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 6 of 9.
“Mr. Speaker, I would say that when we ask the Conservative caucus from Quebec this question, we do not get an answer right away. I look forward to hearing a speech on this from a Quebec Conservative. We might hear a bit more about their position and their arguments. That was an excellent question from my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean.”
“Mr. Speaker, I understand that my colleague is not reading that right. That is not at all the case. I will take another approach. Hate speech and the propagation of hatred are indeed prohibited under section 319, but there is a religious exemption. If the religious exemption is not needed, then let us simply remove it. If it has not been used as a defence or has not been successfully used as a defence, then let us simply agree to remove it. If my Conservative colleagues think that the safeguards that are already in place are strong enough, then why are they opposed to removing these two provisions of section 319 that allow for the propagation of hatred and violence under the guise of religion? Let us simply remove those provisions if they serve no purpose.”
“Mr. Speaker, I made a passing reference to that in my speech, but it was not really the main point of my speech. That said, I will reserve my comments and response for later, once we have completed the study that is currently being conducted. With each new meeting during this study, we are learning some extremely interesting things. The report on this study will be published at some point. At that point, we will be able to discuss the conclusions we have drawn from the study in committee.”
“What is being said in those churches? A Conservative member once told me they are very afraid that removing this provision will put their ministers in danger for something they might say about homosexuals. What could they possibly say about homosexuals that would make them fear being prosecuted? Are they calling for their heads to be chopped off? What can they be saying? I fail to understand what speech they are trying to defend by opposing the removal of the religious exemption from the Criminal Code. (1215) As a very important reminder, 75% of Quebeckers and 66% of Canadians are in favour of this measure. That is a pretty good consensus for at least having an honest discussion about the issue.”
“However, we must stop anaesthetizing people with falsehoods and make sure we are bringing true facts to light so that we can have a frank and honest discussion. I have not set foot in a church in a very long time, and that is something I must confess, if I can be allowed a little play on words. It has been a long time since I last heard a priest give a sermon, but I was an altar boy as a teenager, and I do not recall a single statement from a priest, a single sermon in which violence was promoted based on what the Bible says. Never in a million years can I imagine a pastor, a priest, a preacher, a minister, engaging in hateful speech, propagating hate or calling for violence in a religious message. I would be very curious to find out more about the places of worship my Conservative friends attend and the ministers there.”
“This brings me to the point that sometimes we delay the implementation of necessary and urgent legislation for political games. The longer implementation is delayed, the longer vulnerable persons are put in vulnerable situations. These individuals, including children, adolescents and numerous other vulnerable groups whom I need not list are left in harm's way. In conclusion, I am disappointed with the discussion we are having today. I wish we could have risen above political partisanship or pressure from religious groups. I would have liked for us to stick to the facts and take this Bloc Québécois proposal for what it is: an extremely sensible measure that perhaps warrants discussion on the basis of personal convictions.”
“The Liberals were offering to remove the religious exemption from the Criminal Code in exchange for our support for Bill C-63 as a whole. That did not work because there were genuine concerns about freedom of expression and freedom of religion, and we could not go that far. The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is currently studying the effects of influencers and social media on children and adolescents. Yesterday, we heard from professor David Morin and professor Marie-Ève Carignan, two eminent scholars from the UNESCO chair in the prevention of violent radicalization and extremism. Their appearance helped us realize that had this part of Bill C-63 been adopted, we would already have made a big step forward in protecting vulnerable persons.”
“(1210) I also have a problem with how my Liberal colleagues have handled this specific file. As I said earlier when I asked my colleague from Winnipeg North a question, during the last Parliament, we studied Bill C-63 , which sought to combat hatred. However, it did not work. The Bloc Québécois made what I felt was a very reasonable request to split the bill in two. One part of the bill had quite a bit of consensus among all the parties in the House. That part of the bill sought to protect vulnerable people from hateful content, including online content. As the Conservatives said at the time, that part of the bill was a matter of common sense. The other part focused on the concept of hatred and issues that were perhaps more suitable for debate and dissent. It needed to be discussed, but the Liberals did not want that.”
