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 3 of 9.
“I would like my colleague opposite, the government whip, to explain why the Liberals suddenly feel as though they have the right to flout the rules and traditions of Parliament and use their majority to take control of committees, including the ones where the government has to be accountable to the people.”
“Mr. Speaker, with regard to the whip's somewhat ridiculous argument, I would say that the Liberals should have about 6.2 people on each committee, and usually when rounding, we round to the nearest whole number. That is six, not seven. We do not round up when the number we are rounding is 6.2. It does not work like that. He finally let the cat out of the bag earlier in his speech. We heard him express his frustration at how the Conservatives have been acting in recent years. I understand that they have been filibustering a lot and that that has not always been easy for the Liberals, but that is no reason to flout parliamentary decency. That is exactly what the Liberals are doing. They are flouting parliamentary decency and failing to respect the rules and traditions of Parliament.”
“At the time, they used the opportunity to permanently change the Standing Orders of the House by allowing the use of hybrid Parliament, something that would normally have been the subject of discussions among the parties and some consensus at the end of those discussions. However, they decided to ram it through and force it down our throats. The Liberals now find themselves with a majority, which was obtained through questionable means, and the first thing they do is once again try to get around parliamentary rules and traditions. What does that say about the Liberals in general, and this government in particular? I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Dufferin—Caledon has been in the House since 2011. He has seen a few other stories involving the Liberals in general, but it does not matter which party is in power. It is very difficult to focus when the chief government whip will not stop talking. If it would be possible to rein him in from time to time, I would appreciate it. I was saying that my colleague from Dufferin—Caledon has seen many things. I have been here since 2019, and the Liberals have been in a majority government position twice now. The first time was with the support of the NDP, as members will recall.”
“Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Elgin—St. Thomas—London South on his speech. In the speech that he gave here in the House, 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. It is as simple as that. There are no games, no untoward tactics and no strategies here.” He also said, “My fear is that some members across the aisle are more interested in scoring political points and creating divisions for their own partisan gain, at a time when we really need to co-operate and collaborate in good faith to deliver on issues of critical importance for our country.” He then went on to say, “Collaboration is the approach to politics that Canadians...want in this place for all elected representatives.”
“However, they are seeing the government engineer a majority in a highly questionable way and impose a gag order on the first day of this majority to alter the composition of committees in an equally questionable way. I would like to know whether this is the government's idea of democracy and parliamentarism. I would also like to know whether my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands has any advice for the new members who have just taken their seats in the House.”
“Mr. Speaker, I also want to congratulate the Green Party member, who represents a riding in British Columbia. I commend her on her intervention and for having the determination and endurance to rise in the House even though she is her party's only representative. That is entirely to her credit. While I do not want to play up her seniority too much, my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands has been here since 2011, if I am not mistaken, and she has seen a lot of water flow under the bridge. Some members are new here, arriving just after the by-election a few weeks ago. As my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk said, tomorrow will mark one year since a number of new members arrived in the House.”
“If that is the Liberals' first move as a majority government, what does he think the next three years have in store for us?”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix on his speech. He concluded his speech by saying that we need to vote against Motion No. 9. We can debate the substance of the motion, and I would tend to agree with him on that. That being said, what truly bothers me, what irks me and what is so contrary to my values is the way the Liberals are preparing to pass Motion No. 9, in other words, by imposing closure. That does not work. That takes the debate out of the equation. What I find particularly rich and particularly difficult to accept is the fact that the first thing this Liberal government does as a majority government is to use a closure motion to shove down our throats an overhaul of committees that is not even representative of Parliament. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I was about to raise a point of order when my colleague stood up. I would like members to show some respect for those who are speaking. There is a very loud conversation happening near the Speaker's chair, and even I am having a hard time hearing my colleague from Saint-Jean. We would appreciate it if members could remain calm and maintain proper decorum.”
“To follow up on what my colleague just said in answer to my previous question, I would like to know what he thinks of this approach. Is he also concerned about the approach we are beginning to see from this Liberal government?”
“Mr. Speaker, I find today's debate rather odd. Just a few days ago, by-elections were held in three ridings, one in Quebec and two others in the Toronto area. The next day, the Prime Minister said that he would continue to work with the opposition because that is what Quebeckers and Canadians wanted. What is happening today is the exact opposite of that. We are concerned about increased arrogance and contempt for the parliamentary process and the workings of Parliament, which require an opposition that makes its voice heard and that, when necessary, works with a government that is willing to listen, take into account the concerns raised by the opposition and address them. Let us be clear: The 343 members of the House represent citizens who have a right to be heard.”
“Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat surprised to hear the member for Winnipeg North refer to parliamentary tradition when asking my Conservative colleague whether he thinks we should follow parliamentary tradition. My colleague just answered the question, but I find that quite rich considering that parliamentary tradition would require, say, that the composition of committees follow the composition of the results of the general election that kicked off the current legislature. I would like to ask my colleague something. Does he think that our Liberal colleagues have fallen for the spin, as we say in proper political parlance? Did they drink the mystery Kool-Aid and now genuinely believe that the Liberal government's current actions respect parliamentary tradition regarding the composition of committees?”
“Is there anyone in this government who can explain why the Prime Minister did not appoint someone to stand up for Quebec culture on this committee?”
“Mr. Speaker, people from the cultural sector are included, but none are from Quebec. There are plenty of good people on this committee. We are not questioning their qualifications. We are questioning the absence of a representative from Quebec's cultural sector. Quebec culture is being threatened by globalization. Netflix, Amazon and Disney+ leave very little room for our creators. Advertising revenues have dried up, and our television and film industry is paying the price, as Quebec producers have noted. On top of that, Donald Trump wants to go after the cultural exemption in the next free trade agreement. He is not even hiding it. The cultural sector does not understand this, and neither do we.”
“Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister announced the members of his new advisory committee for the negotiations on a new free trade agreement with the United States. The committee includes people from almost every economic sector, which is a good thing, but we could not help but notice that there are no representatives from Quebec's cultural sector, even though our culture is clearly in Donald Trump's crosshairs. How can the government justify not inviting anyone from Quebec's cultural sector to join the advisory committee?”
“Can my colleague tell us how we could proceed, if Bill C‑22 were to be passed, to ensure that it is seamless for Quebec businesses, which have already gone through quite a bit of hardship as a result of adapting to Bill 25?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to ask a question to my colleague from Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj. I also want to congratulate him on his speech. Earlier, my Bloc Québécois colleague asked a question about Bill 25 that was passed by the Quebec National Assembly. Although this legislation was necessary and legitimate, it caused a lot of challenges for Quebec businesses when it was introduced, forcing them to adapt to this new reality in terms of privacy protection. I think the question is very relevant, because the federal government is creating a law that will likely infringe a bit on what has already been implemented in Quebec under Bill 25.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are living in a time when people are worried and are increasingly aware of the need to protect their personal information. The public is becoming more vigilant about these issues, which is something we support. However, Bill C‑22 is worrisome for these people, who are concerned. While the government is asking for easier access to the public's information, it is also cutting $2.7 million from the budget of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency. This budget should in fact be strengthened in order to reassure people about the government's request in this matter. Can my colleague explain her understanding of this logic? Cuts are being made to an oversight body at a time when people are worried and when the government is asking citizens for easier access to their information.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are so close. We almost got an answer. The government is presenting an economic update in 12 days. The future of francophone regional news media is at stake. We cannot wait for the web giants to stop challenging our laws in court to avoid paying their fair share. We are running out of time. The government must extend its journalism labour tax credit to electronic media as well as print media. It needs to increase funding for the independent local news fund. It also needs to stop subsidizing advertising on the major digital platforms. The future of local media is at stake right now. Will the economic update provide assistance to our regional news media?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to overstate the importance of regional news media. However, the last outlets left in Quebec are going to close unless Ottawa takes swift action. When the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission opened the independent local news fund to 15 Global News stations, it added 15 new players, all required to share the same funds. As a result, funding for francophone media dropped by half and these outlets are at risk of vanishing. In 12 days, the Liberals are going to present an economic update. Are they going to enhance this vital fund?”
“It may have good intentions, but the result is clumsy. That is why we believe that, once again, despite having good intentions to do the right thing and protect young people and vulnerable individuals from the scourge of harmful gambling, the federal government should mind its own business and leave the provinces to deal with this. The federal government should instead focus on regulating matters within its purview, namely foreign platforms and online companies that proliferate in our ecosystem without facing any consequences or regulation. To me, that is the root of the problem. Once again, health issues such as mental health or gambling addiction are not a federal responsibility. These are matters that fall under provincial jurisdiction. The federal government is going to meddle in this, and that will only complicate the process.”
