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 4 of 9.
“However, where do we draw the line between the legitimate right to protest—given that protesting is perfectly legal—and the feelings and experiences of folks trying to get to their place of worship who feel threatened or intimidated? There are some grey areas that would have been worth discussing in committee, but we did not have the opportunity to do so. I would like my colleague to comment on this specific issue of access to places of worship. I would like to know what he thinks about this grey area, specifically.”
“Mr. Speaker, there are so many issues we could have discussed in committee, so many concerns we could have addressed, had we been able to properly debate Bill C‑9 , which, as we all agree, deals with some very sensitive issues. Unfortunately, the Conservatives engaged in extensive filibustering. Nevertheless, we can still ask the government some questions, including, for instance, on subjects that some folks may view as violating their rights and freedoms. The right to protest comes to mind, for example. Bill C‑9 would criminalize the act of intimidating or preventing someone from accessing their place of worship.”
“Does he not think that if there had been an opportunity for discussion in committee, we could have made progress on some of the potentially worthwhile points being raised by the Conservatives that might have improved the bill?”
“Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague say in his speech that, with the Bloc Québécois's support, the government was preventing or stifling the debate on that. The Conservatives filibustered nine meetings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, thereby preventing constructive debate on this sensitive issue. It is true that the Conservatives have been spreading somewhat distorted information to their base, perhaps to scare them about what Bill C-9 might do. Every time I have spoken in person with people who are concerned about this bill, they leave the conversation completely reassured about the impact, or lack thereof, it would have on their religious practices. I would like my colleague's thoughts on this.”
“From the moment the orchestra strikes its first note, the tones ring true and resonate long after the last note. The strains can be heard all across Quebec. It is heartwarming to see Drummond shine in big concert halls. Bravo to the maestro and the musicians. Everything is pitch perfect, allowing our talents to shine.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Drummondville symphonic orchestra has just scored a major coup. It has won another Opus award, this time in the regional impact category, for Mes mers intérieures , presented in 2025. It is safe to say that Drummond cannot help itself from standing out. This award is no small feat. It is presented by the Conseil québécois de la musique to outstanding projects in Quebec. The Drummondville symphonic orchestra has won it five times in under ten years, making it the most awarded regional orchestra. We are not known for doing things in half measures. Mes mers intérieures , a concert that sensitively addresses infant loss, was performed by soprano Marianne Lambert, conducted by Julien Proulx and directed by Isabeau Proulx-Lemire.”
“Mr. Speaker, we have been saying it all day and since the debate began: The Bloc Québécois thinks that the government is making things a lot more complicated than they have to be and that it is preventing the municipalities and the Quebec and provincial governments from doing their work effectively in their own jurisdictions. I want to know whether my colleague agrees with the Bloc Québécois, which is suggesting that instead of complicating the process, the government should simplify it by simply doing its job and transferring money to Quebec and the provinces. They will each be able to manage this with their municipalities in a much more efficient and targeted manner, based on their specific needs.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to highlight the passion of my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue and his command of the file. People are indeed feeling the effects of these bureaucratic decisions or these kinds of big bureaucratic machines that come to do the work or impose conditions in the regions of Quebec, when the organizations already in place, the municipalities, the regional county municipalities, the Government of Quebec and the provinces are already well equipped to manage these investments. I would like to hear my colleague talk about the fact that, last time, the agreement between Quebec and Ottawa took years to be implemented. Is there cause for concern now? Is there a concern that the same thing will happen again and that the regions of Quebec will once again be penalized?”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. The Conservatives are known for trimming the fat, so to speak, wanting to reduce the size of government and make it more agile. However, we in the Bloc Québécois believe that Build Canada Homes and the Liberal government in general tend to encumber and complicate the system and its processes rather than simply respect the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. Does my colleague not agree that it would make a lot more sense to transfer the money owed to Quebec and the provinces so that they can manage these programs? Does he not think that would be more effective than getting involved in some sort of huge bureaucratic machine that will almost certainly slow down the process and complicate things, when there are such pressing needs on the ground in the regions of Quebec and Canada?”