“That is why we in the Bloc Québécois are here defending Quebec's values, and also the values of freedom of expression that are so precious to Quebeckers and Canadians alike, with measures like this one. It is a measure that simply says people do not have the right to say that, and additionally, they do not have the right to use religion as a shield to spread hate or call for violence or call for the extermination of anyone. The Conservatives are changing or redirecting or even embellishing the narrative in order to strike fear into their voters that their freedom of religion is under attack, and I find that to be irresponsible. I am going to stick with that word, although I could use other words that would not be as civil, and I do want to remain civil.”
“At a pro-Palestine, pro-Gaza rally, Adil Charkaoui said, “Allah, take care of these Zionist aggressors. Allah, take care of the enemies of the people of Gaza. Allah, identify them all, then exterminate them. And don't spare any of them.” Anyone who utters words like that is not sharing a religion of love or a message of hope and peace. Such a person is propagating hate. The fact that a decision was made by the prosecution service in Quebec, on the recommendation and evaluation of the report provided by the RCMP at the time, not to lay charges against a preacher like Adil Charkaoui, who had already had more than one run-in with the law, does not mean that we can set this aside and just move on and say there is nothing to see here. This is serious.”
“No one is able to come up with an answer, and that is because any logical answer would be so awful, because this is so huge, because the people who call us in good faith, frightened by the Conservatives' narrative, think they are being told that their priest is no longer allowed to read the Bible or their imam is no longer allowed to quote the Quran or parts of the Quran because of this provision. That is not the case at all. Whatever reasons the director of criminal and penal prosecutions and the RCMP had for deciding that Adil Charkaoui's statements did not warrant charges being laid, I am going to repeat those words anyway, because they gave rise to much debate. They were widely discussed in Quebec and they are being discussed here as well, right now, in the House of Commons.”
“I take this responsibility very seriously, and that is why, when people call my constituency office, as many did this morning, asking us to vote against Bill C-9 because it will allegedly violate their freedom of religion, like my colleagues, I tell my team to ask the callers to provide examples. We do not simply thank them for calling and tell them that we have taken note of their views and will take them into consideration. We ask them for examples of cases where, in the practice of their religion or faith or the practice of the minister, pastor, imam or priest delivering sermons in a church, temple, mosque or synagogue, there is something that could require protection under the religious exemption in section 319 of the Criminal Code.”
“That 66% of Canadians are the 66% of Canadians who fully understand what this measure means, and they are not fooled by populist rhetoric aimed at making them fear for their freedom of religion, which I find appalling. I think it is appalling and I will say why. It is because, as politicians, as elected representatives, as members of Parliament, we have a responsibility to be upfront with our constituents and to tell them the truth. We have a duty not to sway them into believing certain things that align with our personal views, our party's stance, or worse, the position that lobby groups are forcing on our parties.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating my colleague from Rivière‑du‑Nord for his brilliant speech and for his thorough work on this file, which he has been adeptly looking after for years. The Bloc Québécois has been calling for this religious exemption in section 319 of the Criminal Code to be repealed for quite some time, long before this year and long before this Parliament. Earlier, my colleague spoke about support for this measure that, as I stated before, the Bloc Québécois has proposed many times. According to a Leger poll conducted last year, 75% of Quebeckers support this measure. It also has strong support in the rest of Canada. My colleague from Rivière-du-Nord said the figure was at least 55%. Actually, 66% of Canadians support this provision.”
“Now the same thing is being proposed once again, that is, including the removal of the religious exemption in Bill C-9. However, the Liberals are facing a bit of resistance, so now they are getting cold feet, so to speak, and have decided not to convene the committee so that they do not have to move forward on this. I would really like my colleague from Winnipeg North to tell me whether the Liberals are serious this time. Are they really going to move forward on this? If so, why is the committee not sitting in order to finally put an end to this religious exemption, which is truly a disgrace in the Canadian system?”
“Madam Speaker, I wonder what is in the Kool-Aid that the religious right is giving to the Conservatives. It must be pretty strong, because it is effective. The Conservatives seem to really believe what they are saying. They are claiming that this measure is directed at freedom of religious expression or freedom of religion. It is unbelievable. My question is for the member for Winnipeg North, who seems to support removing the religious exemption in exchange for the Bloc Québécois's support for Bill C-9 . In 2023, the Liberals did not support us on that issue. In 2024, I clearly remember that the minister at the time, Mr. Virani, proposed including the removal of the religious exemption in Bill C-63 to get the Bloc Québécois's support for the bill. We were already being pretty flexible.”
