry stakeholders and civil society.
Since that time, the CRTC launched several consultations and conducted public hearings to gather input on various aspects of the Online Streaming Act implementation, with a view to modernizing the broadcasting regulatory framework in the public interest.
[Translation]
Canadian programming should be widely available on streaming platforms. The Online Streaming Act ensures that Canadian stories and music are supported and showcased on major streaming platforms operating in Canada, alongside the significant volume of U.S. and foreign content available on these services.
[English]
The growth of online streaming services has opened the door to an unprecedented range of content choices for Canadians, yet in this vast digital landscape, Canadian stories and creators can be difficult to discover and recognize. The Online Streaming Act helps ensure that Canadian voices, music and shows remain visible and accessible to audiences across the country.
Supporting the discoverability of Canadian content is not just about entertainment. It is about reflecting our experiences, our perspectives and our identities to Canadians. When people can see themselves in the stories being told, it helps strengthen a stronger sense of connection, pride and belonging. The implementation of the Online Streaming Act aims to support the long-term viability of the Canadian broadcasting system while strengthening our cultural sovereignty in a rapidly evolving digital environment.
Canada is a hub of creativity, innovation and exceptional emerging talent. It is essential that our creators and cultural industries continue to have the opportunity to grow and succeed. Achieving this goal requires a modern and fair framework in which all broadcasting services operating in Canada contribute equitably to the Canadian broadcasting system and support the creation and promotion of Canadian stories and music.
Traditional broadcasters already contribute to Canadian productions, from the development of Canadian programs through Canadian programming expenditure requirements and through contributions to production funds. However, until the recent CRTC decision, online broadcasters operated in the Canadian market without similar obligations to support Canadian music and stories. Canadian broadcasters have delivered incredible Canadian content for decades. They invested in the system and helped create the content that so many of us love. It is only fair that online streaming platforms should have to contribute in an equitable way.
As the CRTC continues to implement the Online Streaming Act, the ultimate goal remains unchanged: to ensure that the approach is comprehensive, fair, evidence-based and compliant with international business obligations. The Online Streaming Act is a cornerstone of our approach to enabling Canadian creators to thrive in a modernized broadcasting system. This remains a priority for our country.
[Translation]
The government remains committed to the Broadcasting Act and its objectives. We want to ensure that our children and future generations grow up as we did, with the opportunity to watch our stories and listen to our songs. Entertainment is how we share experiences, emotions and ideas. It is what allows us to build a shared culture and identity.
[English]
Today we have a world-class audiovisual industry, one that creates extraordinary content, supports over a hundred thousand well-paying jobs across the country and contributes in a major way to our economy. Canada's artists, creators and cultural entrepreneurs are at the heart of our identity. Their work drives innovation, creates jobs and ensures that Canadian stories are heard at home and around the world. We are telling Canadian stories that travel. We build intellectual property here at home.
Those stories are increasingly one of our most valuable cultural and economic assets. That is important because this is not just cultural expression anymore. It is an export, and it is a key part of how Canada diversifies its economy in a rapidly changing global environment.
The Online Streaming Act equips our broadcasting system to meet the known and immediate challenges of today and to help brace for the challenges of tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her description of the excellence, the talent and the workforce that have been created.
I had the pleasure of working for the Ontario government in 1995 when we came forward with the Ontario film and tax credit. We have generous tax credits provincially and federally, which have allowed the excellence of that industry to grow. However, does the member not think that the ruling from the CRTC, the penalizing of the revenues up to 15% and the tax that will flow because of it, lead to penalizing the industry and to the loss of jobs and expertise? It is a competitive business. Production companies are being told to go to the United States.
Would we lose because of this move?
Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Milton East—Halton Hills South, there has actually been quite an active growth in film production, and we want to keep it going.
First, I would comment that my colleague might want to review the legal definition of what a tax is. This is not in fact a tax. It is a Canadian programming expenditure. Second, as far as encouraging film and production goes, yes, it is definitely important that we incentivize, but it is also important that we level the playing field so Canadian artists have the ability to have their stories heard and have their stories reach us in our living rooms at home.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech.
[Translation]
As a francophone, I would like to know how Bill C-11 will help protect and promote the work and artistic creations of francophone artists.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
[English]
Certainly, a big feature of what the CRTC is trying to do is highlight, encourage and elevate the voices of Canadians, including indigenous, regional and certainly francophone artists as well.
I will just mention that I am learning French, as is probably evident from my speech, and as I was raising my children at home, often I would be able to turn on Canadian television and they could watch French cartoons, such as Caillou. Does everyone remember Caillou? I actually started learning French that way as well. I think it is very important that we continue to elevate the voices of our francophone artists. They are a true, central part of our Canadian identity. It is important that they be protected and allowed to thrive.
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is a relatively new member of the House.
[Translation]
I want to congratulate my colleague on her French. I think she has improved considerably. That is something I had to work on as well. My goal is still to become truly bilingual.
[English]
Online streaming, as the member said, is a relatively new concept. Those of us who are older, and I will put myself in that category, did not grow up with the concept. We would not have known what anyone was talking about. We had television, and the big innovation when I was a kid was that we could get it in colour.
I want to ask this again. What I am wondering, given that the changes are so rapid, is this: What does the member believe is the most important thing we can do to ensure that the big online streaming platforms hire more Canadian talent, hire more Canadian actors and pay them at scale instead of lesser wages while they bring in U.S. stars to sprinkle the programming?
Mr. Speaker, my colleague's French is certainly better than mine, and I hope to speak as well as she does one day soon.
Absolutely, it is important that we continue to encourage Canadian talent to be highlighted, and I have mentioned this in some of my other remarks. We have had some great programs lately that have really gotten us a lot of international attention, and we want to keep that up.
I think the government's role is to continue to level the playing field, to continue to incentivize producers to continue producing within Canada, but at the same time to make the message clear that we want Canadian content at the forefront and for it to be encouraged and lifted up. I think the way we do that is to continue doing what we are doing, to incentivize, but also to make sure that the fairness is there for our Canadian artists. I would encourage everyone to get out this weekend to take in some Canadian content to help with that.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak about the recent CRTC decision, what it means for the ongoing trade relationship between Canada and the United States, and both how this decision will directly hit Canadians at home and its broader implications on negotiations on 232 tariffs and CUSMA.
I first want to address the first point of defence that the government uses, which is that this is not a government decision but a CRTC decision. This is a gross mis-characterization of the process. The CRTC's own press release clearly indicates that the decision is a direct result of the organization's attempt to meet criteria set out in legislation introduced and passed by the government. The CRTC presser acknowledges:
The CRTC is taking important steps to implement the modernized Broadcasting Act (the Act) by updating how Canadian and Indigenous content is supported and made available.
The Act requires the CRTC to modernize Canada’s broadcasting framework and ensure that online broadcasters make meaningful contributions to Canadian and Indigenous content.
That instruction came in the last Parliament, under Bill C‑11, the Online Streaming Act. I will remind the House that Conservatives raised objections to this legislation, including to its potential impact to CUSMA negotiations, months prior to the U.S. election. We voted against the legislation specifically because of our concerns of impacts to the trading relationship between Canada and the U.S. even during the Biden administration and before the current administration's battery of unjust and unfair tariffs was levied against Canadian industry.
Outside the House, we were not alone in our concerns. In June 2024, in a meeting with the international trade committee, Dr. Meredith Lilly, associate professor and Simon Reisman chair in international economic policy at Carleton University in Ottawa, stated in her opening remarks:
...implementing CUSMA in good faith also means not adopting legislation and regulatory measures that contravene CUSMA and antagonize the Americans. For example, on digital trade, the Online Streaming Act would be in violation of the chapter of CUSMA on digital trade were it not for Canada's cultural exemption. Similarly, unilateral action by Canada to introduce a digital services tax would discriminate against large U.S. firms. We should be prepared for U.S. retaliation if these measures are enacted, and Canadian lawmakers should be aware of the damaging consequences for the broader CUSMA review process.
Similarly, Sean Heather, senior vice-president for international regulatory affairs and antitrust at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, stated:
Consequently, Americans find it ironic that Bill C‑11 specifically targets U.S. companies in a manner that may violate Canada's international trading obligations, including those under CUSMA. This action appears to contravene commitments that guarantee a minimal standard of treatment, require equal treatment of foreigners and local enterprises, and obligate Canada to refrain from imposing certain performance requirements on foreign direct investment.
While addressing a press conference in 1947, standing alongside Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, President Harry Truman said, “The record proves that in peaceful commerce the combined efforts of our countries can produce outstanding results. Our trade with each other is far greater than that of any other two nations on earth.”
Everyone was telling not just the government but all members of the House that the Online Streaming Act would have a negative effect on CUSMA talks. Now we have the added issue of tariff negotiations as well, and all of this is just for the initial 5%.
Bill C-11 gave the CRTC the power to do what it is doing. As a result, that 5% has now tripled to 15%, and the timing could not have been worse. The Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade is heading down to Washington to negotiate with our American counterparts, which is a difficult prospect on the best of days. Now he has to contend with a regulatory body's recently tripling what the Americans have viewed since 2024 as a trade irritant.
I will be quite candid. I would love for the minister to succeed. There would be no member of the House happier than me if he came home with a paper in hand that ends the 232 tariffs sets the groundwork for a successful CUSMA review, but decisions like the recent CRTC announcement make it unnecessarily harder for him, especially considering that the initial levy is still being argued before the courts. We need, collectively, to set him up to succeed, not to fail. Supporting the decision by the CRTC, and refusing to accept responsibility for giving it the authority and mandate to do what everyone warned it would do, is not supporting the minister in his duties but actively torpedoing him.
I would also like to take the opportunity to head off the argument that by opposing this tax hike, and tax in general, we are attacking Canadian and indigenous media and content producers. This is simply false. The government has innumerable ways to help out these sectors financially. The only thing we are saying is to not create an additional irritant in a trillion-dollar relationship in order to get there.
I have the perfect solution. The CRTC estimates that the tax will mean $2 billion in revenue. I know how we can supplement that for the next 45 years, and it will not cost the government a single cent of additional committed funding: cancel the $90-billion Alto high-speed rail vanity project. Using public funds to unite Canadians through media, among a dozen other concerns, is a far better use of taxpayers' dollars than paying for a project that no one asked for and that will involve the permanent expropriation of private lands and tear rural communities asunder.
Naturally, yes, I am singling out the Alto high-speed rail project because it is topical and relevant to my riding, but the broader point is that there are a number of programs or revenue-raising mechanisms that can be used instead of a tax on these digital service providers.
What gets lost in these conversations is the reality of these investments in Canada. These companies, while American-owned, provide economic benefits alongside Canadian digital service providers. They provided $4.6 billion in 2024-25 and were responsible for 86% of foreign productions that year. They support an estimated 85,000 Canadian jobs, and of course, they are not happy. Motion Picture Association CEO Charles Rivkin issued a statement on this matter, which in part reads, “This burdensome framework unfairly targets global streamers with requirements that directly violate Canada's obligations under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.... The decision also undermines the open, market-based system that has helped fuel investment, job creation, and creative partnerships across North America”.
It is important to remember that these concerns about Bill C-11, which led to the recent CRTC decisions affecting the Canada-U.S. relationship, predated the Trump administration. They predated elbows up. They predated the current trade war.
It may feel great to some listeners to dismiss the importance of this relationship and say to move on. If they are not willing to listen to the economic argument against that, I would encourage them to think about what that means for their daughter-in-law who works in the local steel mill, their father who is on the line at the auto plant or their sister who is working at the pulp mill. Their economic well-being, as well as the livelihoods of the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who depend on the nearly $1 trillion of trade that flows between our two nations annually, is the cost of that good feeling. As a legislator, I am not prepared to pay that cost.
Speaking to the importance and defence of Canada-U.S. trade is not a defence of or attack against any one administration, Democrat, Republican, Liberal or Conservative. It is a plea to cut through the rhetoric and noise and to repair and reinvigorate the relationship between our two great nations. We as legislators need to think beyond the current news cycle. We need to plan for 10, 20, 50 and 100 years into the future. Yes, that means diversification, but as the Prime Minister himself recently said, that also means deeper integration while building fortress North America.
Leaders on both sides of the border cannot change that one part proximity, but we need certainty to change everything we can to restore those nine parts goodwill and common sense. Getting rid of this tax hike is certainly a step in the right direction.
Mr. Speaker, one of the principal arguments that the Conservatives are using is that what the independent body of the CRTC is proposing is having such a profound impact that it is not worth protecting our industry. The industry I am referring to is our arts industry, which creates and has literally tens of thousands of jobs, directly and indirectly. They are trying to blame it all in regard to the United States. I think we have a responsibility to protect our industries as we go through the negotiations.
We will strive to get the best deal for Canada, first and foremost. We understand that two and a half million Canadians rely on exports to the United States. There is a multitude of different policies that we are putting into place to protect those jobs and to grow our industries, but—
I have to interrupt the parliamentary secretary to give the member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga a chance to respond.
Mr. Speaker, very boldly, I will reiterate for the record, the USTR warned Canada again and again not to institute this Netflix tax. The USTR, Ambassador Jamieson Greer, in testimony to the ways and means committee of the U.S. Congress, specifically cited the implementation of the Online Streaming Act as a trade irritant, and I can attach that for the record in the House of Commons.
We in the House have to acknowledge that this is a big picture. We cannot get caught up in the noise and the rhetoric. This is significant information and data that needs to be addressed, and this is a careless act by the government.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, this is outrageous. I do not know if the Conservatives realize that their motion is an insult to Quebeckers and francophones. I hope they have talked to their Quebec colleagues, because this motion is insulting. Essentially, they are saying that we francophones are an international trade irritant.
Ask anyone what the difference is between English-speaking Canadian culture and American culture, and they will say that there is no difference. They watch the same movies and listen to the same music. Ask a francophone, and the answer will be very different.
That is what the member is saying even though we are the ones bearing the brunt of the U.S. tariffs on aluminum and lumber. On top of that, they have the nerve to tell us that our culture is an irritant. If I were them, I would be ashamed.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I will acknowledge that American film and television production supported an estimated 85,000 Canadian jobs in 2024-25, which is more than two and a half times the combined direct workforce of Canada's steel industry of 23,000 and aluminum industry of 9,800.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a wonderful member of Parliament and a passionate public servant.
Canadians are already struggling with rising costs. Every industry is struggling to survive. Now the Liberal government wants to make streaming services more expensive through its so-called streaming tax. Why is the government punishing families with another tax while affordability is already challenging for Canadian families?
Mr. Speaker, every single time I am back in the riding and throughout the weeks when I am serving the people in the House of Commons in Ottawa, I continuously listen to the concerns of Canadians. In concert with working on the file as shadow minister of Canada-U.S. trade, I am continuously reminded of the hardships that Canadians are facing, especially in the industries affected by the tariffs and the pending CUSMA review.
July 1 is a benchmark, but we need to move forward with specific action. We need to lose the rhetoric, lose the noise, get to the table and have a conversation. Mexico is at the table. Mexico is having a conversation.
I urge the Minister of Canada-U.S. Trade to do what he does best, to sit down and work this out, in coordination with a willing shadow minister of Canada-U.S. trade. We are able to work together. We have a lot of people at the table, a lot of stakeholders with a lot of expertise, who are willing to make this work. Let us get it done.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are stretched thin. They are paying more for groceries, more for gas, more for rent, more for everything. Now the Liberals want them to pay more to stream their favourite shows and movies online. With this new policy, the CRTC is ordering online streaming services like Netflix and Disney to pay more of their annual Canadian revenues to fund Canadian content.
It is not the first time the Liberals have tried to do this. Under the Liberals, the CRTC introduced a 5% tax on revenues. That tax is being challenged and is still before the courts. Now it wants to increase the tax from 5% to 15%, and that is wrong. Let us call it what it is: This is a streaming tax. A tax is a tax is a tax. Canadians know exactly what happens next. Big corporations simply do not absorb new costs. They pass them on to consumers. That means higher monthly bills for Canadian families who are already struggling with the cost of living crisis the Liberal government created.
The Liberals can try to dress this up in bureaucratic language. They can call it a contribution, and they can call it modernization, but Canadians know better. If it walks like a tax and costs like a tax, it is a tax. Canadians can smell a rat, and they can smell a tax too. This Liberal tax will drive up the cost of living for all Canadians who have to shell out for online streaming services. This is just another example of a government that believes Canadians are somehow undertaxed.
Conservatives have always believed in letting Canadians keep more of their own money in their own pockets. By contrast, the Liberals are always the ones with their hands in Canadians' pockets. We have repeatedly called on the government to remove all taxes on gasoline and diesel at the pumps to give some measure of tax relief to beleaguered Canadians. Unfortunately, the Liberals have only responded with half measures, including taking off a few cents a litre in taxes, but we know more can be done.
After 11 years of the Liberal government, life has become more expensive. Mortgage payments have doubled for many families. Food inflation has hammered household budgets. Food bank usage has doubled since 2019 to nearly 2.2 million visits per month. One in four Canadian kids now go to school hungry. Canadians are struggling. At the same time, interest rates have soared. Why? It is because the government fuelled that inflation with its reckless spending. The Prime Minister has doubled Justin Trudeau's deficit, which was $31 billion. This allegedly new and improved leader has a projected deficit of $65 billion.
Now the Liberals want to make our entertainment more expensive too. Canadians use streaming services because they want choice, convenience and affordability, and the Liberals are threatening all three. The Liberals have already pushed through the Online Streaming Act. Conservatives warned that bill would open the door to more government control, more CRTC interference and more costs for consumers. We were right. The Liberals claimed ordinary Canadians would not be affected, but now we see the consequences. We see the higher costs. We know there is more red tape. Ultimately, we know it is due to more government meddling. It is the same old Liberal platform: tax, spend, repeat.
This decision also sends the wrong message to investors. Canada should be attracting investment, not driving it away. Businesses need certainty. They need competitiveness. They need a government that understands economic growth. Instead, under the Liberal government, all they get is endless regulation, escalating costs and unpredictable markets. Why would companies invest more in Canada when the Liberal government keeps moving the goalposts? Why would innovators choose Canada when they are punished with higher fees and heavier regulation?
Conservatives believe in supporting Canadian culture, but we do not strengthen it by punishing investment, driving up costs and undermining economic growth. This decision creates uncertainty at the worst possible time. Canada's economy is already weak. Productivity is declining. Investment is lagging behind our competitors. Businesses are leaving. This 15% tax hike places Canada among the most expensive operating jurisdictions in the world for streaming services. Put simply, it discourages business investment in Canada and will further devastate Canadian film and television production hubs like Vancouver and Toronto.
In the face of declining capital, the Liberals are responding the only way they know how, with another tax hike for already struggling Canadians. That is backward and Conservatives will stand against it.
This decision also risks damaging Canada's relationship with the United States ahead of a CUSMA review. At a time when we should be reducing trade tensions, the Liberals are creating new trade irritants. The U.S. ambassador to Canada said, “CRTC’s decision to triple the tax rate on leading streaming services is making a bad situation worse. CRTC is targeting and taxing U.S. companies, putting up new, discriminatory trade barriers, and worsening the investment climate for American businesses.”
That is exactly what the government is doing: making a bad situation worse.
While we are on the topic, how are those trade talks going? I remember that, for the first Canada-U.S. trade deal under Justin Trudeau, there were discussions many months in advance. The true irony of this is that the new Prime Minister sold himself to Canadians as the man who could get a deal with Mr. Trump by July 2025. Obviously, that failed. I am pessimistic about his ability to get a new trade deal anytime soon, especially when his government is increasing tensions between our countries with more needless taxation. That is just irresponsible. The United States has already raised concerns about discriminatory digital taxes and regulatory measures targeting American companies.
The Liberals should be working to strengthen North American trade, not weaken it. Our economy depends on stable and predictable trade relationships. The government should not be picking fights with our largest trading partner just to satisfy its ideological obsession with big government. It is not just American organizations that are against this tax hike. It has also faced criticism from Canadian domestic screenwriters and creators, including the Writers Guild of Canada.
Conservatives believe in lower taxes. We believe Canadians should keep more of their own money. We believe government should spend within its means, instead of driving up its deficit and constantly reaching deeper into Canadians' pockets. We believe consumers, not bureaucrats, should decide what Canadians watch online. The streaming tax is costly, careless and completely unnecessary. That is why we are calling on the Liberals to reject the CRTC's decision. The government has the authority to act. It should eliminate this streaming tax before Canadians are forced to pay the price. Canadians cannot afford more Liberal taxes. They cannot afford more inflation. They certainly cannot afford another Liberal government cash grab disguised as cultural policy.
Conservatives will continue fighting for affordability, for taxpayers and for common sense.
Mr. Speaker, it is the independent, arm's-length CRTC that has made the decision.
I think it is important for us to recognize that Canada is not alone. There are other G7 countries that have what the Conservatives are saying we should not have as a nation. They believe that, because the United States has said we should not have one, we should abolish it. It is as simple as that. I wonder if the Conservatives believe that Canada owes it to its citizens to stand independently of the United States. We do not have to listen to everything it says.
Negotiations are going on and they will continue. We will get the best deal for Canadians on that front.
Mr. Speaker, Canada is not alone, but that is hardly a bragging point. Saying other countries overtax their citizens, too, is not a bragging point.
Whether we agree with the U.S. on certain things or not, they are our biggest trading partner. We need to get tariff-free access to United States markets. This is a major impediment and it is going to have absolutely terrible repercussions.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, when I read the Conservatives' motion this morning, I nearly fell off my chair because I see it as nothing short of an attack on Quebec culture. I am not sure if they realize it, but without certain rules ensuring that a portion of the budget and certain investments are allocated to Quebec culture, we would be completely buried under content from the United States. That is all there would be. Maybe they do not care because that is already the case.
What solutions do they propose for Quebec culture? Do they want us to consume mostly American products and become American like they do in English Canada?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, no, of course we do not want to attack Quebec culture, but let us call this what it is. This is not an attack on culture. This is an attack on Canadians' wallets. It is one of the few pleasures that people seem to have these days. They can sit back and stream Disney+ and Netflix. The Liberal government wants to take even that small pleasure away from them, and that is just unconscionable.
Mr. Speaker, we know, and hear in this place almost daily, that Canadians are struggling. We are in an affordability crisis. Canadians are having a hard time being able to house themselves, feed themselves and even fuel up to get where they need to go. We hear a lot from the Liberal government about its so-called affordability measures that it seems to have to put in place, but they are clearly not working because Canadians still cannot afford to feed and house themselves.
Why is it that the Liberal government always promotes or wants to increase taxes and does not care when costs keep rising and it is a burden is on Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, that is the $64,000 question. Canadians just cannot afford another tax, and the Liberals keep heaping them on. Canadians are having trouble putting food on the table and paying rent, and now we get this onerous luxury tax, basically, that will also imperil negotiations with getting a free trade deal with the United States. It is double-trouble.
Mr. Speaker, the member is a neighbour in Edmonton. He mentioned in his previous answer how this can affect the negotiations with CUSMA or the USMCA. We are hearing from the United States about this specific topic. If he can talk about this, I think it will be important for this conversation.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is exactly right. It has been criticized. The U.S. ambassador himself criticized this as a major irritant. This is not the time to further irritate our largest trading partner. We are lucky to be on the border with the United States of America in order to sell our goods to them. They are—
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the member for Bourassa.
I want to start by talking about the workers who this impacts. I want to talk about the grip in Sudbury, the indigenous filmmaker in Winnipeg and the French-language screenwriter in Rimouski. I want to talk about my friend Marcus, who is a boom operator in Vancouver.
I will state this very plainly: New Democrats will continue to fight for workers' rights, and that includes those who work within the arts and culture sector in this country. We will not stand with multi-billion-dollar corporations and web giants over Canadian workers. That is the ultimate contradiction that we see with this motion today. The leader of the official opposition claims to stand for working Canadians, but today he is standing up for Netflix, Amazon and Disney.
The CRTC's new framework requires streaming services to direct 15% of their Canadian revenues to support domestic programming. That is part of a $2-billion support system for Canadian and indigenous content. It is not a punitive surprise. It follows the Online Streaming Act that was passed three years ago, after repeated calls from Canadian entertainment companies, broadcast workers and artists to modernize a decades-old Canadian content regulation.
Let us put these numbers into perspective. Traditional broadcasters like CTV currently pay between 30% and 45%. Under the new framework, they will actually lower that payment to 25%, so we are asking the web giants to pay 15%. It is not radical. That is fair. That is fairness to Canadian content producers. Canada's film and television production industry generates nearly $12 billion in GDP and $10.2 billion in production volume, and it supports over 181,000 jobs. Those jobs do not fund themselves.
Critically, the contributions are not a direct tax on consumers. That is clearly a Conservative talking point, not a fact. It is a contribution requirement on corporations.
I want to quote the Toronto president of ACTRA, Kate Ziegler, who said:
Decisions to strengthen support for Indigenous and Canadian content and to improve discoverability are a step in the right direction. For ACTRA Toronto performers, this has the potential to generate new opportunities, strengthen domestic production, and help ensure Canadian audiences continue to see themselves reflected on screen.
The Canadian Media Producers Association said the CRTC's decisions:
reflect the underlying philosophy of the Online Streaming Act, namely that broadcasters and streaming services that generate significant revenues from Canadian subscribers and viewers must also invest in Canadian programming.
This is also about supporting French and indigenous production, to ensure that we have that content, to ensure that those stories are being told. That is an important role that we have in this country. The Conservatives are trying to stop the creation of that content at a moment in time where our cultural sovereignty is at risk.
We are New Democrats, and workers need us. We need to be supporting them, and we will. We always will. Today, we are going to stand with the 15,000 ACTRA members and the 181,000-plus workers in the creative sector. We are not going to stand with the shareholders for Netflix.
Yes, Canadians are struggling with the cost of living. New Democrats have been saying that for years, but the answer to that is not to let web giants off the hook, because Netflix, Amazon, Disney+ and Apple TV+ are not struggling small businesses. They are trillion-dollar corporations that are extracting billions from Canadian subscribers every year, and they should pay into the system that they are benefiting from.
If the Leader of the Opposition is so worried about the cost of living for ordinary Canadians, why is his solution to cut the levy on some of the wealthiest corporations in the world? Who is he actually fighting for?
The NDP believes in making the ultrawealthy and giant corporations pay their fair share so that we can fund the services, the storytelling, the creation and the building of our cultural sector, as well as the jobs that Canadians are depending on.
The strategy of appeasement does not work. History has told us that it does not work. We know, as we negotiate with the United States, that there is an explicit exception in CUSMA that allows us to take measures to support and protect cultural industries. Canada fought for that clause. It is in the agreement, and we should be using it.
I understand that the Conservatives want to pre-emptively roll over. They want to pre-emptively gut our own cultural policy to soothe Trump's trade hawks, but we do not make domestic policy based on what Donald Trump wants. We make our policy based on what Canadians want and what Canadians need. If we abandon content funding every single time Donald Trump objects, we no longer have a cultural policy. I want members to think about the absurdity of that. If we have a policy dictated by Washington, we have already given up our cultural policy.
I want to get back to the people who work in this industry. I want to talk about the actor in Edmonton who got their first gig on a CAVCO-funded production, the indigenous storyteller whose documentary in Edmonton was made possible because of the system that requires investment and the journalists in a small market who kept their job because local news got funded. These are the stakes that we are talking about right now.
The NDP stands for a Canada that tells its own stories, employs its own workers and refuses to be hollowed out by corporations that are being cowed by foreign governments. We call on the House to reject this motion, to stand with Canadian workers and to affirm that Canadian culture is not a trade irritant. It is who we are. The Conservatives want to bow to Trump. They want to support big corporations trying to rip Canadians off. New Democrats will always choose Canadians over corporate profits.
Mr. Speaker, part of the point that I have been trying to make is the fact that we have Canadian sovereignty. A part of that sovereignty means our culture and arts performers, many of the professions that my friend from the New Democratic Party has highlighted, are very important to who we are as a nation.
What is disappointing is the degree to which the official opposition has capitulated its responsibility to protect Canadian sovereignty by indicating that we should just listen to what President Trump wants. I appreciate the comments on that by the member. Could she expand on the importance of Canadian sovereignty and on the issue of our arts programs?
Mr. Speaker, I represent the riding of Edmonton Strathcona. We are a hotbed of arts and culture in the province of Alberta and across the country. I am extraordinarily proud to support people within the arts sector.
One thing I will say, though, is that the member talked about appeasement, about appeasing Donald Trump, and how disappointing it is for many of us in the House to see the Conservatives taking a stance to appease somebody like Donald Trump, particularly concerning our cultural identity. I will also say that the digital services tax, a tax that was also put in place to make sure that the web giants were paying their fair share, was something that the Liberal government decided to give to Donald Trump as some sort of an inauguration gift. Canadians paid the price and got nothing in return.
Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of talk about Donald Trump and tariffs. There was a lot of talking during the campaign about potential retaliation tariffs. Do the NDP and the member across the way view this as a retaliation tariff to Trump, or is this simply something that we are doing that is not a retaliation tariff?
Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear that this is part of legislation that was passed years ago. This is making the playing field more fair for Canadian content creators.
I think about things like Heated Rivalry. We are all so impressed and so proud when we are able to have productions like that in our country. Now there is this idea that we would allow somebody like Donald Trump to decide what our cultural policy should be and how we have any domestic policy that impacts how we support workers and how we support culture and arts in this country. It is so disappointing that this is the hill that the Conservatives decided to fight on today.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her speech today.
I must say that, while I am extremely disappointed by the Conservative motion we are debating today, I am not entirely surprised by it. It is a painful reminder of the Harper years, when cuts were being made to culture left, right and centre. However, this is even worse. They are doing the Americans' bidding and launching yet another full-scale attack on our culture, Quebec culture, and perhaps even Canadian culture, if such a thing exists.
However, I have even greater concerns about the government. It was unable to stand its ground on the much-discussed 3% digital services tax, and it refused to commit to the CRTC's decision, despite being publicly questioned on the matter.
What does my colleague think of the fact that the Liberals do not seem overly sure of their position?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we really need to acknowledge with this motion is the threat that it puts forward towards French content and indigenous content in this country at a moment when we are seeing such pressure from the U.S. administration to undermine our sovereignty in just so many ways. There is the idea that we are appeasing Donald Trump on so many fronts. The fact of the matter is that Donald Trump becomes cranky or upset about just about anything, depending on which side of the bed he wakes up on, so when the Liberal government appeases Donald Trump and when the Conservatives kneel to Donald Trump, that is not helping Canadians. New Democrats are here to—
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, it is with conviction that I rise to express my clear opposition to the motion. I oppose it because I want to defend a broadcasting system that continues to invest in Canadian workers, Canadian creativity and our country's economic prosperity.
Despite the rhetoric evident in the motion moved by my Conservative colleagues, this debate is not about a so-called streaming tax. It is about whether global streaming giants, which derive substantial revenue from Canadian audiences, should contribute in a fair and reasonable way to the ecosystem that they benefit from every day.
There is nothing radical or new about this. For decades, companies that participate in the Canadian broadcasting system have contributed financially to the creation of Canadian programming. These contributions have helped build one of the most respected production industries in the world.
The motion before us today disregards that reality. It portrays contributions to Canadian programming as a burden or penalty. However, these contributions are investments in jobs, infrastructure, intellectual property and economic activity across the country.
Let us be clear: Platforms are not being asked to throw their money away. They are being asked to invest in some of the best productions in the world. They cannot claim that the programming produced here is unworthy of their services.
The audiovisual production sector supports hundreds of thousands of direct and indirect jobs in Canada. These are not abstract jobs. These are good, highly skilled jobs filled by Canadians in every region of the country. These are technicians, artists, producers, actors, videographers, translators and many more.
The economic impact is much broader because it goes far beyond the film set. When a production comes to a community, for example in Montreal, hotel rooms are filled, visits to local restaurants increase and local workers are hired. It also generates interest in tourism and economic development for the area. Entire local economies benefit from a vibrant production sector not just in Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal, but also in rural, northern and indigenous communities.
That is why the framework established by the Online Streaming Act is so important. The world has changed considerably since the original Broadcasting Act was drafted. Canadians are consuming more and more content online. This is especially true for young people. Young people tend to go directly to online content rather than broadcast content. That is a very important distinction to make, because historically, only broadcasters were required to contribute. Imposing obligations on one group but not the other was not sustainable.
If Canadian broadcasters are required to contribute to Canadian programming, while foreign platforms that generate significant revenue in Canada are exempt from this requirement, the financial foundation supporting Canadian production will inevitably crumble. This framework is neither unique nor radical. In fact, we see the same thing happening all over the world. European countries have adopted similar requirements, and despite these obligations, major global platforms continue to invest heavily in these markets.
It is fair to ask why that is the case. It is because businesses invest where there is talent, stability, infrastructure and opportunities, and Canada offers all of that. It offers opportunities, infrastructure and, above all, exceptional Canadian talent. The irony is that many of the voices criticizing these requirements today will celebrate the Canadian industry's success without ever acknowledging the policies that made it possible. We cannot separate our success from the public policy framework that has supported this growth.
When domestic production shrinks, jobs disappear, creative workers leave the industry or leave the country altogether, and Canada becomes dependent on content produced abroad, without maintaining its own creative industrial base. This is not a recipe for long-term economic resilience.
Countries that invest in domestic production develop exportable industries, and our creators develop commercial intellectual property on an international scale. Film and creative studios attract foreign investment. Canada strengthens its position in a rapidly expanding global audiovisual economy. Weakening our production ecosystem would not make Canada stronger. It would make it far more dependent, and since we are seeking cultural sovereignty, such a dependence is something to be avoided, especially when we consider the motion under discussion today.
The substance of the issue before the House is simple. Should international and multinational streaming platforms, which generate significant revenue from the Canadian public, contribute to the Canadian broadcasting and production system, or should the burden continue to fall disproportionately on Canadian broadcasters and companies alone? I believe Canadians know the answer. There should not be an imbalance. It should not be disproportionate. It should be balanced. A modern broadcasting system needs to reflect a modern market. That requires fairness, sustainability and, above all, ensuring that the economic benefits of our system continue to support Canadian jobs. Canadian production and Canadian stories must also be supported.
At a time when countries around the world are in fierce competition to attract production investment and creative talent, now is not the time to weaken the foundations of our domestic industry. Now is the time to modernize our framework responsibly so that it reflects the realities of the digital age, while continuing to support the creators who put Canada on the map. Canada has never built its greatness by stepping aside. Canada has never done that, and it will not start today.
Before coming to Quebec and Canada, what most attracted me was Canadian and Quebec culture. How do we get to know this culture? Through what means? How do we hear about it? Who is the ambassador for this culture? We discover this culture through Quebec's cultural productions, which are exported abroad, both in English and French. If we do not fully support this industry, we will not be able to encourage, retain and develop the teams responsible for these productions.
As I said, Canada never built its greatness by stepping aside. Canada will not start doing that today. For all these reasons, I urge all members of the House to reject this motion.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, these rules would even apply to YouTube, a website that provides one of the easiest avenues for Canadian artists to put their skills, talents and content on display. It is basically a website on which common folks can post their content. Where would the bill start, and where would it end? Where would the Liberals draw the lines? Are we going to start taxing all websites that have videos on them?
This is my question: Where would the porn streaming sites fall under the bill? Would adult films be left out, unregulated and untaxed, while YouTube is regulated and taxed?
[Translation]
Before I recognize the hon. member for Bourassa, I am hearing a lot of noise coming from outside the chamber as people move about, which is interrupting the business of the House. It is really hard for members to be heard. The Chair is also having a hard time hearing members' questions and comments. I would ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to make sure that people are not speaking so loudly outside the chamber.
The hon. member for Bourassa may respond.
Mr. Speaker, I, too, was having a hard time speaking because of all the noise. I would ask my colleague to repeat his question, because I could not really hear him, even with the interpretation.
That said, if I understood correctly, he was asking whether the tax will be broadly applied. I am simply saying that what matters to us is the objective itself, that of protecting our industry, protecting out jobs and protecting our culture. That is the goal.
The most important thing is not knowing who will have to pay and who will not, but ensuring a degree of fairness. Obviously, that is what we are aiming for.
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague opposite on his speech, which was interesting and seemed to be heading in the right direction.
However, it was not necessarily all that reassuring, because, so far, all we have been seeing is his government kowtowing to the Americans.
As soon as Mr. Trump told us not to tax digital services, Mr. Carney's government did away with the much-discussed 3% tax without getting anything in return.
I apologize, Mr. Speaker.
I must interrupt the member.
We cannot use the Prime Minister's name, or the names of members or ministers, in the House.
I would now ask the member to finish his comment.
Mr. Speaker, I am so worked up over this that I am naming people that I should not be.
What I wanted to say to my colleague across the way is that we see this government caving in and failing to defend Quebec's culture. Even the minister, when asked to respond to the CRTC's decision, was unable to say that this was the right thing to do and that we needed to stand up to the web giants, who are sucking up revenue without giving anything back to our culture.
Why are the Liberals not doing more and standing up for our culture?
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his eloquence and his interest.
I can say one thing: I fully agree with the objective. My colleague and I could discuss the pace we should set and how to proceed. We must also not forget that we are currently in negotiations with another country to the south. We therefore need to figure out how to move forward with our proposals and our approach.
This has been said many times, and I reiterate it today: Quebec culture and its francophone identity are non-negotiable.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to add that I do not agree with my Bloc Québécois colleague. Our government is not caving in, quite the contrary.
I would therefore like to ask my colleague how this CRTC decision will help protect and promote Canadian and francophone voices so that our culture remains strong and well represented.
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the objective is the same. What we want is to protect our institutions, promote the French language and protect francophone culture.
In 2025, our government invested $150 million in CBC/Radio-Canada, $150 million over three years in Telefilm Canada, $127.5 million over three years in the Canada Media Fund, $26.1 million over three years in the National Film Board and $6 million over three years in the Canada Council for the Arts.
Our government will defend the French language, francophone culture and the essential institutions that protect them.
I came today not to orate, but to present numbers and facts.
Mr. Speaker, I also agree with what my colleague said about today's motion.
It is a mystery to me. I do not understand why anyone would oppose this tax, which is already enshrined in Canadian law, when big foreign companies like Netflix and others do not pay taxes in Canada. At the same time, they are making over $2 billion or $3 billion in profit—
I have to interrupt the hon. member to give the hon. member for Bourassa a chance to respond, in less than 20 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I would say that the government protects workers and institutions, especially as they relate to what we seek to promote: the French language and francophone culture.
We want to keep passing on our history and our culture to your young people, in our own voice and using our own language.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it is, once again and always, a privilege to rise on behalf of my constituents in Brandon—Souris.
I rise in support of the Conservative opposition day motion today, which is in direct response to the announcement made by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission last week. Quite simply, we need to reverse the CRTC's ridiculous tax hike on streaming services, because Canadians cannot afford one more increase to the cost of living caused by the Liberals. It is really as simple as that.
Hiking the streaming tax will also make Canada less competitive for our streaming and film industry, of which there is currently, and has been over the last number of years, growth in my home province of Manitoba. It has already threatened our currently tempestuous relationship with the United States. Only the Prime Minister and his Liberal get along gang can reject the CRTC's tax increase and save Canadians money by eliminating it permanently, which is exactly what we, as Conservatives, are asking for today.
For those Brandon—Souris constituents who may not have been following this closely, the context of this issue is just as important as the tax hike itself. Liberal MPs voted, in 2023, to make their Online Streaming Act a law here in Canada.
The act has been set up to serve three primary purposes, according to government members. First, the act brought online streaming platforms, such as YouTube, Netflix, Spotify and all the rest, under the authority of the CRTC and therefore made them subject to similar Canadian broadcasting rules to those we use for television and radio. Second, the act allowed the CRTC to force streaming companies to fund and support Canadian content and its creators through additional taxes, such as the one we are debating today. Third, it also gave the CRTC powers that mandated Canadian content be promoted and discoverable in Canada, which I will not have time to speak to today. In any case, that is just a bit of background or context for viewers at home as to how we got here.
Just one week ago, with the power granted to it by the Liberal government, the CRTC announced that it is tripling the tax for online streamers and platforms from 5%, which it had already imposed after the law was passed, up to 15%. Now, Canadians would be forgiven for being a bit confused as to why the Liberals would be upping the tax already. They may know that the original 5% tax is currently being challenged in the courts by online streamers, which is a case that has not been decided on, nor has any tax at that 5% actually been paid to date. Before the courts have even ruled on a 5% tax that the Liberals allowed the CRTC to create, the Liberal-backed CRTC has ploughed ahead with tripling the tax, making it even higher.
As many of my Conservative colleagues already warned earlier today, and in years past, I might add, this use of power by the CRTC will have harsh consequences for Canada, and we are sincerely skeptical as to whether we will see any real benefit. Despite these warnings, here we are anyway. This online streaming or Netflix tax is a creation of the CRTC, but it also reflects the type of government intervention that attempts to lead a horse to water and force it to drink, whether the horse is thirsty or not, which we have seen time and time again from this tired, costly Liberal government over the last 11 years.
As my colleagues have rightly pointed out, nothing prevents streaming companies from tagging Canadians with this 15% tax increase on their monthly bills either, as if we had a need for something else to cost us more in our daily lives. Have members noticed their streaming service bills going up? I bet they have, and after this is imposed, they are going to get worse, not better. Not only will Canadians pay more, but the imposition of a 15% tax increase would also make Canada among the most expensive places to operate a streaming service in the world. With less competition, fewer options and increased costs, it sounds like a Liberal deal to me.
Why would streamers and online streaming companies bring their business to Canada, to a market that will be less profitable for them, increasingly taxed and more meddled about with through government intervention? Netflix's recent investment in Vancouver is a great example. It created more than 450 jobs. These are the kinds of benefits that Canadians may lose should the Liberal government fail to use its power to stop this streaming tax hike and allow more costs within this industry.
Canadians, due to left-wing government intervention in the marketplace and a lack of competition, already pay some of the highest fees in the digital space, from streaming to cell packages and home Internet. Now the CRTC wants streaming services to cost more to prop up programs that most Canadians do not want to watch. This not only sends a message to streamers and larger streaming companies, but also has a serious potential to weaken Canada's already fragile position in trade negotiations. We have already seen comments that it is going to have just that effect.
As we fast approach a review of our CUSMA agreement with the United States, whose streaming companies undoubtedly make up a majority of the target the CRTC is trying to hit with this tax, it feels completely out of touch with the renegotiations and the challenging circumstances in which we find ourselves. We do not have to look far to see its impact. In response to the CRTC's decision, the U.S. ambassador to Canada has already said that this initiative “is making a bad situation worse.”
At a time when Canada needs strength, why are the Liberals so determined to put Canada in the worst possible negotiating position? It is a deeply troubling stance from the government. I sincerely hope it is not due to its own shameful political ambitions. The fact is that a significant amount of the content that Canadians consume is from other countries, including the United States. That is not likely to change. The CRTC wants to ignore this reality and force Canadians to watch solely Canadian content and have them pay top dollar while doing so, but that is not a free marketplace and it should not be the government's role.
To be clear, Conservatives are committed to protecting and championing Canadian culture in every way. We are pro a Canadian national identity, which is why we have disagreed with grounding national symbols like the Snowbirds and removing Terry Fox from the passport. To that end, we know what makes Canadian content special, and we need to ensure that affordability and economic growth are at the centre of how we spur that content, not forcible government regulation and taxation.