“I would like to know whether my colleague, on behalf of her government, can commit to ensuring that Quebec's share will still be there at the end of the negotiations. That way, we will be able to move forward with the projects that are priorities for Quebec and its municipalities.”
“Mr. Speaker, we have seen situations where the federal government decided to implement programs that are none of its business, that fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. The federal government's task is simply to transfer the funds. However, the Liberals always want to add conditions. In the latest situation involving housing, it took nearly a year and a half before an agreement was finally reached. As a result, Quebec's share of the money to help municipalities with housing was no longer available. We are seeing something similar here. Build Canada Homes is a beast of a thing that risks further complicating the principle, bogging down the system and making things even more complex for Quebec municipalities.”
“Michel for his works, his love of Quebec, his kindness and generosity. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I offer our condolences to his family and to all those who loved and admired him. Now, I invite everyone to take five minutes to listen to his music again. Members will thank me for.”
“Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers have a rich, diverse and unique culture. Our creators have produced music, movies, literature and performing arts unlike any others. All these extraordinary works are the fruit of wonderful and visionary pioneers who have captured the spirit of our people. We should thank them every day and celebrate their creations every chance we get. Unfortunately, it is often when they leave us that we appreciate their contributions and pay tribute to them. We have lost another one of our giants, Abitibi‑Témiscamingue-born Jacques Michel, creator of universally popular and distinctly Québécois songs, such as Pas besoin de frapper , Un nouveau jour va se lever , Amène-toi chez nous and Salut Léon . These works marked Quebec's entry into the modern world. They are monumental. We thank Mr.”
“Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Mirabel on his speech, which was as principled and relevant as it was entertaining. The Conservatives talk a lot about Adil Charkaoui and the fact that no charges have been laid against him. Picking up on that, I would like my colleague from Mirabel to tell me whether, as far as he knows, the Attorney General of Quebec or Quebec's director of criminal and penal prosecutions typically explains the reasons for which they do not lay charges in a particular case and include the Criminal Code provisions upon which they base their decision in that explanation.”
“Madam Speaker, I have the great privilege of serving as a Bloc Québécois member, so I am not faced with that dilemma. However, if I belonged to a party that had members across Canada and that had to cater to all Canadians on an issue like this one, I would likely also be hiding behind the curtains.”
“Madam Speaker, I would say that, in any bill, there is an opportunity for parliamentarians to debate, discuss, clarify and amend. However, this could not be done as effectively because of Conservative filibustering in committee. There are always protections in a bill. There are always safeguards that are put in place. What is more, there are always remedies available afterwards if a bill is found to infringe on charter rights and freedoms. As they say, there are safeguards in all circumstances. That is what I would say to my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands at this time.”
“Madam Speaker, I do not have the minister's exact words in front of me, but I would be extremely surprised if a minister had said in committee that a pastor who quotes a passage from the Bible could be tried or prosecuted. I cannot imagine in what kind of medieval world something like that could have been said. I will refrain from answering the question because I do not have all the facts. What I do when I do not have all the facts is I get all the information I can before taking a stance.”
“Madam Speaker, this is not the first time we have seen this kind of behaviour from the Conservatives. They also misrepresented the facts regarding Bill C-11 , which they described as an attack on Canadians' freedom of expression, when that was not at all the case. That was not part of the bill's substance or intent. I will respond to one aspect of my colleague's question. What this does is fuel Quebeckers' and Canadians' cynicism about our system, about Parliament and about the work we do. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing. There is nothing wrong with having a different point of view. It is okay to express and debate differing viewpoints, but this must not turn into disinformation and manipulation for purely partisan purposes.”
“I think it is time for that to stop, which is why the Bloc Québécois supports this motion to limit debate and move on to something else so that this Parliament can actually do its job and we can discuss other important issues.”