“If the pastor who objects to homosexuality based on his reading of the Bible called on members of his congregation to cut the throats of homosexuals because they are gay and because that is how he interprets the Bible, would my colleague consider that a good idea? All this religious exemption does is protect incitement to hatred and violence under the guise of religion. That is all it does. This is in no way an attack on freedom of expression. I would like to know whether my colleague would agree with statements like that being supported under this exemption to the Criminal Code.”
“Madam Speaker, I must admit that I am having a very hard time understanding the Conservatives' position on this issue. The Conservative Party is known as the party of law and order, but they are completely off track when it comes to the religious exemption in the Criminal Code. Last year, when we proposed repealing the religious exemption, a Conservative member came to tell me that his party was opposed to the idea. He said that his pastor wanted to be able to speak out against homosexuality because he objects to it based on his interpretation of the Bible. I told him that his pastor is welcome do so if that is how he interprets the Bible. However, I want to ask my colleague this.”
“Mr. Speaker, I know what the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture should be fed up with. He should be fed up with Ottawa twiddling its thumbs while French is in decline. He should be fed up with Ottawa continuing to fund English in Quebec while French is under threat. He should be fed up with the fact that fewer and fewer Quebeckers are able to listen to music in French, read in French and see shows in French, because our language is under threat everywhere. As the minister takes on his new role, will he choose to be fed up with the right things?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am going to pick up where my Conservative colleague left off. My question to the leader of the Green Party is one I ask with both consternation and curiosity, as there was a great deal of speculation around her support for the budget prior to the vote. It was not completely clear, but it seems that she found reassurance in commitments made by the Prime Minister . Today, I find it hard to imagine that the leader of the Green Party is not feeling betrayed by the Prime Minister's commitment, firstly regarding the Paris Agreement, and then the encroachment he is authorizing on practically every jurisdiction to get a pipeline carrying oil from Alberta out to the Pacific Ocean. I would really like to hear what she thinks about that. What does she think of what the Prime Minister said?”
“How many bitter pills must Liberal government members be able to swallow and how many times will they have to betray their values and principles?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister just announced that he is approving the construction of a pipeline to transport oil from Alberta, through British Columbia, to the Pacific Ocean. First nations in British Columbia are threatening to take legal action because they disagree with this decision. There is no social licence for it, unlike what my Conservative colleague said earlier. The Government of British Columbia also disagrees with this move and is considering joining the first nations in taking legal action. My colleague opposite is a first nations member. Is he taking into account the opinions of British Columbia's first nations on an issue as critical as a pipeline that will cross their land to get to the Pacific Ocean?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was in Alberta, where he announced federal approval for the pipeline project that crosses British Columbia and terminates at a deep-water port on the Pacific coast. Yesterday, the Bloc Québécois asked the government a question, and the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons spontaneously answered yes to that question. The question was whether this project would get approval from the British Columbia government, first nations and the population—whether it would get social licence. He spontaneously replied that it would not go ahead without the approval of the British Columbia government, first nations and the public. However, it is clear that the British Columbia government is not interested in this project. It is against it. My colleague is from British Columbia.”
“Madam Speaker, earlier, my colleague from Lac‑Saint‑Jean asked a Conservative member a question after his speech. He noted that the Conservatives tore apart the Liberal budget in their speeches, and rightly so. However, my colleague wanted to know what efforts the Conservatives made to defeat this budget. The Conservative member replied that his party tried its best to defeat that budget when it came time to vote. The Bloc Québécois has 22 members, and all 22 members voted against this budget. I would like to know how many of the 143 Conservative members actually voted against this budget, not counting the curtains.”
“Through her determination, she inspired dozens of women to get involved in the demanding career of journalism, just as she was inspired by the great Judith Jasmin, with whom she now shares the title of pioneer. Through her example, Madeleine Poulin taught us to stay curious, to stick to the facts and, perhaps before her time, to seek out and protect reliable and honest sources of information. Ms. Poulin will continue to inspire not only women, but all those who embark on a career in journalism as fiercely as she did.”