For 10 years now, the Liberals' approach of over-regulation, coupled with this CRTC announcement, is starting to feel like Groundhog Day. Liberals create a problem and then create a tax that they say will make everything better. Conservatives know this is an inherently flawed way to achieve an objective. We only need to look at the last 11 years to see the result.
For the higher cost of living because of the carbon tax, we can thank a Liberal. For the higher housing costs due to outlandish requirements, taxes and red tape, we can thank a Liberal. For the higher fuel prices from an intentional depression of the oil and gas sector by taxation, red tape and oppressive environmental regulation, we can thank a Liberal. Now the Liberals want our streaming services to pay three times the tax, which will undoubtedly be passed down to Canadian consumers, so when our streaming bills go up in the coming months, we will know exactly what to do: We can thank a Liberal.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that the CRTC stands alone. It is at arm's length from and independent of the government. That is a very important thing to note.
The other thing I would highlight is that it is somewhat shameful to see Conservative member after Conservative member surrender Canada's sovereignty as they advocate on behalf of Donald Trump and the United States with respect to the whole idea of applying something to protect the Canadian arts industry, something that, by the way, other G7 countries have done. The Conservatives are saying no to not only Canada having the opportunity to protect its industries, but also possibly even those other G7 countries. Why is the Conservative Party not recognizing the importance of Canadian sovereignty on the issue of the arts?
Mr. Speaker, the entire premise of that member's question is ridiculous. We encourage supporting growth and competitiveness in Canada's film industry, which this tax hike is going to make worse. We support the Manitoba film industry. We support the Ontario film industry. We support competitiveness in the British Columbia film industry.
The only party in this place that surrendered sovereignty to the United States on anything is the Liberals. They are keeping us reliant on U.S. oil and gas refineries in the south by refusing to approve pipelines to new markets so that Canadians can have more competition in the oil and gas industry and reassert Canadian sovereignty. That is the Liberal record, and the record of that member, for the last 30 years. It is shameful. We are supporting a free and independent arts and culture industry and a free and independent oil and gas industry in this country.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, Quebec's greatest treasure is its culture. It is the thing that has kept us afloat in a sea of anglophones. It is expressed in our music and in our films. It represents our collective imagination. Faced with the American steamroller, we need support to maintain this culture. We are a francophone drop in an anglophone ocean, and it is insulting to hear the Conservatives refer to us a trade irritant.
I did not hear Quebec's Conservative MPs say much about this motion this morning, and I can guarantee that the leader of the official opposition is going to speak to it later. Few francophone members are going to stand with him on this; it would be a disgrace for any francophone MP to support this motion.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure there was much of a question in there for me. I am sorry that my colleague from the Bloc feels offended or insulted. That is certainly not the premise. I am assuming that streaming service users in Quebec, just like in every other province, are concerned about the rising prices and affordability measures that are affecting every province across the country. Why would they want a three-times increase in the cost of streaming services? That would impact affordability measures in Quebec just like it would everywhere else.
The Liberal government has raised the cost of everything else in this country. Canadians, Quebeckers, Manitobans, western Canadians and Atlantic Canadians alike cannot afford another affordability measure being damaged by the Liberal government. It is shameful that the Liberals are doing it. It should be put to a stop today.
Mr. Speaker, we have seen that businesses are already leaving Canada, and the businesses of those who are here are struggling to survive. The Liberal streaming tax will hurt not only consumers, but also Canadian creators, podcasters and small digital businesses that are trying to grow online.
My question to the member is this: Why is the Liberal government creating more barriers for Canadian innovation and digital entrepreneurship instead of helping it compete globally?
Mr. Speaker, the member from Brampton is an excellent member of Parliament.
I think the answer is simple. The Liberals would much rather that all businesses in this country be reliant on the government to get ahead, as opposed to being able to compete themselves. We have seen that in industry after industry. Now the government is meddling away again, allowing the CRTC to increase this tax on digital service providers, our streaming services and our film industries. It is shameful. We need more competition in this country. We need less government intervention in the market. That is what Conservatives are calling for. We hope the Liberals will vote for it today.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose a new tax on Netflix imposed by the Liberals and supported by the Bloc Québécois.
[English]
I am rising today to oppose the Liberal Netflix tax increase. We, as Conservatives, want this to be a country bursting with opportunity and promise, a country where young people can again afford homes and start families, where parents can give their kids the best food and the best start to life, and where seniors can retire in peace and tranquility, knowing that they can afford to live out their days, which they worked so hard to prepare for.
However, after 10 years of the Liberal government, we have witnessed the biggest decline in the standard of living of any generation since the Great Depression, the first generation of youth who could not afford homes. We have the largest number of Canadians relying on food banks, up over 100% in just seven years, and we have had the worst economic growth in the G7 for over a decade. The Liberals have given us the worst household debt and the worst food price inflation, and instead of changing course, as the Liberal Prime Minister promised in the last election, it turned out that that was all an illusion. It has been more costs, more taxes, more debt and more of the same. He is just another Liberal.
How did we get to a point where Canadians cannot afford to live? The answer is governments that block production with taxes and red tape and then print money to fund the resulting shortfall. The easy money is introduced into the economy as debt. Spending more borrowed money faster means higher prices, especially when we are buying fewer produced goods. That has only given Canadians the highest household debt in the G7, a third higher than the second-closest country. Canada's household debt is now nearing record highs, and that debt is colliding with moderately higher interest rates. This, according to Equifax this week, has led to a point where “insolvency volumes have increased to levels not seen since 2009, up 18.8% year-over-year,” the “delinquency rate climbed 32 per cent year-over-year” and “Q1 saw insolvency rates hit a 17-year high, partly due to escalating financial strain on mortgage holders.”
Three million Canadian households will see their mortgages roll over into higher rates over the next two years. The Prime Minister's inflationary deficits and taxes have forced Canadians to borrow for the essentials. One reason we spend more than we produce is because we do not have enough investment to produce and increase the production of our economy.
According to RBC, in a report released about a month ago:
Over the past decade, Canada’s net outflow of investment exceeded $1 trillion, the most significant capital exodus in...Canadian history. For every dollar invested in Canada from abroad, two dollars exited. Canada accounted for nearly 10% of global outward foreign direct investment over the past decade, having exported more capital than any country on Earth save [except for] the U.S. and China.
These are two economies that are nearly 10 times our size.
The Liberal Prime Minister ran away from this economic record, even though he was the adviser who convinced Justin Trudeau to implement it. This Liberal Prime Minister promised that, if he were elected, he would do the opposite of everything he had written about and said, everything his party had done in the preceding decade. We know now that that too was an illusion. It has been more debt, more taxes, more slow growth, more fleeing investment and more of the same.
Today, the Liberal Prime Minister was off to New York to expand his favourite export, speeches. Once again, his speech was filled with more of his seemingly sophisticated but highly contradictory buzzwords. On the one hand, he says that we are in the middle of a rupture with the United States, while on the other, he says he wants to, in his words, “make America great again”. His elbows were again flapping up and down in the rhetorical chicken dance, as he cannot seem to decide if integration with the U.S. is a strength or a weakness. He has argued passionately for both positions in the last three months alone. Beyond the illusions, contradictions and the repetitive MBA-isms he states in these buzzword-laden speeches, he is ultimately on exactly the same track. All that matters is the results, not the illusions.
Let me go on with the present tense about investment in Canada, according to the RBC report, which says, “Canada now ranks last among G7 nations in investment in both machinery and equipment and intellectual property.” According to Statistics Canada, from the end of the first quarter of 2025 to the last quarter of that same year, overall real business investment dropped by 0.4%, but investment in productive capital fell much more, with industrial machinery and equipment investment down a shocking 15%.
The Prime Minister likes to brag about foreign direct investment, claiming that we have taken the most in the world, but Statistics Canada revealed what that was. It was foreign takeovers. These are paper transactions and not investment in new machines or hiring new workers. They are foreign corporations taking control over Canadian companies that are now trading cheap because of our weak dollar and our undervalued business environment. This is not to expand business, but simply to take control out of Canadian hands and put it mostly in American hands. I guess this is what the Prime Minister meant when he said that the Americans wanted to break us to own us. He is ensuring, through his policies, that is happening more and more.
According to Statistics Canada, more than half of the total foreign direct investment inflows into Canada were simple paper transactions, mergers and acquisitions. Meanwhile, in the first four quarters of the Prime Minister's time in office, $109 billion of Canadian investment fled and more than $20 billion more left Canada than came back. That is Canadian dollars building mines, pipelines, businesses and technology abroad, paying foreign workers' salaries. If the Prime Minister really believes that he had made Canada such an attractive place to invest, then he should look in the mirror and ask why he has invested 90% of his personal assets outside of Canada, most of it in the United States. The answer, of course, is that he does not want his personal net worth to depend on the same weak economy, high taxes and red tape he imposes on the rest of our country.
Weirdly, today in his speech, he even encouraged American investors to seek more of our pension fund money. Why on earth would we want the Prime Minister to go to the United States and encourage American investors to pillage our pension funds for investment we desperately need at home? According to Statistics Canada, a majority of Canadian pension fund money is now invested outside of Canada. Another question is: Why, despite the illusions, announcements, grand speeches in fancy foreign settings does investment continue to flee our country and why does it find more attractive welcome around the world? It is because the Liberal Prime Minister has carried on the same policies that he advised Justin Trudeau. Every single antidevelopment law Trudeau brought in remains in place today.
The higher taxes on energy, investment and income remain in place. In fact, there are 500 economic projects now awaiting approval by the federal government, and the Prime Minister just announced that he is going to increase the industrial carbon tax sixfold on steel, aluminum, concrete, fertilizer and more.
Government greed is again on display with the Liberal-appointed CRTC, using powers under the Liberal Online Streaming Act to triple the Netflix tax to 15%. For Canadians already paying high Liberal inflation on the goods they buy, high Liberal taxes on their paycheques, high Liberal taxes on their gas to get to and from work, and then higher Liberal taxes on the beer they drink to take the edge off when they get home, when they sit down and turn on their favourite program on Netflix, Crave or Disney+, they will again pay higher Liberal taxes to pay for it.
[Translation]
The Liberals tax labour, energy, investment, beer, and now, cultural products. We Conservatives want to cut all taxes to make life more affordable for everyone.
[English]
Today, we rise, as Conservatives, consistent with our overall approach of having a smaller government with bigger citizens, an affordable government for an affordable life. We want to cut taxes, obviously, on work, investment, energy and homebuilding, but we also want to fight this latest Liberal tax hike to give Canadians a break. Let them choose freely what they like to watch when they are at home recreating with their families. Let us get rid of the Netflix tax. Let us make this a country that is based on production and not borrowing, on paycheques and not debt, and on affordability and not exorbitant government inflation.
We want to give Canadians back control of their lives with a promising future filled with opportunity. Let us get it done.
Mr. Speaker, it would take a lot of time to address that particular speech, but let us stick to the motion itself.
Time and time again, I have heard from the Conservative speakers on this.
First of all, we need to recognize that the CRTC is independent of government. The CRTC is the one that set the price. When we talk about having a fee on international streaming, Canada is not alone. Other G7 countries have done that. Time and time again, Conservative MPs stand up and surrender Canadian sovereignty on the important issue of protecting our arts industry.
Why is the Conservative Party already starting to capitulate and advocate on behalf of the United States as opposed to taking a look at what is in the best interests of Canadians? It is time that the Conservative Party stand up for Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, never before in the history of Parliament has someone spoken so much and known so little. He does not even realize that it is impossible for any government agency to raise taxes without the approval of Parliament. Parliament exists today precisely because the Englishmen who created the tradition made it impossible for the Crown to tax what the people had not approved. This is an 800-year-old rule of Parliament. The government has given the legal power to the CRTC to impose a streaming tax and has the legal power to overturn that tax any time it wants. It needs to stop running away from its own policy decisions.
The member says he is going to wrap himself in the Canadian flag. Give me a break. We do not defend sovereignty by raising taxes on Canadian consumers. We fight for Canadians by lowering their taxes.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition wants to reduce the debt and support people as they cope with inflation, all he has to do is stop funding the state-sponsored cronyism in the oil and gas sector that he defends tooth and nail.
The motion before us today is an insult to francophones, who form a cultural minority. If they wish to preserve their cultural expressions, they need funding.
What the Leader of the Opposition is telling us is that, from a trade point of view, we are a nuisance.
He should be ashamed for saying that.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should do his research. I have never supported any form of corporate welfare for any industry.
I will also let him know that the oil and gas sector is in no need of corporate welfare. It could be very profitable if we could get the government out of the way.
Oil companies can pay more and contribute more to our economy, but we would have to get the Liberal government out of the way.
Now let us talk about taxes. The Bloc Québécois believes that the only way to protect culture is to increase consumer taxes. Conservatives believe exactly the opposite. We believe that money should stay in consumers' pockets so they can decide what cultural content and programs they want to watch.
Statements by Members
[Statements by Members]
[English]
Canada Summer Jobs Program
Mr. Speaker, this summer, organizations across Fleetwood—Port Kells are creating valuable opportunities for young people through the Canada summer jobs program. Through this program, we were able to connect and fund 221 youth jobs in my riding, representing a total of 59,320 hours of valuable work experience to prepare for future careers while supporting important community organizations.
This year, more than 45 organizations in Fleetwood—Port Kells are participating, including non-profits, sports groups, and cultural and religious organizations. I would like to thank all the organizations that applied and that continue to invest in young Canadians.
Mosaic Festival of Cultures
Mr. Speaker, rising jet fuel prices are making international travel too expensive for many Canadians, but fortunately, next week, people in Regina and southern Saskatchewan can travel the world without ever leaving the queen city.
The 55th annual Mosaic Festival of Cultures will be celebrated all across the queen city on June 4, 5 and 6. Pavilions throughout Regina will feature food, drinks and cultural performances from Austria, Bangladesh, Central and South America, China, Greece, Hungary, India, Italy, Persia, Poland, Romania, Scotland, the Philippines and Ukraine, as well as first nations and Métis communities. It is all made possible by the Regina Multicultural Council and its many dedicated volunteers.
I thank everyone involved for sharing their culture with the rest of Regina and southern Saskatchewan. I wish everybody a great Mosaic.
Nunavut
Uqaqtittiji, first, I want to congratulate the newly elected NTI President, Gloria Uluqsi. I am very excited for her term.
Second, the spring economic update included significant investments and programs benefiting Nunavut and helping to lower everyday costs for Nunavummiut. Some examples include pausing the fuel excise tax on gasoline and diesel, working with Inuit to reform nutrition north, doing upgrades to fortify the small craft harbours, like the one in Pangnirtung, and partnering with the Nunavut Fisheries and Marine Training Consortium to support tariff-affected workers.
New funding and projects like these will help drive investment in the territory, create new jobs locally and enhance Arctic economic growth and security. Our government's plan ensures that Nunavummiut and all those who call the Arctic home can participate in building Canada strong and share in its success.
[Translation]
150th anniversary of a golf club
Mr. Speaker, in 1876, visionary men and women planted a flag in the heart of Charlevoix to lay the groundwork for a project that would span generations and inspire respect.
Well, today, I would like to tell them that they did, in fact, succeed. The Murray Bay Golf Club is celebrating its 150th anniversary. It is still standing, still alive and proud to be in Charlevoix. It is the oldest golf club to still operate in the same location in North America.
It is much more than just a golf course. It is a symbol of our history, our community and sports tourism, and it is a great source of pride for Charlevoix and for Canada as a whole.
The Murray Bay Golf Club has welcomed American presidents such as William Howard Taft, living legends such as Mario Lemieux and, above all, people from Charlevoix who, generation after generation, come to enjoy this beautiful sport.
I commend the president, Claude Turcotte, the executive director, Marc Villeneuve, and all the volunteers who carry the torch year after year.
I wish the Murray Bay Golf Club a happy 150th anniversary.
710 Ste-Rose Squadron
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the 65th anniversary of 710 Ste-Rose Squadron, a remarkable institution in our community that has been inspiring and training generations of young people for 65 years.
Through its commitment to leadership, discipline, service, and excellence, 710 Ste-Rose Squadron plays a vital role in the development of our youth, instilling in them values that will stay with them for life.
I would like to pay tribute to the cadets, instructors, volunteers, families, and everyone who has contributed over the decades to the success and reputation of this vital squadron.
On behalf of the people of Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, I congratulate 710 Ste-Rose Squadron on its 65th anniversary and wish it a long and successful future.
[English]
Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the strong community spirit across Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga. From Lake Ontario to Algonquin Park, communities across our region are coming alive, with local fairs, farmers markets and volunteer events that reflect what makes rural Ontario special. From plowing matches and demolition derbies to theatre productions, musical rides, car shows, strawberry picking and visits to our many heritage sites, these traditions continue to celebrate the character of our communities.
I would like to recognize the volunteers, small business owners, first responders, service clubs and local organizations whose commitment helps make our communities welcoming places to live and raise a family. Whether it is supporting local food banks, encouraging young athletes, recognizing the contributions of our seniors or celebrating indigenous and agricultural heritage, people across the region continue to set an example through their service and dedication to others.
The strength of Canada is built up every single day by people who step up, help out and look after one another.
National Nursing Week
Mr. Speaker, this month, during National Nursing Week, I had the privilege of being invited to a tea in Claremont to honour nurses from our community. Sitting with them and hearing their stories, I was reminded of what nursing truly is, that it is not just a profession but a calling.
The nurses of Pickering—Brooklin and across this country show up every single day with skills, compassion and quiet courage. When we were hit with the SARS epidemic and the COVID-19 pandemic, our nurses showed up each day, working tirelessly on the front lines. They also held our hands during the most difficult moments and championed our health with tireless dedication. To every nurse in this community of Pickering—Brooklin, their work is seen, it is valued and it matters deeply. I thank them for what they do.
Food Security
Mr. Speaker, after more than a decade of Liberal inflationary spending, the Prime Minister is sticking Canadians with a bill for his lavish meals while they struggle to put food on the table.
Food inflation is up 40% since the Liberals took office. Last year, a record 2.2 million Canadians lined up at food banks in a single month. Just today, we learned from the National Payroll Institute that employed Canadians are struggling to put food on the table, going into debt just to afford food. One-fifth of people even reported that they were losing weight due to food insecurity.
While Canadians cannot feed themselves, the Prime Minister is having taxpayers fund $200,000 in luxury food on just three flights: Normandy buttercups, veal escalope and a pricey wine list. Last year, when the Prime Minister told young Canadians they would have to make sacrifices, he was clearly not talking about himself.
The Liberal Prime Minister said for Canadians to judge him at the grocery store. Well, the verdict is in: Canadians are furious with the prices at the grocery store and his lavish meals.
[Translation]
Vladimir Kara-Murza
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to acknowledge the invaluable presence on Parliament Hill of the great political figure, former prisoner of conscience and steadfast Russian opposition activist Vladimir Kara-Murza.
On April 17, 2023, the Moscow City Court sentenced Mr. Kara-Murza to 25 years in prison for high treason. To this day, this is the harshest prison sentence ever imposed on a political prisoner in Putin's Russia. This August will mark the second anniversary of his release.
I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the work of the Montreal-based Raoul Wallenberg Centre, founded by lawyer, former justice minister and personal friend Irwin Cotler, as well as the efforts of all the parliamentarians who rallied to his cause. Since regaining his freedom, Mr. Kara-Murza has actively resumed his leading role in defending democracy and the rights of thousands of political prisoners.
Vladimir Kara-Murza may rest assured that the Bloc Québécois will always stand with him in his fight for freedom and justice.
[English]
Consecration of Hindu Temple
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a historic milestone in my riding of Scarborough—Agincourt. Earlier this week, the Sri Varasiththi Vinaayagar Hindu Temple celebrated the consecration of the first traditional black granite Hindu temple of its kind in Canada.
Built according to ancient south Indian traditions, it has been hand-carved by skilled artisans for over five years, with each granite stone carefully shaped and assembled here in Canada. Made possible through the generosity and dedication of its community, this project is a spiritual home for thousands and a lasting contribution to Canada's multicultural fabric.
I give my heartfelt congratulations to all those whose vision and devotion made it possible. This remarkable temple will stand for generations as a beacon of unity, culture and faith.
Fuel Taxes
Mr. Speaker, families across Souris—Moose Mountain are feeling the pressure every single day. As farmers work through seeding and ranchers care for their cattle, the costs of fuel, fertilizer, transportation and groceries continue to rise. After 11 years of Liberal taxes and antidevelopment policies, Canadians are paying more at the pump and more at the checkout counter.
In rural Saskatchewan, fuel is not a luxury. Farmers need diesel to seed their crops. Truckers need fuel to move food and goods across the country. Things have become so expensive that even some farmers, the very people who feed and produce food for this country, are now being forced to turn to food banks. Food bank usage has doubled since 2019, and more Canadians are being forced to dip into savings just to afford the basic necessities. Conservatives are calling for immediate relief by removing Liberal taxes on fuel and permanently scrapping the clean fuel standard.
The good people of Souris—Moose Mountain work hard. They produce the food that feeds this country, and they deserve a government that makes life more affordable, not more expensive.
HMCS Sackville
Mr. Speaker, 85 years ago this month, on a rainy day in Saint John, New Brunswick, a bottle of champagne was broken over the bow of a new ship. This ship would become the HMCS Sackville and would go on to have a long and arduous career as a corvette in the Royal Canadian Navy. Most notably, this ship became the single surviving corvette of the Battle of the Atlantic, in which 294 small ships were the workhorses of the North Atlantic, dominating the longest battle of the Second World War. As the sole survivor, she was saved from the scrapyard and restored to her wartime configuration; she is now Canada's naval memorial, spending her summers in the Halifax harbour, open to residents and tourists who would like to learn more about our navy's history.
Earlier this month, HMCS Sackville was officially recomissioned into the Royal Canadian Navy. Please join me in acknowledging this important symbol of Canada's naval history, a sign of our commitment to stand in defence of our ideals and our country.
Online Streaming Platforms
Mr. Speaker, to the Liberals, CRTC is their mission statement: control, regulate and tax Canadians. Now they are coming after Canadians with a streaming tax, tripling the levy that streaming platforms such as Netflix, Disney+ and Amazon have to pay. This is going to go directly to the bill the consumers pay. If the Liberals had their way, the only fiction we would see is the Prime Minister saying that the country's on the right track.
We have an option for them: a motion that we have put forward in the House, calling on the Liberals to do the right thing, use their power in the Broadcasting Act and cut the streaming tax once and for all.
When Canadians cannot afford grocery shopping, they should not be priced out of even watching cooking shows on TV, which is precisely what the Liberals are doing. Will they commit today to doing the right thing, supporting our motion and getting out of Canadians' streaming platforms?
Randy Eric Dickinson
Mr. Speaker, the world lost a hero on Monday, May 18. Randy Eric Dickinson passed away in Fredericton at the age of 71.
Randy was a tireless advocate for accessibility and inclusion for people with disabilities. He served as the first executive director of the Premier's Council on Disabilities and as chairperson of the New Brunswick Human Rights Commission, among countless other roles.
[Translation]
His work shaped New Brunswick's Accessibility Act and the federal Accessible Canada Act. In recognition of his dedication, he was appointed to the Order of Canada and the Order of New Brunswick.
[English]
Randy is survived by his beloved wife Karen and a large, loving family. He was passionate about helping others, whether through policy or simple acts of kindness.
Please join me in honouring such a dedicated advocate, and let us build on Randy's incredible legacy.
Anti-Semitism
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to express my outrage and disgust as a father. Fourteen-year-old Esti Biran has been missing for over two weeks, since the autistic girl was last seen with no shoes on. Reportedly, on Friday, an anti-Semite began tearing down the missing person posters because she is Jewish.
What kind of sicko would do that? This is a child. It compounds the bullets that have been flying into children's schools, the Molotov cocktails hitting synagogues and the 6,800 anti-Semitic instances, by far a record since the counts began over 40 years ago.
We obviously have to take action to protect our Jewish community from this growing scourge of violence and hatred. It all starts with condemning it and stating that we will not put up with it. A person has no place in this country if they are targeting innocent Jewish children because of their heritage, their religion and their race.
Our Jewish brothers and sisters have a right to feel safe. They are members of the Canadian family. Each and every one of us has a duty to say that enough is enough. We are standing up for our Jewish friends.
National Mining Week
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize National Mining Week. When we talk about mining, we are not just talking about extraction. We are talking about an important foundation for Canada's economic security, defence and global competitiveness.
In 2025, the sector contributed $157 billion to Canada's GDP, demonstrating its importance to our economy and the scale of opportunity as demand for critical minerals accelerates worldwide. From exploration to manufacturing, this sector supports over 700,000 jobs across the country, and it is poised to create even more opportunities in the years to come.
From the Major Projects Office to important investments and strategic international alliances, we are accelerating projects by streamlining approvals, unlocking investment, developing infrastructure and strengthening partnerships.
As we mark National Mining Week, we recognize the workers, communities, indigenous partners, innovators and industry leaders helping build Canada's mining future.
Oral Questions
[Oral Questions]
[English]
Foreign Investment
Mr. Speaker, StatsCan confirmed another $17-billion exodus for the start of the year. That is more money leaving Canada than is coming in. Over $1 trillion has left since 2015. The Prime Minister is pitching Canada as an investment hub, all while his policies are the most restrictive in the G7 for foreign capital. It is almost like he does not know what he is doing.
Let us start with the basics. Do the Liberals believe that Canada should be a country that is a magnet for jobs and capital, or do they think that Canada should be a country where ambitions go to die?
Mr. Speaker, investments coming into Canada are at record levels, actually close to 20-year highs. Last year alone, there was $97 billion of foreign direct investment into Canada. That is more major projects being built. That is major, big aircraft being built here in Canada. Airbus has a current deal with Mirabel. That is 150 Airbus aircraft, sold for over $15 billion, supporting 30,000 workers. That is $97 billion into our country.
Building big projects is what Canada is going to do.
Mr. Speaker, let me make this simple for my colleague, who just totally missed the point. The Prime Minister, his boss, holds 91% of his personal investments in the United States. Deep down, it feels like the Liberals know that they have purposely built a failing economy that is driving jobs, capital and opportunity straight out of Canada, straight to the United States, where the Prime Minister keeps his money.
Let me ask this: Are they doing this to help him cash in and get rich quick, while the rest of us take the hit?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to share good news, which is important, in order to make the point that my colleague is missing right now. Yesterday, we were able to announce 3,000 new jobs across the country. Why? It is because Saab, a Swedish company, decided to work with Bombardier, a Canadian company, and deliver, for the first time, a surveillance plane, and that will bring Canada back into military aerospace.
Our defence industrial strategy will create jobs across the country, in every single province represented here in the House of Commons chamber.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is off to New York for what even the CBC calls a straight-up networking trip. Perhaps he will meet with his friends at Brookfield Asset Management there. Like so many other investors, they fled Bay Street for Wall Street, with Main Street in Canada paying the price.
Over the last Liberal decade, more than $1 trillion in investment has left Canada. That means lost jobs and lost wages for Canadian workers. The Prime Minister himself holds 91% of his personal investments in the United States.
Is he in New York for Canadians, or is he just there to check up on his own portfolio?
Mr. Speaker, if they did not spend so much time working on their clips, they might see people like the CEO of Shell, who just invested $20 billion in this country. They might see Chief Clayton of the Nisga'a Nation, who yesterday said she is looking forward to “manag[ing] prosperity” instead of “managing poverty”.
That is how we are building Canada.
This is just a reminder that we do not want to suggest that a member is not present in the House.
The hon. member for Chilliwack—Hope.
Mr. Speaker, speaking of $20 billion, that is how much money has left Canada in the last four quarters under this Prime Minister. After more than a decade of Liberal taxes, red tape and uncertainty, investors, including the Prime Minister, continue to take their money elsewhere. Despite Liberal re-announcements, major projects remain trapped in years of delays while Canadian workers lose those jobs.
When will the Prime Minister take real action to cut red tape and repeal these anti-development laws that are continuing to bring about an investment exodus?
Mr. Speaker, we could go on and on. Why does the member not come to Dease Lake, where we are investing billions in a new mine? Why does he not go to Nunavut and see where we have invested $4 billion in a new mine in Nunavut?
They are so busy working on their clips, they are not actually seeing what is happening in this country.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is currently in New York for what the CBC described as just a networking trip—
Members are not supposed to refer to another member's absence from the House.
The hon. member may continue.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was in New York this morning on a trip described by the CBC as just a networking trip.
Let us talk about investments. After 10 years of Liberal governance, Canada is considered to be the most restrictive country in the G7 for foreign investment. According to RBC, $1 trillion in investment has been lost over the past 10 years. The example comes from the top, as 91% of the Prime Minister's own assets are outside Canada.
Does the Prime Minister know something that these people have yet to grasp?
Mr. Speaker, Canada is currently the top destination for foreign investment in the G7. That is my first point.
My second point, proving that we are currently a prime destination for business, is that 3,000 jobs were announced yesterday. Saab, a Swedish company, decided to partner with Bombardier, a Canadian company of which we are very proud, to enter the military aerospace industry by building a new surveillance aircraft for us as well as for several other countries around the world.
That is how we are going to build a strong country.
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I must remind the Liberals that Liberal Canada is driving away investment. Let us remember that, when the Prime Minister was officially the chair of Brookfield, he moved the head office from Toronto to New York. Way to go. Let us do what he says, not what he does.
The fact of the matter is that, according to Statistics Canada, $17 billion in investment went abroad in the first quarter.
When will the Liberals start walking the talk and take meaningful action so that foreign investments are made here in Canada for the benefit of all Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, what have we learned from the last six questions? We have learned that that we are going to build military aircraft in Canada. We have learned that we are building mines, particularly in Quebec, British Columbia and in the far north, and that we are attracting an incredible amount of investment.
The folks at TD Economics, who are certainly very different from those in the Conservative Party's war room, say that, in 2025, Canada experienced its highest level of foreign investment since 2007.
Canada is clearly attracting investment.
Justice
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously condemned the Prime Minister for his authoritarian statement that 50% of the votes cast plus one would not be enough in a referendum.
It reaffirmed its support for Quebec's Bill 99, which defines a clear majority as 50% plus one, just like all democratic votes around the world. It declared that no parliament or government may impose constraint on the democratic will of the Quebec people to determine their own future.
Does the Prime Minister understand Quebec's message, and will he respect the foundations of democracy?
Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Bloc Québécois members get up every morning and want nothing more than to talk about the Clarity Act and referendums.
On this side of the House, we get up every morning wondering how we are going to create opportunities for Quebeckers, build one Canadian economy and protect Canada's sovereignty.
I will give them an example. Yesterday, we stood with Bombardier to announce the acquisition of GlobalEye aircraft to defend our country's sovereignty and create more than 3,000 jobs in Canada. This is in addition to the 150 aircraft that were ordered by Airbus about two weeks ago.
That is what creating opportunities for Quebeckers looks like. Those are the priorities of Quebeckers. Those are our priorities. I will leave the Bloc Québécois to its questions about referendums.
Mr. Speaker, Quebec's elected officials have condemned the Prime Minister's drift toward authoritarianism with his Clarity Act.
I would like to draw his attention to a reaction that might inspire him. The leader of the Quebec Liberals said, “We in the Liberal Party of Quebec are both federalists and democrats”. Yes, it is possible to be a federalist, a democrat, and a Liberal all at once. It is possible to hold multiple principles simultaneously. The Prime Minister, on the other hand, is merely a Liberal, in addition to being paternalistic and anti-democratic.
Will the Liberals bring him back down to earth and ask him to repeal the Clarity Act?
Mr. Speaker, once again, it is clear that the members of the Bloc Québécois are completely out of touch with what the people of Quebec care about.
What Quebeckers care about is affordability, creating good jobs and providing opportunities for our young people. What Quebeckers care about is a workforce training program like the one outlined in the economic update. What Quebeckers care about is major projects like a high-speed rail line connecting Quebec City and Toronto, Nouveau Monde Graphite, the expansion of the port of Montreal in Contrecoeur, and major projects that will build Quebec and provide opportunities for ordinary people. That is what Quebeckers care about, not the questions about the Clarity Act that my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois are raising.
Mr. Speaker, no matter what the Liberals may think, the Clarity Act is a tool designed to disregard democracy if the outcome of a vote does not suit the federal government. Its sole purpose is to suppress the will of the people.
It is a law that undermines democracy and the right of peoples to self-determination. It also undermines justice by disregarding the Supreme Court's opinion, which holds that the concept of a clear majority is purely qualitative and not tied to a numerical margin of victory. This is blatant authoritarian overreach.
Are the Liberals not ashamed to promote this?
Mr. Speaker, our colleague from the Bloc Québécois talks about respect for democracy. We in the government will start by waiting for Quebeckers to have their say in the upcoming provincial election this fall.
We understand that the members of the Bloc Québécois are engaging in hypotheticals. They are eagerly awaiting the upcoming provincial election. We are not going to judge these issues. We will continue to focus on issues that affect Quebec families, Quebec workers, and workers across Canada. The American tariff threat and how to support our industries are what we are working on.
[English]
Canadian Identity and Culture
Mr. Speaker, after 11 years of this Liberal government, Canadians are paying more for gas, more for groceries and more for housing. After all of that, they just want to kick back and relax and maybe watch a little Netflix or listen to a bit of Spotify, but even that small delight is now being denied to them at cost. Instead, they are going to have to pay more, because the Liberal-appointed CRTC is tripling the streaming tax from 5% to 15%, which, of course, will be passed directly to the consumer.
In section 7 of the Broadcasting Act, the Liberals actually have the power to reject this levy and stand up for Canadians. Will they commit today to going to bat on behalf of Canadian consumers and making life more affordable for them by scrapping the—
Mr. Speaker, let us be clear out of the gate. This is not a tax. This is an imaginary tax.
Since day one, we have been relentlessly focused on affordability. That is why we cut taxes for 22 million Canadians. This is about equity for creators. This is about fair competition, but mostly, it is about supporting Canadian storytellers, Canadian creators and Canadian artists, because we know how important they are to building Canada strong.
Mr. Speaker, I will let Canadians be the judge. At the end of the day, Canadians will have to pay 15% more for their online streaming service, and that is a direct result of this government's policy. Most of us would call that a “tax”, but the Liberals like to avoid that term. The point is this. Canadians are going to have to pay a whole lot more for Netflix, Disney+ and Spotify because of policies from this government, but this government has the power to do something about it. It can, in fact, repeal this decision.
After 11 years of making life more expensive for Canadians, will the Liberals finally stand up for the Canadian consumer and axe this tax?
Mr. Speaker, once again with the slogans. Once again with being a little loose on the facts. This is not a new tax.
Since we want to talk about the economy, let us talk about the cultural sector and how much it does for the Canadian economy. It generates billions of dollars across the country and employs hundreds of thousands of people in each of our ridings. It tells us who we are as Canadians. It unites us and helps us build a strong country.
Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the strength of our economy, because it is directly reflected in how well a household is doing. Right now, many households in Canada are paying 120% of their income just to cover rent and food. It is not 100%, but 120%. This Liberal government's policies are now going to add another tax to their regular monthly bills.
That is punitive in nature, but this government has the ability to do something about that. Will the Liberals instruct the CRTC to back off and scrap the tax?
Mr. Speaker, the policy of the government, as my colleague has just laid out, is quite clear. Canadians deserve to have production, creation and their stories told by Canadians for Canadians in Canada, by these global giant platforms.
There is no tax. There is no tax, period. It is imaginary. It is fake. These are the same people who want to defund the CBC, who want to kill our cultural industries, and who want to take Canada out of every single piece of culture that we can—
Seniors
Mr. Speaker, seniors built this country, yet every Liberal budget dismisses seniors and leaves them further behind. After 11 years of wasteful Liberal spending on luxuries for ministers and higher taxes, seniors are paying more for everything: more taxes, more debt, more on the national credit card and more of the same from the Liberals. The National Institute on Ageing found that one in five Canadians over 50 cannot afford basic needs such as groceries, heating or transportation.
How out of touch does the Prime Minister have to be to ignore seniors who are struggling—
Mr. Speaker, this is very rich coming from the Conservatives, whose plan is to do nothing. Their plan is to absolutely ignore the needs of Canadians, and we see that when they vote against measures such as ensuring that there is old age security for seniors, and when they put forward measures that would ensure that seniors aged 65 to 67 cannot get old age security. When the Conservatives folks talk about seniors, what Canadians should hear is crickets.
Mr. Speaker, the reality is that seniors cannot afford the essentials, such as groceries, rent and utilities. They cannot afford the gas or transit needed to even get to programs. The Liberal grocery rebate gimmick was pennies in a bucket. Food bank usage among seniors continues to rise. Over 8% of food bank users are seniors. Statistics tell us that more single seniors are now living below the poverty line.
How much more do seniors have to struggle before the Prime Minister finally delivers real relief for their daily expenses?
Mr. Speaker, the member talks about affordability, but when it comes time to support the very measures that benefit the seniors in her riding, she votes against them. In her riding, 31,000 members receive the Canada dental benefit. That is a seniors benefit. How does the member stand here and talk about affordability, when she votes against the measures that are supporting seniors?
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, while millions of Canadians struggle to put food on their table, the Liberal Prime Minister's luxury inflight catering costs soared to $195,000 for three trips, at a time when one in three employed Canadians is using debt to pay for their food. In my home province of Saskatchewan, people are talking about whether or not it is okay to steal groceries from grocery stores.
How out of touch does the Prime Minister have to be to cater luxury meals for himself and his buddies while Canadians are struggling to put food on the table?
Mr. Speaker, our international efforts are about bringing results home for workers here in Canada. I will talk about our trip to China in January and the $7 billion dollars of agriculture access to China for our farmers across the country. That is more access for our canola growers, our beef farmers and our seafood sector. Collectively that is over 500,000 jobs being supported for workers and farmers across the country.
That is not all. Recently we met with Malaysia's AirAsia CEO. That brought a deal worth $15 billion, which will result in 30,000 jobs across the country.
All our international efforts are about bringing jobs home for Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, what an out-of-touch answer that was. How arrogant can the Liberals get? Seriously, the topic on Tuesday on the most listened-to radio show in Saskatchewan was whether it is okay to steal food from grocery stores. Is stealing and microlooting okay in the breadbasket of Canada? After one year of the Liberal Prime Minister, Canadians are struggling so much that they need to steal food to feed their family.
The Prime Minister did tell young people that they would have to make sacrifices. Was becoming a criminal to feed their family one of those sacrifices?
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the member stands up to vote against the very things that would help members in his province. For example, parents are now paying $10 a day for child care, saving up to $6,900 per child per year through early learning and child care. The member has voted against the spring economic update, through which young people, apprentices, are going to get income top-ups as they take their training and become Red Seal tradespeople. He has voted against Canada summer jobs. He has voted against food programs. He has voted against indexed benefits.
What would the member vote for? That is what his constituents are wondering.
[Translation]
The Environment
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Liberal member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie announced that he is leaving politics. He is leaving politics because he had little to no influence on the Prime Minister's pro-oil decisions. He pointed out that, during the last election, the Liberal platform mentioned “climate change” 28 times but did not mention “pipeline” once. Voters were outrageously deceived. As the member himself said, “I can tell you that I'm not the only one who's uncomfortable with what's happening”.
I wonder, where are the others and why are they hiding?
Mr. Speaker, I also want to ask the Bloc member a question. It was the leader of the Bloc Québécois who did an about-face when he supported oil drilling and fracking on Anticosti Island, and perhaps the entire party felt the same. Has the Bloc Québécois changed its views? Its leader supported that.
Mr. Speaker, the reality is that 60 Liberal members formed an environmental caucus. Now that the new pipeline has been announced and the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie has resigned, they are nowhere to be found. One of the caucus co-chairs even said that the mandate of the environmental caucus is not to promote environmental issues. We could not make this stuff up. Just think: Their aim is not to promote environmental causes, but simply to bring members together for some good conversations. Wow.
This reminds me of the old hot stove league. Is that why they are defending policies—
Mr. Speaker, I would love to introduce my colleague to the members of the Liberal environmental caucus who are fighting climate change, as are all 173 members on this side of the House. Our government will continue to fight climate change. We will continue to protect the environment. Our government remains committed to that.
Finance
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister cost Canadians $195,000 in gourmet meals on three flights alone. Life is good for the Prime Minister. It makes no difference to him since he is not the one paying. Meanwhile, 34% of Canadian workers have to go into debt just to eat properly.
Will the Prime Minister stop adding luxury meals, paid for by Canadians, to his inflationary deficits?
Mr. Speaker, over the past year, we have seen something unprecedented: Canada has signed 20 trade and security agreements around the world and 56 critical mineral agreements. We are breaking records when it comes to foreign direct investment in Canada. A recent example of this is the order for 150 Airbus aircraft to be built in Quebec.
This is the result of the work the Prime Minister and ministers are doing abroad. They are bringing good jobs and good investment back here to Canada. I think this is exactly what the people of Beauce and Quebec are expecting.
Mr. Speaker, I'm sure our Prime Minister has never heard of our local wine, Harfang des Neiges. Why does the Prime Minister need a luxury meal for his official trips? This is taxpayers' money spent on $195,000 worth of food for just three flights. Imagine that, folks. Is a little chicken or a nice lasagna not good enough for the Prime Minister?
When will the Liberal Prime Minister stop breaking the bank at the expense of the people of Beauce?
Mr. Speaker, what is fascinating when I hear my colleague's question is that he would break the bank for the people of Beauce by depriving over 30,000 of his constituents of the Canadian dental care plan. He would deprive thousands more families of over $80 million per year from the Canada child benefit, and the list goes on.
When it comes to lowering the cost of living for Quebeckers and the people of Beauce, we will not take any lessons from this member.
Mr. Speaker, while 2.2 million Canadians have been lining up at food banks in just one month, our Prime Minister has spent more than $520,000 on inflight meals provided by luxury caterers.
This year, 22% of Canadians have lost weight because they cannot afford enough to eat. Meanwhile, 40,000 feet up in the air, our Prime Minister is being served beef tenderloin with bordelaise sauce, veal cutlets, Scottish salmon, crème brûlée, and fine wines.
When the Liberals tell Canadians they have to make sacrifices, do the Prime Minister and his inner circle consider themselves Canadians, or do they think they are above that?
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives think that if they repeat their message day after day, Canadians will eventually believe that they truly care about affordability. On this side of the House, we are working on real measures to tackle the affordability issue.
We have eliminated the gas tax. We have introduced the Canada groceries and essentials benefit and the Canada national school food program. We are accelerating the construction of affordable housing. We are protecting jobs in the industries most affected by tariffs. We are promoting training programs.
The Conservatives voted against all those measures. No one believes that the Conservatives are there to help the most vulnerable. Let us be serious.
They should get to work.
Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to investing in agriculture, the Liberal government turns a blind eye. When it comes to investing in research centres dedicated to agriculture, not only does it turn a blind eye, but it turns away entirely. The future of Canadian agriculture is now preparing for the next generation. The closure of seven research centres in Canada reduces our ability to innovate and prepare for the future of agriculture.
The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food needs to show leadership.
Will he reverse his decision before it is too late?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, from the very beginning, I made it clear that we would work with the provinces, the territories, academia and the private sector to ensure that we have strong, effective research centres across this country. We have 17 of them across the country. We have been doing research for 140 years, and we are going to continue. We have been working with Laval. We have been working with the University of Saskatchewan. We have been working with the University of Alberta. We have been working with the governments in those provinces.
We are going to continue to build research in this country because it is needed, but we are going to do research for industry, not for the opposition.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, agriculture is just a drop in the bucket for the Liberals, who are spending $6.6 billion on the Cúram program, $19 billion on consultants, and $100 billion on a high-speed train that will ruin entire farming communities in Quebec and Ontario.