“In short, we are by no means opposed to the federal government amending regulations and getting involved in regulating online gambling, for example by regulating platforms and standing up to the tech giants. It seems as though the federal government is afraid to take action and get involved in this matter, too. Obviously, if Ottawa decides to regulate the presence of these foreign online gaming platforms, that would have to be done in consultation with Quebec and the provinces to ensure once again that it meets the needs of those responsible for regulating online gambling, namely Quebec and the provinces. There is no one-size-fits-all approach for all of Canada for an issue like this. The system in place has worked well since 1985. The provinces are satisfied, and so is Quebec. The federal government should not get involved.”
“The idea was to block unauthorized online gambling sites. The bill aimed to force Internet service providers to adopt systems that would block gambling sites operated by foreign companies. However, the case was dismissed in superior court as unconstitutional, or something like that. It encroached on the federal government's jurisdiction. That means that Quebec cannot make laws that encroach on federal jurisdictions, but the federal government is welcome to interfere in Quebec's business as it pleases. At some point, it might be better off looking after its own affairs and minding its own business. I hear a melodious voice saying that this is one more reason for independence. It was none other than my colleague from Joliette—Manawan , and I completely agree.”
“For example, there are differences between Quebec and Ontario. Ontario has established Ontario iGaming, an organization that regulates online gaming and issues operating licenses to private companies. (1810) In Quebec, it is the opposite. In Quebec, the law prohibits these operators from operating, and Loto-Québec runs a program called Mise-o-jeu, which holds a monopoly on online sports betting. Despite all that, the law still allows bettors to use foreign platforms that are not prohibited, but are not regulated either. That is where the federal government could step in. That is where the federal government could do its job, mind its own business, and regulate what happens on the Internet, because that falls within its jurisdiction. In 2016, Quebec tried to implement a bill, Bill 74.”
“Specifically, it is clear to me that youth and minors must be protected from illegal online gaming practices. We completely agree that it is appropriate to regulate online gaming advertising, but we categorically reject the idea that Bill S‑211 will solve a problem or that the federal government is responsible for addressing this problem. Moreover, it is our firm belief that this bill violates the federal-provincial gaming agreement, which has been in effect since 1985 and gets the job done. It is the provinces that oversee, administer, and regulate legalized gambling. Bill S-211 reflects a desire for standardization, but I think it would be a serious step backward. The current model allows Quebec and the provinces to make choices and implement policies that align with their visions, values, and local priorities.”
“It also mentions introducing measures to promote research, communication and information-sharing among the provinces related “to the prevention and diagnosis...of harmful gambling”. Quebec and the provinces have jurisdiction over this area, however. It further proposes establishing “national standards for the prevention of risk”. Once again, this involves the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Although we do not support Bill S-211, we do not object to the spirit or intent of this legislation. We recognize the problematic nature of sports betting advertising and its effects on vulnerable clienteles, including the risk of developing a harmful gambling problem. We also recognize that this kind of situation deserves attention. We also agree that it is up to the government to implement measures to restrict sports betting advertising.”
“It also states that “research has shown that increased exposure to advertising for gambling activities leads to increased participation in these gambling activities”. I have worked in media and marketing for most of my life, and I can confirm that the purpose of advertising is to get people to buy more of the advertised product. It is only natural that the more advertising there is, the more people will be drawn to the product. That is how it works. Bill S‑211 lists a number of things. Among them, it mentions “measures to regulate sports betting advertising in Canada, with a view to restricting the use of such advertising, limiting...the advertisements” and so on.”
“The summary of the bill states the following: “This enactment provides for the development of a national framework to regulate sports betting advertising in Canada and to set national standards for the prevention of risk for persons negatively impacted.” It continues with the following: “It also provides for the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to review its regulations and policies to assess their adequacy and effectiveness in reducing the incidence of harms resulting from the proliferation of sports betting advertising.” That second part is important, and I will come back to that. The preamble states that “the proliferation of sports betting advertising and other forms of gambling activities has become pervasive in Canadian society”. That is a bit hyperbolic.”
