Martin Champoux
Drummond, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Some might say that this is impossible, because that would mean that I had to have started at the age of five or six, and they would not be far off. In any case, I spent many years in this fascinating industry.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-268 , which is sponsored by the member for Compton—Stanstead . This is a bill that I am particularly interested in, given my professional background. The bill concerns the spectrum policy framework for Canada. The French word for spectrum is “spectre”.”
“When we check with companies that provide mobile phone services, we often get responses that do not accurately reflect the situation on the ground. We have seen this happen. I, for one, have been told that my region has 100% coverage and that there is no reason for there to be any problems.”
“In recent years, municipalities have begun implementing regulations to prevent owners from leaving vacant downtown lots unused. These lots must be developed because we need the space to alleviate congestion and we lack space to build housing. The same principle applies here.”
“We need to reach everyone. The argument we often hear from the industry is that 99% of the country is covered, that 99% of people have access to LTE or 5G technology, and that soon people will have access to the next technology. It might be 6G; who knows. Now, 99% does seem like a lot of people. Yes, that is true. It is good.”
“For now, obviously, that is not yet the case. There would be a process to ensure the accuracy of mobile coverage data provided by telecommunications companies as well as data on network deployment. In short, there would be more transparency, more efficiency and a better overview of the situation. These are easy things to put in place.”
The complete record
Every one of 449 lines we hold for Martin Champoux, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 9.
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier, the parliamentary secretary said that Monday would be an allotted day. In the French interpretation provided by the interpreters, however, Tuesday was mentioned instead. My question is for clarification. Could the parliamentary secretary please tell us again what the allotted day will be next week? Will it be Monday or Tuesday?”
“Even if we can agree that we could be stricter on certain points—that we could place greater emphasis on minimum sentences, for example—does my colleague not think that there is still some improvement in Bill C‑16, that it is better than nothing, and that we can work on the rest later? Would that not be something worth considering?”
“Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated the speech by my colleague from Kildonan—St. Paul. Her passion for this issue was evident in her remarks. I know she has worked tirelessly and with great dedication on these issues over the years. I see in Bill C‑16 many improvements in terms of compassion and fairness for victims. There are also many improvements regarding the recognition of deepfakes. I therefore see very positive developments. My colleague is right to say that the collaboration that took place in committee left something to be desired. The committee rejected amendments and refused to discuss amendments from the opposition parties that were entirely constructive.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am the main focus and target of my colleague's point of order, but, like you, I did not hear myself say anything unparliamentary. Perhaps my colleague would be willing to clarify what she was referring to. Then we could see if an apology is in order.”
“Mr. Speaker, ADISQ later came back to say that this was not a permanent solution. The entire cultural sector is calling for a long-term solution that involves contributions from digital platforms such as Netflix and Amazon Prime. In the meantime, Ottawa is still exempting them and turning to taxpayers to make up the $600-million shortfall. We have been talking about this for 25 years. The future of culture depends on the web giants paying their fair share. This decision is clearly yet another capitulation to the digital billionaires at the expense of Quebec culture. What will it take for the Minister of Culture to defend culture?”
“Madam Speaker, my question will be very brief. I am going to ask my Liberal colleague to list all the major victories the government has scored against Donald Trump, his tariffs and his tariff threats. If he could just quickly list all the victories, all the gains the government has made against Donald Trump over the past year, that would be great.”
“Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech. I know that her province of Saskatchewan obviously has very significant trade ties with our neighbour to the south, the United States. I also know that Saskatchewan was quite pleased to see that an agreement had been reached with China on canola. The fact remains that, historically speaking, our number one economic partner has been the United States. Right now, this government is doing nothing to solve the problem, or should I say problems, that we are experiencing because of President Trump's extremely hostile economic policies. I would like my colleague to comment on that. This government behaves as though it were the saviour of the Canadian economy in the face of Donald Trump, but there is nothing in its track record over the past year to suggest that we are on the right track.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Saskatoon West on his speech. I have a question for him. I assume this government is pushing its bills through under closure because it is afraid that too much debate would lay bare its failures so far. This government and this Prime Minister were elected on the promise of standing up to Donald Trump and his tariff and economic threats. I will give my colleague from Saskatoon West all the time he needs to list all the victories this government has achieved against Donald Trump since it was elected just over a year ago. I would like to hear them all. He can take all the time he needs.”