Saving $23 million a year by closing seven research centres in Canada is completely unacceptable. This decision is a direct attack on our country's food security. It is not too late to fix this mistake.
Why do the Liberals historically always let Canada's agricultural communities down?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it is always said that politics is a bit of theatre, but that was pretty good, I must admit.
Let me say this. We are going to continue to build the agriculture community in this country. We know how important it is. There are going to be good-news announcements coming up very shortly in reference to research.
We are working extremely hard. We are granting an exemption for the use of strychnine in Alberta and the Prairies. We are moving to change the mandates of the CFIA and the PMRA. We are adding pasture rentals to AgriStability, enhancements to the APP and new funding for AgriMarketing, and we are introducing the productivity superdeduction.
We are just getting started.
Steel and Aluminum Industry
Mr. Speaker, the American tariffs on steel are completely unjustified and illegal. The House knows that. They are affecting my community of Sault Ste. Marie and the surrounding area. They are making people anxious and creating very difficult decisions for people to make right now.
Recently, the Minister of Industry was in the Soo to make a very important announcement on how she would have the backs of workers and of the industry. Can she update us on her plan to support the workers and the industry and to make a major milestone investment at Tenaris?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our fantastic MP for Sault Ste. Marie—Algoma for his hard work.
I know that the community and the town have been going through really tough times because of the unjustified and illegal American tariffs against our steelworkers, but there is good news. Notwithstanding U.S. protectionism, our plan is working, because in Sault Ste. Marie last Friday, we were able to announce 200 new jobs, a $76-million investment by the federal government, and Tenaris' own investment.
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
Mr. Speaker, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, 74,000 rejected asylum claimants remain eligible for luxury health benefits like physiotherapy and counselling under the Liberals.
One of those rejected asylum claimants was Fawad Ahmad. After leaving Afghanistan, he went to the United States, where he choked his wife and threatened to choke her again if she called the police. He then entered Canada and claimed asylum, but was rejected.
Can the health minister explain why rejected asylum claimants who choke their wives get better health benefits than law-abiding Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, as I have said the last number of days, the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed what we already know and that is this health program provides limited, temporary, essential health coverage for vulnerable people. The cost is tied to volumes.
The good news is our volumes have gone down by 59%. Taxpayers will save over $200 million annually because of the IFHP changes that we have instituted.
Mr. Speaker, maybe the Liberals need a taxpayer-funded counselling session to understand why Canadians are furious.
After leaving Afghanistan, Fawad Ahmad went to the United States where he choked his wife and threatened to choke her again. He later entered Canada and claimed asylum, but was rejected. Yet the Liberals kept him eligible for taxpayer-funded luxury health benefits like physiotherapy and counselling.
Will the health minister finally admit this is wrong, or does she believe rejected asylum claimants deserve better health benefits than Canadians paying the bill?
Mr. Speaker, what Canadians need to know is that, because of a Liberal budget and because of a Liberal bill, Bill C-12, and as confirmed by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, there will be $400 million in savings, $200 million plus another $200 million, in the interim health care coverage, because asylum numbers have gone down and because we brought forth Bill C-12 to curb exactly those situations.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister confirmed she has no clue where nearly 30,000 rejected asylum claimants with active deportation orders are. These people are wanted by the government and are hiding from authorities, therefore they are breaking the law. Yet all of them are still entitled to better health care than Canadians.
It is more costs, more waste, more corruption and more of the same. This Prime Minister is just another costly Liberal. Why does this Liberal government continue to let thousands of fake refugee fugitives freeload luxury health coverage on the backs of struggling families?
Mr. Speaker, let me just confirm that last year the Canada Border Services Agency removed an incredible number of individuals who were ineligible to be here in Canada. Over 23,000 individuals were removed.
This year, the CBSA is on target to continue that trend and to ensure those who are ineligible to be in Canada are removed expeditiously. Our men and women of the CBSA are working hard each and every day to ensure the safety and security of Canadians, and we will continue on that path.
Health
Mr. Speaker, in response to my question regarding PrescribeIT on May 6, the Minister of Health said that she spoke to the board of directors of Canada Health Infoway, causing them to fire their million-dollar CEO, Michael Green.
However, just the day before, the chair of that board, Dr. Peter Vaughan, said that the health minister had never personally raised concerns with him or the board about the $300 million wasted on PrescribeIT.
Both these statements cannot be true. Will the health minister tell us which statement was false?
Mr. Speaker, I will tell my colleague that I speak with Canada Health Infoway through the representative of Health Canada who is on the board. I do not have direct conversations with anyone on the board, because Health Canada has somebody on the board.
I would also say that we have taken the right measures, because after our conversation with the board, they removed the CEO of the company. Now we have an interim CEO, and we are working on the governance.
Mr. Speaker, am I to understand the health minister spoke with her representative on the board, but that board member did not tell the chair of the board that she had spoken with him? Did he mislead a committee of this House? If so, will she have another conversation with her representative on the board to dismiss another executive at Canada Health Infoway?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I am not sure exactly what his point is. The Conservatives know full well that Canada Health Infoway is a separate entity from the government. We have a representative on the board of directors, and we communicate with the organization through that representative. I am not going to get into who said what, but I have spoken to the representative who sits on the board.
[English]
Aerospace Industry
Mr. Speaker, in March, the Liberals entered into a lease with Maritime Launch Services for a so-called spaceport. The lease was backdated one full year to April 1, 2025, handing Maritime Launch Services 20 million tax dollars for no work and no value to taxpayers.
Why?
Mr. Speaker, establishing Canadian sovereign space launch capabilities will drive billions in investments, create good-paying jobs, increase Canada's sovereignty, reduce our reliance on the United States and support a commercial space launch and re-entry industry that could be worth up to $40 billion.
That is what we are investing in, and these are essential capabilities that protect Canada and create massive economic benefits for Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, after handing 20 million tax dollars to the nearly bankrupt Maritime Launch Services for no work, the chair of the board sold his previously worthless shares, pocketing $1.8 million. What we have is one big corrupt scheme in which Liberal insiders are getting rich while taxpayers are getting fleeced.
How can the minister possibly justify this?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, establishing sovereign space launch capabilities in Canada will drive billions of dollars in investment, create good-paying jobs, increase Canada's sovereignty, reduce our reliance on the United States and support a commercial space launch and re-entry sector that could be worth up to $40 billion dollars. That is what we are investing in. These are essential capabilities that protect Canada and create massive economic benefits for Canadians.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, today the CEO of the spaceport described questions about this $200-million giveaway as a “clueless meme”. He is in good company. The Minister of Defence has similarly responded to questions about the egregious lease terms as being “stupid”.
Let us review. The minister signed a lease gifting $20 million of taxpayers' money in arrears to a near-bankrupt company. Insiders immediately cashed out millions of dollars. Canadians are rightly asking questions.
Can the minister explain how this makes taxpayers clueless or stupid?
Mr. Speaker, I think the Conservatives can explain why they are anti-Nova Scotia, against green hydrogen in Nova Scotia, against Mersey River Wind in Nova Scotia and against development in Nova Scotia. They are against Nova Scotia workers and Nova Scotia ingenuity. Every single time in the last two weeks the common theme has been anti-Nova Scotia.
We, on this side of the House, support Nova Scotia, Nova Scotia workers, Nova Scotia business and this project.
Mr. Speaker, before the member goes too far defending this boondoggle, let me refer him to the publicly disclosed documents. A year ago, the spaceport's auditor indicated it was near bankruptcy. Nothing indicated the potential windfall of a $20-million lease with the government. Overpaying is one thing. Gifting $20 million to one's friends is an egregious abuse of taxpayer trust: Liberal insiders selling their shares for millions of dollars after the minister's giveaway. The securities commission will have to investigate.
Will the minister tell us who he thinks is going to be left standing when the music stops?
Mr. Speaker, another running theme in the House: conspiracy. The Conservative Party of Canada should now be the CPC, the Conspiracy Party of Canada. It loves a great conspiracy. It could not be that Nova Scotia is excelling in a new industry. It could not be that. It could not be the great workers. It could not be the Premier of Nova Scotia, a Conservative, who supports it. Everywhere we look, there is a conspiracy when it comes to the Conservative Party of Canada.
[Translation]
International Trade
Mr. Speaker, last week I had the opportunity to hold a round table with many businesses in my riding of Beauport—Limoilou to discuss current trade issues and the upcoming CUSMA review.
These businesses emphasized the importance of maintaining strong trade relations with the United States, while ensuring greater stability and predictability.
Can the Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade give us an update on the the ongoing discussions with our American partners and explain how our government is defending the interests of Canadian businesses and workers as part of the CUSMA review?
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou for his important work on this critical issue.
As everyone knows, the government is committed to continuing to negotiate with our American and Mexican partners as we head into the CUSMA review.
That is why we are meeting with industry leaders and provincial and territorial representatives, as my colleague did in his riding. We want to be ready for the upcoming review and ensure that we reach an agreement that is in the best interests of Canadians and Canadian workers.
[English]
Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, the text of the MOU signed by the Liberal government with Beijing's Ministry of Public Security remains secret.
Considering that Beijing abused the previous MOU signed by the Harper government, including by coercing some 25 Canadians to return to the PRC under Operation Fox Hunt and considering that a year ago, both the public inquiry into foreign interference and the Prime Minister said that Beijing presented the greatest threat to the security of Canada, will the Liberal government release the new MOU to assure Canadians Beijing will not coerce others to return to the PRC?
Mr. Speaker, Canada has entered into MOUs with China on combatting crime in varied forms since 2010. As has been the case historically, we have entered into these agreements on the advice of Canada's intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and they have also not been released publicly. I look forward to meeting with China's foreign minister and having a constructive exchange on areas of mutual interest.
We will continue to uphold Canada's values and the rule of law.
Mr. Speaker, if Beijing's foreign interference and transnational repression are the greatest threat to the security of Canada and if the government is confident about the MOU between itself and Beijing's Ministry of Public Security, the government should simply release the MOU and let Canadians decide for themselves.
Will the minister raise the issue of transnational repression and foreign interference when she meets with Foreign Minister Wang Yi this week?
Mr. Speaker, our government will always stand up for Canadians, protect our national interests and engage from a position of strength. We welcome the upcoming visit of Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi, the first such bilateral visit to Canada in nearly a decade.
We will also work with China where it advances Canada's national interests, including on trade, economic stability and global security, while defending Canada's sovereignty, security and values unequivocally.
Mr. Speaker, the minister wants us to believe that Beijing is just another benign trading partner, but Beijing's actions have been hostile to Canadian interests even more than Washington's. It supports the theft of Canadian IP, it has jailed the two Michaels, it interferes in our elections, it operates illegal police stations on Canadian soil and it has held our farmers hostage. Canadians have a right to know that our sovereignty has not been compromised and our citizens will be protected.
If the government has nothing to hide, why will it not release the secret documents and arrangements it has made with Beijing?
Mr. Speaker, I am going to reiterate that in these conversations, including my conversation with Minister Wang Yi tomorrow, we will ensure that the guardrails in place will continue protecting Canada's security, protecting Canada's sovereignty and ensuring Canada's greatest economic resilience.
Our government has taken concrete action to combat foreign interference, including establishing the foreign influence transparency registry and strengthening protections for Canadians and democratic—
Oil and Gas Industry
Mr. Speaker, demand for LNG is growing, and Canada is the cleanest supplier to help meet the demand. During the last election, we committed to making Canada an energy superpower, and we are delivering on that promise. Less than a year ago, LNG Canada delivered its first exports to Asia, and we are already expanding further.
Can the minister update the House on the efforts to expand Canadian LNG exports?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for the support on export diversification. Yesterday, I was in British Columbia to announce that Canada has reached—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Unfortunately, the noise level was such that I was not able to hear the minister, so maybe the minister could just start over.
Mr. Speaker, to share with the members opposite, yesterday I was in British Columbia to announce that Canada has reached a historic agreement to sell low-carbon LNG to Germany. This LNG was sourced from Ksi Lisims LNG, which is co-owned by the Nisg̱a'a Nation. It is expected to generate nearly $30 billion of private sector investment. It will export Canada's first LNG to Europe, supporting global energy security and economic growth for jurisdictions. It is a win-win-win-win: a win for Canada, a win for B.C.—
Labour
Mr. Speaker, the minister of labour has repeatedly claimed that she forced flight attendants back to work to prevent a health crisis in which essential supplies would be disrupted. She claims she was briefed of this risk, but her department has no record of this briefing, and the senior officials responsible for briefing her were not aware of it.
Confession is good for the soul, and we in the opposition are in a forgiving mood today, so why does the minister not use this golden opportunity to unburden herself of this guilt and admit that she did not tell the truth?
Mr. Speaker, it seems that the member opposite does not have compassion for the Canadians around the country who count on essential medical products and, yes indeed, medical organs that are delivered every single day around this country, not just from within our own borders but across international borders as well.
During a labour dispute, the minister of labour has the responsibility of working with the parties and, when an impasse has been arrived at, fostering industrial peace. Sometimes we use tools to refer these disputes to the CIRB. Of course, the member, having never been a minister, would not understand or feel the pressure to make sure that Canadians have what they need in these sensitive times.
Climate Change
Mr. Speaker, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie's decision to leave the Liberal caucus was a principled response to the Liberal government's failure to protect us from catastrophic climate change. We see wildfire seasons, floods and whole towns and communities burning to the ground while people wait for another summer when they are going to be choking on toxic smoke.
Will the government reverse its backsliding on environmental protections or will it continue to sit by and watch the world burn to the ground?
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate that today we announced further supports in protecting communities from forest fires. I encourage people to look for the resources and the information that is available to them.
When it comes to fighting climate change, I want to assure the member opposite that this government and this entire caucus is committed to continuing that fight. We see it with our regulations on enhanced methane, where we are world leaders. We see it with our nature strategy, our electricity strategy and our auto strategy. We are continuing to do the work, and we will get it done.
Air Transportation
Mr. Speaker, today, despite serious concerns raised by local communities, workers and public health experts about the future of Toronto's waterfront, Ontario's Conservative government forced through legislation to control and expand the Billy Bishop airport.
Canada's airports are critical public infrastructure built through public investment. There, and in airports across the country, the federal government has a responsibility to put public interest ahead of corporate profits. It should be stopping Doug Ford's scheme.
Why is it instead pushing its own sell-off plans for airports across this country?
Mr. Speaker, we will, of course, consider the views of all of the people in the GTA, indeed all Canadians, as we contemplate changes, if required, in the waterfront or at Billy Bishop airport. We will continue to listen to all of the heartfelt views of people who live along the harbour front, live in the GTA proper and deserve the best possible air service that can be provided to them.
Business of the House
[Business of the House]
Mr. Speaker, you join millions of Canadians who are anxious to hear the Thursday question. In fact, data centres all over the country are whirring into action as streaming devices carrying CPAC spring to life.
It being Thursday, it is time for the government to update the House as to the business for the rest of this week and next week. In light of the fact that Justin Trudeau's radical environment minister has announced his resignation, and the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie is leaving, apparently, over a rift in policy, it would be helpful for the member to know if he is doing the right thing.
Will the Liberals repeal all the radical antidevelopment legislation that the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie was so proud of? Will they repeal the “no more pipelines” bill, Bill C-69? Will they bring in legislation next week to repeal the shipping ban for Canadian exports off the west coast? Will they repeal the industrial carbon tax that drives away so many jobs and so much investment?
In other words, will the government prove that it has actually changed its ways, or in fact, is it continuing with Justin Trudeau's radical antidevelopment, "no new energy" agenda? That would be in line with the Prime Minister's book he wrote about himself called Values, in which he called for Canada's natural resources to be left in the ground.
In short, will the government bring in legislation to repeal those very bills and those very laws that drove out investment and shut down our energy sector for the past 11 years of darkness with Liberal governments?
Mr. Speaker, it is very surprising to hear that the Conservative Party still uses Justin Trudeau as its only plan to try to get into the hearts of Canadians. Unfortunately, in April 2025, Canadians elected a new government to do the business of the people of Canada.
On that note, I want to take the opportunity to wish my friend and colleague the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie a great time as he takes the next step in his life. I thank him for the amazing work he has done for this country on environment and climate change. I also thank him for his contribution to this caucus and to this Parliament as a minister, as a member of Parliament and as a great friend and colleague to all of us.
This evening we will have debate in committee of the whole on the main estimates for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
Tomorrow and Monday, we will continue second reading debate on Bill C-31, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025.
[Translation]
I also wish to inform the House that Tuesday will be an allotted day. Finally, on Wednesday and Thursday, we will move on to the third reading report stage of Bill C-16, the protecting victims act.
Government Orders
[Business of Supply]
[English]
Business of Supply
Opposition Motion—Elimination of the Streaming Tax
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my time with the MP for Scarborough Southwest.
[Translation]
I am very pleased to rise today to speak to the Online Streaming Act, the modernization of Canada's broadcasting system and the importance of ensuring that the stories told by Canadian creators remain a centrepiece of the modern broadcasting landscape.
At the core of this problem is a simple reality that we are all familiar with: The way Canadians consume content has changed at lightning speed. The Broadcasting Act was designed for a world of television, radio and cable channels and prime-time audiences. This world has not disappeared entirely, as shown by the millions of Canadians who gathered to watch the Montreal Canadiens during the playoffs. However, it is a thing of the past for most of the Canadians consuming content nowadays.
Children no longer run off to get a snack during the commercial breaks, as we did when we were kids. They bring their phones with them and watch whatever they want, whenever they want, provided their parents let them. This change has had some huge benefits. Canadians can access content from around the world more easily than ever before. We can watch Korean dramas, Mexican heist dramas, British bake-offs and singing competitions from around the world. American movies, TV shows and music are also widely available in Canada, and Canadians continue to consume this content extensively every day. There is no denying this reality. This is not necessarily a problem in and of itself. Canadians value choice, and the Online Streaming Act does not take that choice away from them.
The act ensures that, in this new content-rich environment, Canadian stories are also supported and showcased. It incorporates the key online streaming services that operate and generate revenue in Canada into a modernized accountability framework. Just as traditional broadcasters have long been expected to contribute to Canadian culture, so too must today's broadcasters.
Through the Online Streaming Act, the House modernized the Broadcasting Act to ensure that foreign streaming companies support our creators, our stories and Canadian music for generations to come. The act establishes a fair and simple regulatory framework under which comparable broadcasting services are subject to similar regulatory requirements.
The government has made it clear that the Online Streaming Act and the CRTC's implementation of regulatory measures are consistent with Canada's trade obligations, including those under CUSMA. The Online Streaming Act was drafted with Canada's international obligations and commitments in mind.
I want to emphasize that the act is not intended to discriminate against non‑Canadian services. It applies to all undertakings that provide online broadcasting services to Canadians. It is not a matter of nationality, but rather of participating in the Canadian broadcasting system and profiting from it here at home. Far from being discriminatory, the act does exactly the opposite. It requires each company to contribute appropriately to the creation and presentation of Canadian programming, in proportion to its presence and importance in the system. It is a matter of fairness.
If a business generates income in Canada, it is expected to contribute fairly and equitably. That is why it is misleading to claim that the act targets U.S. companies. In reality, it aims to create a fair, flexible framework for online streaming services operating in Canada that complies with Canada's international commitments.
Although it requires the CRTC to ensure that online streaming services contribute significantly to the broadcasting system, it does not put U.S. content streamers or creators at a disadvantage. In fact, Canadian streamers are still expected to spend a higher percentage of their revenues on Canadian content than foreign streamers.
In the not-to-distant past, online streamers were not required to support Canadian music or stories while contributing to other major broadcasting objectives.
Under the CRTC's Canadian programming expenditure framework, Canadian broadcasting ownership groups are subject to a 25% Canadian programming expenditure requirement, while unaffiliated and non-Canadian online broadcasting ownership groups are subject to a 15% requirement, which includes the 5% base contribution. The framework applies to groups operating in Canada with annual Canadian broadcasting revenues of $25 million or more. This means that small businesses, such as local stations that are often the only sources of information in regional areas, newly launched television services, or specialized streaming television services targeting small audiences, will not be subject to this requirement.
It is also important to remember that Canadian broadcasters have long been subject to significant spending and programming obligations and that their obligations to contribute to the system remain in place. Those that generate the most revenue, the major players that are increasingly capturing the public's attention, will be expected to contribute more and will serve as major windows into Canadian and Quebec culture. Only the major players who can afford to do so are expected to make proportional contributions.
The new regulations do not penalize streaming services for operating in Canada. Why would they? The reality is that foreign broadcasters have enriched the broadcasting landscape and provided opportunities for Canadian talent. It is a question of fairness. If a company benefits from its operations in the Canadian market, if it reaches Canadian audiences and if it earns significant revenue from Canadian subscribers and viewers, it is entirely reasonable that it should contribute to the sustainability of the system in which it operates. This is not a radical idea.
For decades, Canada maintained an outdated broadcasting policy; it recognizes that culture is not simply a commodity like any other. Broadcasting helps shape the way people understand their country, their communities and one another. It ensures that Canadians can see and hear themselves reflected in the programming available to them. Now more than ever, we need to hear stories that come from here. We need to see ourselves on screen.
Our government will never stop supporting Canadian artists and culture. It is high time to pass Bill C-11 and bring it into force as soon as possible.
I want to talk about Quebec. It is getting harder and harder for French-language content to break into American channels. We do business with the giants of this world, but the giants of this world are centred on the English language. Bill C‑11 will ensure that we get a fair shake when it comes to our content and promoting the French language in Canadian content. For Quebeckers who want to showcase and promote francophone culture, I can attest that this bill is up to date and good for the Quebec community, the Canadian community and the community that wants to promote Canadian content and see it reflected in our young people, in our future and in young audiences currently consuming the major networks' products.
Bill C-11 is here to stay and here to make us work for our future.
I look forward to answering questions.
Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question for my colleague.
How much money have the Liberals managed to raise so far with the 5% that was already in place? How much money do they estimate they will raise with the 15%? Who will end up paying the 15%, at the end of the day?
Obviously, it is not the government. The government is going to pocket the money and may well redistribute it. That is what the Liberals are saying.
Who is actually going to pay this 15% tax?
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is asking an excellent question. I was just talking about Quebec content, but it is Canadian content that ensures that the money is reinvested in content.
In my region, our artists are telling us that they want more investment in Canadian and Quebec content. That is exactly what the percentages levied on content are for. They ensure that we can reinvest them here at home to produce more Canadian content. This aligns perfectly with the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks. He said a number of things that the Bloc Québécois agrees with. I often say that we protect what we love. We love our culture. We love our free, independent press. We want to protect it and give it the means to continue entertaining and informing Quebeckers.
I have a question for my colleague. If he loves Quebec culture and the free press, as we do, why did his government cancel the digital services tax a year ago, a tax that would have been used to take money out of the pockets of web giants and give it back to our culture and media?
Mr. Speaker, I think that my colleague and I share a Quebec culture and a Canadian culture, which the government greatly supports. Bill C‑11 does just that. That money will be reinvested in Quebec content. We will promote our artists. We will stand up for our creators.
For the next generation, we will invest that money in Canadian and Quebec content. I am proud that we can reinvest what comes from digital content in our local and Quebec artists.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague's thoughts on how it is that the Conservative Party appears to want to surrender our sovereignty on this particular issue. The Conservatives are, in essence, saying that because of negotiations that are taking place, we should just capitulate and have nothing to do with protecting our arts, our performing artists and our culture.
I am wondering if the member would provide his thoughts on how important our arts programs are for provinces such as Quebec, and across Canada, and how important it is to support them in the different ways we do.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.
Obviously, it is easy for the Conservatives to target the bill and try to vote against something that helps our Quebec and Canadian artists. However, we must remember that it is also the Conservatives who want to abolish CBC/Radio-Canada and cancel the investments we are making in our Quebec and Canadian advertising.
This bill enables us to bring content home and do more for Canadians and Quebeckers.
Mr. Speaker, let us talk about advertising. The Canadian government is currently running 80% of its ads on platforms owned by the tech giants. It gives them money every day, millions and millions of dollars in advertising, instead of advertising in our local and regional organizations and media.
I will ask my colleague again. How much money did the government collect with the 5% it implemented through Bill C‑11? By the way, that legislation has been in place for a number of years, and it is not even in effect yet. Now they are increasing it to 15%. At the end of the day, who is going to pay the 15%?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to my colleague in French.
It is clear, and I said it in response to his first question: The money invested that we collect from radio and television broadcasting will be reinvested in Quebec, reinvested in Canada and reinvested in Canadian content. That is exactly why the law is in place. It is to keep our culture at home.
I know that my colleague is not happy about that, because he would like to do away with everything that involves the arts, artists or communications, but if there is one thing I would like to say, it is that we are proud of our bill.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the good people of Scarborough Southwest to deliver my inaugural speech in the House as their member of Parliament, and I do so with immense gratitude and humility.
I want to begin by recognizing my constituents and everyone who helped our campaign in hopes of a better future. For nearly eight years, I have had the honour of serving our community as their member of provincial parliament. I sat with residents in my office, at community events and at town halls, listened to them at their doors and heard their stories of sacrifice, resilience, hope and hard work. I carry those stories with me into the House. I carry the trust of a community that has given me and this government one of the strongest mandates in history. Families, workers, seniors, newcomers, young people and small business owners in Scarborough Southwest all rallied together around the promise of a better future. They are the ones who sent me here, and my work here will be guided by that promise and that responsibility every single day.
I also stand here today with a profound sense of history, as the first Bangladeshi Canadian elected to public office in Canada, and now the first of Bangladeshi origin to take a seat in this chamber. This moment is not mine alone. This moment belongs to every immigrant parent who travelled thousands of miles across oceans with fear of the unknown, but hope in their hearts. It belongs to every individual who worked long hours and made countless sacrifices, believing that their future generations could thrive. It belongs to every young person who has ever wondered whether their name, their story, their faith or their background could fit in spaces like this. I stand here today because of the very promise Canada made to families like mine: the chance to build a better future. I want to make sure every child in our country knows that they belong in the future we are building right here. Our job here is to protect that promise at all costs and renew it for the next generation.
Scarborough Southwest is not just the riding I represent. It is the community that raised me, shaped my values and showed me what that promise means. Our community has been built by people from all walks of life who have been united by the belief that Canada offers a fair shot at a better life.
However, right now, for too many, that promise seems out of reach. Many are working multiple jobs and are forced to stretch every single dollar just to get by. Affordability is not abstract in Scarborough Southwest. It is the painful choice of paying rent over buying groceries. It is kids saving on TTC fare by walking. It is prescriptions being left unfilled. It is the stressful calculation of cost after every paycheque to see if anything is left at the end of the month.
This is why, over the past year, our new Liberal government has recognized that Canadians need immediate relief from these challenges and a long-term plan to build a stronger, more resilient economy. This is why our record on affordability matters. Recent measures like the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which will help millions of Canadians, the temporary pause on the federal fuel excise tax, and the strengthening of consumer protections are just some of the steps our government has taken to keep money in the pockets of hard-working Canadians.
Affordability is also about lowering costs over time, creating good-paying jobs, fighting tariffs while strengthening and diversifying our economy, and giving families more security for the future. Our investments in infrastructure, more homes at lower costs, skilled trades, innovation and the critical sectors will shape our economy for decades. These measures address people's everyday challenges while renewing Canada's promise to future generations.
As we speak about Canada's future, we must also speak honestly about the world around us. In what is perhaps the most consequential speech of our time, the Prime Minister accurately stressed that Canada must be “both principled and pragmatic”: principled in our commitment to international law and human rights, and pragmatic in recognizing the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.
The part that stuck with me was when the Prime Minister said that Canada has “something else...a recognition of what's happening and a determination to act accordingly.” That means our conscience must also include protecting innocent, vulnerable people around the world. No child should grow up under constant fear or bombardment. No family should have to search through rubble for their loved ones. No single person should ever be denied food, medicine, safety, shelter or the basic dignity of human life.
The horrific suffering of Gaza, and more recently the abhorrent treatment of the flotilla humanitarians, including Canadian humanitarian volunteers, and the illegal expansion of settlements in the West Bank, has shaken the conscience of so many Canadians. Canada's strength is not just about the size of our economy, our resources or our alliances; our strength also comes from our values and our belief that justice cannot be selective in whose pain it recognizes.
If we speak about “value-based realism”, then we must uphold our moral values while facing the world as it is. If we speak about human rights, then those rights must apply to everyone. If we speak about peace, then that peace must be rooted in justice and accountability.
We have a choice: either to accept a world where the powerful do whatever they want and the weak pay the price, or to help build a better, more just world.
I return to the promise Canada offers and our responsibility as members of this House to protect and renew that promise. That promise is renewed when we make sure that families can afford a life and that workers know their hard work pays off. It is renewed when seniors feel relieved thinking about their future and when we encourage young people to dream big for their future. It is renewed when a child of immigrants can stand in this House, knowing that she belongs here. Even more importantly, that promise is renewed when Canada looks at a broken world and does not choose indifference, but chooses to act with principles and courage.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome my hon. colleague to the House.
She will no doubt be aware that recently the Muslim Association of Canada held a networking session, a conference, for Canadians in Toronto. In a word cloud that was presented at that conference was the phrase “Jew free”. I wonder if my hon. colleague would take this opportunity in her maiden speech during the questions and comments to get up here and show us her courage to condemn that type of thinking in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from the other side for that question, because it allows me to say this publicly here. I have said in the Ontario legislature that people of all faiths, especially after the history that Jewish people have suffered, have to have the freedom to be who they are. Anyone who says anything like that should be condemned, so I condemn that and I stand with people of all religions and all backgrounds for their right to be who they are.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome my colleague and congratulate her on her first speech in the House.
I would like to hear her comments on the Liberal government's backtracking on the digital services tax. What are her thoughts on this?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I think our government is taking all the steps necessary, especially at the time right now, to address the challenges that people are facing. If I had had more time, I would have talked about more measures that our government is taking. Right now we are facing a very difficult time with tariffs, and just this morning, I was at the industry committee, where we talked about AI. I know my hon. colleague has sat with me at some of the committee hearings as well, so we will work together to make sure that we have policies that help everyone, and I look forward to doing that.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to extend a warm welcome to my colleague for her maiden speech in the House.
On that note, I want to ask my colleague what she thinks about the fact that the opposition really is pushing a motion to try to overstep culture and protection of culture for our communities here in Canada, especially for francophone communities. Can my colleague comment on why it is important that we oppose this motion?
Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I found really inspiring, after being elected and being in this House, is practising my French. I had almost stopped using my French after my university days. I learned French and English at the same time, so both are my second languages. Unfortunately, I did not practise enough. I think we have to do everything possible to protect both of our languages, and we should do everything possible to work hard so that French is protected.
I also want to take a moment to say that there are a lot of indigenous languages that may be going extinct, and we should do our part to make sure that we protect them as well.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome my newly elected Liberal colleague. I could give her the opportunity to answer a question in French, since she says that she has learned French. There is no reason to be embarrassed about speaking English or French when in the House of Commons.
I would simply like to know who, in the end, will pay the 15%?
She can give a very simple answer.
Mr. Speaker, I only speak a little French. I need to practise.
[English]
I am learning, and I look forward to doing that in the coming months and years. Maybe my hon. colleague will help me learn and practise as well.
I know that our government is taking action to make sure that more money goes into the pockets of hard-working Canadians. That is essentially the aim of every policy and every bill that we pass in this House. I look forward to working with every member in this House to do just that.
Mr. Speaker,
October was a beautiful month at Green Gables, when the birches in the hollow turned as golden as sunshine and the maples behind the orchard were royal crimson and the wild cherry-trees along the lane put on the loveliest shades of dark red and bronzy green, while the fields sunned themselves in aftermaths.
Anne reveled in the world of color about her.
“Oh, Marilla,” she exclaimed one Saturday morning,... “I’m so glad I live in a world where there are Octobers...”
Those who love Canadian content may recognize this memorable passage from the great Canadian story Anne of Green Gables, written by the great Canadian author Lucy Maud Montgomery. This passage highlights why the book has endured for so many years: Anne's irrepressible spirit, capturing her vivid imagination that turns the ordinary autumn into something magical.
Anne's author, Lucy Maud Montgomery, in fact spent 15 years of her life in Leaskdale, Ontario, which is in my riding of York—Durham, about 15 minutes from where I live. She wrote the majority of her books while living in Leaskdale, and she raised her two surviving children there. Anne of Green Gables was not successful because Lucy Maud Montgomery was funded by a tax on foreign authors. Anne of Green Gables was not successful because a Liberal government forced Canadians to buy her book. It was successful because it was great writing, great content and great Canadian culture. The strength of Canadian culture should not rely on forcing foreign companies to subsidize Canadian content. The strength of Canadian culture should not rely on forcing foreign companies to force Canadians to watch or listen to government-mandated content, regardless of its quality.
We are talking about the Online Streaming Act today and the increase in that tax on Canadians, the Netflix tax, from 5% of gross Canadian revenues to 15% of gross Canadian revenues, which will undoubtedly increase the costs for Canadians. There are many reasons to oppose this tax hike, but what I want to focus on today is that this tax hike will be a trade irritant with our friends in the United States and will impede our ability to get a good deal on our CUSMA renewal. Since its introduction, the Online Streaming Act has faced trade backlash from the United States, and rightly so. It requires foreign streaming services to contribute a percentage of their gross Canadian revenues to Canadian production funds as a condition of market access. Those payments were at 5% and have now increased to 15%.
These rules are discriminatory for at least four reasons: First, they exclude Canadian streaming services from the same obligations, so foreign companies must pay and Canadian companies do not have to. Second, when foreign companies pay, they pay twice. That is because the royalties they pay to Canadian rights holders are included in the taxable revenue used to calculate their obligation. I know Liberals love taxes, but this is a tax on a tax. Third, the rules exclude foreign companies from benefiting from those content funds. Last, they require streaming providers to promote and prioritize Canadian content. This is often referred to as discoverability.
I will pause on that for a moment. The government is dictating the content that these streaming service providers must show Canadians. They are telling them that regardless of whether a show is popular, of quality, good to watch, fun to watch or even if anyone wants to watch it, it must be shown to Canadians. The Liberal government will tell them what content is okay. All of this leaves us with an unfair and uneven playing field, whereby foreign companies are required to contribute but banned from benefiting.
The cost to foreign companies is real. One estimate that was submitted before the CRTC by the Computer and Communications Industry Association in the United States said that at 5%, it cost its industry $2.2 billion U.S. This will grow between 2025 and 2030, at the higher CRTC rates, to over $7 billion U.S. I am not noting the cost so that we shed a tear for companies that are paying taxes but to note that there is a real cost to U.S. companies. We should not be surprised that these U.S. companies are outraged that they are being discriminated against and are calling on their government to take action.
The Americans have responded in several ways. First, the Online Streaming Act has been identified in the USTR's national trade estimates report every year since its passage. That report identifies trade irritants that the U.S. has with countries around the world. If we go to the section on Canada, we will find a subsection on the Online Streaming Act, which calls out this tax.
This is not just some government report that sits on a shelf. USTR Jamieson Greer has repeatedly said in public that the national trade estimates report must be part of any CUSMA renegotiations. This means that the issue is squarely in play for the U.S.
The government has often claimed that Canada is shielded from this or otherwise protected because of the so-called cultural exception in the CUSMA. The cultural exception exists, but it comes with a price. Let me unpack that a little more.
The starting point is chapter 19 on digital trade in the CUSMA. It covers non-discrimination. It says, in the relevant part, “No Party shall accord less favorable treatment to a digital product created, produced, published, contracted for...or...made available on commercial terms in the territory of another Party”. We have to treat foreign digital products in the same way as we treat other foreign digital projects and products created in Canada.
Lawyers will argue on whether there is discrimination or not, and we will leave that to them. I would say that I think the case is pretty strong.
That takes us to the so-called cultural exemption, which is found in chapter 32. It says, in the relevant part, that the agreement, the CUSMA, “does not apply to a measure adopted or maintained by Canada with respect to a cultural industry”. Okay, that sounds good. However, that is not the whole story, because just two articles down, it says, “Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, a Party may take a measure of equivalent commercial effect in response to an action by another Party that would have been inconsistent with this Agreement”.
Taken together, this means that Canada can violate its non-discrimination obligations in the digital trade chapter for the cultural sector in Canada, as it is doing with the Online Streaming Act. However, that gives the U.S. the right to retaliate with “equivalent commercial effect”. This is why the estimates of the cost to U.S. industry are so important, because it tells us what the retaliation may be.
It is also important to note that the retaliation provision is not limited to the cultural sector. This means that the United States could choose which products or services it wishes to retaliate against. The U.S. has done that repeatedly with other countries. We can take France as an example. The U.S. retaliated to the French digital services tax by targeting its wine, cheese and handbags.
We have talked a lot in the House about vulnerable industries in Canada: steel, aluminum, lumber, automotive and seafood. We can imagine the United States taking retaliatory action, completely consistent with its obligations, in one of those industries.
I just want to end on how this funding is being used, because we could argue about whether this is good or not, but what really puts the nail in the coffin for me is to see how this cultural funding is being used. It is often used to push radical ideologies on Canadians, families and children. Let us look at just a couple of the outrageous examples.
Most recently, we heard about the example of the prank show Northland Tales, produced by the CBC and APTN, in which the state broadcaster used deceptive tactics to lure participants to a show and then sandbagged them to push their anti-historical, anti-Canadian narratives attacking Canadian figures and institutions such as John A. Macdonald, the founder of our country. Without Macdonald, there would be no Canada. There was also the RCMP, a historic institution in this country. Even members of Parliament were targeted. The member for North Island—Powell River was targeted. He is smarter than the average bear and was able to avoid that.
We can see that this funding is not used to promote quality Canadian content, such as Anne of Green Gables. It is wasted on radical ideologies.
However, there is a solution. The solution is that the government should use its powers to stop the CRTC from raising this tax from 5% of revenues to 15% of revenues. The government has the power. It has its majority. The question is whether it will do that. At the end of the day, Canadians want to go home, kick their feet up, crack a beer and watch Netflix without having it cost them an arm and a leg.
Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat sad to see Canada's official opposition surrender our arts and cultural sovereignty to the United States. That is in fact what we have been witnessing from Conservative members like the one who just spoke, who made it very clear why he wants everyone's gung-ho support of this resolution. He is advocating for what we would expect to hear from American politicians or for advocates for Netflix. That is the kind of advocacy we are seeing coming from the Conservative Party.
Okay, the Conservatives want us to capitulate. This is not the first time. I remember, on Trump one, that they wanted us to capitulate. Why are the Conservative Party members giving up on our culture and heritage communities?
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.
[Translation]
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.
[English]
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Before we go to questions and comments, I would remind the member not to use the name of any member, including the Prime Minister, in this place.
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?
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.
[Translation]
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?
[English]
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.
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?
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.
It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, Indigenous Affairs; the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Democratic Institutions; the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona, Health.
[Translation]
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
Mr. Speaker, Terrebonne is fortunate to have a very lively cultural sector. We have La nouvelle société, which is amazing at promoting content that is not only independent and made by young artists, but also unique to Quebec. I remember last year, when Terrebonne was treated to a fantastic stage adaptation of Les Boys. That is the kind of content we want to see. Les Boys is from a previous generation, but we want to see the new generation fall in love with purely Quebec and purely Canadian content. Those are the kinds of things we will be able to do.
Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to tell us more about her intention to work toward convincing the government to reinstate the digital services tax.
Earlier, I was talking about the Conservative Party's pathetic obsequiousness. I think the same thing happened with the Liberal Party last year. To avoid ruffling feathers south of the border, the government decided not to tax a percentage of the revenue of the digital giants, even though they are making money here by using our cultural products, and even though our cultural industry needs that money.
How far is my colleague willing to go to convince her government to reinstate the digital services tax?
Mr. Speaker, I think that being a spokesperson within the government to continue promoting Canadian and Quebec culture is very important to me and to all the members from Quebec who are here.
Of course, we have worked with everyone in the House so that we can continue promoting the investments we made in Canadian culture in recent budgets. These were rather historic investments, after all.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this motion today because it gives us an opportunity to really celebrate the cultural productions, the musicians, the directors, the TV producers, the workers and the makeup artists, all the people who participate in this rich cultural economy that we have in Canada. I will also speak to what is happening in Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park.
The motion also gives me an opportunity to speak to some trends I have been seeing in the party opposite, over my time in this chamber of just over a year, when it comes to trade issues and to cultural issues. With respect to trade, there really are two kinds of things that we generally see. There is the misread of the trade situation, whereby the party opposite either wants to go back to some historic past that does not exist anymore, as in the encouragement to bring back the auto pact in its complete form in a way that is not resonant with the current state of negotiations, the current state of the auto sector, or wants to capitulate.
In this case, I know the party opposite was opposed to the Online Streaming Act, but it is recommending that we simply give up the real gains that we have made through mechanisms like those in the Online Streaming Act and through all the kinds of things that we need to do to build ourselves and our sovereignty up in this moment of real challenge for Canada. I believe there is a misread of the trade situation, but there is also a misread of culture and the way culture is generated in Canada. Artists do not just emerge fully out of whole cloth, ready to take on the world without any support whatsoever.
I noted that my colleague from York—Durham made mention of Lucy Maud Montgomery, and I appreciated my colleague from Hamilton's very spirited embrace of Lucy Maud Montgomery and her work, but it is also important to note that Lucy Maud Montgomery was writing at a very different time, when cultural communications travelled differently, when books travelled differently and when curricula were designed differently. We are now in an era of very rapid digital communications. We need to change with the times, and we need to have the cultural assets that we have built up and convert them for a new generation.
I would just add regarding Anne of Green Gables, Lucy Maud Montgomery's work, that it has continued to prosper in Canada in part because of the mechanisms we use to support digital culture. There is both the 1985 CBC series of the novels and the later Anne with an E series, which ran for three seasons. I know my daughter and my family were very big fans of that. Those cultural products, which came out of a place of strong Canadian culture, were generated from the kinds of supports that have been embraced and furthered on this side of the House, whether it is support for the CBC or, indeed, supports through mechanisms like those, if not in that particular case, in the Online Streaming Act.
Artists do not emerge out of whole cloth, ready to take on the world. Artists are nurtured by community, and taxpayer funds are important for that. Also, where we can, the benefit of a policy that has large American multinational companies play their role in supporting this production is very important. Indeed, the mechanisms that we have in place are working.
I want to quote from the CEO of the Canadian Media Producers Association, Reynolds Mastin, on the release of its recent annual report on the state of media production in Canada. He said, “The Canadian production industry has established itself as a great partner for foreign production, and with the promised investments from the Online Streaming Act, we'll see a boost in Canadian content production, reversing the downward trend of recent years”.
In the report, CMPA also referred to foreign production activity, a set of activities that we are being told by the Conservatives is at constant existential risk, as actually being up 9.8% in 2025. The value of film and production in Canada, from the CMPA report, was $10.2 billion, and the industry is responsible for 181,360 jobs. This is a sign of a growing sector, a sector that is already mature and a sector that has excellence. This is a sector that not only produces original content but also produces a whole set of workers and capacities that producers and investors, including American investors, want to participate in.
I was recently at the launch of The Testaments. It is a new Hulu series that is being filmed based on the work of Margaret Atwood, a great Canadian cultural producer and a great Canadian author from Toronto. At that launch, the producers, both American and Canadian, lauded the capacity, expertise and talent that exists in Canada to put on this production, including the makeup artists, the costumers and the builders of the film production sets. I have to add Mrs. Huizenga thrift shop to that list, which is in Toronto's Junction area of Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, which was featured in The Testaments tv show.