“I may have a personal stake in this because my bill was the second last to be drawn for this Parliament. I am 258th on the list. If we continue to prioritize Senate bills, there is no chance a bill of mine will ever be studied here. I just wanted to point that out to the House before talking about Bill S‑211 , which would regulate sports betting advertising.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to start my speech by pointing something out. This is the 12th Senate bill to be debated in the House since the beginning of the 45th Parliament. In the Bloc Québécois's view, legislative work should be done by elected representatives. As such, members of the House of Commons should be the ones introducing bills, debating them and sending them to the Senate, which is how our system is set up. That is my opinion. I find it odd that this is now the 12th Senate bill to be debated in the House, considering that many of the elected members here have ideas for bills that we could debate, that could become law and that could, depending on one's point of view, improve society. The order of precedence for private members' bills is determined by a draw.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is time to take action. Of course, the solution also requires big tech to contribute. In the meantime, our media outlets are shutting down and Ottawa is not doing enough to prevent that. Right now, big tech is in court fighting to avoid having to co-operate. That is why the government needs to boost the independent local news fund. It needs to make radio and television stations eligible for the journalism labour tax credit, as Quebec has done. It needs to stop rewarding advertising on platforms owned by big tech. There are plenty of things to be done, but now the need for action is becoming quite urgent. When will the Prime Minister take action?”
“Mr. Speaker, regional news in Quebec is in jeopardy, especially now that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, has added 15 Global News stations to the independent local news fund without increasing the funding. There are more media outlets, but they are all sharing the same amount of funding. Yesterday, when we alerted the minister to this, he accused us of pitting francophones against anglophones. On the contrary, we want all regional news media to receive adequate funding. The reality is that in the current context, French-language media outlets in Quebec are losing half of their funding. Will the Prime Minister increase the fund to fix this problem?”
“Mr. Speaker, by adding 15 English-language Global stations to the ILNF without funding from the web giants, the government is robbing Peter to pay Paul. The result is that 86% of the ILNF money is going to English-language media, and it is the independent regional French-language media outlets that are paying the price. Let us be realistic. There is no long-term solution without contributions from the web giants, but there is no point if there are no media outlets left to save. The government has to temporarily replenish the ILNF and extend its journalism labour tax credit to include electronic media, like Quebec has done. When is that going to happen?”
“However, people are worried about what law enforcement agencies might be able to do without necessarily obtaining a warrant, based solely on suspicions or grounds to believe that criminal acts may be committed. There is a great deal of concern about this. Added to this is the fact that the government has cut the budget of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, even though this agency is specifically supposed to reassure Quebeckers and Canadians about the use of their personal data. I would like to know if my colleague thinks that Bill C-22 includes the necessary measures to reassure the public about what the authorities will be permitted to do regarding the disclosure of consumers' personal information.”
“Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues on their enthusiasm for participating in this debate. I also commend my colleague from the Richmond area on his speech. We are discussing a rather sensitive and important topic. Even though it is late in the day, I think we should still give it some attention, because people are watching us. Many people are writing to us about Bill C-22 because they are concerned about what we do with their personal data and what we allow the authorities to do with it. This is obviously a matter of trust. When we do business with a company, whether it is a telephone or Internet service provider, we expect our personal data to be respected.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are living in an era where people are really quite concerned about protecting their personal data. We see what is happening in the United States, where the White House is demanding that Internet service providers and tech giants be completely transparent about the information they retain on their customers and service users, regardless of where in the world those services are used. That is causing a great deal of concern. Meanwhile, the Liberal government is introducing a bill that is worrying to people. They are not confident that the government is serious about protecting their personal data. I understand the work of law enforcement, and I fully agree that they should be given the tools they need to fight crime effectively, but does my colleague think the government is doing enough?”
“I mentioned earlier that funding for the review agency was cut to allow for a little more security. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the measures that need to be put in place to reassure people that their personal data will be protected, which is missing from Bill C-22.”
“Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate my colleague opposite, as well as his knowledge of the file. From his remarks, it is clear that he has taken the time to study the issue carefully. We live in an age when people are worried about their personal data. The Quebec National Assembly has passed Bill 25, which regulates the sharing of personal information and data. Bill C-22 is currently causing a great deal of concern among the public. Members of Parliament, including my colleague, I believe, are receiving dozens of emails from people who are concerned about the potential implementation of this legislation. However, I am not hearing anything reassuring here, and that is what concerns us a bit and makes the Bloc Québécois wary of Bill C-22. We support the principle, but we feel it lacks sufficient measures.”