“Mr. Speaker, this weekend, we learned of the death of the great journalist Madeleine Poulin. Originally, she was not interested in journalism as a career. In fact, she wanted to teach. In the end, that is what she did. Through her professionalism, she ensured that generations of Quebeckers and francophones across Canada were better educated on social issues, politics and current events in general. In short, she helped make all of us better citizens who are better informed and better equipped to participate in democratic life. Through her diligence, she raised the bar for all news professionals in every TV, radio and newspaper newsroom.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is a rather odd analogy coming from a former environmentalist. The government has just abolished the digital services tax, which could have financed a fund to support a diversity of information sources and Quebec culture. The government is doing nothing for private broadcasters. When questioned, it says that it is funding the public sector, as if the entire broadcasting system is public, and too bad for the private sector. This prompted columnist Yasmine Adelfadel to say that the minister is insulting the TVA workers who lost their jobs. What do we need to say to the minister to get him to take action for our private broadcasters?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture is showing a complete disregard for Quebec's private broadcasters and their workers. Québecor has shed 800 jobs, but the minister is standing idly by. Cogeco Media and Bell Media have asked for help, but the minister is not lifting a finger. He is as indifferent to the media crisis as the Prime Minister is to the climate crisis. Does the minister realize that his indifference and his stubborn refusal to support private broadcasters is making the media crisis worse?”
“That is a bit rich, but if the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives are on the same page for once, is that not a reason for the Liberals to be concerned and to wonder about the budget they tabled?”
“Mr. Speaker, we have to give credit where credit is due. The member for Winnipeg North is definitely entertaining, and when it comes to drinking the Liberal Kool-Aid, that member is second to none. Someone should make a T-shirt with his face on it. Having said that, I do respect his opinions and his point of view. That is what democracy is all about. I accept that we can have different opinions and express them respectfully. I appreciate that about the member for Winnipeg North. Still, I would like to draw his attention to something he himself said earlier. He said he was surprised to see the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois join forces. He even talked about an “unholy coalition”.”
“I would like to know whether my colleague agrees that these measures could easily be implemented now, even though the budget has been tabled, and whether he is in favour of the measures we are proposing.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if my colleague heard my speech earlier or what we have been saying for days now about the crisis in the media, which has been going on for years. This government is well aware of it. Private media outlets and private broadcasters are complaining about this budget, saying that there is nothing in it for them, even though they asked for very simple, minor measures such as getting rid of the shameful deduction for advertising purchased from American companies. This measure makes no sense. They also asked for the same privilege as print media, such as newspapers, with a tax credit to support newsroom payroll costs. There is nothing like that in the budget. These measures would have had no impact on taxpayers' wallets.”
“This is an absolute tragedy. I do not understand how this government, which claims to be a champion of democracy and the media, can fail to grasp the urgency of the situation.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague has described exactly what our regions and smaller centres are currently feeling: a genuine loss of confidence that this government will save a significant pillar of democracy. Local media cannot simply be a sort of antenna that transmits what is happening in Montreal, Quebec City and Toronto. They must also have the ability to cover the news, share information, and showcase the reality of the regions they represent. That is what we are in the process of losing. We are losing the personality of our regions, which is so vitally important. What makes Quebec Quebec is the unique character of the regions, each of which is different from every other. The media is a critical pillar of democracy, but we are losing it because the government is undermining the private broadcasters that provide high-quality news services.”
“Mr. Speaker, we do enjoy the theatre. That said, one would certainly have expected something more rigorous from an expert in economics and finance. We are somewhat surprised to see so much creative accounting in this budget. There are billions of dollars in spending that the government is treating as assets. We also know that if the same accounting approach were applied to Justin Trudeau's budgets during his years as prime minister, it would appear that he balanced the budget half of the time. There are serious questions about the intellectual honesty and integrity reflected in this budget.”
