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 8 of 9.
“Mr. Speaker, perhaps my colleague from Trois‑Rivières can respond to that. In the last Parliament, the finance minister at the time, Ms. Freeland, did not want to table a budget with a projected deficit of nearly $42 billion. She thought it was outrageous to propose—”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech and his ability to focus. For a guy who celebrated his birthday yesterday and must have gone to bed very late, he seemed very focused despite the noise in the House. Good on him. Now, he is part of a government that has given up about $90 billion in revenue, according to the most reasonable estimates. His government is still going to provide $83 billion in financial support to the oil industry over five years despite the industry's significant impact on climate change. We have been told that the upcoming budget will include a deficit of about $100 billion, maybe more, yet the government is bragging about its AAA credit rating. Given this Liberal government's track record, does my colleague think Canada will maintain its AAA credit rating?”
“Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the Liberals are doing a lot of boasting about lower interest rates. They are boasting about having eased the tax burden, the financial burden on middle-class families. In reality, people are more in debt and are having a tougher time taking care of their responsibilities and meeting their financial obligations at the end of the month. The Conservatives are proposing to make huge cuts to the public service. I would like the opposition leader to explain what he plans to do to ease the financial burden on Canadian and Quebec families.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech. What spirit. Earlier, my colleague asked a question of the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin , who is an economist and former Quebec finance minister. He lived through the period of austerity, which he helped create. My colleague mentioned the $83 billion in support that is being paid out to the oil industry. The member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin replied that it generates revenue for society. I would like my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, the agriculture and agri-food critic, to talk to us about the impact that the oil industry has on the environment and climate change, as well as its direct impact on the agriculture sector.”
“The government boasts about having eased the burden on the middle class. Meanwhile, it is sending $83 billion to the oil industry. The member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin says that this generates revenue. Wow. For an economist, that is impressive. I would like to know what measures will actually be put in place to support and provide relief—”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech. I always find it a little strange when I hear the Liberals boast about providing relief to the middle class with tax cuts, when it is the middle class that is currently struggling the most because of the cost of living. They are drowning. Despite that, right after the election, the Liberals decided to forgo nearly $90 billion in potential revenue. Countertariffs were to be put in place, but we have yet to see any of that money. Then there was the digital services tax, which has been scrapped. There are plenty of measures that could have helped and that could have been used to ease the burden on middle-class families, the majority of whom are living $200 away from bankruptcy. With every paycheque, most Canadian families are $200 away from being in the red. This is no joke.”
“I am hearing talk of austerity measures and I am hearing the Liberals brag about their numbers, which are not bad, but in all seriousness, what measures is the government proposing and taking to make life easier for Quebeckers and Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are always bragging about all kinds of things and throwing numbers around. They are saying that they have lowered interest rates and curbed the massive inflation we have been experiencing in recent years. However, the reality for Quebec and Canadian families is that prices are still very high. After the pandemic, prices did not go back down, but wages also did not go up. That means that groceries now cost a fortune and so do housing and social activities. Everything costs a fortune, but purchasing power did not adjust to inflation following the pandemic. That is what the government should do. That is what it should be focusing on.”
“Mr. Speaker, the speech that my colleague from Thornhill made earlier was very interesting. Finally, we have a Conservative motion that the Bloc Québécois can get behind. Of course, it is easy to say that this government's management is abysmal when everyone can see we are digging ourselves in deeper and deeper. This government needs to manage a financial crisis for families in Quebec and Canada and yet, early in its mandate, it decided to forgo close to $90 billion in potential revenues, in particular by not imposing countertariffs, eliminating the digital services tax and so on. The austerity proposed by the Conservatives is all well and good and we agree that we need stronger fiscal management, but what are the Conservatives suggesting to help grow the economy? Making cuts is not enough.”