The story that the Conservatives are telling is representative of neither the current state of affairs nor the excitement that Canadians feel about the cultural productions that are being produced here. It is a misread to say that artists emerge whole cloth, ready to take on the world without any of the kinds of supports that we, on this side of the House, know are necessary. We know that different kinds of artists need support, for example, if they come from different identity groups or speak different languages. We know that Canadian companies need to grow and to have the opportunity to play on an equal playing field. We know that Canadian producers want to partner with American companies, but we also need that opportunity to have the resources come in to do that work.
In this era of streaming, there is an increasingly complex dynamic between streamers and creators. There is a whole set of intermediaries who have now been displaced from our arts and culture sector, including the A and R people, many independent producers, local television stations and even video stores. The intermediaries, who help create those connections between artists and the very large producers, are starting to be displaced and are starting to adapt.
Creators are having to take on more of the work themselves, of managing their careers and building up their resources, so they are playing the role of not only part-time artist but also part-time business person. Creators are ready and willing to do that work, but they do need some help and some support.
The Online Streaming Act, like the Online News Act, is a very important part of the mechanism that gives the creators in Canada the opportunities to participate with revenues from very profitable companies that Canadians embrace and that Canadians subscribe to by the millions. This allegation that it is a tax on Canadians is purely fictional. It is an imaginary assertion. The payments that are being made under the Online Streaming Act and have been made under the Online News Act go to real benefits and to real creators who are creating products. Those subscriptions that I talk about have not changed.
I want to talk about some of the beneficiaries of the complete set of funding mechanisms that we have in Canada in my riding of Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, including through vehicles such as Telefilm Canada; the Canada Media Fund; Canada Council for the Arts; CBC, which is constantly denigrated on the other side of the House; and yes, some of the revenues from the Online Streaming Act and the Online News Act.
There are the creators like Kunsang Kyirong, who created 100 Sunset, which won the Discovery Award at the Toronto International Film Festival and was filmed in my riding. There are creators in west Toronto like Matt Johnson, the creator of Nirvanna the Band the Show the Movie and, of course, the very beloved movie, BlackBerry. On the TV side, we have tons of workers and unions, like IATSE, which is supported by its international vice-president, John Lewis in my riding.
I have heard from so many cultural workers in my riding about the real and essential need to support Canadian cultural producers through mechanisms like those in the Online Streaming Act. There are musicians like Charlotte Cornfield, who has launched her recent album to great acclaim, and musicians like Daniel Lanois, who has a studio in my riding.
They are all part of an ecosystem where some are internationally renowned. Some came up through America, and some through Europe. Many came up through Canada. They all benefited from the connections and resources we have created through the CBC, through the revenues that we help them get attached to with things like the Online Streaming Act and through resources like Telefilm, the Media Fund and the Canada Council for the Arts.
It is part of an entire ecosystem that supports creators. If we are really here to support creators, to say that creators are essential to telling Canadian stories and that those stories are essential to Canadian sovereignty, then we need to have a way of bringing them from where they are to where we know they can shine on the world stage. That is done through mechanisms like this. It is not done by denigrating the real work that comes out of funds like this. For that reason, I will be opposing the motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, obviously, this motion sends a clear message to our artists in the Quebec and Canadian cultural sectors.
My question for my colleague is this. Does it seem right that the Conservatives are choosing American web giants over Quebec and Canadian artists and culture?
Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question.
We believe that it is possible to support creators, filmmakers and musicians while at the same time ensuring that the American giants make good corporate citizens. This policy helps creators and artists secure more funding for their creations and ensures that Canadians and Quebeckers can access this information and these programs.
They often have access to these creations through American companies like Netflix or Spotify. A policy like this one will help ensure that creators, Canadians and businesses can all do well.
Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on his remarks, and I have no doubt about his commitment to culture and the importance of giving our producers a chance. Otherwise, they will be crushed.
I still want to point out the hypocrisy of all this. Liberal Party members of Parliament are talking to us today about defending culture, but they have given up on pushing for the digital services tax. I think that might also explain why the CRTC decided to raise it. It is because the Liberals did not do their job.
How does my colleague feel about this contradiction between what he says and his government's actions?
Mr. Speaker, we are here to defend Canadian sovereignty, whether by including cultural exemptions in our free trade agreements or by supporting the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation through historic investments. During the 1990s, I spent several years in Quebec, in Montreal. Back then, I appreciated the measures and the level of commitment with which Quebeckers defended their culture.
We are very familiar with these policies, not only in Quebec but across Canada.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague. Does he think that the tripling of this tax by the CRTC will not hurt the cultural industries and artists we seek to support?
I worked for the provincial government back in 1996 when the Ontario government passed the Ontario film and television tax credit. Back then it was Mike Harris's government, and the industry thrived. It grew tremendously. We are putting that at risk, making the industry more uncompetitive, by tripling a tax on them, so companies will not reinvest in Canada. They will make the decision to invest in productions in the United States, not here in Canada, supporting Canadian industries, supporting Canadian artists and telling Canadian stories.
Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to talk to my colleague about his involvement in that file, which actually resulted in a bipartisan consensus in Ontario, whereby both Progressive Conservatives and Liberals supported the policy of supporting production, not only by Canadian companies, but also by international companies. That policy has led to results, including the one that I quoted.
I believe that we are getting the balance right here. We want to continue to attract foreign investment. I do appreciate the hon. member's work, particularly in his community with the great cultural productions coming out of that place, which then potentially lead to film, TV and musical productions. I am very much looking forward to working with him on this file.
Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that there are many ways to describe the latest CRTC ruling on streaming services, but I will start with the obvious one: This is wild. However, it is not all that surprising. Conservatives warned that this would happen. We warned that the Online Streaming Act was never just about making Netflix and others pay their fair share.
The real issue was always much bigger. The government handed the CRTC broad new authority over the Internet and then asked Canadians to trust that the regulator would not go too far, but here we are. The CRTC has decided that streaming services such as Netflix, Disney, Amazon and others must spend or contribute 15% of their Canadian broadcasting revenues towards Canadian programming. That includes the 5% payment already imposed in 2024, which several major streaming companies are still fighting in court.
If the government believes , like the Conservatives do, that this ruling has perhaps gone too far, it does have options at its disposal. It can direct the CRTC to change course. It can bring forward legislation to narrow or repeal the powers that it gave the CRTC. It can stop pretending this is someone else's problem. However, what it cannot do is hand the CRTC a blank cheque over streaming and then deny responsibility when the bill is passed on to Canadians.
Let us be clear about what is happening. The government is taking the old Canadian broadcast model built for cable boxes, rabbit ears, licences and cable packages and is trying to stretch it out over the entirety of the Internet. The CRTC says this is going to create far more money for Canadian content. On the surface, that sounds absolutely wonderful. Why would we not want more money flowing to Canadian content?
No member of the House, including me, is against Canadian stories, artists, actors, writers, directors, musicians and all the people behind the scenes who make the industry work. We all support Canadian creators, but this is not the debate. The question is whether supporting Canadian creators requires another unnecessary and costly tax while Canadian consumers are paying more for their services.
Make no mistake. As much as the government likes to claim it, this is not just free money becoming available. Streaming companies are not charities. When the government makes it more expensive to operate in Canada, there are only a few places the money can come from. It can come, which is most likely, from higher subscription services and prices. It can come from fewer services, less choice or reduced investment in Canada.
The money will come from somewhere. That is the part that defenders of this scheme always seem to skip. They talk as if the government had discovered a new cultural oil well: Lower the bucket, haul up the cash and sprinkle it around, and everything is going to be fantastic. What they have really done is impose a new cost on platforms that Canadians already pay for and then pretend that the cost is never going to show up on anyone's bill any time in the future.
This is the loony-tune type of rhetoric the government likes to project on taxpayers. Costs are never costs, and taxes are never taxes. It is always a framework, a contribution, a modernization or a flexible approach, but flexible for whom? It is flexible for the lobbyists who know how to work the system at the expense of citizens. It is flexible for the established players who know how to fill out the forms, meet the specific definitions, hire the right consultants and navigate the maze that is the CRTC.
However, for a family watching the cost of its monthly subscriptions go up yet again, it is not that flexible at all. People are leaving and have left cable for a reason. They wanted choice. They wanted control over what they consume. They wanted a service that could bring a little bit of joy at the end of their busy days. The Internet is not cable with Wi-Fi. It is a completely different world.
The old broadcasting system was built around scarcity. There were only so many frequencies, channels, licences and time slots available. That is why the old system was built around quotas, licences, mandatory contributions and rules about what had to be shown. The Internet functions entirely differently, as we all know. It is built around abundance: endless shelf space, choice and competition, with millions of creators reaching audiences directly without needing permission from a broadcaster or a regulator.
A small creator in Winkler with a camera can reach an audience. A musician in Portage can create a song and put it online. A podcaster in Morden can speak directly to listeners anywhere in the world. They do not need to wait for a broadcaster to discover them. That is not a loophole in Canadian culture. That is Canadian culture in the modern world, and it does not stop at money. The CRTC is also getting involved in something called “discoverability”.
Discoverability might sound harmless, but on the Internet, discoverability is everything. It is about what appears on someone's home page, what gets recommended to them, what shows up in their search, what gets suggested next, what becomes easy to find and what gets buried. When the government starts saying that certain content must be made more discoverable, the question becomes simple: Is something more discoverable because viewers asked for it, or is it more discoverable because the regulator nudged the platform into pushing it? This is no small question.
On streaming platforms, the recommendation system is the store. It is the shelf. It is the front window. It is the clerk saying, “Hey, you may also like this.” When government starts directing how content should be presented, promoted, searched and surfaced, it is no longer just funding Canadian creators. It is getting involved in what Canadians are nudged to watch. That should make people uncomfortable, because that should not be the job of the government.
The Liberal government has already pushed through enough censorship legislation and has advocated for more control in the lives of Canadians. Nobody wants the government to further interfere in what they watch at home alone or with their family.
I believe that culture is strongest when people choose it freely. It is definitely not when the government puts its thumb on the scale and then congratulates itself for creating demand. The more government regulates online culture, the more it starts deciding what counts as Canadian culture in the first place. A show is treated as Canadian not simply because Canadians like it or because it is a Canadian story. It has to pass through a maze of ownership rules, spending rules, rights rules and points for approved jobs behind the scenes.
The entire purpose of streaming was for people to watch what they wanted, when they wanted it, and definitely without the government's interfering in it. The government will say it is about fairness: Canadian broadcasters have had to contribute to the system for decades, so foreign streamers should contribute too. That is, frankly, the strongest argument. However, Netflix, Disney and Spotify did not break Canadian broadcasting. The Internet changed, as did its its viewers, its advertising and its technologies. People got used to choosing what they wanted instead of paying for a bundle of things they did not want to watch.
There is also, of course, a serious trade issue with this. Companies such as Apple, Amazon and Spotify have already challenged the 5% ruling from the CRTC, and it is still before the courts. The United States has raised trade concerns regarding the decision. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has criticized the CRTC's move, arguing that the rules target American streaming services and interfere with platform operations.
These are not some fringe organizations on the sidelines. This is the organized voice of major American businesses looking at the Canadian regulatory system and raising concerns. This lands, of course, at the worst possible time, because, as we know, we are heading into a CUSMA review. Our economy depends heavily on keeping access to the American market stable and predictable.
At a time when our trade relationship with the United States is already uncertain, the CRTC has handed the American negotiators a fresh grievance to use. Why are we making Canada look more complicated, more expensive and more hostile to digital investment? The Liberal government should be trying to attract investment instead of giving reasons to scare it away.
The defenders of this scheme will say it helps Canadian creators, which is partially true. Some established producers will benefit: the people who already know how to navigate the system and exactly where to line up. However, what about the independent Canadian creator building an audience on YouTube, Spotify, Patreon, TikTok or a podcast? What about the Canadian filmmaker who gets global backing but does not fit neatly into the CRTC's preferred category? What about the next generation of Canadian creators who do not want to wait at the gate? They want to build, they want to publish, they want to stream, they want to sell, they want to perform, and they want to compete.
There is a much easier way to support Canadian creators: Make it easier to produce content here, attract more investment, keep our taxes competitive, remove barriers, and open markets. We need to let Canadian stories reach audiences in their living room, at home and around the world. We cannot build a cultural industry by giving government more power over the Internet.
I strongly support Canadian content, and we should absolutely celebrate it, but Canadians are not children. They do not need the government hovering over the remote control. Canadian culture and Canadian wallets would be better served if government got out of the way.
Mr. Speaker, Canada is not the only G7 country that recognizes that streaming fees need to be there. Members of the Conservative Party have put on their tinfoil hats and have come up with the idea that there is a great conspiracy of government wanting to control what they watch and see, which is a bunch of garbage.
What I have witnessed throughout today, morning and afternoon, is the Conservative Party of Canada, Canada's official opposition, taking the side of the citizens of the United States. One would think they are working for them, or at the very least for companies such as Netflix.
My question is, why is the Conservative Party, Canada's official opposition, not looking at the best interests of Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is usually here, but he must have stepped out, because he has not listened to the speech I just gave.
My point is that the government should not be picking winners and losers. I have absolutely no faith when it comes to the Liberal Government's efforts to previously censor what we see and say online. In fact, I would love it if my local news creators could share any of their news stories on any Meta platform, but thanks to this government's terrible legislation, they are no longer able to do that.
My point is this: Let all of us, Canadian content creators of all types, the up-and-comers, not just the established creators who know how to operate the maze of CRTC rules to get special funding, have the opportunity to succeed, share our stories loudly and proudly, not just in Canada but around the world.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, surviving in the world of Canadian and Quebec productions requires existing in the first place. The problem we have right now is that these platforms have invaded, and they are getting much more visibility.
We have been hearing all day that anyone can put a song on YouTube and promote it, but will not be able to live off it. It takes a structure. It takes a cultural ecosystem. We need that money to reinvest in our local media everywhere.
I have a question for my colleague. All day long, we have been hearing that CUSMA was about to be negotiated and that this was no time to put a tax on the Americans, that we had to give in and not put anything in place to prevent that.
My question is this. Is it not time to stand up for ourselves? Over the past year, the Liberal government has shown that giving in on everything has given us nothing. I am thinking of taxing web giants and waiving tariffs. We have gained nothing and have had new tariffs imposed to boot.
Let us take responsibility. Let us put in place the taxes we need. Then we can sit down and negotiate with the Americans. What does my colleague think about that?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with my Bloc colleague on how bad the Liberals have been on their trade negotiations with the United States for the master negotiator to have achieved absolutely nothing so far except giving up elements of Canadian sovereignty and wealth.
However, the member raised the issue of the money that the CRTC says it is going to create. Of course, that is what a tax does, but I fail to understand why it is believed in the House, or why any rational person would believe, that this is free money and that all of a sudden these big companies are just going to voluntarily not pass those costs on but say, “You know what, we should help out Canadian content. We'll just do this out of the goodness of our heart because we're a charity.” They are not charities. They are private enterprises.
As much as I want Canadians to compete on the big streaming services, I want to give every content creator across any platform who wants to educate or to offer entertainment around the world the same opportunity, and not just let the big players take advantage of a system that is so confusing for everybody who tries to deal with the CRTC.
Mr. Speaker, I was trying to think of great artists in history, such Shakespeare, Michelangelo, Cicero and Plato. Some of them had private benefactors, but none of them, to my knowledge, had government support behind them. I cannot think of any artist that had government support—
Some hon members: Oh, oh!
Scott Anderson: Mr. Speaker, on the other hand, I cannot think of any artist who did have government support and who is great. I cannot think of a great Soviet artist.
I wonder if my colleague could tell us this: Is it because the Liberals hate Canadian culture?
Mr. Speaker, I think we should all be so proud. I heard the names of a few bands shouted out.
However, this is not about not supporting Canadian artists. I think there is a role to play. This is about the CRTC's being handed a suite of powers by the Liberal government, saying that there is no chance, as a regulator, that it is going to overstep its boundaries, but then it went ahead and did that.
The CRTC has imposed, at a terrible time, this new tax upon Canadians that is ultimately more likely going to drive away investment than create the opportunity for another Hallmark film to be made in Morden. This is about common-sense policy and making sure we are protecting the affordability of entertainment made by Canadians for Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of families in Quebec who are sick and tired of being bled dry.
On May 21, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, made a unilateral decision that is out of touch with reality. It announced that it is tripling the tax on streaming platforms from 5% to 15%. That is aggressive taxation. Let us think about this for a second. The initial 5% tax is still being challenged in court, and the CRTC has not yet collected a single penny of it, but that is not stopping the CRTC from trying to triple the tax before the court has even ruled. This is madness.
Let us be realistic. Who will end up footing the bill? I asked two of my Liberal colleagues about this earlier, and neither was able to answer me. The obvious answer is: consumers. Web giants will not absorb the cost; our own consumers will have to shell out. Once again, the middle class will get hit. I am talking about families in Saint-Pacôme, La Pocatière and the 73 other municipalities in my riding whose bills will go up yet again. Who else will get hit? Seniors who keep track of every dollar so they can make it to the end of the month.
Subscriptions to Netflix, Spotify, Disney+ and YouTube will cost quite a lot more. Given the current inflation, the groceries that cost an arm and a leg, and the housing crisis, a bit of family entertainment will end up becoming a luxury. This tax hike is yet another punitive measure by the Liberal government. It is another tax that is driving up the cost of living.
Let us talk about the regions. In many parts of Quebec, cultural offerings are rather scarce. Not everyone can have a large movie theatre, a theatre or a performance hall across the street. Online platforms are becoming a way for families in the regions to access new releases, both Canadian and foreign, and the same culture as everyone else at the same time. Taxing these services by 15% creates an additional geographic injustice for Canadians who live farther and farther away from major urban centres. It is doubly punitive for the regions.
There is a fundamental principle in our democracy, and our parliamentary work has been clear for decades and centuries: Parliament alone has the power to tax citizens. The CRTC is a committee of civil servants appointed by people elected by the public. By what right can these bureaucrats decide overnight to tax Quebeckers and Canadians? The government has the power to reject this decision, and it must do so. If it refuses to act, it is complicit. The CRTC is becoming our very own Internet czar. People sitting in offices decide what is good or bad for citizens. It is an insult to consumers' intelligence.
Ultimately, it is consumers who decide what they want to consume. Freedom of choice is an important value in both Quebec and Canada. People are mature enough to decide for themselves what they want to listen to or support. Quebeckers are proud of their culture and have always shown it, as have the Conservatives. When a local show is good, we watch it in droves. When a song is good, we listen to it on repeat—which I do regularly, by the way. We do not need Ottawa to dictate what we should watch or listen to. The Quebec public is sovereign when it comes to its cultural choices.
Furthermore, by imposing a 15% tax, Canada is totally shooting itself in the foot. Our country is becoming one of the most expensive and least competitive countries in the world for investment. What message are we sending to investors? What message are we sending to all the communications and culture giants and non-giants that are interested in investing in Canada? We are telling them to come here to be taxed. Who is going to pay at the end of the day? Once again, it is always the same people: consumers.
The message we are sending companies that might want to invest in Canada is that they should not come here because it is complicated and unpredictable and they are going to be taxed to the hilt. This is impeding investment in this country, of course. It is threatening paying jobs in technology and film. Heaven knows that in Quebec and especially Montreal, the top global hub, especially for video games, there are all kinds of organizations making films and that world-class productions are also being created in Quebec and Montreal.
In the long term, what message are we sending these people? Time and time again, the message is that the government is going to tax them. Some will say that the francophone minority in Quebec and across the country certainly needs the tax money to survive. That is a bad idea masquerading as a good one. That involves a misunderstanding of the reality of the francophone market. If we impose such a heavy tax, what is going to happen? The major platforms will make economic choices. Producing in French is expensive, and the content is intended for a smaller market. If the government slams them again with a 15% tax, these multinationals may simply cut their francophone production budgets to cover their losses.
Instead of helping francophone culture, this tax will discourage platforms from commissioning new series or films in French. It is our own culture that we are stunting. Our technicians, directors, actors, visual effect experts and post-production studios also work with these major platforms. They are already funding, in part, some productions. These people earn their living through huge contracts with them, which brings new money into our economy.
By imposing a punitive 15% tax, the government is halting this economic momentum. If Canada becomes hostile and unpredictable, these companies will simply go film their series and produce their projects somewhere else. Quebec cultural workers will lose good-paying jobs. The way to protect the francophone minority is not by putting our own people out of work. Quebec content producers, technicians and artists need solid partnerships, predictability and private investments to showcase our talent. The government, by waging war on the big platforms, is hurting our artists, pulling the rug out from under them, and denying them a unique opportunity to become known worldwide.
To add to the absurdity, this decision comes at the worst possible time. The U.S. administration and its ambassadors have clearly warned us that they see this as an unfair provocation and trade barrier targeting their companies. Canada is getting ready to renegotiate CUSMA, a trade agreement that supports thousands of Quebec families, workers and businesses. Why is the government trying to pick a fight with our biggest economic partner?
I am going to digress for a moment. In my riding, like everywhere else in Quebec and Canada, this agreement with the United States, the one that the Liberals are dragging their feet on renegotiating, offers Canada and our regions, especially Quebec, absolutely fundamental economic benefits. This holds true in all sectors, including the cultural sector, the industrial sector, the agricultural sector and the food sector. The U.S. is our biggest customer, partner and friend. Right now, we are putting up all kinds of barriers to stop these people from showing any interest in doing business with Canada. We have no idea why the government is picking fights with the United States like it is right now. It is sheer recklessness. Instead of making us competitive, it is damaging our ability to compete internationally. It is absolutely unbelievable.
There is still time to backtrack. The minister and the government have the power to block this ridiculous CRTC decision. They need to heed the warnings of our trading partners. They need to stop thinking that every problem can be solved with a new tax. Once again, the Liberals are telling us that they are giving more and more money, but they are putting that on credit. Then they turn around and collect more and more taxes to be able to pay for it. In doing so, they are harming the Canadian cultural economy. Canadians are asking for a break, not for unnecessary tax hikes.
I do not want to hear that the Conservatives need to be better informed. The Conservatives have our culture and the protection of the French language in mind and at heart. We are proud of our artists. We have always been proud of our artists. The government is saying that the Conservatives do not like artists and other such things, but that is not so. That is completely false.
We refuse to believe that the only way to support homegrown talent is to punish consumers and drive away investment. That is absurd. That is not the way to build a strong, competitive economy. The more prosperous our economy gets, the easier it will be for our local businesses to fund, produce and disseminate homegrown works. Making people poorer and hurting economic growth is no way to help Quebec and Canadian culture flourish.
The Conservatives are staunchly opposed to this tax, and we demand that it be eliminated outright. We need to give taxpayers some breathing space, encourage investment and stop creating taxes that make life harder for people.
[English]
Before we go to questions and comments, I believe the Minister of Fisheries is rising on a point of order.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, there are often times in the House when we can find common ground. I think we can all agree on the fact that a sovereign Canada, a sovereign country, has the right to make decisions on matters within its borders. If someone wants to sell something in Canada, we have the right to make safety, environmental or tax regulations. It is also a fact that Canadians want us to be self-sufficient. We are in a tariff war, as others have mentioned, and we have the right to make decisions accordingly.
I am shocked that the Conservatives are calling the Americans our friends when they are imposing unfair tariffs on us.
We can, however, agree on the importance of Quebec and Canadian culture. My colleague talked about a geographic injustice, but there is also the matter of the American and anglophone culture flooding in. Would my colleague not agree—
I have to leave time for the hon. member to answer.
The hon. member for Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that we can have regulations in Canada and that we can make all kinds of decisions. The problem is that all the decisions the Liberal government has made over the past 11 years have been to impose taxes, fees and all sorts of regulations, left and right, that inevitably have an impact on the cost of the products we consume. This is true for housing, it is true for food, and it is true for gas. It is true for everything.
In this case, we are adding another 15% tax on a product that people consume at the end of the day, often in the evening, watching a movie on Netflix. The Liberals always find a way to add taxes and make consumers pay.
Mr. Speaker, I want to address the argument put forward by my colleague and his party about how we must never, ever tax web giants because that would be a trade irritant.
Why is it a trade irritant for the Americans? Obviously, because massive corporations like Amazon, Netflix and Prime Video want to come here and make as much money as possible without contributing to the media ecosystem while traditional broadcasters and distributors pay their share to support cultural and news programming.
The real question is not whether this is a trade irritant. The real question is whether or not it is good for culture, especially Quebec culture, to make sure there is money available for it. What are my colleague's thoughts on that?
Mr. Speaker, I would simply say to my colleague that the federal government invests astronomical sums, more than $1.2 billion a year, in culture in Quebec and across Canada. I sit on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, and during our most recent studies, we were told that money is not currently an issue. Rather, more authority is needed to ensure wider distribution across Canada.
I therefore believe that the crux of the matter is that, as we speak, the average consumer has had enough. People are fed up with paying taxes. It is the only way the Liberals have found to squeeze extra money out of consumers' pockets, and people are sick of it.
Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to give my colleague the opportunity to remind all Canadians who will ultimately foot the bill for the 15% increase if the Liberal government does not reject this streaming tax increase proposed by the CRTC and does not scrap it.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his French. That is a really great question. I have anglophone colleagues who are making incredible efforts in French. In fact, some come to study in La Pocatière, in my riding, in the summer.
The answer to that is the consumer. At the end of the day, it is the consumer who is going to pay this 15% tax, which used to be 5%. By the way, that 5% tax has still not been collected because it is being challenged in court. The legislation stemming from Bill C‑11 is still not enforced. This future tax will inevitably apply one day if the court settlement is finally reached. Once again, the reality is that ordinary Canadians are the ones who will end up paying the tax.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, in the short time I have available to me, I want to say how pleased I am to speak on our Conservative motion that “the House call on the Liberal Cabinet to use their powers under the Broadcasting Act to reject the CRTC's streaming tax increase and eliminate the streaming tax.”
For the Canadians who are watching, the Liberal-appointed CRTC recently ordered online streaming services to pay 15% of their annual Canadian revenues to the government. That is up from the current 5%. There are three basic reasons why we are advocating for that to be rolled back and eliminated. First, it is an affordability issue. At a time when families are struggling to afford food, gas and housing, another tax hike makes no sense, particularly now. Second, it hinders investment. It does not do anything to enhance the competitive nature of our cultural industries in Canada. In fact, it will only hinder our cultural industries. It works against what we are trying to do.
Earlier, when I was talking to a colleague, I said that in 1996, the Conservative government in the province of Ontario, the government of Mike Harris, introduced an Ontario film and television tax credit, which allowed the industry to grow and thrive and supported the cultural industries and artists. That is being put at risk by an increased tax burden that will only drive those investments away.
It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
The question is on the motion.
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Monday, June 1, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
Private Members' Business
[Private Members' Business]
[English]
Canada Revenue Agency Act
moved that Bill S-217, An Act to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act (reporting on unpaid income tax), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is an absolute pleasure to rise in this chamber again to speak on a very important issue to Canadians.
Before I start, I want to pay tribute to a local individual, Mr. Dan Newman, who recently passed away. He was a two-time elected member of the provincial parliament and cabinet minister in the Ontario legislature from 1995 and re-elected in 1999. Dan was a dear friend of mine, a dear friend to many in the community, a quick wit and a wonderful individual. I would like to give his family my sincere condolences on behalf of all those in Simcoe North. I am sure they miss him deeply after his very unexpected passing. Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, given that you seem to be in a giving mood tonight, I also wish my brother and my good friend Stephen Graham happy belated birthday, to give them a tribute in this speech.
Just crossing the desk, I want to make sure the House is fully aware that the Prime Minister was in New York today, and he said that a strong Canada would “help make America great again”. I did not have it on my bingo card that the Prime Minister would be embracing MAGA principles, but I seem to always be amazed by the opportunism of the Prime Minister.
Getting back to the issue at hand, it is an important bill that we are debating here tonight. I would like to start by thanking the House again for its co-operation on another bill, which I think is adjacent to this one, Bill C-230, which we passed here unanimously just a few weeks ago. This bill, Bill S-217, is basically identical to the bill by Senator Percy Downe that passed in the Senate three times. Senator Downe stands as an example to all parliamentarians that, with persistence and good-natured collaboration and engagement, good ideas have a real chance of becoming law in this country.
Senator Downe has been talking about the issues of tax evasion and the efficacy of the CRA in carrying out its primary objective of collecting the tax monies that are owed to the federal government. He has been highlighting these issues for many years and raising concerns about the actions of the CRA in pursuing individuals who participate in overseas tax evasion, which is evading taxes paid in Canada by using overseas tax havens.
Members will recall the Panama papers, a very well-publicized, international exposé by journalists, who later had their lives threatened and in fact had violence perpetrated against them. The Panama papers identified a number of Canadians who had assets hidden away in overseas tax havens. To date, there have been no Canadians convicted of overseas tax evasion from the Panama papers. This is one of the reasons for which Senator Downe has brought forward this legislation.
The legislation, in my mind, does a few key things. Number one, it would require greater transparency at the CRA to publish the list of individuals who are convicted of tax evasion. Number two, which is also a serious issue that we have dealt with many times in this chamber and in the government as a whole, is the ability of the Parliamentary Budget Officer to receive relevant data and information from the Canada Revenue Agency. This bill would require the Canada Revenue Agency to produce data and information and make that available to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, so the Parliamentary Budget Officer could complete independent analysis on the tax gap.
“What is the tax gap?” one might ask. The tax gap is an assessment of what the CRA believes it is owed on an annual basis by taxpayers, corporations and individuals, versus what it is actually able to receive: that is, what taxes are assessed and what taxes are collected.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer should be doing an independent analysis of this tax gap. The bill would also require the CRA to produce its own estimation of the tax gap so that it can be viewed by parliamentarians. This is consistent with best practices in other jurisdictions around the world.
These are the three main points of the bill.
I have to commend Senator Downe for a number of things, such as his leadership in making sure that these issues are not forgotten from Parliament to Parliament. Senator Downe has passed this bill three times in its basic exact form over previous Parliaments. This is the third time the bill is coming to this chamber.
I am on the record suggesting that the current majority status of this Parliament is a disadvantage to Canadians because that was not the result of the last election at the ballot box. However, if there is a silver lining to the majority status of this Parliament, and the fact that we may be here for a little while longer, it is that it will give the House the opportunity to properly consider, review and potentially amend this bill and to make it law, because it has been sent here three times and the House has been unable to make it law.
We owe Senator Downe this effort because of his persistence and leadership on this issue. He has convinced his colleagues in the Senate three times that the bill ought to become law. I think all members in this chamber should be willing to work together to examine this bill at committee. I was very proud to put my name on the bill in this chamber for a number of reasons, but also because Senator Downe has worked very closely with me on some of my private member's bills, one on money laundering in the last Parliament and, yet again, in this Parliament with Bill C-230, which, as I mentioned, passed here unanimously a couple of weeks ago and which is complementary to this bill in so many ways.
I would like to just talk a little about the bill in the words of Senator Downe. When taxpayers cheat, the rest of Canadians make up the shortfall. Taxes rise to cover the balance. The government is forced to take on more debt. Debt service payments increase, and the debt gets paid forward to the next generation. Enforcing compliance with Canada's tax laws and collecting monies owed to government is a core mandate of the CRA, but how well is the CRA fulfilling its responsibilities? Consider overseas tax evasion. Story after story follows the same pattern. A news story will break, and the CRA appears with its regular talking points: They are working hard to catch overseas tax evaders; they take it seriously; they have identified monies that are owed to the government; the work is ongoing to collect those monies. However, the results are ultimately disappointing.
I mentioned previously the 2016 Panama papers, the disclosures of overseas tax evasion. Other countries with citizens involved in this scandal have collected billions of dollars in taxes owed. A recent article by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, the journalists who broke the story, lists Australia as having recovered $44 million; Germany, $87 million; and Spain, $175 million. Iceland, a country of just 340,000, recovered $25 million.
Canada, however, after 10 years, has not announced the recovery of a nickel. Approximately 900 Canadians were identified as having accounts linked to the Panama papers. Not one person has been charged, much less convicted of this tax evasion, a stark contrast to what has happened in other countries.
The fairness for all Canadian taxpayers act, introduced by Senator Downe, would require the government, as I mentioned before, to disclose these convictions of tax evasion, to publish the estimates for the tax gap and then to make sure that the Parliamentary Budget Officer can complete independent analysis of the tax gap for the benefit of all members in the House.
Canada lags behind other countries that measure their tax gap and provide the public with more transparency and more information. The bill would certainly help legislators in this place and in the Senate make better laws to ensure that the CRA has the tools to carry out its core mandate effectively. I have to mention that, while Canadians may be frustrated with the Canada Revenue Agency's performance over the last number of years, there are a number of fantastic people who work there and work very hard. I believe that they deserve a level of sympathy, because the government has been asking the CRA to do more and more activities that are outside of its core mandate.
The government has asked the CRA to administer new benefit programs. It has asked the CRA to introduce and administer new tax reporting structures that are incredibly complicated. In one case, the CRA was to implement bare trust reporting rules that everyone knew were complicated. People spent hundreds of millions of dollars in total in complying with this new reporting requirement, only to have the government, a political actor, reverse the decision about submitting this paperwork at the last second, on the day the paperwork was due. Hundreds of thousands of taxpayers incurred, in some cases, multiple-thousand-dollar tax bills to send information to the CRA, only to have the CRA say that it was too complicated and that it did not need that information right now.
These are the operational decisions that the government has unfairly placed on the CRA, in my opinion.
I believe that there are wonderful agents at the CRA who work hard and try to collect the money owing to government, but I believe, and I concur with my friend in the Senate, that Canadians deserve greater transparency on those who are convicted of tax evasion. I think we should make sure that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has access to the information it needs to conduct independent analysis of the tax gap.
I would be remiss if I did not mention that, following my speech, I will be joined by the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, who is a wonderful mentor of mine and a person from whom I have learned a great deal in this place about how he carries himself, how to collaborate and how to make sure that one is standing up for their constituents and their principles with vigour, as well as with integrity.
I look forward very much to his speech and thank him for his support on this bill and on my bill, Bill C-230, which, as I mentioned, I was pleased to see make it through this chamber.
Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member can provide his thoughts in regard to the issue of privacy. I know a part of the legislation would ultimately see reports going to our PBO, the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Does the member have any concerns at all in regard to privacy? Can he expand on that issue?
Mr. Speaker, my friend from Winnipeg North quite rightly points out a potential concern with privacy. I would say two things.
The first is that I think any data provided to the Parliamentary Budget Officer could be appropriately anonymized such that it would be impossible to identify any taxpayer, whether that is a corporate or individual taxpayer. We should judiciously protect the privacy rights of Canadians. However, with respect to the information that would be required to be publicly disclosed by the government, it would be about individuals who have been convicted of tax evasion in Canada. Those individuals, if they have been convicted, have been convicted in a court of law and do not deserve any privacy rights, in my opinion.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very worthwhile bill. My colleague will be pleased to hear that the Bloc Québécois is prepared to support this bill and carefully examine it in committee.
I have a question for him. In his speech, he talked about tax evasion, which is addressed in the bill. He also talked about tax avoidance and how businesses are able to avoid paying taxes by using tax havens. However, as far as I know, the bill does not address that issue.
Does he not think that the scope of his bill should be expanded to include tax avoidance? It is not fair that businesses are not paying their fair share.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, that was an excellent question. I am certainly pleased to hear that the Bloc is open to supporting the bill's being studied at committee. He put his finger on an interesting point with respect to companies that are avoiding taxes. I think that is partially what the bill is trying to get at, with respect to measuring the tax gap. That is to say, what does the government believe is owed to the government, i.e., what does the CRA believe is owed versus what they are able to collect? I do think that is a portion of tax avoidance.
In my view, we could study this a bit more at committee, but I think that is one of the things this bill is trying to get at, with respect to companies that avoid paying the taxes they owe.
Mr. Speaker, I want to build on the two questions my hon. colleague was already asked, because in my opinion, when people are breaking the law or they are avoiding taxes, it is all about transparency and accountability.
In particular, I want to ask him what he thinks the end result will be. Will this help and potentially enable additional changes to our tax laws and our Criminal Code? As he talked about in his speech, unfortunately, Canada has a bad track record of not collecting any of the money that has not been properly paid to the government coffers.
Mr. Speaker, my wonderful friend asked his question in English, although he does speak French. I just heard him in this chamber speaking French. He tried it out quite well. Maybe he was auditioning.
I think he is right about two things: We need more transparency, and we need more accountability. If parliamentarians and the broader Canadian public have this information, we can help the CRA refocus its efforts on its core mandate, which is to collect the money that is owed and go after tax evaders.
If we are lagging behind other countries in finding, prosecuting and convicting tax evaders, ensuring that we have transparency about that process will help us deliver better laws and maybe better tools to the CRA so that it can carry out its core mandate.
Mr. Speaker, I want to start off with what my colleague across the way started his comments with. He made reference to the Prime Minister's going down to the United States. I think that a vast majority of Canadians see that we have a Prime Minister today who is in this for the long haul. He recognizes the importance of international trade and relationships. He was not only meeting with the President of the United States; in my understanding, the luncheon that the member across the way referred to was with 200 of the United States' top business people, individuals who control hundreds of millions, going into billions, of dollars.
In that speech, the Prime Minister did not just say, “We are just going to make America strong.” He prefaced it with some very important words. He indicated to this group that a stronger, more independent Canada, in a selective way, could help make America great again. Now, at the end of the day, does the member disagree with the idea that a healthier and stronger Canada would contribute to a healthier and stronger United States? That is what a trade agreement is all about, and the actions that this Prime Minister and this government have taken to date reinforce that.
We just went through a full day of debate on a Conservative motion in which the Conservatives are capitulating on our arts industry. They are saying that we can no longer defend the arts community; rather, we should just concede it. It is important to recognize that, when we talk about the issue of tax fairness, we have to factor in that we are in the midst of negotiations.
The member himself talked about the importance of having a stronger and healthier economy. Part of that means having a tax system that is fair, that has transparency and that has accountability. In budget 2025, members will see a number of measures that would allow for more tax fairness. There are a number of proposed changes to ensure that we are moving forward regarding the issue of tax fairness. It is interesting that my Conservative friends are voting against that, or at least they are voting against the budget.
However, I have some good news. Bill S-217 has been a very important issue for the Senate, particularly Senator Percy Downe. It has been an issue for him for many years. I believe it has been over 10 years that he has been working on this particular issue that we have before us today. We have a government that recognizes a number of principles within the legislation that could, in fact, make a positive difference. Therefore, when we look at the legislation, we see a number of actions that are being taken. We can talk about the convictions, that all convictions for tax evasions, including international tax evasions, would be listed and produced in the annual report from Canada Revenue Agency to the minister. There is a great deal of merit in that.
We also recognize the issue of the tax gap. It is important that we all recognize what the tax gap is. One of the answers the member gave was interesting. My understanding of the tax gap is, in theory, if everyone paid their taxes, there is a total amount that the government would have a very good sense of.
In reality, we are not going to achieve that total. I think it is fair to say that a vast majority of taxpayers pay their fair share of taxes in a timely fashion. We all know that CRA has a process to encourage people who have not paid their taxes in a timely fashion to do so. There is some merit in dealing with that issue in whatever way we can.
What I liked about his comments, because I think the member was right, was when he talked about the civil servants, or our CRA employees. They are doing an outstanding job for all Canadians. They have been called upon at different times, whether it was during the pandemic or for new programs outside of the pandemic, to step up to the plate. They have done that.
This is where I disagree with the member for Simcoe North. I believe that the CRA needs to be able to continue to support Canadians in different ways at times. I think of, for example, the disability program the government introduced just a couple of years ago, finally recognizing the importance of disabilities. I think of the tax breaks that would have been given during the pandemic, and ultimately payments that were very much relied on in terms of how much people were making. The CRA is the natural spot to go to. The employees, as I have indicated, have done an absolutely outstanding job administering the services Canadians need.
We all believe, I would like to think, that taxation is an important public policy. It is what gives us the opportunity to provide the type of social programming we are able to do. As I indicated, a vast majority of individuals and businesses pay their taxes in a timely fashion. At the end of the day, the CRA does go after those who do not.
Like Senator Downe, I too am concerned about the tax gap. However, I do believe, in looking at the legislation and in listening to the member who took up Senator Downe's cause, that this ultimately does need to go to committee. There is a great deal of merit to see this legislation pass second reading, with the idea that we would be able to get some amendments brought forward and allow for input from different stakeholders on the issue.
It is not the first time we have the government recognizing the merit of legislation in private members' business. As long as there is a willingness to look at amendments that would give it strength, deal with issues such as privacy and ensure we would not be diminishing anything that the CRA or the minister are currently doing, I think the legislation is a great opportunity.
I would like to thank Senator Percy Downe for the work that he has done to date, ultimately making sure that we have the legislation before us.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this bill today, because I think it is a good one and my party agrees. I announced in my question that we will be supporting this bill at second reading so that we can carefully study it in committee.
This bill is important because it deals with the effective recovery of monies as well as with transparency. I think transparency is essential and that is what I will be focusing my comments on today: transparency and access to information. We cannot call for improvements, suggest solutions or explore new options if we do not know what is happening. That is the crux of the issue.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer made it quite clear that he approved of the previous versions of this bill. This is not the first time that this legislation has come before the House.
I was pleased to hear the parliamentary secretary say that the government is going to support the bill at second reading. That means we will be able to study it. I was pleased because, when I read up on the bill's history earlier, I learned that the majority Liberal Party at the time had rejected one of the initial versions of the bill, citing privacy reasons. It is always easy for the government to find excuses when it does not want to be completely open about something, when it does not want to be transparent and especially when it does not want an agency's underperformance to be on full display.
However, the government needs to have that courage. Until it finds it, there will be no improvement.
I was therefore worried about the position of this new majority government, which does not reflect the results of the last election. We will repeat this again from time to time. The reality is that they have a majority because members crossed the floor. We must accept that.
That said, I would go even further. The bill states that the tax gap must be published. The tax gap is the money the government believes it should have collected but did not. What income taxes and other amounts should have been collected, and what was actually received? If the figures do not add up, people may lose patience, but everything hinges on knowing the truth and on the public putting pressure on the government.
I believe this bill will help the general public, but it will help opposition MPs more so. It will help us force the government to be more effective in collecting this money. I would also include in this any agreements that may have been reached between the CRA and businesses regarding debt write-offs, relief measures or equity proposals aimed at waiving interest, fees or penalties, because I believe the public deserves to know.
The average worker who earns, say, $45,000 a year, made a mistake on their tax return and has to pay the money back with interest might well be interested to learn that millions of dollars have been forgiven for businesses.
It might also be interesting to know that the Prime Minister's companies are engaging in tax avoidance, which is unfortunately legal. That is why I asked my colleagues a question earlier, because they seemed to be saying that certain information would be published. That would be great.
However, from what I understand, what will be published mainly concerns tax evasion, that is, cases where people have been found guilty of tax offences. This is too bad, but when someone is found guilty of an offence, their right to privacy disappears a bit. We are talking about transparency. It is important not to go too far. However, it is a bit like when someone is convicted of a criminal offence in court. Unfortunately for them, it is public.
At a certain point, privacy can become an excuse in many of these cases. I would go further and also look at tax avoidance.
Canada has a lot of experience with that.