“It will take a long time, and it will require serious people to delve into the matter and consult stakeholders, as former minister Pascale Saint-Onge did. She started the work, and the Liberals could have continued it. They could have done the right thing by not neglecting private broadcasters. That is the problem with CBC/Radio-Canada and the government's $150 million.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about CBC/Radio-Canada and about the Conservative position. As I said in my speech, I am in favour of a public broadcaster, but I am also in favour of private media and of news and information that is fair and equitable. I am not in favour of just one broadcaster getting preferential treatment over the others. We did not agree with the Conservatives' campaign proposal to eliminate funding for CBC/Radio-Canada. However, this measure, which is nothing more than an election promise to give CBC/Radio-Canada $150 million this year, does not solve the problem in the long term. CBC/Radio-Canada's mandate and funding model need an overhaul. That is not the kind of work that gets done over a weekend.”
“I am going to conclude on a lighter note by saying from the outset that I have a deep affection for the Scottish people. I have visited Scotland and I got to know its people. I have friends there and I love them, and so I beg them to forgive me for this bit of humour as I finish my speech. The French comedian Jacques Bodoin was talking about his trip to Scotland where he was asked to try haggis, Scotland's national dish. I will leave it to members to do their own research if they want to know more about the ingredients that go into the dish. At the end of the meal, Mr. Bodoin was asked what he thought about the dish, and he responded that at first, when the dish was brought to the table, he thought that it was, and I quote, a turd, but after tasting it, he wished it had been one. This budget is like haggis.”
“These artists, these emerging productions, shape the future of performing arts, particularly in theatre and dance, as I mentioned earlier. That is negligence, as these productions will literally disappear because the government did not provide adequate funding. The Bloc Québécois had a good solution, and the solution is still on the table. The digital services tax can be converted into a 3% levy that would be exclusively invested in the cultural and media sector. This would generate $7 billion over five years, or $1.5 billion a year. This type of measure would solve many issues. It would not hurt taxpayers because the money would come from digital giants. The government keeps saying no to that. It is a great idea, but the government says it will not implement it just because it did not think of it first.”
“Despite a well-supported request for a $140-million funding increase to the Canada Council for the Arts, the government thought that a $6-million increase would satisfy them. I would remind members that while this was happening, they gave Radio-Canada, which had already prepared its budget and presented its five-year plan, $150 million. The Canada Council for the Arts will be getting only $6 million, and the government expects that will satisfy theatre companies. The direct consequence of that is that smaller productions will be shelved. These productions offer a platform for discovering fresh content and emerging artists who might not have access to major theatres, as they often present content that leans toward the unconventional, but is nevertheless deeply compelling.”
“I am satisfied with that. However, as I said at the start of my speech, we cannot be proud of feeding only part of our family. When one has responsibilities, one must make sure no one is left behind. The performing arts such as dance, theatre and orchestral music needed to see an increase in funding for the Canada Council for the Arts. The need was clear, it was great, it had long been expressed, it was known. The Canada Council for the Arts budget needed to be increased by $140 million in order to meet this demand, a demand that is growing, because costs have exploded, there are more applicants, and there are people who have ideas for productions that would be of interest to the public.”
“That is true. However, we would have preferred to see permanent enhancements, a permanent increase in funding. We would have preferred that over another round of one-time payments, but at least there is some money coming in. Of course, when a person is starving and someone throws them a crust of bread, they are not going to turn their nose up at it. If the government had been serious, it would have offered the permanent boost in funding that the cultural sector was asking for. That is what we would have liked to see. This will nevertheless be good for the audiovisual industry. It is important for us to be able to produce Canadian stories, with quality productions, eventually exporting them and increasing the return on investment, and in the process gaining recognition around the world with the tools we have now for sharing our culture.”
“Now we have a budget that will not do anything for regional radio and the jobs they provide. (1125) The government cannot claim to be concerned about regional and private media with a budget like this one, which offers nothing to help them deal with their current crisis. This sends a message that the government simply does not care about them. Let us talk a bit about culture. On a more positive note, I am really pleased to see that this budget earmarks money for certain cultural sectors. The minister says with great pride that this is a record budget for culture, with a $760-million investment in culture. That is a big number, a number to brag about and be proud of. I am happy for our audiovisual industry, as it truly needed this. It is true that funding was included for various sectors, such as for major festivals and events.”