“When will the Liberals finally realize that the situation could be improved by perhaps allowing Quebec to participate in the judicial appointment process, or at least in the recommendation process?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are not entirely wrong. There are several reasons why we really do need to focus on the justice system, look after it and reform it. One of the problems that was identified a long time ago has to do with the appointment of judges. The government is behind on that. However, Quebec has long been asking to have its say on the judges Ottawa appoints to sit on higher courts, such as the Quebec Superior Court and the Quebec Court of Appeal. As members know, the Liberals recently appointed lawyer and Liberal supporter Robert Leckey as a judge, even though he is against secularism and had not even been a member of the Barreau du Québec for the 10 years required before being appointed.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to talk to us about the fact that the Conservatives are moving a motion on a bill that has yet to be assessed by the law clerks or even found in order. The Conservatives are trying to use this motion to muzzle the House of Commons. That approach seems rather unusual to me, and I would like my colleague to talk to us about it.”
“Mr. Speaker, people often say that the Conservatives put forward simplistic solutions to highly complex problems, but their proposal today makes some sense. It is true that we have a duty to protect our communities and it is also true that a growing number of repeat offenders are being released into the community awaiting trial, including people charged with violent crimes against women. Maybe we should try to find a better balance in all this, while still upholding the presumption of innocence so cherished by our system and among our values. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. How do we strike the right balance between respect for basic rights on the one hand and public safety on the other, especially in the case of criminals who are violent toward women?”
“Mr. Speaker, in his work Zadig; or, The Book of Fate , Voltaire said, “It is better to risk saving a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one.” This is a principle that exists in all democracies, in all developed societies around the world. Keeping an accused person in jail rather than making efforts to release them under the presumption of innocence goes against all the basic rights that we stand for in democratic societies. Some countries, however, would disagree. North Korea, China and Iran do this, among others, but here in Canada, it is not part of our values. Does my colleague still believe in a democratic system and in our core values that we follow and respect here in Quebec and Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my Conservative colleague on his speech and I applaud his passion. He is clearly very committed. I can tell that this really matters to him and gets him fired up. The cost of food is a major problem, but I do not think the solution is as simple as what the Conservatives are proposing. It is much bigger than that. Does my colleague agree that we need to do more to support and ease the burden on the agricultural sector, much more than slogans and axing taxes? Experts say those taxes have a negligible impact on the actual cost of food.”
“We could also consider increasing the GST credit on an exceptional basis when inflation rises in a given quarter. Is the government considering such solutions, namely to increase people's purchasing power while simultaneously trying to control the price of groceries?”
“Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is talking about solutions to a crisis. Today's motion is talking about the rising cost of groceries. As I said earlier, there is not just one solution to such a complex issue, certainly not a simplistic solution like the one the Conservatives are proposing. Earlier, the Liberals said that there was already a code of conduct that grocers and major grocery chains had agreed to comply with, but consumers have not seen a difference in the price of groceries. However, perhaps it would be possible to look at the purchasing power of people feeling the pain of inflation. The government has not yet increased old age security for seniors between the ages of 65 and 74 years. The pension increase was limited to those aged 75 and older.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to hear the Leader of the Opposition talk more about how the Prime Minister has a stake in just about every decision he makes and how he benefits financially. However, I want to circle back to today's topic, which is the cost of groceries. I see that the Conservatives are proposing to eliminate many taxes, including all carbon taxes and the packaging tax, meaning the plastic ban. I would like the Leader of the Opposition to tell us about the Conservatives' plan to combat climate change. Whether we like it or not, it exists, it is here, and it also has consequences for the agricultural sector. We will have to deal with it, beyond all these tax cuts and all these cuts to carbon pricing.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is not a problem that can be solved with just one solution. There is not just one key that can unlock this door. In my view, the government's efforts to engage the grocery giants have not been successful. In particular, my colleague talked about a code of conduct that the big grocery chains have pledged to follow. I would like to know what has actually gotten done so far, because we are not seeing any results when we get to the register. I would like to know, specifically and concretely, what is happening with the government's discussions with the big grocery chains regarding rising food prices.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A Conservative member is answering my question, and I would like to hear him. However, his own Conservative colleague is making noise. I would have liked to hear my colleague's answer. I wonder if he could say it again so I can understand his answer. No? That is too bad.”
“I do not understand why my colleagues who defend the agricultural sector refuse to see the massive consumption of petroleum products as a major issue for future generations and why they see this tax as a panacea and the solution to all problems. I would like my colleague to talk about this phenomenon.”