“That is true, but the Liberals are limiting our debate time with this gag order. Does my colleague agree that such important issues as this warrant greater consideration for the opinions of experts and opposition members?”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-31 is 300 pages long. Consultation with the opposition parties has been minimal. There was no actual technical briefing, apart from the one held three weeks after the bill was introduced. It seems quite likely that even before MPs managed to get a briefing, reporters or others outside the House of Commons had received more information than members of Parliament. The bill addresses some very important issues. It expands subsidies to the oil and gas industry. It also allows the possible use of hydrogen production using methane as a clean energy, which contradicts what Hydro-Québec says. It seems to me that Hydro-Québec knows what it is talking about where clean energy is concerned. My colleague just told the Conservative member that we are debating Bill C-31 in the House.”
“These citizens criticize the government for providing financial assistance to slaughterhouses wishing to bring their operations into line with kosher and halal standards, and point out that favouring companies on religious grounds constitutes discrimination and violates the principle of the separation of religion and state and the principle of state secularism. The petitioners are asking the Government of Canada to stop financially incentivizing halal and kosher practices; to maintain the requirement to stun animals before bleeding them, with no exceptions; and until this is done, to require meat from animals that were slaughtered without being stunned or according to religious norms to be labelled with the method of slaughter.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of rising in the House to table petition e-7108, signed by over 15,000 Canadians, including 14,000 Quebeckers, who condemn the fact that the Liberals still do not understand that state and religion are separate matters and that they should not provide financial support for kosher and halal ritual slaughter practices. The petitioners point out that section 141 of the safe food for Canadians regulations requires that all animals be rendered unconscious so that they are unconscious at the time of bleeding. However, the ritual slaughter methods in question require the animal to be conscious at the time of bleeding, which causes unnecessary suffering and violates the obligation to ensure the humane treatment of animals.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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 .”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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. (1120) Second, we must also guarantee that this contribution is not limited to funding.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“I am certain she is concerned about the fate of the media. I would like to know what she intends to say to the minister or the Prime Minister to convince him to finally come to the aid of the regional media.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that my colleague from Nipissing—Timiskaming did not have more time. She could have started telling us about her government's support for regional media. Oops, there is none. There is no support for regional media in this economic update, particularly for independent regional TV stations. I mention this because in her region and nearby, in Abitibi—Témiscamingue, local TV stations broadcasting independent news—probably the last in this region to offer a diversity of voices and information, apart from CBC/Radio-Canada—are at risk of closing because they are not receiving any support from this government. Once again, Liberal MPs are going to vote for this budget while the regional media are being let down. My colleague is an MP for a regional riding in Ontario.”
“When we raise these issues with the government, there is no response, no action. The Liberals seem to have no interest in solving the real problems that will cost Quebec jobs and businesses, even though solutions are within reach. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the fact that this Liberal government is incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time and incapable of addressing real problems on the ground.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech. The government boasts that it is truly the best at negotiating with the United States, yet this is producing absolutely no results at the moment, except that we appear to be lying flat on the ground, waiting for the U.S. to walk all over us. The government seems to be focused on negotiating agreements with other countries, particularly in Europe and Asia. Meanwhile, businesses are suffering terribly. My riding of Drummond is home to an extremely vibrant manufacturing sector, but it is struggling desperately these days for a number of reasons. First, the tariffs have hit us hard. The impact has been devastating. There is also a very serious concern regarding the rules that have been put in place for the temporary foreign worker program.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my Conservative colleague for his speech, which I missed. I was going to ask him to give me a five-minute summary of his speech this morning, but I nevertheless agree with him on several points. The government recently secured a majority. It is only fair to question the manoeuvring that led to this outcome. The government prepared an economic update without consulting the opposition parties or considering any requests that might have come from the other parties, which are doing their work thoroughly. Now we have an economic update that does not include adequate support measures for businesses in the regions, particularly in the manufacturing sector. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on how the government handled the economic update. Why is there nothing concrete in it to help businesses in the regions?”
