Tatiana Auguste

Mr. Speaker, this week is Gender Equality Week. It is an opportunity to celebrate how far we have come and to acknowledge how far we still have to go. The full and equal participation of women is essential to building a strong Canada for all and to reaching our goal of becoming the strongest economy in the G7. Can the parliamentary secretary tell the House how our government intends to advance gender equality in Canada?

Mr. Speaker, this summer, I travelled across Terrebonne to meet with the people who are the backbone of our community. I visited businesses, discussed their issues and learned about their teams' area of expertise. I also attended a number of local events and met with organizations whose work is making a real difference in people's lives. I dedicated a large part of my travels to the Canada summer jobs program. In Terrebonne, 477 young people were able to get a job this summer. I met young people working in various fields like history, day camps, employability, youth services, education and even animal therapy. I want to congratulate them for their energy and commitment. I also want to thank everyone who opened their doors to me this summer and who are contributing to making Terrebonne a growing and vibrant city every day.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for Bourassa. The global economy is going through a period of considerable uncertainty. New unwarranted tariffs imposed by the United States are creating uncertainty for Canadian workers, families and businesses. At the same time, ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and Europe continue to put pressure on global markets and drive up prices. Although we have no control over decisions made elsewhere in the world, we can control how we respond to them. As Canadians continue to face economic uncertainty and a rising cost of living, affordability remains a priority for families and businesses across the country. That is why our government continues to take action. I am therefore pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-38, the Canadian fuel affordability act, which seeks to extend federal fuel excise tax relief with respect to gasoline, diesel fuel and aviation fuel. Earlier this year, the Government of Canada temporarily suspended this tax to help Canadians cope with the rising cost of living and fuel prices. The day the pause took effect, gas prices dropped 11¢ a litre, proving that the savings were quickly passed on to consumers. This measure actually benefits all Canadians, even those who do not drive. When global energy prices go up, the consequences go far beyond the cost of a tank of gas. Transportation costs go up, delivery costs go up, operating costs go up and, ultimately, consumers end up paying more for the goods and services they need every day. In light of this reality, our government decided to take action. The result is savings for millions of Canadians who drive to work, drive their kids to sports or otherwise have to get around on a daily basis. Another benefit is reducing transportation and operating costs for Canadian businesses. Extending this measure in the current context is a no-brainer. That is why we believe it is important to maintain that support. Bill C-38 therefore proposes to extend the suspension of the federal excise tax on fuel until January 31, 2027. Then, in the months of February and March, rates will be restored to only half of their usual level before a full return to the regular rate on April 1, 2027. Thanks to Bill C-38, Canadians will continue to benefit until January 31, 2027, from tax relief of up to 10¢ a litre on gas and four cents a litre on diesel. During February and March, the relief will continue at a rate of five cents a litre on gas and two cents a litre on diesel. This is a balanced, gradual and responsible approach. It provides greater predictability for families and businesses, while facilitating a gradual return to the usual rates. This bill is about affordability. Across the country, families are trying to make every dollar count. They have to pay their mortgage or rent, buy groceries, and cover the cost of daily commuting. In many parts of Canada, a car remains a necessity. For many Canadians, especially in rural areas and even in regions surrounding major urban centres, a car is not a luxury. It is a necessity. It is an essential tool for getting to work, accessing services and participating in the economy. Bill C-38 recognizes this reality and aims to provide additional relief to households that continue to feel the effects of the rising cost of living. However, as I explained earlier, its importance extends far beyond motorists. Think of the truck drivers who transport goods from one end of the country to the other. Think of the farmers who supply Canadians with food. Think of the entrepreneurs in the construction industry. Think of the school buses that take our children to school. When fuel costs rise, it has a ripple effect throughout the economy. It has an impact on the cost of food, building materials and consumer goods. Bill C-38 helps alleviate these pressures and supports the sectors that drive the Canadian economy. The government estimates that this extension will deliver approximately $2.9 billion in additional tax relief to Canadians, bringing the total relief to approximately $5.3 billion in the 2026-27 fiscal year. That is a significant investment, an investment in families, workers, Canadian businesses and the resilience of our economy. In a global climate of uncertainty, Canadians expect their government to act, they expect us to take concrete action to cut costs where it is warranted and they expect us to support the workers, families and businesses that drive our economy. That is exactly what Bill C‑38 does. It offers genuine relief for families, supports workers, supports businesses and helps make life more affordable in what remains a challenging situation. I know that this extension will give families in Terrebonne a bit of breathing room. For all these reasons, I encourage all members of the House to support Bill C‑38 and vote in favour of it.