“Mr. Speaker, there are also many farmers in the Drummond area. I realize that this is a complex problem. The issues facing farmers are complex. My colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière spoke about this earlier, and he speaks from experience. However, it seems to me that the Conservatives are reducing this to a very simplistic, even populist solution and are refusing to see the problem as a complex whole. This morning, we learned our oceans have reached a level of acidity that is almost irreversible, which will have enormous repercussions on the ecosystem. The entire environmental ecosystem is threatened, and the consequences for future generations will be catastrophic.”
“Today, the carbon tax has been eliminated in the rest of Canada, but grocery prices have remained the same. What exactly has happened since those meetings? Other than the programs that are in place, what is the government doing to try to bring rising grocery prices under control?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives often have the habit of presenting serious problems for discussion and then putting forward rather simplistic solutions, intellectual shortcuts or sometimes even populist shortcuts. The issue we are discussing today is serious. The cost of food and groceries is a serious problem. Even high-income families now have to make choices and be careful about what they buy at the grocery store, so imagine how much the less fortunate families must be struggling. In the previous Parliament, the current Minister of Finance , who was the industry minister at the time, met with the owners of the big grocery chains, and he claimed that that was going to fix everything. He was going to succeed in lowering grocery prices.”
“The government has threatened to take away our passports, take away our army and even have Canadians invade Quebec, as if we would have nothing left to defend ourselves. Ridicule does not kill but, damn it, there are still limits.”
“Mr. Speaker, I was also blown away when I saw excerpts from this report, which mentions the possibility that a government could reinstate arbitrary executions and consider repealing freedom of the press. My colleague from Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi said earlier that there was a danger of women's rights being rolled back. As my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères implied, Quebec is the most progressive society in North America, certainly not one that could backslide to that extent. I think that using these terms, even if they are only examples of extreme cases, fuels fear and brings us back to the kind of fearmongering rhetoric that we have heard time and time again.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see that the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix thinks that Quebec can contribute a great deal to the Canadian identity. Personally, I do not see any point in showing anything to the rest of Canada, other than demonstrating that we are going to be excellent neighbours and partners in all aspects of society, whether in commerce or international trade. I understand that my colleague's federalist point of view suggests that Quebec could contribute to making Canadians better citizens. I personally think that Quebec will be a better state, a better nation, once we finally have all the tools of our autonomy, that is, pure and simple independence.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent example of misinformation, disinformation, or simply misunderstanding what An Act respecting the laicity of the State is about. It prevents no one from running for office, winning an election, or sitting in Parliament. The other thing that we need to stop is thinking that the act is holding back young women who wear the hijab and religious symbols in general, because the act is not intended for Muslim women only. It includes men and women in general. If my religion prevented me from practising a trade, maybe the principles imposed on me by my religion are what need to be called into question. The act is a fundamental piece of legislation for protecting Quebec's values. It allows equality, fairness, and neutrality in all areas of government.”
“The Quiet Revolution never really ended, but some might say that it will reach its peak sometime after the fall of 2026. At that point, Quebeckers will finally close the loop opened by giants such as Lévesque, Laurin, Parent, Parizeau, Marois and so many others, including Guy Rocher, whom I had the privilege of meeting over a meal last April. Guy Rocher shared with me that despite the obstacles, the passing years and the ebbs and flows of enthusiasm, our deep and fundamental values are never lost and never lose their purpose. They deserve our commitment and our fight as long as there are those who challenge them.”
“This opposition did not hinder Quebec in the least. On the contrary, it strengthened Quebec's determination to define itself. That is because, basically, the backdrop to Quebec values is the idea of being a nation that aspires to be in full control of its own destiny. To those who say that the National Assembly's laws protecting Quebec values go too far, I would refer them to the recent report by the Pelchat-Rousseau commission, which states in its 50 recommendations that, in reality, not enough is being done. The progressive values of Quebec society need more protection. It is up to Quebec to provide it. Section 33 is an essential tool for protecting Quebec legislators from federal manoeuvres aimed at stifling Quebec's momentum towards freely defining its identity.”