“However, I wonder which is worse: that a federal member of Parliament fails to understand the scope of an amendment like the one proposed by the Bloc Québécois, or that they understand the amendment perfectly but choose to abuse their constituents' trust by leading them to believe that it will limit their religious freedom? I actually do not know which is worse: to be downright incompetent or downright evil. There is a fine line between the two. As my colleague said earlier, at some point, a little hype and sensationalism is all right, but disinformation must never be tolerated, much less manipulation of the facts or truth.”
“The parliamentary process, and democracy, must be allowed to take its course, as my colleague stated earlier. Enough is enough. We need to be able to work and move forward. There are important things in these bills. We may not agree on certain things, but at some point, members will have to realize that they are filibustering, that they are going nowhere and that they will end up looking crazy if they keep hammering away at the same nail over and over. In fact, there is something that I am still not sure about. I know that we sometimes need to give people the benefit of the doubt and that some of these members may truly believe that removing the religious exemption is an attack on their fundamental right to practise their religion. There may be some who sincerely believe that.”
“You should change religions and find one that is actually a religion of peace, or at least find another messenger because that messenger is broken.” Given everything we saw in committee during the Conservative filibuster, we all understood that they were probably getting a huge financial boost and that money must be pouring in. All MPs from all parties have no doubt received dozens of emails from citizens across Canada asking them not to attack this provision of the Criminal Code. I am sure it made for an extraordinary windfall. I am sure it was fun for them to feed the flames and keep the money rolling in, but it has to stop. We have reached the point where MPs are showboating with Bibles in their hands and bashing the Bloc Québécois. Enough is enough.”
“I told him that it was simply a way of not providing a refuge under the Criminal Code to somebody promoting hatred. His response was that he did not agree with that because if this measure was adopted, his pastor would not be able to speak out against homosexuals if he wanted to. I was dumbfounded. I asked him whether he was telling me that his pastor could call for violence against the LGBTQ community because of some religious text. He told me that his pastor ought to have the right to this freedom of expression. My first thought was: What kind of pastor would call his flock or his followers to hate or rally against any community? I said to him, “Man, you should change pastors.”
“A few years ago, the Bloc Québecois tabled a motion to abolish the religious exemption. That was before Bill C-9 came along. The Bloc Québecois's position goes back a long way, because this issue speaks to a core Quebec value. At the time, a Conservative member stopped me in the hall and asked me to tell him a little bit about our proposal and to explain what it was all about. I told him that it was simply aimed at preventing someone from calling for violence or promoting hatred under the pretext that their religion allows or commands it. I told him this did not mean that a person could not quote a text. It would still be permissible to quote texts that may be particularly violent or texts that feel odd and unsettling to readers in 2026 without promoting hatred. I explained that to him.”
“People often cite the infamous Adil Charkaoui, who called for the wholesale murder of Zionist Jews in a speech he delivered right in downtown Montreal a few years ago. People often use him as an example, but letting people use religion as a shield in order to call for such acts of violence is abominable. (1255) I do not know anyone—not personally, anyway—who would say that that particular protection should remain in place. I do not know anyone who would say that our priests, our pastors, our imams or our rabbis should be allowed to call for the elimination of a segment of society or a group on the basis of religious texts. No one is saying that. I have certainly never seen anyone say it. The way the Conservatives have manipulated the facts around this issue is disturbing. Frankly, I find it appalling.”
“It is a fundamental right that the Bloc Québécois will never attack, contrary to what the Conservatives claimed while putting on that circus in committee. I know of no religion that does not claim to be a religion of love and peace. I know of no religion that says its followers must spread hate and violent messages. Once again, let me remind my colleagues to listen closely to what my colleague from Mirabel has to say because he might have a different point of view. As I said, I know of no religion that does not claim to be a religion of love. Therefore, I do not see why anyone who is committed to a religion and practises their faith would disagree with the idea of eliminating the possibility of using religious conviction as grounds for inciting hate or calling for violence against a particular group.”