“Another gesture of goodwill from the Liberals would have been to abolish the silly tax deduction for ad purchases from American companies. Advertisers that buy ads from web giants online get a tax deduction. That is ridiculous. Simply removing that option would give our local and regional media a bit more breathing room. Clearly, the Liberals do not care one iota about private broadcasters. They have easy solutions right in front of them, and yet we have an industry that is in crisis and that has been making submissions and sounding the alarm non-stop. Radio stations are shutting down and there are layoffs in the regions, as happened with TVA. My colleague from Rimouski—La Matapédia can speak to that later. TVA cut 87 jobs in the regions just a few days ago.”
“For instance, electronic media, radio and television newsrooms could be offered the same payroll tax credit for journalists and newsrooms as the payroll tax credit offered to print media and newspapers. That is not something that will affect taxpayers' pocketbooks. This is something that will give news companies, radio, Cogeco, Québecor, Bell, and so forth a big break and ease their financial burden. News production is costly and yields limited profits, and yet it is essential. We have to keep that in mind. The Liberals would have done that if they were really serious about helping the media. They would have implemented this measure, which is readily available and simple, and it would not have had any impact on the budget, which already delivers a historic deficit.”
“A comprehensive review would have included an evaluation of CBC/Radio-Canada's current funding, and would also have sought to partially or totally free the public broadcaster from its reliance on advertising and subscription fees by providing funding that would support the level of service expected from a public broadcaster. In time, this would have opened up the advertising and subscription market to private broadcasters. I am talking about really simple measures that the government could have taken to help news media, including measures that are all too familiar to the government because it has heard about them for years from the Bloc Québécois and through testimony from media companies during their many appearances on Parliament Hill.”
“Some extremely simple solutions were available, but the $150 million for CBC/Radio-Canada was nothing more than an expensive Liberal election promise to counter the Conservatives' spring election campaign rhetoric calling for a straight-up cut of the CBC's funding. If the Liberals had truly wanted to help the media, they would not have handed $150 million to CBC/Radio-Canada just like that, with a promise to talk about it again next year. They would instead have proposed a comprehensive review of our public broadcaster's mandate. This is what we are asking for. This is what is required. This is what the previous Canadian heritage minister, Ms. St-Onge, proposed, with intelligent and thoughtful solutions that the current minister and government have not even considered.”
“For a long time now, I have felt that $33 per Canadian per year to fund a public broadcaster with a territory the size of the one that CBC/Radio-Canada has to cover is peanuts. Our public broadcaster was forced to look to revenue sources such as advertising and subscription fees, which meant it had to compete with private broadcasters. That worked for many years. The market thrived, and everything was great. One day, however, the American digital giants came along and soon dominated the market, as we have seen in recent years. The result is that private broadcasters, who were in good shape until quite recently, are now in jeopardy. It has reached a point where massive job cuts keep happening in regions of Quebec and, no doubt, all across Canada as well, because there is no concern for the problems faced by private broadcasters.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour for me to rise in the House to represent the residents of my riding of Drummond. I do not know of any parent, any father or any mother, who would boast about feeding two of their children while leaving the other three to go hungry. That, however, is exactly what the Liberals are doing with this budget. Let us start with the media. An amount of $150 million is earmarked for CBC/Radio-Canada. To be clear, I am pleased that the government is supporting CBC/Radio-Canada. I have also strongly advocated, for longer than the minister has, for a review of CBC/Radio-Canada's funding model. For a long time now, I have said that Canada should be more closely aligned with other countries that also have a public broadcaster.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, and I want to congratulate her on the quality of her French. It is always much appreciated. I want to talk about the media crisis. The Bloc Québécois is very concerned about this issue, particularly this week. There is an easy solution that is within reach and that will not affect taxpayers. I am referring to the much-discussed digital services tax, which the Liberals scrapped this summer in response to threats from Donald Trump. This tax could easily be turned into a 3% levy on GAFAM, the digital corporate giants. It would help save our local media, restore credibility in regional journalism and support culture. I want to know what the Conservatives think of this idea from the Bloc Québécois.”