One need only think of Canadian Steamship Lines, which belonged to the family of Paul Martin, our former prime minister. Since then, we have gained some historical hindsight. Today, it is Brookfield that we often hear about, but we know very little about it. It would be interesting to know how much money has been transferred to tax havens to avoid paying a fair share.
Earlier, my colleague, who introduced the bill and sponsored it for the senator who introduced it, explained in his speech that when a person or a company does not pay their share, it goes beyond their failure to pay. Other people, meaning us, have to pick up the slack and make up the difference. There is the guy who declared everything and is paying his share, and there is the guy next door, who is dishonest, who is hiding money and who is not paying what he owes. If he gets caught and we manage to recover the money, and if it is all out in the open to a certain extent, I would say that no harm is done, because it could encourage him not to do it again. I am not sure that if a member of Parliament were to engage in tax avoidance or tax evasion, it would remain secret for very long. Why would that not apply to everyone? Let us treat everyone equally. We stand in solidarity. That is important.
I want to quickly come back to tax havens. I know that they are not addressed in the bill, but they should be. I do not know whether we will be able to go so far as to include tax evasion within the scope of the bill, but I think we should.
In 2024, Canada passed legislation to impose a minimum tax rate of 15% on companies that generate and declare their profits abroad before repatriating them here. I hope that law will be enforced. We are still waiting to see the results. Will that law be fully enforced? Will it be effective? Only time will tell. We need to see the numbers to know for sure. To get those numbers, I think a bill like Bill S-217 is a very useful tool. That is basically what I wanted to say.
Pressure needs to be exerted and the money owed must be recovered. Some say it is owed to the government, but that is not entirely accurate. Yes, the government acts as an intermediary, but that money is owed to society. It is owed to the community. Society needs things like public services, resources, a defence system and all kinds of things, but they all cost money. We are not living in a fairytale. These things do not appear out of thin air. They have to be purchased. If some folks do not have the integrity to do their part, I think it is okay to give them a little nudge and tell them they also have to do their bit. If there is a risk that their name will get out when they get caught, that could help encourage many of these folks to do the right thing. That argument therefore seems pretty weak.
There is also the question of what has been recovered, based on the historical figures we have. I have some figures here. Between 2014 and 2022, the gross tax gap was $59.5 billion, and approximately $10.8 billion of that is said to have been recovered from personal income tax. On the corporate side, out of $23.5 billion, $9.3 billion is said to have been recovered. That is not bad, but it is not huge either. The government could certainly do better. By sharing this information, by making it publicly available, we will be better able to take action and come up with more innovative ideas. The Canada Revenue Agency will be able to improve, and everyone will benefit.
To conclude, I want to reiterate that we must also urgently tackle tax havens. It is a serious injustice that companies protect their profits abroad. They claim that it is not tax avoidance. During the election campaign, the Prime Minister had the nerve to tell us that it is not tax avoidance because this money flows back to individuals through pension funds. Individuals, for their part, pay tax. The message we are getting is that the little people have to pay and the rich will not. This is a social injustice, and a serious one at that. It is a very dangerous message.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate on Bill S‑217.
I am very pleased to see that the Bloc Québécois and the governing party are in agreement on this bill.
Of course, we are the ones introducing it through the member for Simcoe North. This is not the first time that Bill S-217, an act to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act with regard to reporting on unpaid income tax, has been before this House.
Essentially, the purpose of this bill is to put more pressure on the CRA to track down the scoundrels who do not pay their taxes, especially those known as “white-collar criminals”, in other words, individuals or companies who refuse to pay taxes or who use loopholes and cook the books to avoid paying their taxes. We need to get to the bottom of things, and this bill does just that.
Some may be surprised that this is the third time this bill has been introduced and debated in the House, even though it is a no-brainer. As my Bloc Québécois colleague said earlier, the first time was under a majority government; the Liberals rejected it. That is part of public debate. There was then a sequence of three elections with minority governments. That meant there was not enough time to do the work properly. As a parliamentarian, I find that unfortunate, but let us remember that, from December 2024 to mid-December 2024 and then to mid-September 2025, over a nine-month period, the House sat for only five weeks. This was because of the change in government, the new Prime Minister's government, the elections and the summer recess. All of this prevented us from doing our parliamentary work.
Now, we are doing it, and we are going to do it right.
I will put on my glasses. I am going to do so often, because this whole subject is so technical that we need to get our facts straight.
This bill has three objectives: to compile a list of all convictions for tax evasion, including international tax evasion; to require the CRA to include statistics on the tax gap in its annual reports every three years; and to require the minister to provide the Parliamentary Budget Officer with data on the tax gap.
These three elements gripped the entire world when the Panama Papers scandal came to light. I am sure everyone remembers about ten years ago, when a consortium of investigative journalists unearthed what came to be known as the “Panama Papers”. They had unravelled a web of tax havens. The documents confirmed that several countries, including Canada, were indeed home to the scoundrels I mentioned earlier, whether companies or individuals. In total, 900 of them had flouted every possible law, and then some, to evade taxes.
Some countries have taken the bull by the horns and achieved concrete results. In Australia, $44 million was recovered, compared with $87 million in Germany, $175 million in Spain and $25 million in Iceland. Canada, for its part, has recovered nothing. That is pretty weak.
That is precisely why this bill must be passed. The CRA and anyone who cares about ensuring that everyone pays their fair share must be treated fairly. Being treated fairly means having to pay, and if a company does not pay, it should be seen as a bad guy who does not pay taxes. That is why it is important to do the right thing.
It is also important to note that there are key points in each of the three stages. For example, earlier we talked about the shortfall. I will not deny that certain phrases sometimes sound better in French than in English. One thing, however, can be expressed equally in both languages. I was talking earlier about the minority government, which has since become a majority government because of the floor crossers. The term “floor crossers” is funny, is it not? I think “floor crossers” sounds just as good in French, for that it what they are.
Getting back to the shortfall, some countries have handled that well, namely the United States, Great Britain, Turkey and Sweden. It is time for Canada to do the right thing so that everyone who is supposed to pay can do so properly. That is why it is essential that this bill pass.
Allow me to recognize the perseverance of Senator Percy Downe who, for years, did the necessary work to push for this critical cause. It is thanks to him that we can debate it today. I also want to thank my colleague from Simcoe North for this. I want to note that my colleague served, in a different era, in better times for Canada, in Prime Minister Harper's government, in various ministers' offices, and he distinguished himself in a most inspiring way. I would like to think that, in a few years, three years at most, Canadians will honour us with their trust and the member for Simcoe North would do a great service to the Canadian government in cabinet. I am saying that he would make a good minister.
Let us get back to the matter at hand.
Yes, the Canada Revenue Agency absolutely must do its job. It is clear that these are not great times for the CRA. Just a few months ago, the Auditor General tabled a scathing report about poor management at the CRA. The report notes that there was a complete lack of leadership, with terrible results for all Canadians.
Why would I say that? One reason is that people were waiting for ages when they called for information. Worse still, when information was provided, it was not always correct. Just imagine: People who cannot afford to pay a tax expert or an accountant to prepare their tax return for them pick up the phone, call CRA, talk to someone and get the wrong information one in five times. A few months later, CRA writes to let them know they made a mistake and owe $150, which they have to pay back right away because interest charges will keep adding up. That is what happened after 10 years of Liberal leadership at the Canada Revenue Agency.
I would like to reiterate what the member for Simcoe North said to my government colleague earlier. He said that CRA employees should not be blamed for not being properly trained. Nor should the CRA itself be blamed for being badly mismanaged in recent years. Let us not forget that Prime Minister Trudeau put someone in charge for seven years who did not necessarily have sufficient experience in this field to provide strong leadership.
I would like to commend and thank the current Prime Minister for firing this person from cabinet. I would also like to commend and thank the people of the Gaspé region for firing her from the House of Commons.
Obviously, we would have preferred to see our candidate, Jean‑Pierre Pigeon, elected in that riding. The people decided otherwise. That said, I have absolutely nothing against the current member from the Gaspé region, a former fellow journalist who truly stands out, and that is a good thing for Canadian democracy.
This bill needs to move forward. We need to move forward to keep Canada in the loop when it comes to targeting and tracking down white collar criminals who do not pay their full taxes. We need to flush out these characters who, unfortunately, do not have the honour and dignity of paying what they owe and who invest tens of thousands, if not millions, of dollars to avoid paying what they owe the Canadian government. Canada needs this legislation to flush out criminals, be more transparent and get access to all the necessary information.
That is why we obviously hope that the entire House will vote in favour of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss Bill S-217, an act to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act with regard to reporting on unpaid income tax.
This bill would amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act to require the CRA to list all convictions for tax evasion, including international tax evasion, in its annual report. The bill also requires the CRA to include statistics on the tax gap in its annual report once every three years. Additionally, Bill S-217 specifies that the Minister of National Revenue is to provide the Parliamentary Budget Officer with data on the tax gap.
Broadly defined, the tax gap is the difference between the taxes that would be paid if all obligations were fully met in all instances, and taxes that are actually paid and collected. It is not difficult to imagine that a lot of circumstances could produce a tax gap. That said, I should point out that the CRA is firmly committed to protecting the integrity and fairness of Canada's tax system. This includes cracking down on tax avoidance and tax evasion both domestically and internationally. I should also mention that CRA takes a firm stand on non-compliance.
First, I would like to point out that the CRA has a robust criminal investigations program. This program investigates major cases of tax evasion, tax fraud and other serious criminal violations of tax laws. Where appropriate, the CRA's criminal investigations program refers cases to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada for potential criminal prosecution, which is extremely serious.
The consequences for taxpayers who commit tax fraud or hide assets or money abroad are very serious. If convicted of tax evasion, these taxpayers must still pay the full amount of tax owed, plus interest and administrative penalties imposed by the CRA. Under the Income Tax Act, offenders could face a fine of up to 200% of the taxes evaded. In addition, they could also be sentenced to up to five years in prison.
It should also be noted that a person convicted of fraud under the Criminal Code is liable in Canada to a sentence of up to 14 years in prison. Fingerprinting and restrictions on international travel are also possible consequences. However, it should be noted that all convictions related to tax evasion, including those involving tax evasion abroad, are already published via enforcement notices on the Canada.ca website.
The CRA has also set up a free subscription service to raise Canadian taxpayers' awareness of CRA enforcement actions and warn them about potential fraud schemes. During the period from April 1, 2020, to March 31, 2025, the courts sentenced 49 people to prison for a total of more than 98 years. Investigations are under way, prosecutions are under way, action is being taken and people are being sentenced. That represents more than $39 million in evaded federal taxes, with a total of $24.5 million in court-imposed fines.
As of March 31, 2025, the criminal investigations program, or CIP, had 200 ongoing investigations. That is a huge number of investigations. Between April 1, 2024, and March 31, 2025, the CIP also executed 86 search warrants, a 46% increase from the previous fiscal year. The CIP's computer forensics analysts seized at least 258 devices totalling more than 119 terabytes of data.
I would now like to bring up a second point, namely the CRA's work on estimating Canada's tax gap. Since 2016, the CRA has had a dedicated team studying the tax gap, which supports the Government of Canada's commitment to encouraging an open and transparent discussion on tax non-compliance.
Estimates of Canada's tax gap, combined with other indicators relating to compliance and non-compliance, can provide valuable insights into the overall health of our tax system.
At the end of March, the CRA published Canada's second overall tax gap report for the 2014 to 2022 tax years. This edition presents the overall federal tax gap and is supported by updated estimates based on the most recent data available for the 2014 to 2022 tax years. The report provides tax gap estimates for all key components. These include personal income tax, corporate income tax, GST, HST and excise revenue. The report also includes two new subcomponents: the payment payroll gap and the excise gap on cannabis. Furthermore, it examines the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the federal tax gap, providing an overall picture. Importantly, this report also highlights how the CRA's compliance and collection activities are impacting the tax gap.
The money recovered by the CRA puts downward pressure on the federal tax gap each year. We have the numbers in front of us, and we can compare the gross and net amounts. In tax year 2022, the gross tax gap was 16% of the federal tax revenue or $59.5 billion. However, the net tax gap would have been 9.3% of the federal tax revenue or $34.7 billion, so the CRA's compliance and collection activities resulted in a potential reduction of the overall gross tax gap by 42%, or $24.8 billion.
That said, I would like to mention that the data on Canada's tax gap is also published on the Government of Canada's open data portal and is widely available. That means that this information can be accessed by the Canadian public and interested parties, such as the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Canadians can rest assured that the Government of Canada and the CRA remain committed to supporting the Parliamentary Budget Officer in carrying out her mandate. This commitment is being fulfilled with the assurance that Canadians' confidential tax information is protected in accordance with the law. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the recent appointment of Annette Ryan as the Parliamentary Budget Officer.
In conclusion, the work on the tax gap provides us with a clearer picture of the health of Canada's tax system. This work encourages an open and transparent discussion on tax non-compliance. That said, it is important to note that many factors remain beyond the control of any tax administration when estimating the tax gap. Moreover, there is an international consensus that a country's tax gap will likely never reach zero.
Furthermore, it is important to note that the tax gap is not a performance indicator for either the CRA or the government. It is a theoretical estimate of non-compliance with tax obligations over a given period, and this non-compliance can vary over time. As a result, the tax gap is primarily an important source of information to monitor what is happening in our tax system.
One thing is certain: These efforts to address the tax gap are aimed at ensuring that everyone, individuals and corporations alike, meets their tax obligations, because taxes not only fund government services and programs, but also promote economic development in Canada through investments in the many sectors of our economy.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill S-217, which was introduced by my friend and colleague in the other place Senator Percy Downe. I thank him for his perseverance in pushing this issue forward. I believe this is the third time the bill was introduced and adopted in the other place and the third time the bill has been sent to the House for consideration. I know Senator Downe has put a lot of work into this.
To be clear, we support this bill. It would, broadly, do three things. First, it would have the CRA publish a list of people who are criminally convicted for tax evasion, which I think is an important part of public disclosure and transparency. Second, it would require the CRA to estimate the tax gap between taxes owed and taxes collected. Third, it would require the CRA to provide data to the Parliamentary Budget Officer so that the Parliamentary Budget Officer can independently assess the tax gap between taxes owed and taxes collected. Those are, I think, three very good goals of the bill.
I would encourage my colleagues to support this legislation. It is important to maintain the integrity of our income tax system. This will give the institutions of state the tools they need to do that so that we can ensure lower taxes for everyone, because when we close the tax gap and reduce tax evasion, taxes can go down.
I look forward to the further debate and vote on this bill.
[Translation]
Message from the Senate
I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, with amendments to which the concurrence of this House is desired: Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act regarding bail and sentencing. Copies of the amendments are available at the table.
[English]
Adjournment Proceedings
[Adjournment Proceedings]
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House as the elected representative for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies.
Members of the House are elected to represent Canadians and to advocate on their behalf. Every one of us is sent here to represent the people, to be their voice and advocate and to work on behalf of the people we represent. These are basic and essential principles of representative government that are supposed to be upheld in this place, but the Liberal government seems to have persistent challenges in fulfilling basic requirements of representative government.
On May 8, I asked if the Prime Minister would reverse government directive 14. What is directive 14? Well, it is the Liberal government's directive on civil litigation involving indigenous peoples, which instructs federal lawyers to limit their advocacy and arguments in litigation in which they are supposed to be representing the Government of Canada, which is supposed to represent the people of Canada. In other words, even if there are sound legal arguments for government lawyers to make in defending the interests of Canadian property rights, the Liberal government has instructed its lawyers to enter the ring with their hands tied behind their backs. With directive 14, the Liberal government has disabled the representatives of the representatives elected by Canadians to fight for the interests of Canadians.
The Cowichan decision stated that aboriginal title can coexist with and supersede fee simple land titles that are the primary method of private home ownership. The Liberal government's directive 14 was the central factor in the Cowichan case. When I asked on May 8 whether the Prime Minister would reverse directive 14, the Liberal Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations responded by dodging my question.
The Liberal government issued directive 14. The government lawyers stood down as directed. The B.C. Supreme Court concluded that aboriginal title can coexist with and supersede fee simple land titles. This has directly undermined the rights of all landowners in B.C. and across Canada.
The Liberal talking point and response will likely be that the Conservatives are whipping up emotions and stirring up unwarranted fear, but it is the Liberal government directive that has caused the real fear among Canadians, especially British Columbians. When a representative elected by the people stands in the House and asks if the Liberal government will discard its reckless policy that has caused so much chaos and harm, the Liberal ministers dodge the question.
Constituents have contacted me to raise their personal fears for their property rights in the fallout from Cowichan, not because someone else whipped up fear but because of their own fear. The good people of Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies can count on me to raise their concerns in the House, but sadly, they cannot count on the Liberal government to provide reasonable answers. The Liberal government is not representing Canadians' interests, nor is it defending the rights of Canadians. It is refusing to answer questions raised by members of the House elected by Canadians. All of this is the opposite of how representative government should operate. Canadians deserve to know why.
Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting process that has led us to where we are now on this issue. I have a couple of thoughts I would like to share with the member opposite. The Conservatives have deemed this issue of such great importance that they brought forward an opposition day motion on it. There were debates for hours in the House. We had Conservative member after Conservative member stand and, I would suggest, express misinformation that feeds into what we would call “rage bait”.
I say “rage bait” because someone showed me something earlier this afternoon. The most common phrase used worldwide in 2025 was rage bait. We get a good example of that from the Conservatives on a regular basis. I even spent over 20 minutes talking about it the other day on the floor of the House of Commons. The member just spent four minutes explaining, or attempting to explain, and justify a Conservative position, but there is nothing they can say to justify it. I asked them to give me one example where treaties have led to private property being taken away. The members were challenged to do that.
The member made reference to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations. Here is what she had to say in a response:
Mr. Speaker, the one thing that is clear is the Conservatives have not read the Musqueam agreement, the full litigation principle number 14 or the Canadian Constitution. Section 92 shows that provincial authority is private property and private property is provincial authority.
The member opposite yesterday was talking about the “secret” agreement of Musqueam. Again, it is available on the website. There are sections 5.1 and 5.2 that he should read.
Instead of being fully truthful on the issue, the Conservatives have decided to use this issue to get people upset.
Mel Arnold: Perfect, love it.
Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: You might love it, but it is the reality of it and the member knows that.
Mr. Speaker, I would challenge the member to stand up and cite a specific individual who has lost their property rights as a result of the many treaties that have been put into place. I look forward to him providing a name, but we know he is not going to be able to do that. It does not prevent him from stoking the fear that treaties are taking away private property rights and I find that unfortunate.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for attempting to change the channel, but he really needs to go back to his drawing board. I was asking about the Cowichan agreement, not the Musqueam agreement that he referred to. His denial response is exactly what I predicted. He was going to try and blame Conservatives for stoking fear. It is real fear that is coming from Canadians, like homeowners in the Richmond area who do not know what the value of their home is. He asked whether we had specific cases of people who had lost their homes. They have not lost their homes, but they have lost all value in their homes. We have ranch properties around British Columbia that simply cannot find any interested buyers because of this situation that the government has created.
Mr. Speaker, the point is that there are many different agreements. The Conservatives are very much aware of the issue of private property. I was quoting what the minister responded to the member the other day. That was the quote I referenced, the opposition day motion where that agreement was referenced. I posed the very same question that I posed to the member, and Conservative members could not come up with one individual case.
There are many treaties out there. We need to look at the harm that is done by the Conservatives stoking an issue that they know is not true. They have been provided assurances on the issue, whether it is from the Prime Minister, other ministers or members who participated in the debate. I find it, as I said before, unfortunate.
Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to pursue a question I initially asked on February 12 of this year, and it is one about which, regardless of party, I think most people in this House are concerned.
The question I asked related to knowing the concern we have in this place of foreign interference in elections and, particularly, the experience we have had on many issues that were brought to light by Madam Justice Hogue. I raised the issue of what would happen if there were efforts, potentially from the United States and other countries, to manipulate a potential Alberta referendum. The response I got from the hon. minister was not out of sympathy with the issue I raised. Of course, there is not a complete answer for any of us at this point.
We know that Elections Alberta would be in charge of any potential referendum. Since I asked the question on February 12, we now know that the Alberta premier has said she is going to put forward a question about a question, which is murky, confusing and opening up a can of worms. I think a lot of us are holding our breath and hoping she will not do the same thing that David Cameron did when he fatefully and idiotically appeased a small group of his own caucus by deciding to hold a referendum on the U.K. leaving the European Union, and did so absolutely confident that it could not possibly carry because the public opinion showed the vast majority of the people of England and Wales liked being part of the EU. That was before we heard names like Cambridge Analytica and found out how effectively algorithms and data mining could be used to convince people.
There is an extremely good film that explains all this in Hollywood fashion, but it is rooted in facts and very well done. It is called Brexit: The Uncivil War with Benedict Cumberbatch. It is absolutely terrifying to watch because it reminds us of what we watched in real time as Britain was divided and people believed absolute nonsense because they were convinced it was the truth.
We now have a situation where we know for a fact that David Parker, one of the leaders of the Centurion Project, is behind a major data breach. Alberta voter information was put up on public websites. Our former colleague in this place and former premier of Alberta, Jason Kenney, is very concerned, and for very good reason. This information included a lot of private information put up in public places. As I mentioned, David Parker is one of the leaders of the separatist movement in Alberta. Would he be concerned, I ask, about advice from Elections Alberta on how to conduct himself? He is not going to be concerned. He has already described Elections Alberta as an “evil” institution. This is extraordinary.
The privacy breaches that have occurred in Alberta should make everyone very concerned. We have heard from a Canadian leading expert in national security, Wesley Wark, whose name is known to all of us. From 2005 to 2009, he was a two-term adviser to the prime minister on national security. He has expressed significant concern about what could happen in an Alberta referendum and how we can ensure there is not foreign interference and also domestic interference, such as happened in Brexit.
What will the government do to be prepared and hold this country together?
Mr. Speaker, first off, I compliment the leader of the Green Party in terms of her concern and the way she is carrying herself on such an important issue.
I think Canadians as a whole are very much concerned. I do not think I am unique at all. I love Canada. I have always put Canada first, and I would like to think I would be there to support Canada in whatever way I can, and try to be positive and encourage all members, whether they are a member of parliament from Alberta or outside Alberta, to be, as much as possible, talking about things that are positive. There is so much positivity about our federation as one nation, historically, today and no doubt into the future. We will be able to continue to have the best quality of life, I would suggest, in the world.
In regard to the concerns the member raised, I would just repeat the one quick sentence the government House leader said at the time. He said, “foreign interference at any level and transnational repression at any level of our democracy are absolutely unacceptable.”
We went through an interesting process over the last couple of years when we had a foreign interference inquiry. We had standing committees dealing with foreign interference indirectly. We have had Canada elections going through experiences of dealing with foreign interference. The commissioner of Canada elections, from what I understand, also has some concerns.
There is a genuine feeling that we need to be supportive and very observant, watching and ensuring that there is a sense of accountability in terms of the nation's best interest. With regard to foreign interference, we have a substantial piece of legislation before PROC. I am not too sure if the member had the opportunity to present at PROC. We have brought forward a number of amendments that are going to protect not only our election period issues related to foreign interference, but now for the first time, the time in between elections. This is something the government has brought forward in Bill C-25.
There has been a lot learned by the commission and other inputs, if I can put it that way, in dealing with the issue of foreign interference. If we just go back a couple of years, we saw how foreign interference was being demonstrated during the pandemic and the protests that took place here in Ottawa and other jurisdictions. It was not just Ottawa. There were other jurisdictions where we know that there were outside contributions being made here in Canada and it raised the issue.
Whether we are talking about CSIS or about the parliamentary security standing committee we have, there are opportunities for us to have faith and confidence, number one, in the people of Alberta and, number two, in the systems that are in place to protect the integrity of the system. I, for one, would suggest that the member continue to be diligent, as I am sure the government will be.
Mr. Speaker, in the minute I have left, first of all, I want to thank to the hon. representative of the government here in the House. This was very helpful.
I think we need to, as Canadians, as settler culture people, understand how profoundly fortunate we are that indigenous rights and rights holders are protected under section 35 of the Constitution. With the honour of the Crown being at stake, the treaties achieved by the treaty peoples of Alberta with the Crown and the indigenous nations of Alberta with the Crown are probably our best way to hold the country together.
The federal government should be in court every step of the way, joining with the Mikisew Cree and others in ensuring an injunction against the very idea that lands that were committed to indigenous peoples before the province of Alberta existed are protected, and treaty rights protect us all and protect Canada.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot underestimate the role of indigenous communities, the people of Alberta in this particular situation.
I truly believe that the best way we can deal with this issue is to show that co-operative, collaborative federalism works. The more we can send out that sort of a message, showing that having a united, strong country is the way we can continue, as we have done in the past, the more we can build a stronger, healthier nation. This is not to be blind, but rather to recognize that, at the end of the day, in whatever territory or province, we need to clearly demonstrate that as a united force, we are in a much better position. That is what I would encourage all members to participate in and promote.
Mr. Speaker, Albertans are tired. They are tired of hearing talking points while their public health care system collapses around them.
I asked the minister whether she is deliberately allowing public health care to erode or whether she simply does not care enough to protect it. What I got in response was another vague non-answer and more platitudes about working with provincial partners. Meanwhile, in Alberta, people are dying as they wait for care. That is not figurative or rhetorical; it is literal. Emergency room doctors in my province are warning that preventable deaths are happening because emergency rooms are overcrowded, understaffed and overwhelmed.
Seventeen rural emergency rooms are closed today because there are not enough health care workers. Patients are being treated in hallways and storage closets. Nearly one in five Albertans leaves the emergency room without receiving care, because the wait times are so unbearable.
While all of this is happening, Danielle Smith is openly dismantling public health care. She passed Bill 11, introducing two-tiered health care into Alberta for the first time in Canadian history. She is allowing doctors to charge patients privately while still billing the public system. She is diverting public money and health care workers away from the public system, and the public wait-lists grow longer. This violates the spirit and the principles of the Canada Health Act, in terms of universality, accessibility and equal care based on need, not on wealth.
While I am not surprised to see this Conservative government attack health care, the silence and the complicity of the Liberal government in the face of the breaking of the Canada Health Act is shocking. We watch the Liberal government, and every single time a corporation comes knocking, it opens the doors. However, when it comes time to protect our public institutions, we hear nothing.
I am very curious about whether health care is being quietly put on the block in negotiations such as CUSMA and other trade agreements, in which corporate access and investor protections are treated as untouchable but public services are treated as bargaining chips. How far is this government willing to go to accommodate corporate interests, even if it means weakening something that Canadians fundamentally believe in and fundamentally require?
The minister says she supports the Canada Health Act, but support without enforcement is meaningless. If the federal government refuses to act while a province openly builds a two-tiered health care system, then what exactly is the Canada Health Act for? Right now, Albertans are watching the slow Americanization of our health care. People with money move to the front of the line, and everyone else waits longer. This is not Canadian health care, and Canadians know it.
The federal government cannot keep hiding behind scripted talking points. Albertans deserve answers. When will the government enforce the Canada Health Act?
Mr. Speaker, I will indicate to the member that the Minister of Health has had some discussions. We have been working collaboratively not only with the Province of Alberta but in fact with all provinces, territories and indigenous communities to deal with the important issue of health care.
When we think about Alberta, because the member made reference to Bill 11, the Minister of Health's counterpart in the Alberta government has received a promise from Alberta that it will keep its bill within the boundaries of the Canada Health Act.
The member made reference to a litany of problems dealing with health care that the people of Alberta are concerned about. I can assure the member that the types of issues that are there are not unique to the province of Alberta. There are other provinces, and I can talk about my home province of Manitoba, in which there are some very serious issues dealing with health care. However, much like Alberta, we have a federal government that is working collaboratively with the provinces, territories and indigenous communities.
I will give a specific example. We have given $5 billion, over the next three years, to deal with health care infrastructure. We hope that every province will take it up. That is about $215 million-plus going to the province of Manitoba in order to deal with health care capital expenses. I, for example, have made the suggestion that this is the time Manitoba should be re-establishing emergency services at the Victoria Hospital in the south end of Winnipeg and the Seven Oaks hospital in the north end. I just use that as an example.
Never before have we seen the number of dollars transferred to provinces and territories that we are seeing today under the federal government and the Prime Minister. Even at this time in our history, we have reinforced our commitment to health care. There are no federal cuts going to the health care system. We will continue to work with and encourage provinces to manage the changes that are necessary in order to have the type of health care services that Canadians want and deserve, but it means that we have to work with these other jurisdictions. We will continue to do that to manage the changes that are necessary.
Let there be no doubt that every Liberal member of Parliament understands and fully supports the Canada Health Act. The Canada Health Act, I would suggest, is a part of our Canadian identity. We value the system we have. We understand it. We support the Canada Health Act.
In the specific case the member raised, the Minister of Health has had dialogue, has had direct communication with her provincial counterpart and has had the assurance that the bill the member is referencing will be in complete compliance and stay within the boundaries of the Canada Health Act.
As we continue to move forward on such an important file, it is important to see the different jurisdictions working together. Let us get best practices. Let us make sure that we have the health care that Canadians want well into the future for future generations.
Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I feel as though that was one of the most dishonest speeches I have ever heard in this place, to be honest.
The member talks about the minister's having dialogue with her counterpart and says that they have been assured. Is this similar to when the Liberal government asked grocery stores to behave better, and they got an assurance? Is it the same thing as when the Liberal government promised to support pharmacare for all Canadians, but then did not do it; to expand mental health care for Canadians, and then did not do it; to make sure that all Canadians had access to the dental care they require, and then backed away from those promises? Is this the same Liberal government that says the Canada Health Act should be universally accessible but refuses to meet with members of the Canadian Health Coalition, who have a legal opinion that has been created and actually says that Bill 11 breaks the Canada Health Act?
It breaks the law. They should defend the law.
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my previous answer, the Minister of Health of Canada has met with the counterpart and has been provided the assurances.
However, the member is full of all sorts of misinformation in terms of her response. We do have a national dental program for millions of Canadians, thousands in the member's own riding, that is there today being ensured by this Prime Minister and by this government, to continue to be there for Canadians. We do have a pharmacare program.
What the member does not realize is that health care is a joint responsibility with the provinces, which are charged with the responsibility of administering it. When we can do so, through finances such as supports for mental health, long-term care, pharmacare and dental care, the federal government has been there and will continue to be there.
[Translation]
Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been withdrawn, and the House will now resolve itself into committee of the whole to study all votes under Department of Citizenship and Immigration in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2027.
I do now leave the chair for the House to resolve itself into committee of the whole.
Government Orders
[Business of Supply]
[Translation]
Business of Supply
Department of Citizenship and Immigration—Main Estimates, 2026-27
(Consideration in committee of the whole of all votes under Department of Citizenship and Immigration in the main estimates, Tom Kmiec in the chair)
The House is now in committee of the whole to consider all votes under Department of Citizenship and Immigration in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2027.
[English]
Today's debate is a general one on all votes under the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. The first round will begin with the official opposition, followed by the government and the Bloc Québécois. After that, we will follow the usual proportional rotation.
Each member recognized by the Chair will be allocated 15 minutes, which may be used both for debate and for posing questions. Should members wish to use this time to make a speech, it can last a maximum of 10 minutes, leaving at least five minutes for questions for the minister or the parliamentary secretary acting on behalf of the minister.
When members are recognized, they should indicate to the Chair how the 15-minute period will be used. In other words, what portion will be used for speeches and what portion for questions and answers. Furthermore, members who wish to split their time with one or more members shall indicate it to the Chair.
When the time is to be used for questions and comments, the Chair will expect that the minister's or parliamentary secretary's response will reflect approximately the time taken by the question, provided that at least 15 seconds be allotted for each response, since this time will be counted in the time originally allotted to the member.
The period of time for the consideration of the estimates in committee of the whole this evening shall be extended beyond four hours, as needed, to include a minimum of 16 periods of 15 minutes each. I also wish to indicate that in committee of the whole, comments should be addressed to the Chair. I ask for everyone's co-operation in upholding all established standards of decorum, parliamentary language and behaviour.
In addition, pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 26, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.
Finally, at the conclusion of the time provided for debate, or when no member wishes to speak, whichever comes first, the committee shall rise and the House shall immediately adjourn to the next sitting day. We will now begin tonight's session.
The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill has the floor.
Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time.
With hundreds of thousands of people from around the world about to enter Canada for FIFA World Cup, is the minister confident that the immigration measures she has enacted will ensure Ebola will not enter and spread in Canada?
Mr. Chair, as the member knows, two days ago, we held a press conference in which we put immigration measures in place to protect the safety of Canadians.
Mr. Chair, that was not a clear answer and does not fill me with confidence.
Several weeks ago, a plane carrying someone suspected of potentially having been exposed to the Ebola virus was redirected from the U.S. to Montreal. What immigration measures has the minister put in place to prevent future incidents like this from happening?
Mr. Chair, as I have said, we have taken the necessary steps to respond to the Ebola outbreak and protect public health in coordination with our partners, including the Public Health Agency of Canada, Canada Border Services Agency and Global Affairs—
Mr. Chair, after years of rampant misuse of the temporary foreign worker program, a national headline read, “Tim Hortons says Temporary Foreign Worker program ‘no longer necessary’”. However, it currently has more than 80 TFW positions advertised on the Government of Canada website. Will the minister cancel these permits and not issue any more?
Mr. Chair, as we have said, and we have been very clear with Canadians and all employers, Canadians must always be first in line for jobs.
Mr. Chair, I will take that as her saying she will not cancel the permits and that Tim Hortons will continue to get TFW permits. It also claims that it is committed to hiring locally, but then admitted it could include non-citizens on foreign student visas.
The minister is approving 250,000 new TFW and foreign student work permits this year during the middle of a youth jobs crisis. How many of those workers will be employed by Tim Hortons?
Mr. Chair, we have very strict rules for employers looking to hire temporary foreign workers. It was this government that tightened the rules as well to ensure that it is a last resort.
Mr. Chair, the Liberals' policy of bringing in too many low-skilled non-citizens too fast meant that public services that provinces maintain, such as social welfare, subsidized housing, health care and primary education, have become strained.
Does the minister support giving the provinces that want it greater control over immigration for the purpose of decreasing immigration to more sustainable levels, prioritizing economic migration and giving their own residents first priority for new job opportunities?
Mr. Chair, we share Canadians' concern, and we are working to ensure that we manage migration responsibly, because that is what Canadians expect. I have worked very strongly with all provinces and territories. In fact, so far we have held five meetings together.
Mr. Chair, the question, specifically, was this: If a province wants more autonomy over immigration, would the minister be open to granting it?
I will ask the minister this: Does she support the principle that the federal government should grant equal autonomy over immigration powers to all provinces that request it, rather than giving it to one province while denying the same power to others?
Mr. Chair, it is a wonderful question, because I was a provincial minister of immigration for eight years. Immigration is a shared responsibility between the two levels of government, and in my job, I will continue to work with the provinces and territories accordingly.
Mr. Chair, does the minister realize that her non-answer, putting it mildly, would be an irritant at a critical time for a certain province?
Mr. Chair, as I said, I have worked very closely with all provinces, territories and ministers responsible for immigration in all those jurisdictions, and I have excellent relationships with them.
Mr. Chair, the provinces' social services are being strained by the minister's policy. She is issuing 215,000 new foreign worker permits this year. The asylum system is still out of control. If a province asks clearly for more control over immigration, would the minister commit to advocating for that?
Mr. Chair, let me just set the record straight. In my first year as minister, we had a 59% reduction in asylum claims in early 2026 compared to 2024, temporary foreign work permits are down 75% in 2026 compared to 2024, and new student visas—
Mr. Chair, the IRCC had 105 misconduct and wrongdoing cases in 2024-25. Is the minister satisfied with this level of failure?
Mr. Chair, IRCC does not tolerate at all any misconduct. The report was proactively published. It is very transparent for all Canadians to see.
Mr. Chair, we have a proactive response to all misconduct, and action is appropriately managed. There have been some who have been fired.
Mr. Chair, I take it that the minister does not know.
The Auditor General found many cases of fraud that were missed by IRCC. The minister committed to fixing this problem. Since her committee appearance, how many new cases of fraud have been found?
Mr. Chair, in fact we spent standing committee meetings on the Auditor General's report, which actually confirmed that a number of the actions that the IRCC department has taken were very effective.
Mr. Chair, the minister still did not answer whether there have been new cases of fraud found. Have there been new fraud cases with permits that have been nullified?
Mr. Chair, the Auditor General found that the cancellation of the student direct stream in 2024 was the right path to take. That has curbed all kinds of misconduct.
Mr. Chair, does the minister really believe that all fraud has been found by the Auditor General? It sounds like she is not looking for any more in her department. That seems like a very naive belief. Much of the fraud in Canada originates with unscrupulous immigration consultants. Has IRCC opened up investigations into immigration consultants for fraud?
However, Mr. Chair, it did not with immigration consultants, so I take it the minister has no concerns about immigration consultants.
One category of people who did not have to enter fraudulently was IRGC terrorists. The government blindly approved these applications. How many permits have been flagged for review because of potential connections to IRGC regime officials?
Mr. Chair, let me go back to the member's other question for a moment. We have tightened all kinds of rules and restrictions and have made penalties for all our consultants.
Mr. Chair, how many permits have been flagged for review because of potential connections to IRGC regime officials?
Mr. Chair, as we have said, IRGC officials are inadmissible to Canada. The government has put a ban on them, and that ban continues to be in place.
Mr. Chair, at our last count, only one IRGC official has been removed. How can Persian Canadians living in fear trust the word of the minister?
Mr. Chair, IRGC officials, as we have said, are inadmissible to Canada. It was the Liberal government that put that ban in place, and it continues to be there.
Mr. Chair, the minister well knows that IRGC officials are here in Canada right now. There are many of them, up to 700 according to some numbers. Why is the government slow-walking the removal of IRGC officials from Canada?
Mr. Chair, I am going to say it one more time: IRGC officials are inadmissible to Canada. There is a ban in place. CBSA works forcefully to remove them, and we are investing in our policing and our officers to do exactly that.
Mr. Chair, in Bill C-3, Conservatives wanted to add security screening provisions, but Liberals voted no. Is the minister concerned that her chain migration bill will allow terrorists to gain Canadian citizenship?
Mr. Chair, I think the Conservatives have a real problem with this. I just want to say that the government has acted to protect the value of citizenship by passing this piece of legislation and ensuring that people value our citizenship and our Canadian—
Mr. Chair, the minister told committee that citizenship by descent has never required security screening. Does she still defend that?
Mr. Chair, again, what we did in this piece of legislation was ensure that citizenship by descent cannot be passed on indefinitely. We have provided clarity, we have provided structure, and we have provided control to citizenship by descent.
Mr. Chair, should an adult claiming citizenship through distant ancestry become a citizen without a criminality check?
Mr. Chair, anybody can claim anything. However, there is a requirement that proof of ancestry at every chain must be established.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, the Canada-Quebec accord gives Quebec responsibility for accepting and integrating immigrants within its borders.
In 2018, the Liberal government circumvented the spirit of the Canada-Quebec accord through the international mobility program to impose such excessive immigration volumes that Quebec is no longer able to properly integrate these individuals and teach them French.
Do you still respect the Canada-Quebec accord, minister?
Mr. Chair, I very much appreciate that question.
Absolutely, we are honouring the accord. Absolutely, we are working very hard with the Province of Quebec and its immigration minister.
Mr. Chair, on March 26, the Supreme Court forced Quebec to extend its $10-a-day child care to asylum seekers even though some Quebeckers still do not even have a spot. That is completely unacceptable.
Does the minister affirm Quebec's right to invoke the notwithstanding clause to regain control, yes or no?
Mr. Chair, unfortunately, I did not quite hear the question. However, I can tell the member that we are working with the province of Quebec and with the members of the House who represent Quebec to maintain—
Mr. Chair, the interim federal health program has grown from $211 million to $896 million over four years. Asylum seekers whose claims have been denied in this country receive dental care, physical therapy, and all other services that even our own population does not have access to. In fact, 6 million Canadians do not have access to a family doctor.
Does the minister find this acceptable?
Mr. Chair, this matter falls under provincial jurisdiction.
At the federal level, as I said, we are working closely with the Province of Quebec, with the Quebec minister, and with the members here.
Mr. Chair, it seems that the interim federal health program falls under provincial jurisdiction.
Is that really what she just told me?
Mr. Chair, the Canada-Quebec accord addresses these issues. As Minister of Immigration, I believe the agreement allows Quebec to select all of its immigrants, and we respect that.
Mr. Chair, in 2023, Quebec had 163,000 asylum seekers. This is more than the population of Sherbrooke or Trois-Rivières.
How can the minister call this a system that works?
Mr. Chair, first of all, we recognize Quebec's role in welcoming asylum seekers. The good news is that we have reduced the number by 71% compared to—
Mr. Chair, so they reduced the number by 71%. Do they acknowledge that there was a problem before? Why is it important to reduce that number now? Clearly, there is a problem.
Mr. Chair, we worked very hard. There was Bill C-12, and we also made changes with things—
Mr. Chair, the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada expected close to 300,000 outstanding asylum claims by the end of March 2026.
Is the former government's existing system still capable of processing applications, yes or no?
Mr. Chair, the department is working very hard to process all claims.
[English]
I can tell him that between now and the end—
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, federal work permits in Quebec amounted to more than 167,000 in 2023. Meanwhile, thousands of asylum seekers are arriving in Quebec unable to speak French or English.
In your opinion, is it acceptable for your broken system to threaten the survival of French in Quebec?
Before I give the floor to the minister, I would remind the hon. member that he is not to address the minister directly. He must go through the Chair.
The hon. minister.
Mr. Chair, according to the minister, there is no proof that French is in decline across the country, including in Quebec.
Mr. Chair, I am working very hard for the French language and for francophone communities across Canada, and therefore in Quebec as well. This is something that I care deeply about.
[English]
Mr. Chair, I am very pleased to be here this evening. I welcome the opportunity to highlight how the government is investing, through the main estimates, to support a strong and sustainable immigration system.
[Translation]
Canadian communities benefit from immigration, and Canada also benefits from the talent that our system attracts from around the world.
Immigration supports our economy. It helps our communities grow, reunites families, addresses labour needs in key sectors and reflects our long-standing commitment to protecting people fleeing violence, persecution and forced displacement.
[English]
To achieve this, for immigration to continue to work for Canada, it must be well managed, which means a system Canadians can trust that is controlled, sustainable, fair and secure. That is the work that we have been doing, and the results are clear.
Permanent resident admissions are stabilized at less than 1% of Canada's population beyond 2027. The temporary resident population is on track to fall below 5% of Canada's population by the end of 2027, a target that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has independently projected Canada is on track to meet. Temporary resident arrivals are already down significantly. They are down 75% between January and March of this year compared to the same period in 2024, which includes international students. New arrivals were down 79% over the same period following measures such as the annual cap, stronger verification of letters of acceptance, higher financial requirements and the end of the student direct stream.
We are making more deliberate choices on temporary workers, with new worker arrivals down 74% over the same period and pathways better targeted to high-skill and high-demand jobs, including through limits on low-wage hiring, reforms to the post-graduation work permit program and pathways for select skilled workers already contributing in Canada.
Asylum claims have also dropped. Between January and March of this year, 59% fewer people submitted a claim compared to the same period in 2024. This reflects stronger front-end screening, enhanced tools to detect fraud, reforms to the international student and temporary worker programs and the passing of Bill C-12, the Strengthening Canada’s Immigration System and Borders Act.
These are not isolated measures; they are part of a clear plan to bring immigration back to a sustainable path, lessen pressures on our communities and keep the system focused on Canada's needs. Canadians can trust that the plan is working.