“I would like to know if my colleague agrees that it might be a good idea to take the time to collaborate again and take another look at the amendments that were adopted in committee, some of them unanimously, so that we can carry out our work in a responsible manner that shows respect for the victims.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Saskatchewan on his speech, especially for the few words he spoke in French. I am sure that he will be able to make a speech or provide us with full responses in French in no time. I am optimistic. I congratulate him on his speech on this extremely important topic. The government is treating this issue as if it were a trivial matter, a legislative formality that can be rushed through, even though people have been waiting 11 years for something to happen on this issue. With their new majority, the Liberals are handling this issue without any consideration for the victims, who are likely the people who are most vulnerable and most directly affected by the legislation that is going to be implemented.”
“On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I applaud Luc Plamondon and Marjo, along with all of the creators named and honoured yesterday, including my friend, Gaétan Essiambre, who won in SOCAN's national television music category. Long live SOCAN, long live our artists and long live the songs of Quebec.”
“Mr. Speaker, SOCAN held its 35th gala yesterday in Montreal to honour the outstanding contributions of our composers, authors and music publishers. In particular, it was an occasion to pay tribute to two of Quebec's musical and cultural giants: Marjo and Luc Plamondon. From Diane Dufresne to Céline Dion, from Charlebois to Dubois, from Starmania to Notre‑Dame de Paris , Plamandon's lyrics have been our constant companion for a half-century, and his world of wonders is now ours to enjoy. As for Marjo, our iconic Marjo received the cultural impact award for her song Provocante , now a karaoke classic. Marjo and Luc Plamondon, two icons, two giants of Quebec culture, are above all two of us. As Quebeckers, we identify with them and have regarded them as a source of pride for many decades.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was very impressed with the Leader of the Opposition earlier for being able to stay focused while the Liberals were leaving. Now it is my colleague from Mirabel's turn to speak. We listened respectfully while members from other parties gave speeches. It might be nice if we could get the same respect from the other parties.”
“Mr. Speaker, this end to the day's debate is surreal. We have definitely seen just about everything today. There are just a few seconds left and I want to let my Conservative colleague answer the question. My colleague saw the debate. I would like to hear his thoughts on the Liberals' demonstration of what they intend to do with their newly acquired majority. How does my colleague see the coming months and years unfolding? What is his view of the state of democracy and the Liberals' respect for it?”
“Mr. Speaker, for those who just arrived, I was saying that there are a few rules here, including showing respect for those who are talking. They may not be used to having such large numbers in the House. They will get used to it eventually—”
“Mr. Speaker, I was interested by what my Conservative colleague just said about Stephen Harper's majority, which was won through votes. The last time the Liberals won a majority through votes was in 2015, with Justin Trudeau's promise of sunny ways, and we know where that got them. This was followed by minority governments because Canadians were dissatisfied with this Liberal government's performance. We saw what happened again in the last election, in 2025. I guess what I am saying is not interesting to the members who are speaking right now.”
“In this case, Liberal representation in committee would therefore amount to six members. How does my colleague explain the creative math that his leader and his government used to calculate party representation in committee?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Kings—Hants can thank me. Because of me, he had a slightly larger audience during his speech. Half of them left afterward, but that was down to him. He will have to manage that with is colleagues. The other comment we heard while you were counting members was that I was interrupting the debate. If there is no one to debate, there is no debate; it is called a monologue. Government members have to be present for a debate to happen. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said, “We are proposing to adjust committee membership proportionally to reflect the party standings in the House.” If we did that proportionally, the Liberals would be entitled to 6.2% or 6.3% representation in committee. As anyone who has done first-year high school math knows, that would be rounded to the nearest whole number.”