“There is another layer of security, even though Quebec already has its own independent institution, the director of criminal and penal prosecutions. In our opinion, this guarantee, which would apply across Canada, would strengthen this kind of religious freedom of expression. Another very important element at the heart of the whole circus that the Conservatives mounted in committee is obviously the elimination of the religious exemption that allows someone to sidestep criminal charges for fomenting hatred. It is okay to have a religion and to practise that religion. It is okay to have faith and to live that faith, that belief system. That is completely legitimate. That is just fine. We have always respected that.”
“We are witnessing a manipulation of the facts and the truth, as well as the spreading of disinformation and a manipulation of these facts and this truth for financial gain and for dishonest purposes. I will start by reminding members of the Bloc Québecois's demands, which I think were very reasonable in the context of a bill like Bill C‑9. First, we proposed reinstating the requirement to obtain consent from the Attorney General before initiating prosecutions for inciting hatred, which adds another layer of security aimed at reassuring people who say that this measure could be misused and that anyone could wake up one day and decide to launch a case. It would not be something that would become automatic just because the religious exemption was removed from the Criminal Code.”
“It is a tight-knit family, and I know this big family is in mourning. I am keeping them in my thoughts. Second, before I get into the subject matter of today's debate, tragedy struck in Drummondville this morning when a woman was found dead in a residential neighbourhood. We do not have any details or context at this time, but when things like this happen in a peaceful area, in another tight-knit community, the whole community is shaken. My thoughts go out to the people in Drummondville who were affected by today's events. Let me get back to Bill C-9 . This circus will soon come to an end because at some point, we have to call a spade a spade.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with my distinguished colleague from Mirabel . In fact, I would even go so far as to say that I will be delivering a preview of, or a preamble to, my colleague from Mirabel's speech, which I am sure will be particularly entertaining. I will not say any more, but I hope my colleagues enjoy this teaser. Before I begin, I would also like to highlight two events that affected deeply me over the weekend and this morning. First, my thoughts go out to the family of the young cadet who passed away in an accident involving a school bus in Sainte‑Rose‑de‑Watford. I can only imagine the pain that his parents and loved ones are going through. My thoughts also go out to the wider cadet family across Quebec.”
“I believe my colleague from Mirabel has already talked about this at length. I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for raising this issue, particularly the high-speed rail issue given the current context.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is easy to invest, and that is the federal government's job. It is wonderful to talk about the high-speed rail project. My colleague from Mirabel has been talking about it for weeks. People in his riding and in other ridings that the high-speed train will traverse are concerned, very worried, afraid and angry, and we understand why. I think this is a good example of how the federal government has money but is out of touch when it comes to managing projects. It should hand these projects over to the appropriate authorities. At the very least, it should conduct adequate consultations to prevent tragedies like what happened in 1970 from happening again in Mirabel and to prevent families from being torn apart. It will take generations for people to recover from those brutal expropriations.”
“There is nothing stopping the Prime Minister from implementing very strict tax measures for all businesses and creating fairness in this market. That has been a long time coming.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague from Lac‑Saint‑Jean really hit the nail on the head. I emphasized this point in my speech, but it bears repeating. It is important to stand up for what we believe in, defend our position and back up our words with action. The speech at Davos was inspiring. However, that speech is over, the government is not standing up in the face of adversity and we are no further ahead. The government is not doing more, so it is losing credibility. I think it shows a lack of courage to say that we need to stand up to adversity and yet come back here and fail to implement a strict regulatory tax framework for multi-billion dollar corporations that are getting rich off the backs of Canadians. There is still time to fix that, though.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think that the word may have been borderline in terms of acceptable language, but regardless, it was unnecessary and my colleague was right to bring it up. I apologize. I would like to withdraw that word from my response, because it was not at all necessary given the context.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question, even though we have heard the same damn arguments from the start. The Liberals do not seem to have very many other examples with which to counter the Bloc Québécois's arguments, but that is all right. I respect my colleague's points. I just want to say that, because the federal government was dragging its feet, it took two years to negotiate the housing agreement that my colleague mentioned in his question. It took so long to negotiate that by the time the agreement was finally signed in January, it was too late for Quebec to get the funds to which it was entitled. The Liberals need to be careful about which examples they choose to give and they should maybe switch things up now and then.”