[Translation]
This work continues under the 2026‑2028 immigration levels plan and our main estimates. Together, they demonstrate that the government's immigration plan and its fiscal plan are aligned, with lower levels, strengthened integrity and funding allocated to where it will have the greatest impact.
For fiscal year 2026‑27, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada's main estimates total $4.42 billion, a decrease of 15% from the previous year.
These main estimates reflect a disciplined approach to immigration spending. They align resources with lower immigration levels, the phasing out of temporary measures and the government's broader commitment to reduce spending, improve productivity, and focus on core priorities.
[English]
Fiscal discipline does not mean stepping away from the department's core responsibilities. These estimates continue to fund the essential work of managing migration, supporting newcomers, strengthening system integrity and improving service. They also support the planning and partnership that keep immigration organized and sustainable, including the implementation of Canada's multi-year immigration level plan and the Canada–Québec Accord. They include limited temporary health care coverage to eligible people and help for provinces and municipalities responding to temporary housing pressures linked to asylum claims.
These supports help Canada meet its humanitarian obligations, support partners on the ground and help newcomers settle, contribute and reach their full potential in Canada. They help maintain the asylum system in Canada, including work to strengthen system integrity and maintain processing capacity. They improve service through modernized digital tools. The lower funding profile reflects our responsible approach, reducing where volumes are lower, where temporary measures are ending and where programs can be delivered more efficiently.
[Translation]
At the same time, this budget maintains targeted support where the system needs capacity, stability and integrity. That includes support for the asylum system, for protected persons who are already in Canada and are in the process of acquiring permanent residency and for workers who are already here and already contributing, who can help meet labour market needs in communities across the country.
Integrity is crucial to fairness. A fair system protects genuine applicants, prevents fraud and misrepresentation and includes rigorous screening, identity verification and secure processing. That is why my department is strengthening the integrity of the asylum system, improving compliance, using biometrics and modernizing the tools officers need. A secure, sustainable system also needs modern services.
[English]
Let me turn to Canada's leadership in a changing world. Migration has always been part of the human story. People move to build safer lives, to find opportunity, to reunite with family and to contribute to something larger than themselves. Around the world, migration systems are under pressure. Countries are facing the same challenge of how to respond to movement that is more complex while keeping confidence in the systems that manage it.
When I was at the United Nations earlier this month, it was clear that partners are looking to Canada because we are choosing a responsible path. We are protecting the value of immigration by making the system more controlled, more sustainable and more focused on the people and skills that Canada needs. That is how we keep immigration as a strength.
[Translation]
That is the system we are building: lower volume, higher integrity, more targeted choices and a clear focus on Canada's capacity and economic needs. That does not mean we are straying from our priorities and values. It means we are focusing immigration where it can have the greatest impact. Canada will continue to attract qualified workers and top talent in sectors that matter to our economy, such as health care, construction and emerging industries.
[English]
That includes physicians already here and contributing to our health care system. Through the measure I announced in December, 391 physicians have already been invited to apply for permanent residency. These are people in Canada already.
We will continue working with provinces, territories and partners to respond to labour market needs, and we will continue to uphold Canada's humanitarian tradition while building a system that can endure. These are main estimates that work. We need a system that is controlled, sustainable, fair, secure, fiscally responsible and focused on keeping immigration working for Canada. That is the system Canadians expect. That is the system we are delivering.
Mr. Chair, I have a number of things that I would like to say, leaving maybe 15 seconds for the minister to respond. I will try to get everything in in the next four minutes.
We need to put things into the proper perspective. First of all, I would recognize that we had an election just over a year ago, when the Prime Minister made a commitment to Canadians that we were going to stabilize immigration here in Canada. That was then followed with the appointment of the minister we have today. I believe, as I know my colleagues believe, she has done an outstanding job at stabilizing our immigration system here in Canada. I do not say that lightly.
Let me give a bit of history as to what led to the issues that we had to face. In 2014, I happened to be the immigration critic for the Liberal Party of Canada. I was sitting in the opposition benches when Stephen Harper made the commitment to increase the number of temporary students. He wanted to increase it to numbers in excess of 400,000. There was a time when the Conservative Party recognized the value of immigration. That is long past, I must say, but there was a time when Conservatives did believe in it, and that was when Stephen Harper recognized the value of that contribution by increasing the numbers to over 400,000.
Let us go back to the pandemic. We were able to achieve the goal, and go a little further than that by a few thousand, going into the pandemic. The pandemic is not something that was unique to Canada. It happened around the world. There were concerns regarding people not being able to work in certain sectors. There were concerns around people leaving the country. Back then, even the Conservatives recognized that that was an issue. I do not recall any Conservatives standing up during the pandemic to say we should get rid of temporary workers. I do not remember that at all. Shortly after the pandemic, there was still a high demand, and those temporary workers were given extensions.
Now, a number of factors occurred, which led us to the last federal election. There was a serious issue that was caused by things such as policy announcements back in the previous administration regarding the pandemic and the consequences of the pandemic, including having to address the workforce.
Fortunately for Canada, we elected the right Prime Minister at the right time, and he recognized that we had to stabilize the immigration file. That is exactly what we have done. There have been some issues. We have seen many of the people here on a temporary basis apply for asylum. That is the reason why, prior to the summer, we introduced Bill C-2, which would have helped deal with issues like immigration. The Conservatives, at the time, chose to filibuster that legislation to prevent us from being able to stabilize immigration even earlier.
We had to bring in Bill C-12, which we were finally able to get passed towards the end of the year. We recognized the importance of dealing with the asylum issue, and Bill C-12 did that. After a lot of nudging, we finally got the Conservatives to agree to pass it. Do not get me wrong, I am grateful that they saw a sense of urgency on this issue.
Throughout this period of time, the current minister, a few weeks or maybe a month afterward, came to my home province of Manitoba and met with the minister responsible for immigration. Meeting with the minister of immigration demonstrated that the federal government has a role in working collaboratively with provinces and territories in good faith. I sat at the table with both ministers and listened to the dialogue that was exchanged.
A month or two afterwards, the minister came back to meet with some of the individuals who were being impacted by the immigration policy. What I saw—
Mr. Chair, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his passion but also for his experience and for bringing us back to 2014. Again, as I said, I became minister provincially in 2013. The times were very, very different back—
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, Quebec is a welcoming place. Quebeckers are welcoming. We understand that we have a duty of solidarity toward asylum seekers. We also understand that asylum seekers and those who become refugees are an asset and that they contribute to Quebec.
Figures released this morning clearly show that this is still the case. Quebeckers are taking in a very large proportion of asylum seekers. I would say that this is a disproportionate share relative to their weight within the Canadian federation. As of April 1, 2026, while Quebeckers make up 22% of the Canadian population, nearly 39% of all asylum seekers in Canada are in Quebec.
Does the minister agree in principle that asylum seekers should be distributed fairly among Canada's provinces?
Mr. Chair, I will start from the beginning.
First, as I mentioned, we fully recognize the important role Quebec has played in welcoming asylum seekers over recent years. There is one very important point—in fact, there are several—and that is that applications have fallen by 71% compared to 2024. Furthermore, since 2019, Quebec has received over $1.1 billion to help cover the costs associated with asylum seekers. We are in constructive discussions with our counterparts in the Quebec government, and we will continue to work with them under the Canada–Quebec accord.
Mr. Chair, does the minister agree that it is appropriate for the number of asylum seekers to be distributed fairly among Canada's provinces?
Mr. Chair, we began this dialogue during our meeting with the other provinces.
I can say that New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador have agreed to take in a number of refugees.
Mr. Chair, does the minister agree in principle that it is appropriate to distribute asylum seekers fairly across Canada's various provinces?
Mr. Chair, as I have already said, I am working closely with the ministers responsible for immigration in all the provinces and territories. This is an ongoing discussion.
Mr. Chair, I understand that this is a conversation and that the government has already paid Quebec compensation for its efforts. My question for the minister is the same.
Does she agree in principle on the need for equitable distribution among the provinces?
Mr. Chair, as I said before, we have some good examples. New Brunswick's immigration minister has set an example for all other ministers that it is—
Mr. Chair, I would like the minister to answer this very simple question. I understand that conversations are going on and that there may be some shining examples.
However, does she agree with the principle that asylum seekers have to be distributed among the various Canadian provinces?
Mr. Chair, as I was saying, discussions are under way and some refugees are already moving to Newfoundland and Labrador and New Brunswick. We are still working with these provinces.
Mr. Chair, can the minister answer the question? Does she agree that the number of asylum seekers should be distributed fairly among Canada's provinces based on their population?
Mr. Chair, I understand that the minister is working toward the objective of distributing asylum seekers fairly among the various provinces and, therefore, that she supports this principle. Now, what steps is she taking to achieve this?
Mr. Chair, I will answer in English.
[English]
As I understand it, right now at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, there is an ongoing study about that. I very much look forward to receiving the results of that study.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I understand from the minister's response that she supports this objective of distributing asylum seekers fairly. That goes without saying, because, obviously, the more asylum seekers we have, the higher the costs to the public treasury. In Quebec, there is also the challenge of integration in French. According to the French language commissioner, between 33% and 40% of asylum seekers arriving in Quebec have difficulty mastering the French language.
Does the minister plan to revive the committee that was established in 2024 to work toward a better distribution among the provinces?
Mr. Chair, the good news is that applications are down by 71% compared to 2024. I see that as positive. Also, as I already said, we have provided over $1.1 billion since 2019.
Mr. Chair, the minister recognizes that it is important to distribute asylum seekers fairly. She is working towards that objective. However, the figures show that, as of April 1, Quebec is still home to 39% of all asylum seekers in Canada.
Will she acknowledge that, so far, this plan has failed?
Mr. Chair, we have been working hard to get things done. The number of asylum seekers in Quebec, and indeed across Canada, has dropped significantly in the past two years.
Mr. Chair, the number of asylum seekers does indeed appear to be falling, but the distribution remains as unfair as ever. Quebec receives 38.78% of all asylum seekers, even though it accounts for just 22% of the Canadian population.
Will the minister acknowledge to the House that, so far, her efforts have failed?
Mr. Chair, I wholeheartedly disagree. In the 12 months since I became the minister, there has been a significant reduction and we have done a lot of things for that.
Mr. Chair, the distribution of asylum seekers is still just as inequitable as it was when the minister got the job.
Is she telling us that Mr. Miller, her predecessor, was unable to solve the problem—
Members may not name a minister or member in the House. The Standing Orders still apply.
The member may continue with his question.
Mr. Chair, does the minister acknowledge that efforts to date have not borne fruit, that the distribution is still inequitable and that her predecessor failed to meet expectations?
Mr. Chair, as part of interim housing assistance program agreements with the IRCC, two provinces, Newfoundland and Labrador and New Brunswick, support the voluntary relocation of asylum claimants—
Mr. Chair, how does the minister explain that, despite her efforts and the voluntary action of some provinces, the distribution of asylum seekers is still so unfair in Canada?
Mr. Chair, we have seen successes. I have already said that there has been a 71% decrease in asylum claims in Quebec. With the passage of Bill C‑12, we are also going to see more—
Mr. Chair, how can the minister call the current situation a success, when Quebec represents 22% of Canada's population but accepts 38.78% of all asylum seekers in Canada?
Mr. Chair, I want to say a few words about the people of Quebec. They are very welcoming people, and we thank them all. However, the federal government has also done its part and—
Mr. Chair, how can the minister call a situation that has not improved a success?
Quebeckers still receive nearly twice as many asylum seekers as they should, given their demographic weight within Canada.
Mr. Chair, as I have already said, we have significantly reduced the number of asylum seekers and we are working harder with the provinces and territories to resettle them as well.
Mr. Chair, the number of asylum seekers is one thing. The distribution of asylum seekers across Canada is another.
How can the minister say today that this is a success when the situation has not changed, and Quebec continues to take in a disproportionate share of asylum seekers relative to its demographic weight within the Canadian federation?
Mr. Chair, I would ask the minister to explain where the success is when it comes to the equitable distribution of asylum seekers.
[English]
Mr. Chair, indeed, the number of asylum seekers has been reduced in Quebec by 71% in the last two years. We have also worked with provinces and territories. We will continue to do that to ensure that refugees are able to go to other provinces, with the help of the provinces and territories and the financial assistance of the Government of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, the minister tells us that she believes in the goal that is the equitable distribution of asylum seekers. She even tells us that it is a success. She explains that the number of asylum seekers is decreasing, which does not answer the question.
The question is that there is currently an inequitable distribution of asylum seekers and that Quebec receives more than 38% of all asylum seekers while accounting for only 22% of the population. Where does the minister see success in that?
Mr. Chair, the point here is that Quebec has received more than $1.1 billion to help cover the costs associated with asylum seekers. Since 2019, we have continued to work with the other provinces on distribution.
Mr. Chair, should the minister not acknowledge that there has been no progress and that the situation is still as bad as it was in 2024?
Mr. Chair, as I have already said, we are awaiting the report from the committee, which is currently examining this very issue.
Mr. Chair, is the minister aware that, within the European Union, in Germany, and also in Denmark, procedures for the distribution of asylum seekers have been put in place?
Mr. Chair, I have already spoken with representatives from several countries while I was at the United Nations headquarters this month. Our work continues.
Mr. Chair, does the minister intend to draw on practices in Europe, in particular, to establish a process for the distribution of asylum seekers?
Mr. Chair, as I said, we are awaiting the committee's report because I hope my colleagues will also have useful insights for us.
Mr. Chair, rather than taking immediate action, why is the minister, who claims to support the idea of equitable distribution but has failed to present any concrete proposals, still waiting for our report after several months as head of the Department of Immigration?
Mr. Chair, on the contrary, we have been successful. A reduction of 71% can certainly be considered a success.
Mr. Chair, will the minister acknowledge that her predecessor failed in her attempts to get the provinces to agree on a better way to distribute asylum seekers?
Mr. Chair, as I already mentioned, we had discussions with the provinces and territories during my last meeting and we will have more.
Mr. Chair, before I begin, I should inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Moncton—Dieppe.
I want to thank the minister for working so tirelessly since taking charge of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, as well as for collaborating so constructively with Quebec on the management of asylum seekers.
I am pleased to rise today to speak to the integrity and security of Canada's immigration system, as well as the tools that enable us to keep the system fair, orderly and trustworthy. The strength of an immigration system does not depend on the number of people Canada takes in. It depends on clear rules, reliable controls, secure processing and public trust.
That is why the main estimates 2026-27 provide funding for the individuals, systems and tools supporting identity verification, program integrity and secure decision making. A fair immigration system must also be secure. Rigorous screening and identity verification are not barriers to immigration. They are safeguards that protect Canadians and legitimate applicants while upholding trust in the systems.
The Government of Canada's approach to immigration screening is not based on a single decision point. It involves a continuum supported by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, the Canada Border Services Agency, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and international partners. It starts before a person travels to Canada and continues when they seek entry at the border. It may continue post-arrival as new information becomes available or as other immigration decisions are made. The goal at each step is to facilitate lawful movement and immigration while identifying risks and protecting the system's integrity.
Before someone arrives in Canada, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, examines their application for a visa or electronic travel authorization. Officers examine the information provided, assess whether the applicant meets the requirements for entry to Canada, and review the application based on risk factors and other verification criteria. Personal information, including fingerprints and photos, helps confirm the individual's identity and support criminal background checks. This information can be compared against Canadian databases and, as applicable, against information held by trusted international partners.
These checks help officers to determine whether there are grounds for deeming someone inadmissible to Canada, including security concerns, criminal activity, false statements or other reasons set out in Canadian law. In some cases, applicants may have to undergo additional screening by security partners. IRCC works with the CBSA, CSIS and international partners to support screening and decision-making. This collaboration is vital. No one tool can protect the system. The system's integrity depends on officer training, clear rules, reliable intelligence, security systems and strong government partnerships.
Biometrics is one of these important tools. This data helps to answer one of the most fundamental questions of any immigration system: Is the applicant really who they claim to be? Biometrics make the system more reliable by helping to establish identity, detect identity fraud, conduct background checks and confirm that decisions are based on accurate information. This protects Canadians. It also protects legitimate applicants by ensuring that those who follow the rules are not adversely affected by those who try to use a false identity or fraudulent documents or those who make false statements.
That is why the 2026-27 main estimates include $188.1 million under the Department of Citizenship and Immigration for the cost of biometric data collection. This funding helps maintain the continuity of biometric data collection services through a global network of visa application centres, or VACs.
These third-party providers are mandated to provide administrative support to applicants, particularly with regard to the collection of biometric data, and to help deliver services in many parts of the world. Let me be clear. Visa application centres do not make decisions regarding applications. They do not provide advice on visas. Decisions remain in the hands of trained immigration officers who apply Canadian law.
IRCC also provides oversight of visa application centres through performance-tracking agreements, inspections and requirements related to security and privacy. VACs help ensure that the process is secure and accessible. They allow applicants to complete important administrative steps, including the collection of biometric data, while officers focus on assessing applications and making decisions.
Privacy and security are at the heart of this work. Information collected for immigration purposes must be treated with care and in accordance with Canada's laws, policies and protections. The security continuum continues at the border. A visa or travel document does not guarantee entry into Canada. When an individual arrives at a port of entry, border services officers play an important role in assessing their admissibility and ensuring that they continue to meet the requirements to enter Canada.
This means that, even if the screening is done before the trip, the system still has safeguards in place at the port of entry—
Mr. Chair, I want to start by thanking my colleague for the great work he does as a member of Parliament. I know he is a very committed advocate for his community.
I was with him in his riding and I attended a Black History Month event here in Ottawa. I thank him—
Mr. Chair, I am pleased to speak today about the main estimates 2026-27 for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. I would also like to take a moment to thank my friend and colleague, the minister of this department, who works tirelessly, puts in a tremendous amount of effort and manages a very complex portfolio.
I was very pleased to welcome her to Moncton in January when it was announced that we had surpassed our francophone immigration targets. We can talk more about that later, during questions and answers.
Immigration affects every region of the country. It bolsters our economy, supports community growth, reunites families and helps Canada attract the people and skills we need. It also reflects Canada's values, including our commitment to protecting people fleeing persecution, violence and serious harm. As global conflicts, climate pressures and changing migration patterns continue to displace people around the world, Canada must respond with compassion and through an orderly, fair and sustainable system.
These main estimates support that balance by helping to maintain the services, safeguards and partnerships needed to respond to humanitarian and asylum pressures in a very responsible way. Over the past few years, the increasing number of asylum claims has really strained the system. The number of claims exceeded processing capacity. Delays got longer and costs went up.
The delays are significant. They can make the process unfair for people who need protection and certainty about the future. They also put pressure on housing, health care and legal and community supports, and they can make a system more vulnerable and prone to abuse.
That is why our government is working hard to ease that pressure, strengthen integrity and make our asylum system more sustainable. We introduced measures to strengthen the integrity of migration and we modernized the asylum system. Measures to better manage the number of temporary resident applications and improve the integrity of temporary programs also contributed to reducing the number of asylum claims entering the system. I have to say that these measures are working. From January to March 2026, the number of asylum claims was about one-third lower than in the same period in 2025 and almost two-thirds lower than in the first quarter of 2024. Here again, things have clearly improved.
Bill C‑12 created new eligibility rules to protect the system from a sudden influx of applications, to discourage abuse and to support timely decisions. These rules apply when an application is submitted more than one year after a person first arrived in Canada or after an irregular crossing of the U.S. border. At the same time, safeguards are in place. If an application is inadmissible, the applicants can still go through a pre-removal risk assessment to determine whether they would face risk if they were sent back to their country of origin.
Over the coming months, the government will continue to improve the way asylum claims are received, handled and decided. With the new inadmissibility rules, these reforms will help make the system more efficient, more sustainable and better managed. The main estimates support this work. They provide the resources to support better processing, faster decisions, and essential services while applications are being considered. Timely decisions offer certainty to applicants who need and deserve Canada's protection. They also help resolve cases where individuals are not eligible to remain, so the system can continue to focus on the people who are most in need.
The main estimates also support essential services for eligible asylum seekers and other vulnerable groups while their status is being determined. People fleeing persecution, violence or serious harm may arrive with urgent needs. Canada has a responsibility to respond with dignity and care, while ensuring that these services remain reasonable, temporary and well managed in the long term.
This balance is important, especially at a time when health care, housing and social services are under strain across the country. By providing a clearer plan and a more sustainable path forward, we can maintain the public trust needed for the system to function more effectively.
Once again, as I clearly mentioned at the beginning, in Canada, when we talk about immigration and the French-speaking community, we want to ensure that we maintain a level of French-speaking population that will at least offset the loss, if you will.
I was wondering if the Minister of Immigration could discuss the immigration targets that have been set, tell us whether we have met those targets, and explain what measures and objectives we have put in place to ensure that we can still achieve those goals.
Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the member for Moncton—Dieppe for her many years of service and for the excellent work she has done on behalf of all Canadians. Her leadership on official languages and her support for francophone and Acadian communities have been extremely important.
As she said, earlier this year, I had the opportunity to travel with her to Moncton, where we announced further progress on francophone immigration. We have surpassed our francophone immigration targets. Francophone immigration is a national priority. Outside Quebec, it is essential for Canada's future. It helps strengthen francophone minority communities, supports economic growth and helps protect the French language across the country. It is also part of Canada's bilingual identity.
Our government remains fully committed to increasing francophone immigration outside Quebec, and we are working very hard.
[English]
Mr. Chair, firstly, I will be splitting my time.
Secondly, I am an immigrant, and I value the hard work, sacrifices and contributions of all immigrants across this great country. Organized crime, extortion, immigration fraud and criminals gaining entry to our country all increased under the minister's watch.
Canadians are asking a simple question: Was the minister completely reckless, or was the minister completely clueless?
Mr. Chair, I appreciate the member's opening remarks because my family and I are also immigrants. I say that everyone in this chamber is an immigrant unless they are from a first nations community. The only difference is some have come here before the others. I very much value the contributions that immigrants and hard-working people make to Canada.
Mr. Chair, that was no answer.
In connection to a major international extortion network targeting business owners, 17 people were arrested earlier this week in Peel Region. How many of them came as students, visitors or temporary residents under her watch, and when is the minister deporting them?
Mr. Chair, my colleague is talking about criminals and crime. Whether someone is Canadian or not, if they commit a crime in this country, they will pay the price of that crime. This is the case whether they are an asylum seeker, an international student or a Canadian.
Mr. Chair, that was no answer again.
Extortion cases in Surrey exploded by more than 1,000% in barely a year. These gangs did not swim here. How many entered Canada through temporary visa programs that this minister approved?
Mr. Chair, everyone who applies to Canada, regardless of the path, is assessed by trained immigration officers on the very front line, and we will continue to improve on this.
Mr. Chair, lack of screening at the border has allowed known criminals into our country. We have fake colleges, fake jobs and fraudulent visas. The warning signs were everywhere.
My former colleagues in law enforcement want to know why the minister was negligent in her duties.
Mr. Chair, we work very closely with public safety partners, including the CBSA, the RCMP, policing partners and provincial authorities. We review each applicant to ensure that they do not pose a threat prior—
Mr. Chair, the minister flooded the system with temporary visas while fraud, fake schools and criminal exploitation exploded nationwide.
Did the Minister of Public Safety ever talk to her about doing basic security checks on people before allowing them into the country?
Mr. Chair, since 2023, we have introduced integrity measures, including stronger verification and letters of acceptance to all international students. We have made consistent follow-ups on flagged cases—
Mr. Chair, that was no answer.
There are at least seven international cartels operating in Canada. Does the minister know how many of these suspected cartel members entered Canada through programs that she signed off on?
Mr. Chair, I am not sure to whom he is referring. In 2024, we raised the financial requirements for all international students coming to Canada to study, and those are adjusted every year in September as well.
Mr. Chair, extortion cases across Canada have jumped roughly 330% since 2015.
Did it ever occur to the minister that her lack of basic security checks have caused a major public disaster? Some people have lost their lives, and many their livelihoods, because of her inaction.
Mr. Chair, IRCC initially screens each applicant when they apply for a visa or an electronic travel authorization document, whether it is for work, for study or for permanent residency.
Mr. Chair, Canadians were told that foreign students and skilled workers were being let in. Instead, our communities are now dealing with organized extortion rings, fraud networks and intimidation.
Is it fair to say that the minister has no idea what she is doing or who she is letting into the country?
Mr. Chair, let us calm down here a little bit. We have integrity measures. We have strengthened all of the measures. We are working diligently. Everyone who applies to Canada is assessed by trained immigration officers.
Mr. Chair, the media knew for months that gangs were targeting immigrant communities with threats and extortion. Local newspapers were more aware of the danger than the minister was.
Is the minister's department embarrassed by her lack of action?
Mr. Chair, we screen every applicant who is coming to Canada, regardless of the reason they are coming. CBSA removes serious criminals who have no right to be here. We work with policing. We work with RCMP—
Mr. Chair, there was a woman in my riding, who immigrated in 2020. After she separated from her husband, he strangled her in front of their daughter and was found guilty. He remains in Canada, free, without a valid work permit, illegally.
How does this minister allow violent criminals who have no legal status to remain in Canada?
Mr. Chair, serious offences like this deserve serious consequences. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act does not include anything on special treatment or leniency for—
Mr. Chair, there has been no action. She was strangled. He did it. He allegedly has no legal status.
Why does the minister not hold these people accountable and remove them from Canada?
Mr. Chair, public safety is of paramount importance in Canada. Obviously, it is the courts and the judges that apply the law.
Mr. Chair, criminals are deported by the CBSA after sentencing occurs. If they are sentenced appropriately, action is taken.
Mr. Chair, again, I cannot speak to any specific case because that is not my role here tonight. What I can say and reconfirm is that serious crime deserves serious consequences.
Mr. Chair, I will be sure to tell her that you cannot speak on her specific case as the Minister of Immigration for Canada.
What message is the minister sending to this woman and other women like her when she does not protect them within her own system?
Before I recognize the minister, I want to remind members that they are required to speak through the Chair.
The hon. minister.
Mr. Chair, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act does not include anything on this type of treatment. We treat all offences seriously. The CBSA deports individuals as needed.
Mr. Chair, if these cases are treated seriously, why does he remain free, without a valid permit, to terrorize her in Canada?
Why is he in Canada?
Mr. Chair, if there is a non-Canadian in Canada who has committed an offence, the Canada Border Services Agency will investigate. If there are other reasons, I would suggest provincial policing partners as well as the courts.
Mr. Chair, serious crime deserves serious consequences. The CBSA investigates all these cases and takes appropriate action.
Mr. Chair, as my colleague, the Minister of Public Safety, said today, the Canada Border Services Agency removed over 23,000 inadmissible people last year.
Mr. Chair, I will be sure to take those stats to the woman in my riding. She now lives in a domestic violence shelter with her child, while he remains working here illegally and free without consequence.
Is that acceptable to her as a parliamentarian, as a mother, as a woman?
Mr. Chair, then why does she not talk to the minister and take care of this?
Mr. Chair, again, the Canada Border Services Agency and Public Safety work to ensure they follow up on these matters and investigate them.
Mr. Chair, I have not heard yet that she will do anything about this.
Will she do anything to remove criminals who are here illegally in Canada?
Mr. Chair, serious crime deserves serious consequences. There are investigations that happen, and they will be deported.
Mr. Chair, one thing women learn from abusive relationships is that words mean nothing and actions mean everything.
Will she take action and remove violent criminals from Canada?
Mr. Chair, we have taken considerable action. Actions speak louder than words in this wonderful institution we have. We have laws and we will continue to work with—
Mr. Chair, inaction speaks louder than words. What my colleague just talked about is a constituent who was strangled by her non-citizen partner and yet he remains in Canada. I believe he is trying to apply for humanitarian and compassionate grounds, and she is living in a women's shelter. It is because the government has done nothing to enforce the law.
Will the minister commit to talking to the justice minister and telling him to close the loophole that allows judges to give sweetheart sentences to allow disgusting, non-citizen criminals like the person my colleague referenced to be deported from Canada?
Mr. Chair, I recognize the member opposite had a private member's bill that was voted down. I appreciate her advocacy. We have laws. There is nothing in IRPA that allows that. If we find a person in Canada who has committed a crime and is a non-Canadian, the Canada Border Services Agency investigates, all of them, and that person could become inadmissible and removed from Canada.
Mr. Chair, does the minister realize how inane and uncompassionate she sounds? She says, “Oh, there is nothing in the law that says this.” It says it in the law. My bill would have closed this loophole, and she could have gone to the justice minister and told him to close this loophole. She sat back and said that it was fine. No, the result is what my colleague just said: people being strangled and their abusers staying in Canada.
Why will she not advocate to deport them?
Mr. Chair, when a non-citizen is convicted of a serious crime, immigration consequences follow. The CBSA will investigate, and there is due process, if it is there, and then they do get deported.
Mr. Chair, that is just not the case. Every day there is a new headline. For example, this one: “Judge gives lenient sentence so trucker can dodge deportation after fatal Ontario crash”. That is not a consequence. They get to stay in our country. Guests in our country have to abide by the rule of law. The rule of law is part of our national identity.
Can she just say that she will go to the justice minister and say that they are getting roasted on this, and rightly so, and that they need to close this loophole?
Mr. Chair, I said that serious crimes deserve serious consequences. The CBSA has deported, as the public safety minister said today, 23,000 people. There is nothing in the immigration law that allows for discounting sentences. Sentences must be proportionate to the crime and the context. As I said, we are—
Mr. Chair, that translates to blah, blah, blah, another rapist stays in Canada, blah, blah, blah, another thief stays in Canada, blah, blah, blah, another extortionist stays in Canada.
This is integral to Canadian national identity. They have to respect the rule of law. What the Liberals are saying is that if they commit a serious crime, as guests in our country, they can stay here because the Liberals refuse to close this loophole that is being exploited by a woke judiciary. Will they do the right thing and finally close it?
Mr. Chair, public safety is our top priority. In fact, I was a justice minister provincially in 2013. I understand that more than anyone else.
We have multiple crime bills before us in this House that that party and that member have been obstructing since we came here. We are investing in law enforcement. Our priority is to ensure that Canadians are kept safe.
Mr. Chair, I am glad the minister talked about another justice bill. Bill C-16 renders all mandatory minimum penalties meaningless, which means that this problem of giving sweetheart sentences to non-citizens convicted of serious crimes would only get worse.
Will the minister go to the justice minister and recommend an amendment to Bill C-16 that would not juice this problem of judges giving lenient sentences to non-citizens convicted of serious crimes, like the strangler my colleague just talked about, to ensure that they do not have the privilege of staying in our country and are deported like they should be?
Mr. Chair, I really appreciate this discussion here tonight because it is really important. It affects a lot of people. We take that very seriously.
Criminals, whether Canadians, visitors or whatever their status is in Canada, will be held responsible by the law. The courts do their best. If they are non-Canadians, the CBSA investigates. Our priority is to always protect Canadians.
Mr. Chair, I will be sharing my time.
I am pleased to rise today to discuss how IRCC's main estimates will drive our economy. The budget, the spring economic update and now the main estimates are guiding our country forward during a very challenging period. The rupture in global order brings us to a moment when we need to build our strengths at home, diversify our markets abroad, and build or renew international partnerships with like-minded countries. Immigration is an important part of that plan.
When it is thoughtfully managed, immigration strengthens our country, fills labour gaps, grows businesses and supports critical sectors like health care, construction and emerging technology. However, the immigration system needs to work smoothly. It needs to be aligned with both the needs of our employers and the capacities of our communities. It needs to provide fair opportunities for those who come to Canada and leave everything behind.
The government has been working hard to improve the immigration system by restoring control, strengthening program integrity and returning immigration targets to sustainable levels. In the 2026-28 immigration levels plan, we set a clear commitment to make immigration levels sustainable. The plan stabilizes targets for permanent residents and reduces arrival targets for new temporary residents. We remain focused on attracting the best talent in the world to build our economy and address the labour shortage, while making sure that communities are growing responsibly. As a result, Canadians are seeing a system that is balanced and reliable.
Our immigration plan prioritizes workers. In 2026, nearly two out of three PRs will fill essential positions across the country. We are inviting newcomers to fill jobs where there are skill gaps. We are attracting global talent to meet our country's unique emerging needs. We are prioritizing industries like artificial intelligence, clean energy, advanced manufacturing, health care and construction.
Canada's international talent attraction strategy is a whole-of-government effort to bring in skilled newcomers our industries and communities need: the best and the brightest. As we begin to attract this talent, we must have a system in place that encourages them to stay and to settle long-term. This is why we are prioritizing skilled temporary workers who are already here for permanent residence.
We recently announced more details about the one-time in-Canada workers initiative, which will accelerate the processing and approval of 33,000 temporary workers for permanent residence. They are already here, paying taxes and taking part in our communities. They deserve to feel like Canada is their home. Many of those workers are in smaller and rural communities that are facing persistent labour shortages, where local employers depend on them to stay in business.
The main estimates will support a more efficient system for attracting and retaining newcomers. In 2026, our government announced new measures to make it easier for physicians working in Canada to apply for permanent residence. We are also making it easier for graduate and postdoctoral students to bring their expertise to Canada. The department's digital modernization effort will allow newcomers to understand their applications better and have access to support when needed. New digital tools will help train officers proactively to identify issues and verify information. These tools will also help them process applications faster.
We need an immigration system that delivers results for newcomers and for all Canadians, and sometimes that means different results for different parts of our country. The system must be able to reflect what makes each of our regions unique and recognize that Burnaby's Metrotown and the east coast fisheries represent very different labour markets. We are partnering with provinces and territories and responding to their economic priorities through programs that respect regional diversity. This includes the provincial nominee program, the Atlantic immigration program, and pilot programs that support rural and francophone communities.
In a time of global disruption, Canada continues to be a beacon of opportunity, where skilled people from different parts of the world can find their place in welcoming communities, find work in emerging fields and watch their families thrive. We are pulling together strategies and resources to attract the best and the brightest, grow our economy and support our communities. Our government is ensuring that immigration continues to serve Canadians, now and for future generations.
Many people who came to Canada through the Hong Kong pathway are highly skilled, very well educated, hard-working and already contributing significantly to our economy. Many pay taxes, work in essential sectors and are building their lives here in Canada. At the same time, many families still face uncertainty because they do not yet have permanent status.
Can the minister provide an update on the effort to improve processing times and reduce delays for those families as they continue to contribute to Canada?
Mr. Chair, first let me thank the member for Burnaby Central for the work that he is already doing on behalf of his constituents. I know he brings a valuable perspective here, particularly because he is also an immigrant to Canada and has lived experience.
With respect to the Hong Kong pathway, Canada stands with the people of Hong Kong, and we support their human rights and freedom. We have implemented a number of measures to support immigration to Canada. Through these measures, tens of thousands of Hong Kong nationals have become temporary or permanent residents in Canada.
There are two pathways. We have the permanent resident pathway. In 2021, that was established. It focused on people who were here for Canadian education and work experience. These pathways are still open, but they will close on August 31, 2026. Applications are processed according to the immigration levels plan. High demand, coupled with limited admission space in the immigration levels plan, has led to significant wait times. We are being transparent. We have published the stats. It is a long wait time, because we are doing them based on the immigration levels plan. However, people are also eligible for permanent residence under regular pathways, such as economic or family classes.
This past weekend, I was able to spend one day in my own constituency. A couple came to me and said, “Are you the minister?” I looked, and I said, “Yes.” They said, “We came here under the Hong Kong pathway.” They were the first people I had seen on the street who stopped me like that, so it struck me. They said, “We knew that it was going to take years and years. We are both working in Nova Scotia. We both have good jobs. We applied under the provincial nominee program. We did get our permanent residence, and we really appreciate this province and this country.”
I do want to let people know that they can look at some of the other pathways.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, Canada was built by hard-working people, men and women who get up early, give back to their communities, pay their taxes, raise their families here and choose Canada every day.
First, I want to thank the minister for coming to my riding of Beauport—Limoilou on January 21 to meet with the representatives of organizations that play a vital role in the integration of immigrants. It was a very productive meeting. This is particularly relevant right now, as we are striving to strike a balance between economic needs, our communities' intake capacity and the quality of life of our fellow Canadians.
Immigrants do not integrate on their own. They are helped by dedicated organizations and individuals who work every day to build bridges between cultures and support newcomers on their immigration journey. Today, I want to acknowledge the outstanding work of many organizations and community leaders in Beauport—Limoilou. I am thinking first and foremost of Théodore Bienvenu Leuwat Ngogang, the founder of Métissage Québec, an organization that promotes the inclusion and well-being of vulnerable families, particularly immigrant families. Through its help, support and programs, Métissage Québec makes a real difference in the lives of families and children. It creates a sense of belonging and helps make the integration process smoother for immigrants.
I also want to acknowledge the work of Florent Tchatchoua, founder and executive director of Diaspo Interaction, a webcasting platform that helps develop a multicultural collective identity. His organization gives a voice to cultural communities and promotes dialogue, visibility and connection among Canadians of all backgrounds.
Another example is Robinson Ngametche, founder and director of the Découvrir ma cité project. Through guided tours, cultural tours and discovery activities, this organization helps newcomers gain a better understanding of their community, discover their neighbourhood and fully participate in Quebec's economic and social life.
Lastly, I want to acknowledge the work of Richard Sah and the organization Amis Solidaires de Québec. This organization plays a key role in advocating for the interests of communities of African descent and promoting living in harmony, inclusion and diversity in our society.
These organizations remind us of a fundamental truth: The integration and participation of immigrants in our communities does not depend entirely on public policies. It also hinges on the community's willingness to welcome, support and lend a hand.
When we talk about essential workers, we are also talking about very real situations right here in Beauport—Limoilou, because behind every statistic there are real people and families who simply want a chance to build their future here. I am thinking in particular of the workers who are already contributing to the functioning of our local economy in the neighbourhoods of Beauport, Limoilou, Maizerets and Vieux-Moulin. These are people who contribute to our economic vitality, who shop at our businesses, who enrol their children in our schools, and who are full-fledged members of our community.
Canada must remain a welcoming country, with a fair, rigorous, and trustworthy immigration system. In Beauport—Limoilou, as across the country, we see every day that when we provide a warm welcome, proper planning and support, our entire community benefits.
In closing, I would like to ask the minister a few questions.
Canada has always played an important role on the international stage when it comes to welcoming vulnerable people caught up in humanitarian crises. As I mentioned, in our communities, this welcome often becomes a source of human, cultural and economic enrichment when the conditions for integration are in place.
This winter, I had the opportunity to meet with representatives of the Alliance des Ukrainiens de Québec, an organization in my riding, Beauport—Limoilou, that supports Ukrainian families and helps them integrate into our community.
This meeting reminded me just how vital local organizations are in helping newcomers rebuild their lives here and participate fully in our society.
Can you explain how your government intends to uphold Canada's humanitarian commitments in a more unstable global context marked by increasingly large-scale population displacements?
Before giving the floor to the minister, I must say that no, I cannot explain that. I will leave it to the minister to do so. I would remind the member to address the Chair, not the minister.
The hon. minister.
Mr. Chair, I want to thank the member for Beauport—Limoilou for the work he does in his community. As he said, back in January, I spent a great day with him and representatives of incredible community organizations working hard on the ground to welcome and support newcomers to Quebec.
I especially want to thank the Centre R.I.R.E 2000, the Service de référence en perinatalité pour les femmes immigrantes de Québec, the Centre multiethnique de Québec and Découvrir ma cité.
Like my colleague, our humanitarian reputation matters to me. Canada has a proud humanitarian tradition. We have responded to a lot of crises. Our approach is transparent, consistent and fair. We have to be realistic and work within our capacity. That is something we are still working on with communities, community groups, members here, as well, and partners in the provinces and territories.
I want to thank everyone across the system, because it is not easy. However, as I said, ours is a proud humanitarian tradition.
[English]
It requires a lot of coordination with the provinces, territories, municipalities, settlement organizations and community partners. It takes a village, as they say, to help newcomers integrate successfully, and we will keep doing that.
Mr. Chair, I am going to split my time.
I want to thank the minister for being here tonight. I want to thank the officials for joining in.
I want to go back to something that the minister spoke about. The youth unemployment rate in this country stands at almost 15% right now.
Does she believe it is a crisis?
Mr. Chair, we all have youth in our communities and homes. We want them to have good jobs and good opportunities. Right now is a great time to bring forth that there are thousands and thousands of Canada summer jobs that are available in every single riding in this country. I would recommend to the member that—
Mr. Chair, there are thousands and thousands of youth who cannot find jobs, that is for sure, but should we be approving visas for low-wage temporary foreign workers at a time when youth unemployment is at a recession-level high, no matter what program she talks about?
Mr. Chair, we do have a youth unemployment rate. There are many factors in that rate. The rate has recently been rising. The temporary foreign worker program—
Mr. Chair, the minister said earlier in her exchange that the temporary foreign worker program was down from 2024 to 2026, but I want to bring to the attention of the House that the minister activated 33,500 TFW permits in the first two months of 2026, compared to 24,000 in the same period last year. Why?
Mr. Chair, our measures are working. We have tightened regulations. Employers in the workforce have already tightened them.
It is correct that there have been 74% fewer new worker arrivals. That is down 103,160 people in the first three months of 2026, compared to 2024.
Mr. Chair, let us compare 2026 to 2025. There were 33,500 TFW permits in the first two months of 2026, and there were 24,000 in the same period last year.
Does she know that 33,000 is more than 24,000, and why on earth is she accelerating the TFW program?
Mr. Chair, we are reducing the share of non-permanent residents, including workers, to less than 5% of Canada's population by the end of 2027. That was the mandate and commitment we made in the election. Canadians elected this government. The Prime Minister has made that a mandate that he provided to all ministers. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed we are—
Mr. Chair, the minister is failing to answer the question. She is failing to acknowledge that she has actually let in more temporary foreign workers.
The TFW permits have gone from 72,000 in 2015 to 190,000 in 2024. That is a 163% increase, all while youth unemployment is at 15%. The Prime Minister himself called this a failure of execution. Does she agree with that statement, at least?
Mr. Chair, I am going to point to a track record in my first year as a minister of managing migration. The first is that asylum claims have gone down 60% in early 2026 compared to 2024. The second is that new student visas were down 80% in early 2026 compared to 2024. Temporary foreign workers are down—
Mr. Chair, temporary foreign workers are up. Let the record show it. The minister cannot mislead the House by saying otherwise.
However, let us talk about study permits for a second. The minister's department can investigate 2,000 fraud cases a year. The Auditor General flagged that there are 153,000 cases. At that pace, it is going to take 76 years. That is probably longer than I am going to be here and probably longer than she is going to be here. Is that acceptable to her?
Mr. Chair, in fact, the Auditor General found clear evidence of improvements in that there are fewer student visas being issued. I have already talked about the arrivals of these students. It is a significant decrease.
Perhaps the member does not want any to come to the country. Perhaps she should be speaking to the universities, provinces, territories, municipalities and people—
Mr. Chair, the minister cannot cast aspersions on any members of the House and what they want.
I am talking about the fraud in her department. Of those flagged applicants, 21,000 filed asylum claims at the taxpayer's expense. The minister's department confirmed 800 fraud cases. Why are there so few prosecutions?
Mr. Chair, there are two things. The first is that the department has investigated each and every case flagged. The second is that we brought in Bill C-12, which would eliminate all the irregularities of those who filed but should not have filed.
Mr. Chair, in 2018, the Liberal government removed mandatory union consultations from the LMIA process. It was a safeguard to prevent skilled trades workers from being unemployed.