Mr. Speaker, this kind of measure will help families, especially in Terrebonne. The riding I represent is outside the urban core, but it has ties to major centres. There is a lot of room for improvement in public transit, which is why every household has at least one car. Bringing gas prices down for those struggling with the cost of living will help a lot of families in my riding. That is relief they need right now.

Mr. Speaker, in practical terms, this is about reducing costs not only for households, but also for businesses. There are seven industrial parks in my riding, Terrebonne. Businesses move their goods in and out every day. I recently read an article about school buses, which are struggling because of the price of diesel. The point is that this measure to bring costs down will help all sectors of the economy.

Mr. Speaker, we have indeed done a great deal to address the cost of living. We cut taxes for 22 million Canadians. We invested in the national school food program and made it permanent, which is very important. In concrete terms, our approach is providing Canadians with stability. A gradual return to a normal rate also helps Canadians plan their spending during difficult times. Stability is what they need right now.

Mr. Speaker, Terrebonne, the most beautiful riding in Lanaudière, is full of organizations that carry out vital work for our community. I have had the privilege of marking several milestone anniversaries: the 10th anniversary of the Orchestre classique de Terrebonne, which enriches our cultural life; the 15th anniversary of the visual arts symposium of the Association des artistes en arts visuels de Terrebonne, which showcases our local talent; the 25th anniversary of Éducazoo, which delights and educates young and old alike; the 40th anniversary of A.B.C. des Manoirs, which makes education and literacy accessible and promotes personal empowerment; and the 40th anniversary of Habitat Lanaudière, a pillar of mental health for families in my riding. These organizations are the pride of Terrebonne. I wish them a happy anniversary, and I thank them for their exceptional commitment to Terrebonne and the entire Les Moulins region.