“Does my colleague agree that the government should establish oversight mechanisms to reassure the public, rather than cutting funding for an agency that is essential to the work we are discussing today?”
“Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech, his knowledge and his mastery of this issue. He clearly knows what he is talking about. Bill C-22 gives law enforcement greater authority to access sensitive information, often personal data, which is concerning in some cases, but may be necessary. We can discuss that. In short, that is the subject of the current discussion and debate. Ironically, however, the Liberal federal government has cut funding for the agency responsible for overseeing these organizations. In fact, the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency has had its budget slashed by 15%, which represents a substantial sum of $2.7 million.”
“On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, allow me to offer my condolences to his family, loved ones and the Quebec cultural community at large on the loss of one of its giants. I thank Louis Saia for everything and ask him to join Michel Côté in raising a glass, a “petite frette”, to the good health of us all.”
“Mr. Speaker, Louis Saia, a legend of Quebec theatre, passed away on April 1. Louis Saia was the co-author of Broue , the most popular play in our history. He also leaves us Les voisins , another play co-written with his longtime collaborator Claude Meunier that still makes us laugh at ourselves 40 years on. Between Ding et Dong , La petite vie , Paul et Paul, and Radio enfer , it is hard to grasp how many of the classics enjoyed by countless families would not exist without Louis Saia's contributions. Then there was his film franchise Les Boys , the first of which premiered in 1997 and broke all the records for a Quebec film, at a time when Quebec was the only place in the world immune to the box-office pull of Titanic . As far as I am concerned, his career deserves every accolade that the world has to give.”
“Mr. Speaker, since the start of this debate, I have been wondering whether there are any concrete examples of religious discourse by a pastor, a minister or a rabbi, or any texts or contexts that might cause issues. For example, I recall a Conservative MP questioning me about a previous Bloc proposal to remove this religious exemption. He told me that his pastor would no longer be allowed to speak out against homosexuals. Does his pastor call for members of the LGBTQ community to be murdered? If so, he should find another pastor. I would like to know whether my colleague has examples like that. It might shed some light on the hateful remarks made by pastors, imams and rabbis that would require us to maintain legal protection so that they can continue to spread hateful content.”
“Is it the person who is so obsessed with their religious beliefs that they are incapable of seeing and interpreting any nuances or of explaining the subtleties of a bill with any discernment, or is it the people who critique the bill and want to debate it openly?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am glad I was here for my colleague's speech. It was surreal. The fact is, we were treated to some name calling and all sorts of veiled insults. My colleague across the aisle listed some of them. It was very entertaining. The member talked about radical secularists, radical separatists and radical socialists. One would think we were listening to Donald Trump or one of his buffoons talking about one of his political opponents. Apparently, we are extremists simply because we speak out and we disagree with my colleague. First of all, I find it hard to take this seriously and to believe that the member's opinion and her speech have the Conservative Party's support. It makes no sense. Which is more extreme?”
“That is what we are talking about, and nothing else. I would like my colleague to explain whether he considers it justified to call for the alienation of a population, a specific group, under the guise of religion.”
“Mr. Speaker, I find it very strange to hear my colleague say that there was only one request. We had a number of amendments, and we would have had more if the Conservatives had stopped filibustering and if we had been able to discuss a serious and sensitive bill like grown-ups. That said, the Conservative member, in his speech, and even in his answer to my colleague from Winnipeg North , talked about good faith. He used the words “in good faith”. How can anyone in good faith, using their religion, call for hatred, foment hatred and incite violence against specific groups, like Jews, for example, as the preacher Adil Charkaoui did a few years back during a demonstration in Montreal? How does my colleague justify—and how does his faith justify—spreading hate through violent remarks that explicitly incite acts of violence?”
“Obviously, I reassured them by telling them that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to practise their religion. Has my colleague had the same type of conversation to reassure his constituents? In my case, my conversations were quite successful.”
“Mr. Speaker, imagine the quality of the debates we could have had if the Conservatives had not filibustered during nine meetings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We could have discussed a great many matters as interesting as this one. I want to go back to the issue of disinformation and the misrepresentation of facts in which the Conservative Party engaged in order to incite anger around Bill C‑9 . Has my colleague from Winnipeg North had any discussions with his constituents about the fact that the bill would not really infringe on their freedom to practise their religion? I personally had a number of conversations with people in Drummond who were rightly concerned because, when people hear fearmongering like that, they call me and want to know what is going on.”