Does the minister think that was a good thing to do, or does she regret that decision?
Mr. Chair, the member mentioned 2018, which is fabulous. I was a provincial minister and, in fact, acted as the minister of labour and advanced education in 2020. I worked very closely with the unions in my province and can speak to some of that.
Mr. Chair, I can only take that as a “no”, she does not think removing the safeguard was a mistake, because she did not say it was a mistake.
How many skilled trades workers were unemployed in Canada in 2025?
Mr. Chair, I love to hear about skilled trades. That is something this budget is offering: lots and lots of positions for skilled trades for young people and people of all ages in terms of compensation, but we also want to attract people—
Mr. Chair, she obviously does not know the answer to that question, which is shocking, but it is 127,000. That is the answer to the question.
Could the minister tell the House how many TFW permits were issued for TEER 0 to 3 skilled occupations, including skilled trades, in 2025?
Mr. Chair, I was provincial minister for eight years before now and have been a federal minister for 12 months. I understand the TEER levels, the skilled trades and construction, having come from that world. The important thing is that the measures that have been implemented are working.
Mr. Chair, since she does not know the answer to the question of how many TFW permits she gave in the skilled trades category, it is 126,000, which is almost identical to the 127,000 skilled trades workers who were unemployed in 2025.
Does the minister now want to take the opportunity to apologize for removing the union's safeguard on LMIAs and apologize to the 127,000 skilled trades workers who lost their jobs because of the 126,000 TFW permits she issued in skilled trades?
Mr. Chair, actually, I met with union leaders when I went to Sudbury a few months ago. I also meet with union leaders all the time. It is part of what I do. I think we all do that.
The important thing here is that these jobs are to fill labour gaps. They are for work in rural communities, in communities where these jobs are needed. There are extreme measures that the Minister of Employment and Workforce has taken to tighten those measures.
Mr. Chair, the minister's lack of remorse for a bad decision that has had real consequences for skilled trade workers in this country is really shocking.
Ironworkers Union Local 97 warned the government of the effect of this. The head of that union said that the TFW program was being misused and abused, was driving down wages and undercutting hard-working Canadians, which the numbers I just gave the minister prove. Does she now want to admit that it was a mistake and apologize for that mistake?
Mr. Chair, under my express entry category, we continue to prioritize tradespeople such as carpenters, plumbers and machinists. We have been told that these are gaps and that the workers are needed today here in Canada, particularly as we build the country.
You talk about building the country. Here is what building trades unions have said about your temporary foreign worker program. They warned your government that excessive reliance on temporary labour would weaken apprenticeship pathways and discourage employers from hiring Canadian employees. The numbers I just gave you bear that out exactly.
I give you another opportunity: Do you want to apologize to the 127,000 unemployed skilled trade workers whose jobs went to 126,000 TFWs that you granted in the skilled trades?
Before I recognize the minister, I will point out that the member used “you” quite a bit. I am neither apologizing for anything nor responding, but I will let the minister respond the way she sees fit.
Mr. Chair, we have been clear that Canadians always deserve and should be getting the jobs first. There are strict rules, and they have been tightened considerably for temporary foreign workers in a very targeted way that remains the last resort for employers to find workers. There are some businesses and communities that are still needing them.
My job is to manage migration and to invest in our youth and also in—
Through you, Mr. Chair, what is amazing is the minister's lack of remorse for the effect of her decisions.
Doug Parton of Ironworkers Local 97 said that the TFW model has become a “business model” to suppress wages. Is the minister saying that Mr. Parton, the business manager for Ironworkers Local 97, is wrong?
Mr. Chair, we work with the provinces and territories to focus on addressing the labour market gaps. Quite frankly, I have received letters from Conservative members of Parliament as well, advocating for the temporary foreign worker program.
Mr. Chair, I rise on a point of order, the member is doing it again. He is referring to her by saying, “minister” and talking directly to the minister.
He has to speak through the Chair, does he not? Perhaps he is a new member and you could explain the rules to him.
I thank the chief government whip.
That time the member actually said, “Through you, Mr. Chair”, and he continued on. It is okay if members frame it in that fashion.
However, this is a great reminder for members not to use “you” when referring to the Chair. I am not asking or commenting on anything. I would appreciate it if members would remember the rule to not speak directly to the minister but through the Chair.
I invite the member for Dufferin—Caledon to start from the beginning so he can complete his question.
Through you, Mr. Chair, I say that the government now admits that there are at least 500,000 undocumented people in Canada. Can the minister guarantee that none of these undocumented people are participating in illegal labour on construction sites, with federal tax dollars being used for those construction projects?
Mr. Chair, we continue to prioritize trades workers, as I said, such as carpenters, plumbers and machinists. I have personally met with union leaders right here in the House of Commons building, and also in provinces that I have actually visited. We continue to work with them, and we will ensure that our—
Mr. Chair, the question was about undocumented workers on federal construction sites, where they are getting federal tax dollars. Perhaps the minister misunderstood the question, which is why I am repeating it.
In fact just recently, four undocumented workers were identified by CBSA at the Calgary event centre project. Is the minister aware of these cases, yes or no, and what is she doing to prevent this in the future?
Mr. Chair, as I have indicated, we have a plan. The plan is working. There has been a considerable reduction in the number of temporary workers. We have tightened integrity measures. We will continue to look at those. There are members of Parliament from the opposition who are advocating—
Mr. Chair, once again, there is not even an attempt to answer the question. It is insulting to the people whom we represent when we ask these questions and the minister does not try to answer.
Alberta labour organizations uncovered allegations of workers being paid cash, using forged safety certifications, operating without WCB coverage and being threatened with deportation if they spoke out. This was on a project that received federal dollars. Can the minister cite one investigation into this going on and one action that her department has taken to crack down on these types of occurrences?
Mr. Chair, there is worker compliance protection in Canada. Temporary foreign workers have the same employment standards, but there are also rules they have to follow. Businesses also must adhere to strict conditions. These are managed not just by IRCC but also by the employment and workforce department. We work across government to ensure that we manage our immigration system accordingly, appropriately, responsibly and efficiently.
Mr. Chair, I asked whether there had been a specific investigation to deal with the specific facts I was citing. The minister is unable to come up with one, so I assume that would mean no.
I would assume that the temporary foreign worker program would not be used to bring in HVAC technicians if there were HVAC technicians unemployed in that area. Am I correct in that assumption?
Mr. Chair, employers bringing in people under the temporary foreign worker program have strict requirements they have to comply with. They have to show that they have taken considerable measures to find Canadian workers. The ministry of employment and workforce—
Mr. Chair, UA local 787 organized an employer in the GTA. When it organized that employer, it discovered that there were over a dozen HVAC TFWs working for that company. At the same time, there were a similar number of—
Mr. Chair, we have implemented strict requirements for all employers, which they have to adhere to. The temporary foreign worker program is meant to be exactly that: temporary. However, it is also to ensure that we fill those labour gaps that Canadians cannot fill.
Mr. Chair, I rise today to speak about Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada's 2026-27 main estimates as a member of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.
Canadians have asked us to bring balance to the immigration system while upholding the values of compassion and respect. To that effect, our committee has examined several important themes this parliamentary session. We have heard from government officials on the concrete progress they have made to bring balance and transparency to our immigration system and from frontline workers across our beautiful country about the unique regional challenges they are facing. We have heard from academics about ways to improve our immigration system and from deeply vulnerable communities that have come to Canada seeking safety and protection.
We are living through a period of significant global change and, dare I say, turmoil. Presently, 120 million people are displaced from their homes because of climate change, conflict and persecution. Canada has a strong and proud humanitarian tradition. This reflects our values and our international obligations. We believe that everyone in need of protection deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. They deserve a chance to rebuild their lives. They deserve a chance to work, to study and to contribute to the Canadian family while here.
[Translation]
In line with our latest humanitarian commitments regarding protected persons, we have announced a new initiative aimed at facilitating the transition to permanent residence. This initiative affects approximately 115,000 protected persons in Canada. These are particularly vulnerable individuals who have been recognized as needing protection. They have met very strict legal criteria. They cannot return to their countries of origin. If they were to return, it would mean persecution and a potential threat to their lives.
These people are already contributing to communities across Canada. They are becoming neighbours, workers, students, volunteers, business leaders and members of the community—our community. They are helping to build the country we share.
This initiative involving protected persons is also a matter of compassion. Many constituents in my riding, Pierrefonds—Dollard, have told me of the pain caused by family separation and the difficulty of reuniting with their loved ones. This measure will help to remedy these difficult situations. It is a good example of the necessary balance between compassion and the system's capacity. We are restoring order to the system while continuing to protect those who need it most.
[English]
We have seen in the last years how quickly humanitarian situations can evolve or devolve. We have been responding to a range of international crises and displacement situations; however, behind every crisis are countless human stories. Take the case of Sudan. The humanitarian crisis in Sudan is the largest crisis in the world, with an estimated 13.6 million people uprooted by fighting and extreme violence.
Community advocates have testified at the immigration committee about the Sudan family reunification program. Sudanese Canadians have sought to bring their family members to safety. They have also worked closely with IRCC and the international crisis response team to help restart biometric collection in Sudan, in partnership with the International Organization for Migration, the IOM. This is an example of what collaboration between government and advocates can achieve.
Take the crisis in Gaza. It continues to be a nightmare, with staggering humanitarian needs. Palestinian Canadians who have loved ones in Gaza continue to endure heartache while trying to bring their family members to safety. Those who have found safety in Canada are deeply grateful. They have started to rebuild their lives but are still worrying about loved ones they have left behind.
Canada's humanitarian tradition is built on partnerships. We do not go at it alone; we rely on international partners, such as UNHCR and others, to help identify people in need of protection. One such example is the partnership in the special immigration program of motion M-62. It was created to resettle vulnerable Uyghur refugees here in Canada. The Uyghur people are facing mass arbitrary detention, forced separation of children from their parents, forced sterilization and forced labour. At the immigration committee, we have heard from officials about the progress made through the resettlement program. Advocates have also testified about the value of the program and the need for it to continue at an increased scale.
I have met with vulnerable people who are Uyghur, Palestinian, Rohingya or Ukrainian, and many others, people who have been welcomed here to Canada with open hearts and compassion. They are deeply grateful to all Canadians for providing them with refuge and safety. Their stories are human stories that remind us about our best selves, of our duty to protect people in need and of what it means to be Canadian and to be a humanitarian.
[Translation]
In our immigration system, we work in partnership with the provinces and territories, municipalities and local communities. This collaboration is essential to welcoming newcomers. We rely on settlement organizations that provide essential integration services, including language training, employment assistance and housing supports.
We also rely on civil society organizations and volunteers. They help make Canada's humanitarian tradition a daily reality for everyone. This collective effort is one of our strengths as Canadians.
It is also important to remember the positive contributions made by newcomers to our communities. Immigrants contribute to our economy and help address labour shortages. They set up businesses. They build homes. They care for our sick and elderly. They also enrich our communities through their diverse backgrounds.
Every generation of Canadians has been shaped by people from other places. These are people who arrived here with little to their names, people who worked hard to build a better life for their families. This story continues today. It continues in Pierrefonds—Dollard and across the country. Our government is committed to continuing to build an immigration system that is fair, sustainable and true to Canadian values.
[English]
I thank the minister for being here today; for responding to the questions of all members, from both the governing party and the opposition parties, with respect to our immigration system; and for taking the time to provide thorough and accurate answers. With that, I will ask my own question.
Can the Minister of Immigration share with us how these main estimates will continue to support our refugee and humanitarian immigration system while making sure that it reflects our values as Canadians, respects our international obligations and inspires confidence among Canadians for years to come?
Mr. Chair, I actually have a lot to say to respond to this particular member, the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard, because he has been a tremendous advocate and has worked very hard for the people in his community but also for vulnerable communities throughout. He has been a real champion on humanitarian issues.
What really struck me is that he brought his youth council into his office when they visited Ottawa, and they stopped in at my office. They were incredibly thoughtful and engaged young people. Through them, I got to see the real work this member is doing in his community, as well as what I have seen since being here, since 2021.
Canada has long been recognized as a country that offers protection to people fleeing conflict, persecution and instability. This tradition remains an important part of who we are. Canadians also expect humanitarian commitments to be delivered through a system that is fair, sustainable and responsibly managed. That is exactly what the 2026-27 main estimates will help to do.
I said earlier, and the fact is, that around the world, displacement is increasing. Humanitarian crises are becoming more frequent and more complex, and immigration systems globally are under growing pressure. Canada cannot respond to every crisis in the same way, but we can ensure that our response is principled, coordinated and aligned with our capacity to support people properly once they arrive. That means balancing compassion with responsible planning.
The main estimates support the people, partnerships and operational tools needed to maintain that balance. They include support for protected persons already in Canada who are transitioning to permanent residence. These individuals have already been recognized as needing Canada's protection. The estimates also reflect an important principle: Humanitarian protection is not only about offering safety in a moment of crisis; it is about helping people build their lives for the long term. That requires more than immigration pathways alone. It requires coordination, as I said earlier, with provinces and territories, municipalities, settlement organizations and community partners to help newcomers integrate successfully.
It requires a lot of work. That is why our government continues to focus on building a controlled and sustainable system, a system that allows Canada to continue to offer protection over time while maintaining public confidence. Recent years have shown how quickly global crises can emerge and evolve. Canada has responded to a number of international displacement situations, each requiring a different set of tools and different operational responses. Those experiences have reinforced the importance of preparation and coordination.
That is why IRCC has strengthened its crisis response framework, which helps guide how the department assesses emerging international crises and determines whether immigration measures may be part of Canada's response. It also helps ensure that decisions are thoughtful, consistent and sustainable. It considers humanitarian need alongside operational capacity, settlement supports, available space within the immigration levels plan and the ability of communities to support newcomers successfully. That matters because humanitarian responses cannot rely on improvising alone. They must be credible, they must be coordinated, and they must be built to endure.
Canada's humanitarian tradition has always depended on partnerships. We rely on these groups, as I said earlier, and together with those partnerships, it allows Canada to remain a country that offers safety and stability to vulnerable people while maintaining confidence in the integrity of the system itself. The 2026-27 main estimates support that work. They support a refugee and humanitarian system that reflects Canadian values while recognizing the importance of responsible management, sustainability and long-term success.
Canada will always continue to protect people in need. We will continue building an immigration system capable of upholding those commitments fairly, responsibly and sustainably into the future.
Mr. Chair, I just want to thank the minister again for taking the time to be here and responding to the questions in a very fulsome manner.
Mr. Chair, I want to thank my colleague again.
I also thank all members who are spending their time here this evening.
Just looking at my watch, I see it is maybe 10 o'clock Nova Scotia time, so I thank anybody who is watching this for being up—
Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time.
Does the minister consider the IRGC to be a terrorist organization in this country, yes or no?
Mr. Chair, the Liberal government has recognized and registered the IRGC as a terrorist organization, and it is inadmissible to Canada.
Mr. Chair, as I said, IRGC officials are inadmissible to Canada. There is a long-standing ban, and that ban continues to be enforced.
Mr. Chair, our priority is the safety and security of Canadians, and IRGC officials are inadmissible to Canada.
Mr. Chair, the minister did not answer the question, so I am going to ask her one more time.
Why was Mehdi Taj, the FIFA official, to whom she granted, or her department granted, a visa, allowed to come to Canada? It is a very simple question.
Mr. Chair, the IRCC and Public Safety Canada review each and every application at multiple stages. As I have said, IRGC officials are inadmissible to Canada.
Mr. Chair, the minister just stated that, by her own rules, this man was inadmissible. Somebody in her department overruled that. Is she satisfied with how this was handled, yes or no?
Mr. Chair, the safety and security of Canadians is our priority. We work with CBSA, policing partners, the public safety minister and others to ensure we protect Canadians.
Mr. Chair, for all of those who are watching at home, who have been terrorized by IRGC officials who are still here, one of whom has been deported, this man, a FIFA official, was allowed to come to Canada because somebody in her department allowed him to.
I have asked the minister a simple question. Is she satisfied with that outcome, yes or no, for everybody watching at home?
Mr. Chair, I will repeat again that IRGC officials are inadmissible to Canada. There have been 17,800 applications reviewed for potential inadmissibility, and 239 visas have been cancelled by the IRCC.
Mr. Chair, they got into Canada, and it made headlines.
The department has now been reviewing thousands of previously granted visas to non-citizens from Iran because it suspects the security checks were not done before they entered Canada. Can the minister confirm whether that is correct?
Mr. Chair, IRGC officials are inadmissible to Canada. There is a ban in place. It continues to be there. There are 176 investigations that have been opened by the CBSA.
Mr. Chair, I would ask the minister to stop reading the talking points and just answer the question.
Her department is now reviewing those who did not have security checks, is that true or not true, for everybody listening from that community?
Mr. Chair, when it comes to inadmissibility, some travellers are never issued permission to travel. Some travellers have their authority revoked before they travel. Other travellers are deported from airports. There are multiple—
Mr. Chair, I want the minister to answer this question: If the security checks were not done for thousands who were reviewed by the department, is it now reviewing those, yes or no? It is a very simple yes or no.
Mr. Chair, it is important to know that some people with ties to the regime had already been in Canada before these rules took place. Those people are all being investigated and could be removed from Canada.
Mr. Chair, how many IRGC agents are still in the country? The minister has admitted it, so she can give us a number. Is it more or less than 700?
Mr. Chair, as I said, 17,800 applications have been reviewed for potential inadmissibility. The IRCC suspended or cancelled 239 visas, and 176 investigations are ongoing with the CBSA.
Mr. Chair, many of them are still in Canada. I am asking for just a number, minister.
You must know this. Your officials are sitting in front of you. Ask them.
Mr. Chair, on a point of order, once again we are seeing some very experienced members of the House not follow the basic procedural rules about speaking to a minister through the Chair. Perhaps you could remind this member that her questions are supposed to be directed through you and not to the minister.
I thank the chief government whip for the point of order. Yes, that is the case. Members are supposed to speak through the Chair, not to the minister.
The question has been put. The minister has 15 seconds to respond.
Mr. Chair, I have answered the question a number of times. The member may not like the response, but I have already provided those answers.
Mr. Chair, the minister is responsible for the Immigration and Refugee Board. Who sets the refugee policy in Canada: Parliament, the minister or the IRB chairperson?
Mr. Chair, I welcome my colleague across the way. I have not seen him since we were at the United Nations together. He knows that the IRB is an independent body.
Mr. Chair, perhaps the minister remembers that I asked her questions just about 45 minutes ago.
The IRB is independent, so does Parliament have no authority to set refugee policy in Canada? Is it all up to the independent IRB?
Mr. Chair, welcome to you.
The IRB is an independent body. It does set its rules according to the law of the land. We have a Constitution, and we have laws we also adhere to.
Mr. Chair, if a foreign national or a permanent resident is convicted of a serious crime, should they leave Canada?
Mr. Chair, all serious crimes should be dealt with by the courts, by the laws and by the board, and there are consequences that criminals face.
Mr. Chair, if Parliament says serious criminals must leave Canada, does the minister believe that the Immigration and Refugee Board should do the opposite and help them stay?
Mr. Chair, again, if the question relates to the IRB, it is an independent body, as I said. It does report to Parliament. There are laws in the country that it has to adhere to, and we expect it to do that.
Mr. Chair, I am confused. If Parliament has laws on refugee policy, and if the Immigration and Refugee Board does the opposite of what those laws say, is that a problem in the minister's mind?
Mr. Chair, if we find a person in Canada who has committed a crime, Canada Border Services Agency investigates that, and they could become inadmissible.
Mr. Chair, I am sure the minister is aware that the IRB chair just issued new guidelines to create new ways for serious criminals to delay deportation. Did the minister personally approve these new guidelines?
Mr. Chair, the IRB is an independent body. It has to adhere to Canadian law, and that is exactly what it is doing.
Mr. Chair, again, if a person in Canada has committed a crime, they are investigated by the Canada Border Services Agency, and there are consequences.
Mr. Chair, the IRB has a number of officers. They are appointed for certain terms, and it goes through an OIC process.
Mr. Chair, the minister is still confused. I know it is getting late. She is the one who appoints the IRB members, just for the minister's record.
Is the minister in support of the IRB's making up these new rules so convicted criminals can delay deportation even more?
Mr. Chair, I believe that was written in some article that was in fact corrected because it was not correct. The guidelines do not allow inadmissibility hearings to be delayed.
Mr. Chair, will the minister direct the IRB not to use these new guidelines to delay the removal of serious criminals?
Mr. Chair, the IRB has confirmed that it will use them only in very exceptional, limited circumstances. They are not used in cases.
Mr. Chair, it will use these rules, then? If a serious criminal stays in Canada because of these rules it will use from time to time, as the minister just said, will she take responsibility for this?
Mr. Chair, the government will not tell the independent Immigration and Refugee Board what to do. I do not even know what to say about that.
Let us talk about exit tracking. Does the government know exactly when temporary residents leave the country?
Mr. Chair, that is a really good question. Under my watch, we have laid the foundation for the first exit tracking system in the country.
Mr. Chair, is the minister saying that up until now we could not track exits in our country? Is that what the minister is saying?
Mr. Chair, CBSA officers can review, case by case, whether to track people, but in terms of a comprehensive exit tracking system, we have now initiated the foundation to ensure that we build that for all going forward.
Mr. Chair, I guess I am curious as to why the government chose to bring in millions of people without having a decent exit tracking system.
Mr. Chair, the Conservatives were in power a decade ago. Canada has never had an exit tracking system. What we are doing now is ensuring that we build one.
Mr. Chair, it is important to note that the government has brought in millions of people using a system that does not work.
The minister is expecting about two million temporary visas to expire this year. That is about 160,000 per month. She also expects them to leave. Can the minister confirm that temporary residents are leaving Canada at these rates?
Mr. Chair, IRCC and CBSA continue to improve how the immigration and border systems work together. With respect to temporary residents, we are taking steps to help those with status be compliant with immigration law and respect the conditions of their stay.
Mr. Chair, it works out to about 160,000 people leaving per month. Can the minister confirm that those are the kinds of numbers that she is seeing in her department?
Mr. Chair, as I have said, there are consequences for people who do not abide by the conditions and who do not leave. CBSA removed 23,000 inadmissible people last year, and we are launching the pilot to better manage, reduce and enforce overstays.
Mr. Chair, temporary residents who do not leave Canada once their authorized period of stay has ended face consequences, including removal from Canada and restrictions if they wish to come back.
Mr. Chair, we understand the rules, but my question is, how many are there? The department must have an estimate. I am sure the minister has a deputy minister sitting right there. They must have an estimate of how many undocumented people are in Canada right now.
Mr. Chair, under a renewed effort to detect fraud, the total number of applications refused for misrepresentation has increased significantly over the last year, and we work with the CBSA to ensure that those who should be removed are removed.
Mr. Chair, I did not hear a number in there.
I know that a couple years ago, IRCC at committee estimated that half a million undocumented people were in Canada. Is that number still accurate, or does the minister just not know?
Mr. Chair, what Canadians need to know is what we have done over the last 12 months. Asylum claims are down, new student visas are down, and temporary foreign worker permits are down. In addition, we passed Bill C-12 to proactively manage the departure of migrants.
Mr. Chair, I think what is more important to Canadians, what they really want to know, is whether there are half a million people who are not supposed to be here.
Mr. Chair, as I said, we have passed Bill C-12 to ensure that we protect our borders, that we have integrity in our system and that we reinforce our values. The plan that we have set is working. The numbers of asylum claimants, student visas and temporary workers are down considerably.
Mr. Chair, I think I will go with half a million, because I did not hear anything different.
VFS Global runs 164 visa application centres for the government. Reports say that they charged extra for premium lounge access, which included faster turnaround and free drinks.
If VFS was flagged for fraud and security risk, why is IRCC still relying on it?
Mr. Chair, the visa application centres are third party providers that support the application process. They collect biometrics. They provide administrative services. They do an important job to keep Canadians safe.
Mr. Chair, can the minister guarantee that no inadmissible person entered Canada because of weaknesses at a VFS centre?
Mr. Chair, let me, for the record, say that the IRCC VAC network includes 164 locations in 109 countries. We have an extensive network around the globe. They work to ensure that our system remains integral.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I will be sharing my time.
I rise this evening to speak to an issue that is particularly close to my heart and to the minister's: francophone immigration. As we know, immigration has significant economic, social, and demographic impacts on our communities. Immigrants enrich the social fabric of our francophone communities and help meet labour needs.
As we know, immigration is the main driver of population growth in Canada. Historically, francophone immigration rates have been very low. It was not until 2019 that francophone immigration outside Quebec exceeded 2%. This has contributed to the accelerated decline in the demographic share of francophones living in minority communities across the country.
That is why, in 2003, a strategic framework for francophone immigration was established. The initial goal was to reach a target of 4.4% francophone immigration by 2008. It was also in 2003 that, as part of the first action plan for official languages, initial public funding was announced to help structure the francophone immigration ecosystem. This made it possible to establish the first collaborative structures as well as French-language settlement services across the country.
However, in 2006, with the change in government and priorities, francophone immigration took a back seat. We can talk about a decade of stagnation. We had to wait for the Liberals to return to power to review action on francophone immigration, including a significant reinvestment in 2018 through the action plan for official languages 2018‑2023. Then, there was a historic investment of more than $220 million to support francophone immigration in the action plan for official languages 2023-2028. I will get to that in a moment.
What is important to know is that the government met its target of 4.4% in 2022 for the first time and then we increased our targets every year. For example, last year, under the minister's leadership, we reached a record target of 8.9% for francophone immigration. This is important because francophone immigration of 8.9% is enough to put the demographic weight of francophone communities outside Quebec back on track for growth.
What is more, the investments that we have made, including the over $220 million announced in 2023, have enabled us to implement targeted international recruitment measures and empower our communities to play a role in recruitment. However, there is more to it than just recruitment. We need to make sure that we have the capacity to welcome and properly integrate those who choose to settle here, whether it be in Acadia, French Ontario, western Canada or the north. We must help our communities.
With the funding we have invested in francophone immigration, we are seeking to strengthen the French-speaking pathway. That begins with pre-departure services that are offered even before people arrive in the country and individualized reception services at our airports. When people arrive, they get orientation services, help finding employment, language training and community connection services, which are provided by francophone organizations that understand what life is like in our minority communities and that play a key role in integration. We need to make absolutely sure that our communities have the intake capacity needed to ensure that people stay and that immigrants who choose to settle in our communities have positive social and economic experiences.
For example, we have been able to increase the number of welcoming francophone communities across the country. In fact, I am fortunate to have in my riding of Madawaska—Restigouche two of the 24 welcoming francophone communities outside Quebec. These are concrete examples of how our investments are making a real difference in this area.
I would like to highlight the minister's leadership on francophone immigration. When she took office as Nova Scotia's immigration minister about a decade ago, francophone immigration accounted for 0.5% of admissions through the Nova Scotia nominee program. That meant that one permanent resident out of every 200 was francophone. Less than two years after the minister took office in Nova Scotia, that number had risen to 10%. The number went from one in 200 to one in 10 because she brought in concrete measures to ensure the success of francophone immigration in Nova Scotia. I am now seeing her exercise that leadership at the federal level.
As I mentioned, we reached 8.9% in 2025, and we are aiming to continue toward the ambitious goal of 12% by 2029. This involves implementing a range of measures. We have a francophone immigration pilot program. We have put measures in place through express entry, and we are also working with our provincial and territorial partners.
My question for the minister tonight is this: What is her plan? What measures will be put in place to enable us to achieve our ambitious goal of 12% francophone immigration by 2029? I know that this is an important issue. Like many of my colleagues, I care deeply about this issue, and having discussed it often with the minister, I know that she cares a lot about it too.
Mr. Chair, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague, the member for Madawaska—Restigouche, for his hard work over the past decade on behalf of his community in New Brunswick, as well as the Canadian francophone community and Acadians. I want to congratulate him once again on the research and the work he did before entering politics to support official language minority communities. It has been a pleasure to work with him and his constituents over the past year. They are very fortunate to have such a dedicated member of Parliament.
For me, the French language is central to Canadian identity and culture. By protecting it, we are preserving part of what sets us apart as a country. Thanks to our programs, we have met and even exceeded, as the member said, our target for francophone immigration outside Quebec for four consecutive years, which puts us on track to achieve 12% francophone immigration by 2029. This year, we are reserving an additional 5,000 spaces for the provinces and territories to welcome francophone immigrants. I would like to take this opportunity to say that New Brunswick is a leader in filling these spaces, and I hope that many provinces will follow suit. This is a new initiative I have launched as minister. We did so because we realize that we need to increase francophone immigration and strengthen our partnership with the provinces, territories, communities and organizations.
We are also continuing to invest in community projects that inform, attract and integrate francophone immigrants outside Quebec. We are making modifications to the settlement program and protecting it.
[English]
Mr. Chair, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Canada's refugee and humanitarian commitments, and how Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada's 2026-27 main estimates will support this work.
Immigration is one of the great acts of nation building. It is how we meet labour shortages, reunite families and respond to persecution and displacement. It is also how people born elsewhere come to call Canada home and become our neighbours, workers, entrepreneurs, parents, volunteers and citizens. There is no question that immigrants and newcomers have contributed tremendously to Canada by driving economic growth and strengthening our communities.
Immigration policy is not only about numbers, applications or fiscal lines. It is about the kind of country we are choosing to build and whether we have the discipline, the generosity and the institutional seriousness to build it well. The question before us is not whether Canada remains a welcoming country. The more difficult question is whether we can remain welcoming in a way that is credible, orderly and sustainable. I believe that we can, if we are honest about what makes that possible. That is the context for these main estimates.
A system that is overwhelmed cannot service the people who need it most. People who come to Canada seeking protections are arriving at one of the most difficult times in their lives and deserve a system that treats them with dignity, gives them a fair hearing and provides them with timely decisions. We know that a system that cannot distinguish truth from fraud cannot properly protect the vulnerable. We also know that a system that is overwhelmed cannot offer timely protection to the people who need it most. While Canada cannot control when crises emerge, we can control how we prepare, how we respond and how we ensure that our response reflects both our humanitarian commitments and the capacity of our immigration system.
As a proud Vietnamese Canadian, I know that Canada's humanitarian tradition is not only something we describe in policy, but something real people have lived. The story of Vietnamese refugees in Canada is part of the modern story of this country. It is the story of the families who arrived after conflict, displacement and uncertainty. Canada made it possible for those who fled Vietnam to arrive to safety, stability and a fair chance at becoming a part of the fabric of this country. This is one example of what humanitarian protection can mean at its best. It gives people an opportunity to move beyond a point of crisis to belonging, contributing and one day becoming part of the Canadian story themselves. That is the promise behind humanitarian protection.
To keep that promise, compassion has to be matched with capacity. That means having the right planning, partnerships and supports in place, not only to offer protection, but to help people rebuild their lives once they are here. It also means maintaining public confidence. Canadians need to see our humanitarian commitments continue to offer protection over time. It means that when we respond to people in need, we do so through a system that can endure: one that is planned, coordinated, fair to applicants, responsible to communities and aligned with our country's capacity.
These main estimates help to support that work. They support the people, programs and partnerships needed to manage immigration responsibly, including the work required to uphold Canada's humanitarian commitments. This includes targeted supports for protected persons already in Canada, helping eligible protected persons and their in-Canada dependants transition to permanent residency in 2026 and 2027. These are people who have already been found to need Canada's protection. Helping them transition to permanent residency provides stability. It allows them to continue building their lives with greater security, put down roots, work, study, raise families and contribute more fully to the communities where they have been welcomed. This is an important example of how humanitarian commitments and responsible system management can work together.
Canada will continue to be there for people in need, but we also need to make sure that our humanitarian pathways are delivered through a system that can support people properly. That means considering settlement capacity, working with provinces, territories and communities, and aligning our humanitarian measures with the immigration levels plan, operational realities and the broader needs of the system.
Recent years have shown how quickly humanitarian situations can evolve. Canada has responded to a range of international crises and displacement situations. Each one has been different. Each one has required careful decisions about what Canada can do, which tools are appropriate and how immigration measures fit within that broader government response. These experiences have reinforced an important lesson: Humanitarian responses must be principled, coordinated and sustainable. That is why IRCC has strengthened the way it prepares for and responds to emerging international crises. The department's crisis response framework helps guide how IRCC assesses emerging crises and considers whether immigration measures may be appropriate as part of Canada's—
Mr. Chair, I would like to ask my dear colleague, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, about these main estimates.
It has been very good to have the minister come and see some of the incredible work being supported in my riding of Spadina—Harbourfront. We had a chance to see first-hand the work of Centre Francophone du Grand Toronto, where they have a legal clinic, medical services, employment supports and mental health and counselling for newcomers.
Can the minister speak more on why partnerships with organizations like Centre francophone, the Institute for Canadian Citizenship and Rainbow Railroad are so important and what role they play to help us deliver on our shared objectives?
Mr. Chair, first, let me begin by thanking the member for Spadina—Harbourfront for her real advocacy. She is a real champion for people who need humanitarian protection and for settlement organizations. I did visit with her, in her community, Centre francophone, and I saw the great work the settlement organization is doing. I very much appreciated her remarks, particularly when she referred to the estimates and the fact that we need to balance our compassion with responsible planning. That is exactly what we are doing. We are managing our migration system.
The main estimates support the people, the partnerships and the operational tools needed to maintain that balance. Canada has a global leadership role in protecting and resettling the world's most vulnerable. The target for refugees and protected persons for this year is 49,300. We plan, this year, to invest $935.7 million in settlement services, with over 530 service providers across the country.
I very much appreciate the member and the organizations that are in her community. I also had a chance to visit many parts of this beautiful country, and I have visited many settlement organizations. I want to thank them here tonight for all the work they are doing on behalf of the most vulnerable and also on behalf of Canadians.
Mr. Chair, does the minister understand that immigration levels impact health care demand, yes or no?
Mr. Chair, I really appreciate these questions and, in fact, question period this week. There have been quite a few questions posed on that. I am happy to respond to all of my colleagues' questions tonight.
Mr. Chair, again, I am going to repeat, for the member's benefit, what we have done over the last year. We have now reduced the asylum claims by 60% in the early months of 2026, compared to 2024. I know that members keep talking about what it was a couple of years ago, but we are living in today's world.
Mr. Chair, does the minister know how many more people our health care system can handle? It is a very simple question.
Mr. Chair, the estimates that we have here are really what we are here to talk about: $4.4 billion, a 15% reduction from last year. Some of that reduction is due to the fact that our asylum claims have gone down.
Mr. Chair, would removing 74,000 failed asylum claimants in Canada reduce any demand on our health care system?
Mr. Chair, again, as I said, our asylum numbers are going down. We have introduced moderate changes to the system, and we are facilitating permanent residence applications for doctors in Canada.
Mr. Chair, why is the minister giving rejected asylum claimants luxury health benefits like physiotherapy, counselling and home care through the interim federal health program?
Mr. Chair, this is temporary health coverage for vulnerable populations for essential services. The PBO estimates that we will reduce the expenditures by over $200 million annually.
Mr. Chair, through the work that I have been leading, we have introduced pathways to ensure that more doctors who are already practising in Canada and who are foreign doctors get permanent residency.
Mr. Chair, why should a rejected asylum claimant receive physiotherapy, counselling and home care when most Canadians pay for those benefits themselves?
Mr. Chair, again, these are essential services for the most vulnerable of the population, and they are aligned to the services social services clients receive in the provinces and territories.
Mr. Chair, again, I will repeat that these are temporary essential services for vulnerable individuals. They are for the most vulnerable population.
Mr. Chair, is the immigration minister considering expanding luxury health benefits for rejected asylum claimants, yes or no?
Mr. Chair, for the benefit of my colleague, perhaps he does not know that we have established a dedicated express entry category for surgeons, physicians and clinical specialists. The good news is that we have issued 391 invitations to apply already.
Mr. Chair, again, we have introduced modest copays for claimants. As the PBO has said, the reduction in asylum claims themselves, coupled with the introduction of the copay that we now receive—
Mr. Chair, is the minister okay with giving luxury health benefits to rejected asylum claimants as long as they pay a 70% discount on the benefit?
Mr. Chair, these are essential services for the most vulnerable people that are aligned with the services of the provinces and territories in the jurisdictions where they are.
Mr. Chair, does the minister believe that a rejected asylum claimant who has been charged with rape or sexual assault should remain eligible for physiotherapy benefits?
Mr. Chair, these are health care services, essential health care services, provided on a temporary basis for vulnerable populations. They are aligned with the provinces' and territories' fees.
Mr. Chair, when I asked the minister at committee about the purchase of real estate for asylum housing, she had a bit of a confused look on her face and provided a rather bizarre answer. She said that the population was staying in these hotels.
How many former hotels, motels or hospitality properties are currently being funded through federal transfers to house failed or asylum claimants?
Mr. Chair, I appreciate the question. Under my watch, in October 2025, the federal government ceased having any asylums in any hotels in this country.
Mr. Chair, let me try to rephrase that, because we know that the City of Pickering has purchased hotels through transfers from the federal government. How many hotels is the government funding through transfers to municipalities to house asylum claimants? It is a simple number.
Mr. Chair, as I said, as of October 2025, the federal government is no longer in the hotel business. We do provide funding to municipalities to have reception centres so they can help the people on the ground.
Mr. Chair, we are now calling them “reception centres”.
Is the minister suggesting that municipalities have not been buying real estate with the funds that have been transferred by her department for the purpose of housing asylum claimants?
Mr. Chair, provinces, territories and municipalities manage shelters. The IHAP funding that the federal government provides is based on local needs and priorities, including, yes, reception centres and transitional housing.
Mr. Chair, there is a twist: “reception centres” is catchphrase for allowing municipalities to purchase hotels to put asylum claimants in them.
Let me go back to another question I asked the minister in committee. There are contribution agreements that are signed between IRCC and municipalities. What is the language in the contribution agreement that allows the municipalities to purchase real estate with taxpayers' money?
Mr. Chair, the very good news, as I have been saying for the last few hours and actually for the last few months, is that the asylum numbers are decreasing.
Once again, Mr. Chair, there is a contribution agreement between IRCC and municipalities that receive federal funding. What is the language in the contribution agreement that gives the authority for municipalities to purchase real estate for asylum claimants? It is a very simple question. Does the minister know the answer?
Mr. Chair, I believe I answered that at one point at committee, but these agreements are public knowledge. They are public and they are viewable. I invite the member to look at them.
Mr. Chair, I am not sure we are going to be able to get to the bottom of this.
How many hotels have been purchased with taxpayer money, through contribution agreements between IRCC and municipalities? It is a very simple question.
Again, Mr. Chair, the federal government is no longer in the hotel business. We provide funding to municipalities in order to reduce pressure on them. They call them reception centres or transitional housing.
Mr. Chair, I am not going to get a straight answer, for whatever reason. It does not seem like a difficult question.
In these contribution agreements, she will not verify that there is language that allows municipalities to purchase real estate, but we know that they have purchased real estate because it has been all over the news, including the fact that the City of Ottawa spent over $40 million purchasing real estate for asylum claimants.
Let me ask the minister this. What happens to the real estate? Who gets the proceeds when the city sells this real estate?
Mr. Chair, I do not know what the issue is with the member, except to say that these funding decisions are based on need, on expected results and on value for money. Would he like the municipalities to entertain people on the streets? The federal government is helping municipalities with the asylum claimants. The number of asylum claimants is reduced. We brought in Bill C-12. There are lots of measures that—
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, a few minutes ago, I asked the minister if she acknowledged the evidence that French is declining in Quebec. With all her advisers around her, the minister replied that there is no evidence that French is declining in Quebec or in Canada.
Does the minister wish to stand by that answer?
Mr. Chair, the French language is fundamental to Canada. I agree with that. We are going to work harder with all the respective parties and come up with policies to ensure that the French language is very important.
Mr. Chair, as I said, protecting the French language in Quebec and across Canada is one of our government's top priorities.
Mr. Chair, according to reports by Radio-Canada, Le Devoir, and La Presse, French in Quebec has been in demographic decline since 2021, particularly with regard to immigration. The percentage of native French speakers is projected to drop by 10% by 2036.
Does the minister acknowledge that?
Mr. Chair, we are working closely with the Province of Quebec and with the minister responsible for francization, but I think that the member knows that Quebec sets its own economic immigration threshold.
Mr. Chair, another very interesting fact is that in Montreal, only 58% of the population uses French as their primary language. That statistic is from five years ago.
Does the minister acknowledge that French is in decline in Quebec?
Mr. Chair, as I have said before, French is very important. That is why we are focusing on francophone immigration. It is not just important for Quebec. It is important for the entire country.
Mr. Chair, before coming to tonight's debate, I asked people to send me their questions, knowing that I would be meeting the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. Here is a question based on a message from Sonia Brisebois.
On January 1, 2025, Quebec had 616,000 non-permanent residents. This includes asylum seekers, refugees, temporary workers and international students. This puts pressure on day care centres, schools and our health care system.
How many will there need to be before the minister admits that the system has collapsed and that we are no longer able to provide proper care to Quebeckers and Canadians?
Basically, at what point do we turn off the tap so we can take care of people properly?
Mr. Chair, we recognize the role played by Quebec. We also recognize that Quebec plays an important role in immigration.
When it comes to people who have not yet immigrated, it is up to Quebec to decide, and it is also up to the individuals themselves to decide where they want to live.
I am very proud that we are working with the Province of Quebec. It is also a really nice place to visit.
Mr. Chair, the Parliamentary Budget Officer forecasts that the interim federal health program, which provides free health care to asylum seekers even when their application to remain in the country, on our territory, is refused, will reach an annual budget of $1.5 billion by 2029–2030.
Does the minister think it is acceptable to spend $1.5 billion a year on services for non-residents, when citizens are not even able to see a doctor?
Mr. Chair, I have already answered this question several times in English, but I can also answer it in French.
Quebec has received over $1.1 billion to cover these costs.
Furthermore, the number of refugee claims has fallen by 71%.
Mr. Chair, do the minister and her government still intend to make Canada a postnational state, like the former prime minister and all the ministers who are still here wanted? Do they still want a country with no identity, no history and no values?
Mr. Chair, as I said, protecting the French language and protecting all of our provinces, including Quebec, are very important to me, to the Liberal Party and to all members here.
I hope the same is true for all members of the House of Commons.
[English]
Mr. Chair, it is always an honour to address the House of Commons, particularly on the matter of immigration as parliamentary secretary responsible for immigration.
We have a discussion tonight that has unfolded, and unfolded sometimes in unfortunate ways. The issue has been politicized over the past few years. Regardless, we have an opportunity now to seize the moment and be serious about a fundamental pillar of Canadian society and the Canadian economy.
What is true for Canada, of course, is true for democracies around the world. We are engaged in a global competition for talent. How could we not be? I used the term “pillar” before. The immigration system has always served as a pillar of our country. When we look at those fundamental aspects that Canadians care about in the present and in the future, we look to the health care system first and foremost.
Mr. Chair, you and I come from southwestern Ontario. We know the importance of nursing in our area. We know the importance of doctors in our area. You are from Stratford, and the surrounding communities have often lacked family doctors. The immigration system can help with that. The immigration system can help to secure nurses as well. In fact, 25% of nurses in Canada are immigrants, 37% of doctors are immigrants and 25% of overall health care workers in this country are immigrants. When we hear the minister tonight talk about pathways that have been made available to immigrants to settle in Canada to engage and work in the health care system, particularly doctors, she focuses on the right things. This government will stay seized with that.