“I believe that it was a mistake and an enormous lack of political courage on the government's part not to have kept the tax in place simply because Uncle Donald was not happy with it. At some point, the Liberals need to grow a backbone that is strong enough to withstand anything and that will not turn to jelly when the wind howls a little too much or when Uncle Donald blusters and sends out a mean tweet at two a.m. after a couple of burgers. It takes courage, and this tax was a show of courage and a willingness to stand up for ourselves. Most of all, it maintained some leverage for the upcoming CUSMA negotiations. However, the Liberals are basically tipping their hand to Donald. We will pay the price at some point, and so will our media.”
“I was very relieved and pleased to hear CBC's announcement in January and Radio-Canada's more recent announcement about the creation of new journalist positions at regional stations. CBC/Radio-Canada is creating 29 new positions in Quebec and about 30 in the rest of Canada. I think that is good news, obviously, because CBC/Radio-Canada is our public broadcaster, and its mandate is to cover news everywhere, all across the country. However, CBC/Radio-Canada should not be the only media outlet with the means to do that. It should not be the only media outlet available in those parts of the country. People everywhere need diverse news sources. In closing, I want to come back to the digital services tax.”
“It is unfortunate because we are missing a great opportunity to help an extremely disadvantaged sector. In my opinion, there are serious problems with news coverage in regional communities in Quebec and Canada. Companies in the business of delivering regional reporting, of covering our regional realities, are finding it increasingly difficult to do so. Covering only big cities and national and international issues is not enough. We also need coverage of what is happening here at home, of our own realities, of what makes our regions tick, but these companies are finding it increasingly difficult to cover those things. Businesses and media are struggling. They have to make cuts. They have to cut positions, and reporters' positions are often the ones to go.”
“The budget does not even include this small, inexpensive measure, this payroll tax credit for radio and television newsrooms. There has been complete radio silence on that front. We can see that this government lacks the will to truly walk the talk. We hear it saying that the media is important, that news is important, but yet it is failing to implement small, simple measures. It is also failing to implement major measures, like the digital services tax, or DST, which could have been transformed into a levy and would have been extremely beneficial. I would remind the House that this tax would have provided a great deal of support for the cultural and media sectors. When it came time to put these measures in place, once again, the government failed to listen. That is unfortunate.”
“Newspaper newsrooms receive a payroll tax credit that gives them a bit of breathing room in an environment that is extremely competitive, extremely volatile and extremely difficult for them financially. Radio and television media are saying that they too have extremely expensive newsrooms to operate and that they should have the same privilege and right. This is something that these media outlets have long been asking for, and the Bloc Québécois has supported it from the beginning. We even included it in our 2025 election platform. The Liberals refused to listen and rolled out a budget with hundreds of millions of dollars for culture that they have been bragging about, but there is nothing in the budget for these media outlets.”
“What does that mean? That means that our media, particularly regional news outlets, remain in the extremely precarious situation that they have been in for years without any glimmer of hope from the government that they might be rescued from their current predicament. There was a measure proposed by the Bloc Québécois. In addition to preserving the digital services tax and turning it into a levy that would have been used exclusively to save and support the cultural sectors and the media, we asked that electronic news media outlets, namely radio and television, be granted the same tax credit that print media outlets already get. This is something that electronic news media outlets have been actively calling for.”