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-9 is coming back from the Senate today, and I want to take as much time as necessary to talk about what it really means for Black communities in Canada. I will focus more on the fine detail than on the broad strokes because this bill contains two elements that deserve to be understood for what they really are. The first element is a provision that has been central to the bill from the time it was introduced: a stand-alone hate crime offence. The second element is an amendment from the Senate: the explicit inclusion of the noose as a symbol used to promote hatred. These two elements do not do the same thing, but they reinforce each other. Together, they offer a serious and concrete response to anti-Black hatred in Canada. I want to start with the noose because it is the symbol that crystallizes something important about what this bill seeks to do. This symbol has a history—a long and specific history—that Canadians are less familiar with than they might think. For centuries in the United States, hanging was used as an instrument of mass terror against Black communities. There were thousands of documented lynchings between the end of the Civil War and the middle of the 20th century. These acts were not committed in secret; they were public. They were sometimes announced in advance. Entire families travelled to watch them. Photos were taken and sold as souvenirs. This was not run-of-the-mill violence. It was staged violence whose specific purpose was to send a message to all members of a community that they were not protected, that they had no recourse and that their lives did not matter. The noose, on its own, became the bearer of that message. No words were needed. It was enough. It was enough to instill terror. It was enough to remind people of what had been done to people like them and what could still be done. It was enough to make them believe they had no place in society. Unfortunately, this story did not stop at the border. It crossed over. It lives on in the memories of many Black families in Canada. Many of them come from communities that experienced this terror first-hand or inherited it over generations. The symbol continues to circulate. Nooses are left at workplaces. They are left in factory locker rooms, on construction sites and in police stations. They are found on doors, on desks and on social media. Black Canadians are showing up to work in the morning, doing their job and trying to live normal lives, but then they see one. When that happens, there can be no confusion about the message. It is not a blunder. It is not a joke in poor taste. It is a deliberate statement to tell them that they are not safe there. For too long, our criminal law did not have a clear response to this specific act. There was ambiguity. Could it fall under existing provisions? It might, depending on the context and the facts. Black communities do not have the luxury of navigating ambiguity. They are living with the real consequences of this symbol, and they deserve better than maybes. The Senate amendment fixes that. By explicitly naming the noose, the law states that this symbol, which is used to promote hate or to intimidate, is a clear violation of Canadian law, unambiguously and without room for doubt. For Black communities in Canada, this matters. The law does not erase history, but it does bear witness. When the law remains silent on something so specific, so loaded, that silence speaks for itself. It says it is not serious enough to call it by name. Our government refuses to send that message. Confronting anti-Black hate starts with naming it. It starts with recognizing the specific symbols it uses, including the oldest ones, the most documented ones, the ones most unequivocal in meaning. The noose is not the only symbol of anti-Black hate. The second aspect of this bill that I want to address is the stand-alone hate crime offence. It is the foundation of Bill C-9 and its importance is far from merely symbolic. Today, under the existing system, hate is considered an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes. Someone is convicted of assault, mischief or threats. Then, at sentencing, the court considers the fact that hate played a role and adjusts the sentence accordingly. Hate is recognized, but recognized late, like a footnote, like one item among many in a list of circumstances. That is out of line with what victims of hate crime go through. When someone is attacked because of who they are, because of the colour of their skin, their religion or their identity, that crime does not just target one individual. It targets an entire community. It sends a message to everyone who shares that identity and tells them that they are not safe there. The collective dimension of the crime, the intent to intimidate others besides the immediate victim, is exactly what distinguishes a hate crime from an ordinary crime. Our laws must reflect this from the get-go. It must not be just an afterthought. That is what the stand-alone offence does. It makes hatred the focus of the charge. It tells victims that we see what this was really about. We see the hate for what it is, not an afterthought but the very essence of what happened. This is particularly meaningful for Black communities. Anti-Black hatred takes many forms, including threats, physical violence and repeated acts of intimidation that are exhausting and take their toll. When taken individually, these actions may seem difficult to pin down legally, but they fit into a pattern that is easy to recognize for those who experience them. The stand-alone offence gives prosecutors, police and judges the tools they need to address the whole scope of this situation. It sends a message. The clarity of the legislation sends a message. When hate crimes are identified and prosecuted as a separate category of crime with distinct consequences, that speaks volumes about what we, as a society, refuse to tolerate. These two provisions are not going to solve racism. They are not going to erase centuries of history. No one here is claiming that, but they are doing what the law can and must do. They name, they acknowledge and they protect all Canadians. Black Canadians deserve to know that their government sees their reality, not in speeches, but in legislation, in practical tools available to the people responsible for protecting them, and in the proposed Bill C-9. That is why I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, knowing that people who commit hate crimes will be brought to justice and held accountable for their actions, and having the Attorney General's consent, adds even more weight. What communities are asking for, in fact, is the chance to speak out about their experiences and to know that there will be real consequences, not just footnotes.

Mr. Speaker, the systemic nature of racism is harder to demonstrate, because sometimes it is so deeply ingrained in what we have been doing for hundreds of years now. However, we can work on it. What is really great about this bill is that we are able to call out a source of frustration that continues to intimidate all Black communities. If we look at the Black members of the House, none of us are immune to this kind of thing, no matter where we are. I think what Canadians see in us and in this bill is a way to call things out and protect all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, young people deserve to grow up in safe, united communities brimming with opportunities. Could the Secretary of State for Children and Youth explain for the House what the historic agreement reached last week with Quebec means for young people in Quebec and Canada?

Mr. Speaker, last May, I had the honour of marking the 10th anniversary of Jazz Teasdale. The residence organized a celebration under the leadership of Geneviève Wellens, executive director, and Malinda Campo, recreation coordinator, which took place in a festive atmosphere, enlivened and energized by jazz music. This event was an opportunity to see just how much Jazz Teasdale contributes to providing a humane, warm and respectful living environment for all those who built Quebec and helped build Canada—a legacy for which I am deeply grateful. Thanks to the attentive and deeply compassionate care they receive, residents can continue to enrich their daily lives and enjoy genuine quality of life. I extend my heartfelt congratulations to the entire team that has made the Jazz Teasdale residence a wonderful place to live.

Mr. Speaker, we know that a strong and autonomous steel and aluminum industry is key to Canada's security and prosperity. However, our metal processing businesses in Quebec are facing unjustified tariffs imposed by our neighbours to the south. Our government recently announced $1.5 billion in regional tariff relief, which will help support manufacturers of metal products and invest in Canadian workers. Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry tell the House how our government is supporting manufacturers?

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, 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, 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, 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 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.