What about the trades? This country is seeing playing out, on a global level, a rupture. The Prime Minister rightly described it as such at Davos in that landmark speech. This is a rupture that is happening across the world. We need to build this country up to address that and to ensure that we export our resources with a focus on oil, a focus on critical minerals and the list goes on.
We have to ensure, beyond sourcing domestic apprentices, which are so tremendously important, of course, that skilled tradespeople can come, and the immigration system has always served to benefit this country in that regard. We can think about Portuguese immigrants, Italian immigrants, and I will not let down my ancestors here, Greek immigrants as well, working in the skilled trades. I could cite many other examples of celebrated heritage communities in our country that have made such an important contribution, and the future is bright in that regard.
We have a Prime Minister and a government that is absolutely focused on the economy and recognizing fundamentally the natural tie that exists between the immigration system and the economic system. Immigration policy is economic policy. We cannot divorce ourselves from that reality.
What about clean energy? What I just said about skilled trades aligns with that as well. We have seen the government pursue a number of initiatives. Just this week, we see the deal that has been set with the German government in terms of LNG. We will see much more work done on this in a variety of ways to advance that important priority. We are going to need skilled tradespeople in that area as well, and the immigration system provides an answer to that.
On advanced manufacturing, our region, and Mr. Chair, we come from southwestern Ontario, is going through a very troubling time right now. We should not hide from that fact. The trade war that we never asked for, but has been put upon us, is a very real one, and so advanced manufacturing needs to continue to be a focus. Once we see, hopefully, the page turn, and the American government and the Canadian government come to an agreement that serves this country's interests, we can see a better future for advanced manufacturing. The immigration system can help in that regard as well.
My question to the minister is on how the main estimates and how her overall approach, and this government's approach, help to serve the immigration system and the economy. If she could talk specifically about the inextricable link between the two, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Chair, I thank the member for London Centre for his tremendous work and for being a super parliamentary secretary. He works extremely hard for his constituents and for Canadians on this file.
Let me talk a bit about talent attraction, about what exactly we are doing and why these estimates are so important.
We are prioritizing top international talent through new ways for doctors with work experience here to apply for permanent residency. We have, through my work on the file, which is something I did at the Nova Scotia level back in 2018, dedicated an express entry stream for surgeons, physicians and clinical specialists with 12 months of Canadian work experience. The first round happened in February, a couple of months ago. We have already issued 391 invitations to apply.
In addition, we have allocated to provinces and territories an unprecedented number of up to 5,000 additional nomination spaces to support practice-ready physicians through the provincial nominee programs.
We are also developing an accelerated pathway for H-1B visa holders, removing the attestation letter requirement for graduate students, launching a targeted pilot for high-value immigrant entrepreneurs, fast-tracking processing for Ph.D. students and creating pathways for researchers. With our new talent attraction strategy, we are going to recruit more than 1,000 highly qualified researchers and give them the resources they need to drive innovation here at home and build the Canadian economy of tomorrow.
This work is already under way, and I work very closely with other departments. Canadians expect us to attract the best and the brightest to build a strong, competitive economy. That is exactly what we are doing, and we will continue to do that.
These initiatives add to Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada's $1.7-billion Canada global impact+ research talent initiative to recruit, as I said, over 1,000 world-leading researchers.
Let me end by saying that we have a plan. The plan is working. The facts are there. I am very excited for this country for the next months and years to come. There is a lot of work that is happening, and I encourage all young people and all Canadians to partake in it.
Mr. Chair, I am very pleased to rise today to discuss Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada's 2026-27 main estimates, especially because the hon. minister, the member for Halifax West, is my riding neighbour and has been an incredible support to me and members of the Nova Scotia caucus in our first year here in the House of Commons.
Immigration is a critical part of what makes Canada stand out. It fills labour gaps, grows businesses and bolsters sectors like health care. In municipalities like Halifax, we see this every day in growing sectors such as ocean tech and shipbuilding that depend on skilled newcomers. Newcomers bring energy, ideas and global connections that enrich our communities, and I very much enjoy spending a lot of my time in the riding with them on a regular basis.
Immigration is also central to our government's plan to build strength at home amid a rupture in the global order. A strong system depends on clear rules, reliable screening, secure processing and public confidence.
These estimates strike the right balance. They reflect responsible, sustainable use of public funds while maintaining the core work Canadians expect from their immigration system. They ensure that public dollars match the system Canada is building. First, they maintain the essential capacity needed to run the system. Second, they adjust funding where volumes are lower or temporary measures are ending. Third, they target support where capacity, integrity and stability are needed most.
The estimates support the implementation of Canada's multi-year immigration levels plan, which guides permanent resident admissions, temporary resident arrivals and the balance across immigration categories. We are maintaining targeted supports where the system needs them. This includes helping protected persons already in Canada transition to permanent residents, supporting workers already here and contributing to labour needs in communities across the country.
The estimates also support the interim federal health program, which provides temporary health care coverage to eligible people who do not yet have access to provincial or territorial insurance. This program helps bridge the gap so people can access essential services when they need them the most. Many in my riding of Halifax rely on this program, and I am very pleased to see its continued support.
The estimates also support the interim housing assistance program, which helps provinces and municipalities respond to temporary housing pressures linked to asylum claimants. This is a clear example of prioritizing the responsible use of public funds.
As global conflicts, climate pressures and shifting migration patterns continue to displace people, Canada must respond with compassion and with a system that is orderly, fair and sustainable. A sustainable system must still support people in need, work with partners and maintain the services that help newcomers integrate and help communities respond to pressure. In Halifax, organizations like the Immigration Services Association of Nova Scotia, or ISANS, demonstrate how strong community partnerships help newcomers settle successfully.
Canadians need to know that immigration is being managed carefully and strategically, that resources are being used for clear purposes and that the department is adapting as immigration levels, operational pressures and public expectations evolve. These estimates do precisely that.
I will move on to a question for the minister.
The 2026-27 main estimates show that our government is committed to continued support for IRCC operations and newcomer services as we find a more responsible and sustainable path forward. Can the minister explain how the planned spending will support newcomer services in places like Halifax to ensure families benefit from timely processing?
Mr. Chair, first, let me commend the member for Halifax and let her know how much I enjoy working alongside her in her constituency and also right here in Ottawa. She is a passionate leader who has already done a tremendous amount of work for the municipality of Halifax prior to entering federal politics, or any politics for that matter, and who understands the value that newcomers bring to our province.
The member spoke very eloquently, and she understands that newcomers support our businesses and public services, but we need to be targeted in economic immigration to meet Canada's needs as well. That is exactly why the 2026-27 estimates continue to support an immigration system that is more strategic, more targeted and more aligned with Canada's economic priorities.
Because I know Halifax very well, I know the member represents a number of post-secondary educational institutions. We know Canada has world-class educational institutions, and our diverse, welcoming society makes Canada a destination of choice. I would like to spend a little time here making sure people understand what we are doing for Ph.D. students and graduate students through these estimates, that is, attracting leading international researchers to Canada as part of our talent attraction strategy to welcome over 1,000 researchers across all career stages to Canada.
What we have also done in 2026 is introduce new measures to attract talent at the master's level as well as the Ph.D. level; to expedite the processing for eligible Ph.D. students and their families, if they have young kids or families; and to exempt certain master's and doctoral degree students from the provincial or territorial attestation letter requirements.
We have launched new web resources. It is all available online to help prospective graduate students decide whether or not Canada is the right choice for them. I invite them to take a look and make those decisions. I know how difficult it is when people are making the decision to leave one country and come to another, particularly to pursue higher education, a Ph.D. or research work. I would advise them to please do the homework, as they say, pre-arrival and take a look at that.
What we want to do is attract the best and the brightest talent to our country, and we are working extremely hard to do that.
Mr. Chair, Bill C-3 introduced unending chain migration to Canada. The minister told the committee this bill would create fewer than 5,000 new Canadians per year. Does she stand by her estimate?
Mr. Chair, with Bill C-3, this government acted to protect the value of Canadian citizenship by putting in clear rules in terms of descent—
Again, Mr. Chair, there is high interest, in the media and everywhere else, by people who are interested, but high interest and even applications do not necessarily mean people are getting citizenship.
Mr. Chair, I will help the minister a bit. Her department has already confirmed over 2,600 new Bill C-3 citizens in just two months. Perhaps she wants to revise her forecast?
Mr. Chair, as I said, Bill C-3 provides clarity, structure and control to citizenship by descent, and there are also strong safeguards to uphold the integrity of citizenship.
Mr. Chair, the minister seems very scared to give a number.
The Liberal news organization, the CBC, says, “Millions of Americans can now claim Canadian citizenship”. How does the minister sleep at night, knowing her estimate of a few thousand might actually be a few million?
Mr. Chair, again, I am delighted that everybody wants to come to Canada, but just because they want to come and are expressing their delight in coming, it does not mean they are going to be able to come. There are clear rules in place, and we are monitoring the impact.
Mr. Chair, this is the exact opposite of what we heard in committee. We, Conservatives, suggested some conditions that people might have to adhere to, but the minister suggested the law is the law; if people check these boxes, they automatically come in.
Does the minister want to revise her numbers up?
Mr. Chair, as I said, the department is monitoring that. Bill C-3 does not create unlimited access to Canadian citizenship by descent. People have to provide proof of ancestry for every generation in the application.
Mr. Chair, did the minister understand that Bill C-3 could apply to millions of Americans?
Mr. Chair, the integrity of Canadian citizenship is paramount. There are clear, identifiable steps people have to adhere to, follow and abide by in order to even get to that step.
Mr. Chair, we know there are certain things that have to be done, but this still allows millions of Americans, potentially, to become Canadian citizens. The minister never told Parliament about this. Did she deliberately hide this information from Parliament?
Mr. Chair, again, I believe that the record shows that we are managing migration. It shows the decrease of asylum. It shows that the temporary resident population has decreased as we said it would decrease, and the PBO has confirmed that.
Mr. Chair, the record shows that tens of thousands of people from the United States who are looking to trace their ancestry are starting to apply for citizenship.
Did the minister tell cabinet that Bill C-3 could make millions of Americans eligible for Canadian citizenship?
Mr. Chair, again, as I said, applications do not necessarily mean and do not equate to people receiving citizenship. The department is monitoring that, and we are not seeing those types of numbers.
Mr. Chair, in proposing Bill C-3, did the minister consider excluding claims through distant ancestors?
Mr. Chair, I believe that the member was a member of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration when many people testified at that committee when the bill was going through. I believe he already had the answers at that point.
Again, we will monitor what happens in the future.
Mr. Chair, we know that new citizens can vote, obviously. Did the minister consult Elections Canada about where these new citizens through Bill C-3 will vote when they have never had a physical address in Canada?
Mr. Chair, the bill stopped citizenship indefinitely. The right thing to do was to pass that piece of legislation. It provided clarity, structure and control to citizenship by descent.
Mr. Chair, for 10 years, IRCC has spiralled from backlog to backlog while temporary migration numbers exploded beyond Canada's capacity for housing, health care and infrastructure. Nearly two million visas and permits are now approaching expiry, exposing a system riddled with abuse by questionable colleges that turn immigration into a business model.
One of the programs that got caught up in this chaos is the start-up visa program, which has not been talked about by anyone since the new government has taken office. There are now around 43,000 innovation founders waiting in the queue, having paid substantial fees to go through incubation and business building programs, but your website now says, Minister, that there is a 10-year wait for visas to be issued. These entrepreneurs are going elsewhere, where there is no chaos and where economic certainty exists.
Is the minister okay with this?
Mr. Chair, that is a very interesting and good question. I have been transparent and clear. In fact, I was at the Toronto Club and was asked exactly that question and questions along those lines. In fact the individuals who were there asking me were all business people and people who knew about this program. They told me there was so much fraud in that particular program and that they understood why we had to pause it.
We have been clear and transparent. We paused the program because we, or the department before I got there, could not control the applications coming in. Therefore, we needed to pause it and take a look at it to ensure we have a system that works for the top talent this country needs.
Mr. Chair, that is interesting, because my next question was going to be about the corruption in the program. The minister has just verified and validated that there has been corruption in her department in the program. It cannot handle the backlog of applications, so it shut it down because it was corrupted.
I wonder if the minister can tell me, did the department ever audit NACO when it was subcontracted to do the due diligence on designated organizations?
Mr. Chair, through you, I would please ask that people not put words in my mouth. I said the program was paused. That was the right thing to do. There were too many applications in the system. We have heard about that for a little while. It was uncontrollable, but it was not because of the IRCC and the people working diligently in that department. It was because too many people were applying, and they could not stop the applications. The right thing was done to pause it, take a look and see what was the best thing to do.
Mr. Chair, it is not that I want to correct the minister by her trying to correct what she had already said, that the program had been rife with corruption, but the IRCC's own evaluations identified problematic applications, weak oversight and pay-to-incubate schemes involving designated organizations.
Why did your government fail to act before the backlog exploded past 43,000 applications? Why did you subcontract a designated organization approval process to NACO? Does the minister know what NACO is?
Mr. Chair, again, as I have said, that program was paused. The department is actively looking at what the best way is, because part of my mission is to bring sustainability to our permanent resident numbers and our temporary resident numbers, to attract francophone immigration and to bring global talent to Canada. That is exactly the mission we are working on, and we are achieving clear results.
Mr. Chair, let us talk about results. Right now, the minister's website says the approval time for start-up visa program applications is in excess of 10 years. People can get approval in France in one to two months. In the United States, it is 15 days. In Germany, it is four to six months. In the U.K., it is two to four months. In Canada, it is 10 excruciatingly painful years.
Is the minister okay with that?
Mr. Chair, let me tell everyone about processing and our service standards: 80% of completed applications are processed within service standards. There is high demand for the available level space that we have. We have been transparent. We have been clear with all Canadians and all members of Parliament on that. Our staff has cross-training so they can work with the demand we have.
Mr. Chair, the immigration minister stated on the record that luxury health benefits like physiotherapy, home care and counselling are “essential services” for rejected asylum claimants. How are these essential benefits if Canadian taxpayers do not receive them?
Mr. Chair, again, I know it is an important subject. I appreciate my colleague. I know he cares; otherwise, he would not be asking me the question. I do appreciate that, but again, as I said, these are temporary, interim federal health measures for vulnerable—
Mr. Chair, does the immigration minister understand that Canadian taxpayers are not entitled to physiotherapy, home care or counselling benefits?
Mr. Chair, the coverage is for essential services. It is aligned with similar provincial health insurance programs.
Mr. Chair, does the minister realize that once they become provincially eligible, they no longer get those services?
Mr. Chair, these are temporary, limited measures for vulnerable people who are not yet receiving provincial coverage.
Mr. Chair, the immigration minister referred to rejected asylum claimants who were charged with assault and rape as “vulnerable people”. Why is she calling criminals vulnerable people?
Mr. Chair, no one can commit a crime with impunity, whether they are Canadian or not. People committing crimes face consequences.
Mr. Chair, does the minister have any issue with funding luxury health benefits for criminals she calls vulnerable?
Mr. Chair, I am proud to say that this government is investing in law enforcement. This government is protecting Canadians. That is our priority. We have reduced the IFHP coverage. We have instituted copay as well. The PBO has confirmed—
Mr. Chair, William Imona-Russel was a rejected asylum claimant who raped two women and murdered a 20-year-old girl while still in Canada. This rapist would qualify for luxury health benefits like speech therapy under the Liberal government.
Does the minister think that is okay?
Mr. Chair, as I said earlier, the Canada Border Services Agency has deported 23,000 people this past year. We work with the CBSA and with our law enforcement. We are investing in over 1,000 more officers to ensure that we protect Canadians.
Mr. Chair, the minister did not answer the question. Does she think it is okay for this rapist to qualify for luxury health benefits?
Mr. Chair, I am not sure what my colleague is referring to. Is he referring to coverages that are interim for essential services for vulnerable people before they transition to provincial funding? He is going to have to confirm that.
Mr. Chair, the minister claims that the interim federal health program is temporary, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer says that the average program coverage for asylum claimants is now four years under her watch. Is four years temporary?
Mr. Chair, again, let me get back to the question of criminality. Serious crimes deserve serious consequences, period.
Mr. Chair, how many years would it take before the minister no longer considered the interim federal health program temporary? Is it longer than four years?
Mr. Chair, the good news is that we are saving money because the asylum claim numbers are down. We will continue to bring them down with Bill C-12 to curb those numbers.
Mr. Chair, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Vancouver East.
I want to say that moments of tonight's discussions have been encouraging. After the horrors of the passage of Bill C-12 and international condemnation that it attacks refugee rights, it was so refreshing that some of the points I was going to make were made by the hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard on the long delays in getting people out of Gaza and out of the horrible situations found in Sudan. Also, it was wonderful to hear the words one wants to hear of compassion from a Canadian from the hon. member for Spadina—Harbourfront.
My question to the minister is the following. Is the department considering that it is long since time to recognize that the United States is no longer a safe third country after ICE has arrested over 900 children who have been held for more than 20 days?
Mr. Chair, this may be one of the first times that I have responded to the hon. member. I know she has been here for a while. I very much respect her as a person, but also as a parliamentarian. I know she has connections to my province of Nova Scotia. I really appreciate her wealth of knowledge here.
She asked me a question about the STCA. The information I have is that the STCA continues to be partnered with Canada.
Mr. Chair, I consider myself at least bicoastal, having spent much of my life on Cape Breton Island. I also went to Dalhousie law school, so I am at least partially Haligonian.
I hear a lot of concerns from my constituents. My constituency office is pretty much overwhelmed with people who need help as they are caught up in the long delays of trying to get processed by IRCC. It is not uncommon for security assessments to take several years, and we know that a lot of the international partnering agencies that work with IRCC create tremendous bottlenecks.
What is the department planning to do to expedite the process and to find a better balance between security and compassion?
Mr. Chair, my colleague raises a really good point that we have been talking with my department's officials about, because we receive those concerns in my constituency office as well, as do all parliamentarians.
I would say that part of the process is to do with the fact that we have a levels plan that is part of managing migration in Canada, permanent and temporary. As a result of that, we can only process so many per year. We have been clear and transparent with Canadians on what that number is. In fact, we met our target last year and we are on track to do so this year. It is part of the levels plan that we have that we can only process so much.
Mr. Chair, we know that we want to attract, as the minister has mentioned tonight, skilled and talented people, new Canadians who bring the talents and skills we need, but this is not just a compassion exercise. This is also a steep competition. It was recently pointed out in Policy Options magazine, just last month, that Canada risks discovering too late that the real consequences of a burdensome and cumbersome process are not just delayed applications but losing eligible and desirable people, who go elsewhere.
Mr. Chair, it is a very good point. In terms of the IRCC's processing standards, 80% are processed in time within our standards. We have very high-demand volumes. To go back to the member's earlier question on security screening, we are working very diligently with both CBSA and CSIS to bring those down.
Mr. Chair, another big concern for my constituents is the home care worker program. The home care worker immigration pilot, as the minister knows, was opened in March 2025 and closed soon thereafter. We understand from her department that it has been paused. When will it restart?
Mr. Chair, it is a very good question because many people use home care workers. We had to pause the program because we found an abundance of volume there, and we felt, as everybody does now, that it is just not fair to keep accepting more and more applications until we are able to process some of the ones that we have in the queue.
Mr. Chair, it should not be so difficult when people are living in Canada as permanent residents and want to bring their parents here on a TRV to visit their grandchildren. Why is that so bottlenecked?
Mr. Chair, we have levels, in terms of the temporary resident population, that we can accept, whether it is students, workers or the people who are coming on humanitarian pathways. It is all calculated together. It is all in budget 2025, which was tabled in the House. We are working to process those numbers accordingly.
Mr. Chair, does the minister believe there is a lack of financial resources to her department? Is it a lack of people power that makes this a grinding misery for so many people who either are here and wanting their permanent residency or are overseas and wanting to come here?
Mr. Chair, again, these are excellent questions, and they are ones that Canadians are asking me when I go to different provinces, and the territories that I went to as well.
No, it is neither of those. It is the fact that we have a levels plan. The levels plan has a permanent resident number, but for the first time, in 2024, Canada introduced the temporary resident plan—
Mr. Chair, as the minister hears from every corner of the House, there is deep concern that her department is not delivering for the safety and security of Canadians, but my concern is far more that we are not delivering on our own reputation for being compassionate and humanitarian people.
Will the minister agree that much more needs to be done, and is there a timeline and a strategy to deliver on these concerns?
Mr. Chair, we definitely have a plan. We are definitely delivering on that plan. It has been transparent, it has been clear, and perhaps that is part of the reason there have been so many questions from Canadians. We have been so clear and so transparent, and it is different than in past years, and we will continue to do the best that—
Mr. Chair, with all due respect, it is not adequate. If the main estimates discussion tonight ends up being a cry for help, that this is not adequate, that should be taken to the cabinet table. It is not adequate.
Mr. Chair, I appreciate my colleague's opinion. We are working to deliver for Canadians, to fulfill the commitments we made in the election, to bring down the numbers of temporary and permanent residents in 2027 and to bring in talent.
Mr. Chair, there is a requirement for cabinet to ensure an ongoing review of the safe third country agreement. Has cabinet reviewed the safe third country agreement since the U.S. implemented mandatory detention without review by a judge for large categories of the refugee claimants returned to the U.S., third-country pass-through deportations and deportations under the dubious asylum co-operative agreements?
Mr. Chair, I want to welcome my colleague to the discussion here tonight. She is my immigration critic, and I had a great discussion with her in the summer when we were talking about levels and everything else. I very much value her experience in immigration and also in politics, not just federally but provincially.
The member does ask a good question on the STCA. Does she mind if I continue?
Mr. Chair, all the minister has to say is that, yes, they have reviewed it or no.
If the cabinet has not, and it is a requirement of cabinet, can the minister confirm that the government has delegated it down with it going to cabinet when the circumstances warrant?
Mr. Chair, we do monitor the U.S. We use a robust framework to continuously monitor U.S. developments and their impact on the refugee protection system.
That is a no, then.
Mr. Chair, is the minister maintaining data on ICE detention for individuals Canada transferred to U.S. authorities?
Mr. Chair, again, as I said, there is a robust framework. There is continuous monitoring by the department, but also by the partners that the department works with.
Mr. Chair, as I said, IRCC monitors that with the partners we work with. It is not simply IRCC. There are other departments that it works with in order to monitor them, and we will continue to do that.
And the answer is also no.
Mr. Chair, is the minister monitoring the use of ACAs for individuals returned to the U.S. under the safe third country agreement in violation of the safe third country agreement? Has the minister requested assurances from the U.S. authorities that ACAs are not in use for detainees?
Mr. Chair, 130 highly qualified Palestinian postgrad students have waited for two years for their study visa with no decision or timeline. Many face requirements that are impossible to meet under the war conditions, including biometrics and extended security screening.
France, Ireland, Belgium and Germany successfully evacuated students who received university scholarships without pre-departure biometrics. They granted emergency entry travel documents and deferred standard biometric collection. Will the minister do the same?
Mr. Chair, first let me say that when the member speaks of Gaza and the Middle East, my heart goes out to everyone there. Obviously, I know it is very difficult.
When the member speaks of students, they all go through the same application as any international student. I can tell the member that we have directed officials to accelerate the student visa processing for people in Gaza, and I can confirm—
Mr. Chair, with the special immigration measure for Gazans to date, how many names has the government submitted to the governments of Israel and Egypt to request official exit clearance?
Mr. Chair, I do not believe I can reply to that. I do not think I have what the member is asking for.
I can tell the member that, as of February 28, approximately 1,360 Palestinians have been approved to come to Canada and approximately 985 people have arrived through the special measures.
Mr. Chair, that was not my question. I am asking how many names have been submitted to the Israeli and Egyptian authorities. Maybe her officials can help her.
Mr. Chair, in 2024, prior to me becoming a minister, the government introduced special measures to facilitate temporary residence for up to 5,000 extended family members in Gaza of Canadian citizens and permanent residents.
Mr. Chair, I would ask the minister not to waste my time, I only have seven and a half minutes. I would like her to answer the question.
What was the last date the government submitted names, and how many have been processed since the ceasefire?
Mr. Chair, the Government of Canada made a commitment for certain numbers, and we are fulfilling that commitment to the best of our abilities.
Mr. Chair, as I said, the government made a commitment, and the commitment is being fulfilled. I have cited the numbers of who has already arrived and of the applications that have been processed.
Mr. Chair, the minister is having trouble answering questions, so let me try a different tack. Can the minister advise us on how many applications are in the backlog for the special immigration measure for Hong Kongers for stream A and B and for the special immigration measures for Ukraine and Sudan?
Mr. Chair, in terms of Hong Kong, I believe I already addressed that with another member, but a number of measures have been implemented for Hong Kong, both for permanent resident pathways and temporary resident measures.
Mr. Chair, I am getting a migraine. I am actually asking for the backlog numbers. Will the minister answer the question?
Mr. Chair, it is no wonder the Conservatives are calling for that minister's resignation. She cannot answer one question in seven and a half minutes. Since the immigration levels plan has put all three of these groups under the H and C and other category quota, how long does the minister think it will take to process all these applications?
Mr. Chair, the member asked for a number for the Hong Kong PR pathways. We received 46,444 applications for people, and the total that have arrived is 13,160.
Mr. Chair, the minister said IRGC terrorists are not permitted to enter Canada, but they are here by the hundreds, and probably more. Will she at least talk with her minister colleagues and commit to removing every IRGC member currently terrorizing Persian Canadians?
Mr. Chair, as I said, IRGC officials are inadmissible. Yes, we do work with the Minister of Public Safety and with CBSA. They are investigating all these cases. They will be taking action as required.
Mr. Chair, Global News reported that Tahawwur Rana, who had been convicted in the U.S. of a terrorism offence, obtained Canadian citizenship in 2001. How did someone convicted of a terrorist offence obtain Canadian citizenship in the first place?
Mr. Chair, as I have been saying all along, if there are IRGC officials, they are not being admitted to Canada. There is a continuous ban that the government has taken. It is still in place.
Mr. Chair, why does it take years and multiple immigration ministers to attempt to revoke Mr. Rana's citizenship?
Mr. Chair, I will quote the numbers again. Members like numbers. There have been 17,800 applications reviewed for potential inadmissibility and 239 visas cancelled by IRCC, and there are 176 investigations ongoing with the CBSA.
Mr. Chair, if citizenship was obtained through alleged misrepresentation, why is verification not immediate?
Mr. Chair, if there has been misrepresentation, then there is a process and deportation is possible.
Mr. Chair, if people have gotten their citizenship through misrepresentation, deportation should be immediate.
Mr. Chair, as I said, there are consequences for people who do not leave, and CBSA, as the Minister of Public Safety said today, has deported 23,000 people.
Mr. Chair, what confidence should Persian Canadians have in your answers about IRGC members, when cases like this are still sitting unresolved?
Mr. Chair, we work with partners in public safety, the RCMP and the CBSA. We have reinforced them. We are hiring 1,000 additional staff. We brought in various measures. I think Canadians in the community can feel safe.
Mr. Chair, how many of these cases came into the country and were flagged but did not have adequate security?
Mr. Chair, there are security processes that take place prior to people's coming into Canada, when they make application. There is ongoing security that happens at every stage of the process.
Mr. Chair, Conservatives gave the minister multiple opportunities to admit tonight that the Liberals have failed the victims of foreign criminals. Her answer was “Oh well”, and she demurred on the importance.
I will give her one more chance. Will she commit tonight to amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act so foreign criminals no longer get sentencing discounts?
Mr. Chair, if I were not a lawyer who practised law for 22 years, I might fall into that trap. The point is, there is nothing to amend. It is not in the act.
Mr. Chair, we gave the minister 10 separate opportunities to denounce the Kitchener strangler. She refused. Does she condone the strangling of women by foreign criminals in the city of Kitchener, yes or no?
Mr. Chair, serious crimes deserve serious consequences. It does not matter who criminals are and what status they have in Canada.
Mr. Chair, the minister brags about her first year, but what people see is fraud, security failings, compassion for non-citizen criminals, and an immigration system that Canadians do not trust anymore. How does she defend that record?
Mr. Chair, I disagree with the member totally. If he really wants to look at my record, I am going to need a bit of time here, but asylum claims are down and temporary resident work permits and foreign students are down. Perhaps the member wants them at zero. I am not sure. Maybe he should be talking to his community.
We have strengthened our program to attract the talent we need—
Mr. Chair, the law requires that non-citizens convicted of a serious crime be deported, yet the minister refuses to close a loophole that keeps them here.
A temporary foreign worker assaulted a woman then robbed her, yet he was given a lenient sentence to avoid deportation. Can the minister tell the victim why this person is still in Canada?
Mr. Chair, I will continue on the fact that we are strengthening our communities. We are protecting our population. We are managing immigration. We are bringing in talented tradespeople, strengthening rural communities, attracting health workers, fast-tracking physicians and—
Mr. Chair, a non-citizen in Kitchener battered his girlfriend, then a judge gave him a lenient sentence so he would not be deported. Can the minister tell the victim why this person is still in Canada?
Mr. Chair, criminals, regardless of their status, whether they are Canadian, temporary residents or permanent residents, face consequences.
Mr. Chair, they do not. A non-citizen trucker received a lenient sentence specifically so they could dodge deportation after they caused a fatal crash in Ontario. Can the minister tell the family of the victim why this person is still in Canada?
Mr. Chair, there is nothing in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that reduces sentencing or disallows people from receiving it. CBSA investigates those cases, and deportations are conducted.
Mr. Chair, the minister claims that, yet it is still happening over and over again. A non-citizen was found guilty of assault then broke his no-contact order, yet he was still given a lenient sentence to avoid deportation. Can the minister tell his victim why he is still in Canada?
Mr. Chair, this non-citizen did not face serious consequences. He was caught trafficking cocaine and was given a lenient sentence to avoid deportation. Can the minister tell Canadians, in spite of all her claims, why he is still in Canada?
Mr. Chair, again, I am the immigration minister. I am looking at the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and regulations. There is nothing in that document and in those rules that permits what the member is alluding to.
Mr. Chair, there is nothing to prevent it, either, and that is why the Conservatives brought in a bill to close this loophole. The minister could have told the justice minister to support it, but in fact she voted against it. This is her fault.
A non-citizen was convicted of major theft, a crime that carries a punishment of 10 years. Instead of being deported, she received house arrest to avoid deportation. Why should she be allowed to stay in Canada?
Mr. Chair, we would be glad to work with the member if the member would bring a law that is constitutional and within the law. That is not what the member did. Her law that she brought in was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of Canada had ruled on that over a decade ago, that it is not within the Constitution.
Mr. Chair, as a lawyer, she should know that what the court ruling actually said was that there was nothing in the charter that gave people these rights, and my bill was constitutional, so shame on her. She voted against it.
A non-citizen spied on his roommates while they used the bathroom. The minister is sitting here arguing that it is okay for this person to be in Canada, yet he was given a lenient sentence so that he would avoid deportation. Can the minister tell the victims of this disgusting rapist why he is still in Canada?
Mr. Chair, the court clearly and unequivocally stated that public safety is paramount, and that is exactly what this government is doing. We have hired officers. We are complying with our obligations, and we will continue to do that. There is nothing in our law that offers otherwise.
Exactly, Mr. Chair, we need a new law, but the minister voted against the law that would have prevented this. People who are sitting at home and who are listening to example after example of the lived experiences of non-citizens getting sweetheart deals and being able to stay in this country after serious crimes are listening to her drivel and wondering how Canada got this way.
A non-citizen sexually assaulted an 18-year-old girl in a nightclub in Calgary and then was given a lenient sentence to avoid deportation. Can the minister try again? What is she going to tell the victim of this criminal? Why is he still in Canada?
Mr. Chair, my role is to manage migration in Canada. We have clear rules. We are working. We have been transparent with Canadians. People who commit serious offences will be treated and should be treated seriously and sentenced. CBSA investigates and deports.
However, Mr. Chair, they are not being treated seriously. They are not being deported.
Here is another example. A non-citizen who committed a string of crimes in Calgary pleaded to a lesser crime of assault in order to avoid deportation. Can the minister tell the victim why this person is still in Canada?
Mr. Chair, again, as I said, serious criminals deserve serious consequences. Judges are applying the law within the Constitution. The Supreme Court has said public interest is the top priority. That is our—
Mr. Chair, where does it say in the Constitution that non-citizens should get more lenient sentences than Canadians, in order to avoid deportation?
Mr. Chair, again, let us bring it back to immigration and why we are here tonight. CBSA removed, as the public safety minister said today, 23,000 people last year.
Mr. Chair, it is inconceivable that they voted against a bill to close this loophole and amend the Criminal Code to deport non-citizens convicted of serious crime and uphold the law.
Here is another example. A non-citizen caused a deadly crash on Highway 401, then received a lenient sentence in order to avoid deportation. Can the minister tell the victim's family why this person is still in Canada?
Mr. Chair, for the benefit of the people listening, this government has brought in many pieces of legislation to protect Canadians, many pieces of crime legislation, and the opposition has been obstructing and has obstructed each and every one of them.
Mr. Chair, I brought in a law that would have amended the Criminal Code by one line, to say that judges cannot issue lenient sentences in order to help non-citizens avoid deportation.
I will ask the minister again.
Colleagues should keep in mind that I am asking her to speak to victims. It is drivel that she is putting forward. Members should think about that and think about what these victims are hearing.
A non-citizen arranged to have sex with an underage girl and then received a lenient sentence in order to avoid deportation. Does the minister think this person deserves to stay in Canada?
Mr. Chair, non-citizens convicted of a serious crime are inadmissible, whether the crime happened in Canada or outside Canada. That means they are not allowed to enter Canada or stay in Canada if they are already here.
We brought in many pieces of criminal legislation in this House, under this government, under our mandate so far, that the opposition has obstructed in each and every way. We have also invested in CBSA officers and RCMP officers. We are hiring many to protect Canadians.
Mr. Chair, the minister has no respect for the victims, no compassion or empathy for them and, frankly, no respect for the rule of law. Otherwise, she would have voted for this bill to stop this process.
I will ask her to have empathy for these victims. A non-citizen caused a crash in British Columbia that killed two people. Instead of being deported for this horrible crime, he received a lenient sentence in order to avoid deportation.
Can the minister tell the victims' families why this person is still in Canada?
Mr. Chair, I have been clear. I am very empathetic toward all of these scenarios. Serious crimes committed by these people deserve serious sentences. The CBSA investigates them and they get deported.
Mr. Chair, we have to realize that the Liberals are sitting here, mocking this. That is why Canadians have lost faith in immigration. It is because of things like this. All we have to do is pass a one-line change to the Criminal Code.
A non-citizen trucker in Ontario killed another truck driver and severely injured a passenger. There were real victims to this crime, and that person should have been deported. Why were they not?
Mr. Chair, I am managing migration. I have been very clear throughout the last number of hours, in fact, throughout the last number of months. We have instituted policies. We are very transparent in what we are doing. Criminals deserve—
Mr. Chair, I think it is very condescending when someone asks a question and then turns their back and walks away before hearing the answer.
I will be splitting my time this evening with the hon. member for Winnipeg North.
As I rise tonight to speak to the Minister of Immigration about an issue that is vital to what we feel is the long-term strength, resilience and sustainability of our country, I would like to talk about the importance of rural and regional immigration.
Before I do, I want to share a quick side story about my mother, who immigrated to Canada when she was 10 years old. At the ripe age of 64, last year, she got her citizenship, and I was actually the first person she ever voted for as an immigrant here in Canada.
Back to rural and remote communities, they are the backbone of a lot of key sectors, like agriculture, natural resources, health care, tourism and small businesses, yet many of these communities are facing serious demographic challenges. Declining populations, aging workforces and persistent labour shortages are placing real pressure on local economies and essential services. Without thoughtful action, these pressures risk undermining not only community vitality but economic growth and national cohesion.
Rural immigration is not simply about population growth. It is about community survival, in some cases. It is about economic sustainability, and it is about ensuring that families can continue to build their futures in every region of this country from coast to coast to coast. In my own region of South Shore—St. Margarets in Nova Scotia, the neighbour riding to the minister's, we have seen first-hand the positive impact that newcomers have in our communities.
New Canadians are helping businesses grow. They are supporting local industry, volunteering in our communities, enrolling in our schools and bringing new energy and ideas to rural Nova Scotia. That is why targeted immigration pathways, like our minister has mentioned tonight, especially for rural and remote regions, are so important. They are not simply about filling jobs, though that is critical. They are also about building complete, thriving communities. When newcomers arrive in rural areas, they contribute as entrepreneurs, health care providers, skilled tradespeople and our neighbours. They enrol their children in local schools, support small businesses and strengthen the social fabric that keeps our communities vital.
However, we know that attracting newcomers to rural Canada is only one part of that equation. Retention is equally important. That is why our regional levels plan, developed in close collaboration with municipalities, provinces, employers and community organizations, plays a key role. These plans must address housing availability, access services, language training, employment opportunities for spouses and pathways to permanent residency. When we get these elements right, newcomers who come here not only stay in our rural areas but thrive and put down roots.
I would also like to take a moment to acknowledge the minister's hard work in this area. The minister has made a real effort to listen to members from all sides of the House. She shows a willingness to engage, to hear diverse perspectives, as we have heard tonight, and to collaborate on solutions when others try to weaponize immigration in our country, solutions that are essential when it comes to building immigration programs that are truly meeting the needs of Canadians.
In my role as vice-chair of our national rural caucus, I have had the opportunity to see this first-hand. The minister has taken the time to attend our meetings and to hear directly from other members of Parliament who represent rural and remote communities throughout the country. We have shared the realities faced by our constituents, staffing shortages in hospitals and long-term care homes, the challenges facing farmers and processors, and the need for small towns to grow and renew these populations.
More importantly, not only has the minister listened, but she has taken those insights very seriously. Programs designed to support regional immigration reflect, in many ways, that ongoing dialogue. They recognize that a one-size-fits-all approach sometimes does not work in a country as vast and diverse as Canada.
Instead, we need flexible, community-driven models that empower local leaders to help shape immigration pathways that align with specific needs. The success of rural immigration programs also depends on this continued partnership: municipal governments, chambers of commerce, etc.
As we look ahead, there is an opportunity to build on existing initiatives and expand what is working. This includes scaling successful pilot programs, improving pathways for international students in rural institutions and ensuring that smaller communities have the resources they need to participate fully in immigration programs.
In closing, I would like to thank the minister for her willingness to work with us at rural caucus and her lifelong dedication to immigration, previously as a provincial minister in our wonderful province of Nova Scotia and as a strong constituency member of Parliament for Halifax West. I would also like to give a shout-out to her parliamentary secretary, who is also working steadfastly building partnerships, programs and supports for those immigrating to Canada and for communities that look to immigrants to help fill those work spaces.
In terms of my question for our minister tonight, I would love to give the minister the opportunity to tell Canadians about this government's core missions.
Mr. Chair, first, I really want to thank my colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets for her passion and her advocacy, not only for her own constituency, but also for all rural and remote communities across the country. She eloquently spoke, and she is definitely right; we both come from the same province of Nova Scotia. In fact, our constituencies are right beside each other. She knows that I also know that one size does not fit all when we talk about immigration. That is something that was entrenched in me, when I became a federal minister, from smaller provinces and smaller communities, and because of that, I am very happy to say that the Atlantic immigration pilot that was started in 2018—
I am afraid I have to cut the minister off, but she may have a chance to resume those comments at the next opportunity.
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
Mr. Chair, earlier this week, we had the official opposition challenging the Minister of Immigration, asking, “Are you going to be here on Thursday? Are you going to be here for the four hours on Thursday?” Do members remember those questions? Where are the Conservatives now? They have completely disappeared. I guess they ran out of questions.
I am surprised by the games the Conservatives continue to play on such an important issue of immigration. If they were genuine and sincere about the issue of immigration, surely they would do what they were asking of the minister and actually have a physical presence during the estimates process. It tells me they have run out of ideas, they have run out of questions and that it is nothing more than a game to them.
We saw that demonstrated when the Conservatives talked about this whole two-tier justice system. There is one justice system. To try to imply something different, as the member from Calgary often does, is to feed into the far right of the Conservative Party to try to make immigration look bad. I find that unfortunate. Real Progressive Conservatives recognize the true value of immigration.
Canada was built on immigration, much like the minister said at the beginning of the debate: We are all immigrants except for first nations. It is just a question of whether someone is second-generation, third-generation or however many generations they may be. We value and appreciate the contributions that immigrants have made over the years. As the Prime Minister has indicated, and as the Minister of Immigration has done well in executing, we are stabilizing immigration. We recognize the importance of doing that.
Earlier, I was able to give a bit of a historic perspective as to what led us to where we are today. Now we have a minister who is actually putting into place policies that are stabilizing and ultimately delivering in areas of concern in the different regions of our nation.
I started to conclude my remarks last time talking about the importance of collaboration. I know the minister has already made reference to the issue of doctors and health care workers, and the creation of a program that enhances the quality of our health care. We are getting more doctors through an initiative that she has brought forward on behalf of the government. Unlike the Conservatives, we still believe in immigration and the value of immigration. We do not want to ramp up an issue and promote rage among the population, when, in fact, things are getting under control. We are moving forward.
There are initiatives that are making a difference in working with other jurisdictions. That is why we have the doctors program. We can take a look at the number of provincial nominee applicants coming in under this government and the minister. They are reaching every region. Through that program, we are able to assist in meeting the types of labour demands in certain areas.
I met with the mayor of Winnipeg a few days ago, and I met with the Winnipeg transit union. Both emphasized that there are a number of transit drivers they want to keep because they spent $30,000 in training some of these temporary workers. We recommended to the province to use the nominee program to settle them. That was done in part, and now we understand that there might be another 25 or 30 workers.
As the minister has explained, we have a process, and if we follow the process, not only would we be able to sustain manageable numbers, but we could also build a Canada—
Mr. Chair, yes, I do have a question. I am disappointed. Is the minister not discouraged, given that you have been here from the beginning right to the end, and when you look across the way, you see that the benches are absolutely empty? I am disappointed. Are you disappointed?
Mr. Chair, I am actually disappointed that we are coming to a close, because I think we just are getting started, to be quite frank.
Let me first thank the member for Winnipeg North for the tremendous work he is doing here. Every member of the House knows he is a champion and represents his constituents and Canadians exceptionally well. He has been a great mentor to me personally since I came to the House in 2021.
I want Canadians to know that we are working hard for them. We are being transparent. We have a plan. We are managing migration. We clearly have results.
I also want to take a moment to thank the support staff, the interpreters, the pages, the security personnel, the dedicated professionals at IRCC and my colleagues beside me, who have been here the whole time to support me through this process and also to work for Canadians as we continue this work.
Ministers do not get a chance to do this. Members can, but not ministers. It is my first chance since I was elected 12 months ago to thank the good people of Halifax West, without whom I would not be able to do this important work for Canadians. I just want to tell them and everybody across the country that I am looking forward to a very productive summer season, when I will get an opportunity to hear from everybody from different parts of the country, all their views, opinions and interests, as we continue to build a strong economy with my parliamentary colleagues on the benches, with this great government, the ministers who work day and night and our fabulous Prime Minister.
I told the media, which is true, that we have a difficult task, but we will do it, and we will deliver for Canadians.
It being 11:01 p.m., pursuant to order made Tuesday, May 26, and Standing Order 81(4), all votes are deemed reported.
The committee will now rise, and I will now leave the chair.
Publication Explorer
Publication Explorer