“The Prime Minister did not consider that, by abolishing the tax on digital services, he was eliminating a potential revenue stream of over $1 billion per year that could have been used to save the cultural and media sectors of Quebec and Canada. If he had, he might have decided to reinstate it, but no, he decided to let it go. The government introduced Bill C-15 , and we thought that common sense would prevail and that the minister would decide to reinstate the tax, not eliminate it. By retaining this one tool, or the possibility of implementing it, he would have had leverage for his discussions with the American President when it came time to negotiate CUSMA. (1305) At that point, we could have extracted major concessions had we had something worthwhile or a bargaining chip. However, the government decided to abolish that tax.”
“He decided to bend the knee, take his spine and stick it in a drawer, and do away with the digital services tax, hoping that would make Donald think he was a nice, easygoing, understanding, co-operative guy. He did away with a tax that Donald Trump hates because it penalizes the American companies that provide him with such generous support. Perhaps the Prime Minister thought that Donald would surely be convinced to strike a good deal with his dear friend, the Prime Minister of Canada, and scrap the tariffs. The Prime Minister thought that everything would work out. However, that is not what happened at all. The American President watched him do it. He did not react. He did not bat an eye. He did not lift a finger, and everything continued to go as badly as it had been going for months.”
“In our opinion, that was great news, except for the caveat that it was not directly intended to support the cultural and media sectors. Still, that money could have been well spent. It could have been added to the public purse and ultimately used to support those sectors. We were all there just over a year ago when President Trump returned to the White House in the United States with his rhetoric, threats and tariffs. We saw all of the instability he was causing, not only in his own country, but also here and around the world. We needed some bargaining power. We needed to show Canada's goodwill. To that end, the Prime Minister made what I believe was a highly questionable decision.”
“Subsequently, as we know, it introduced the much-talked about digital services tax, a tax aimed at correcting the kind of tax inequity involving multi-billion dollar companies, generally American, that are making a fortune here in Canada by flooding our devices and our cultural market with content. In the vast majority of cases, this content is in no way representative of the cultural fabric of Quebec and Canada and, by extension francophone culture. I am particularly concerned about that. The purpose of the digital services tax was to address this inequity and bring some fiscal accountability with regard to these businesses. The revenue that could have been generated from this tax was estimated at $7.2 billion over five years. Let us be conservative and say $1 billion, $1.2 billion or $1.3 billion in revenue per year.”
“Take, for example, the OECD, which set up a working group a few years ago to study the issue of digital giants, the so-called GAFAM, and their impact on the public finances of the various countries in which they operate. The OECD looked into this. Many countries, including the European Union and Australia, which we have also talked a lot about, have legislated on tax issues relating to digital giants. In 2024, Canada took a step in the right direction. Not only did it recognize that there was a situation that warranted its attention, but it also introduced the Digital Services Tax Act.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to participate in the debate and discussions on Bill C-15 . I would like to focus briefly on the issue of the digital services tax, which I feel is very important, particularly for the cultural and media sectors. We have discussed it at length. I think it is important to highlight the significant consequences of abolishing this tax. First and foremost, it is important review the context and acknowledge that, in order for the government to address a problem and find solutions to it, the government must first recognize that a problem exists. The government must acknowledge the problem, take note of it, analyze it and then put measures in place to address it and correct it to the greatest extent possible. That is what this government and governments around the world have done.”
“On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I would like to express my sincere condolences to his family, friends and loved ones, as well as his fans, including myself. I thank Raymond for everything.”
“Mr. Speaker, another great actor has left us. Raymond Bouchard was a shining star in Quebec's cultural firmament. We will miss him more than words can say for his voice, his gift of the gab, and his generosity as an actor and as a person. These extraordinary artists are irreplaceable. Every time we lose one of them, a wonderful era in Quebec's social and cultural history fades away little by little. It is sad. Raymond Bouchard gave us unique characters like mayor Lesage in La grande séduction and Léo in La Florida . I am also thinking of his portrayal of Jacques Parizeau in the television series about Lévesque and his role as Paul Vézina in Scoop . Raymond Bouchard was proud to be a Quebecker. Yes, he was a separatist, but above all, he was a great ambassador and a champion of the Quebec culture he held so dear.”