“Canada sees Quebec as one province among many, but Quebec is a distinct society, a distinct nation with its own values, its own history and its own trajectory. Outsiders, at least those in the rest of Canada, often perceive Quebec values as backward or exclusionary, but Quebec is simply being true to its identity and its principles. We seek not to exclude anyone, but to unite everyone in a joint undertaking. We do not reject diversity; we place it within a coherent framework. From the Parent commission to Bill 21, Quebec undertook a quiet but profound revolution. It redefined its values, affirmed its identity and tried to build a society in its own image. All along, it encountered constant opposition from Canada, whose multiculturalism model is simply not compatible with Quebec's aspirations.”
“The Quebec model is based on the French language as the social glue. It is defined by the secularism of its state institutions. It promotes interculturalism, or integration around the common values of Quebec society, French, gender equality, secularism, and so on, and aspires to political and cultural autonomy. The Canadian model claims to be bilingual, despite the fact that it is egregiously dominated by English. It is based on multiculturalism and centralization, and prioritizes individual rights over collective values. These differences are not just theoretical; they also have a material impact on immigration, education, justice and citizenship policies. They fuel constant tensions between Quebec and the rest of Canada. These differences reflect a fundamental lack of understanding.”
“Bill 21 simply aims to guarantee the neutrality of the state and ensure a public space, free of visible religious symbols, in accordance with the model of society chosen by Quebeckers. However, yet again, Canada is opposed to this. The federal government criticizes the law and calls it discriminatory. Rights groups are challenging the law in court. Quebec expected that. The notwithstanding clause was not invoked without good reason. What this shows is nothing less than an ideological divide. Quebec advocates active secularism, where the state imposes rules in the public space. Canada, on the other hand, favours permissive secularism, where religious freedom takes precedence over neutrality. Over the decades, Canada and Quebec have developed increasingly divergent models of society.”
“Canada, on the other hand, promotes the coexistence of languages and cultures, in a disjointed melting pot. Let us just say that it is a brutal shock. My colleagues have covered the subject at length and in depth, so I will gloss over a few episodes of our history, including the sad part in which the Constitution was repatriated; Jean Chrétien's great betrayal of René Lévesque; the arrogance of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who never quite managed to crush Quebeckers beneath his haughty heel; the ensuing constitutional crises that led to the stolen referendum of 1995; and, lastly, the Quebec National Assembly's passage of the storied Bill 21, the Act respecting the laicity of the State, in 2019. (1250) Bill 21 is part of this tradition of secularization that began during the Quiet Revolution.”
“It affirms that French is not just a language, but also a vehicle to promote culture, solidarity and social cohesion. One might have expected our neighbours to support and applaud such a wonderful emancipation of Quebec society, but no. On the contrary, this affirmation of identity was met with resistance from Canada. It did not take long for the Supreme Court to strike down provisions of the act, particularly those concerning unilingual French signage in Quebec. The federal government, which cares only about its “bilingual” and multicultural model, sees Bill 101 as infringing on the rights of anglophones. This is evidence of the profound divide between our two visions of co-habitation. Quebec defends a common language to promote integration.”
“The Quiet Revolution never really ended, but some might say that it culminated in the 1970s, when a fervent nationalist movement swept Quebec. Quebeckers became more confident. They stood up for themselves and went as far as electing a pro-independence government for the first time in their history. On November 15, 1976, René Lévesque became Premier of Quebec along with 71 MNAs. In 1977, the Lévesque government passed Bill 101, the Charter of the French Language. Once again, Guy Rocher shared his wisdom and helped Camille Laurin draft legislation making French the official language of Quebec, at a time when anglicization was already threatening the cultural survival of francophones across the continent. Bill 101 became the cornerstone of Quebec identity.”
“What we want is to bring Quebec out of obscurantism and allow our younger generations to aspire to the same heights as English speakers and the wealthiest members of society, who historically were favoured by the system at the time. In short, we want to give everyone an equal chance, whereas at that time in Quebec, as we know, everyone said that we were born to be nobodies. Beyond the reforms, a true revolution in values took place. For the first time, Quebec was affirming fairly new principles, such as secularism, equal opportunity and the primacy of knowledge. To support these principles, the government took over all public spheres from the church. The future of Quebec society would be built on our cherished values that define us.”
“It was in this context that Jean Lesage's government set up the Parent commission, which was tasked with reforming the education system. I would note in passing that seated at the table was sociologist Guy Rocher, who recently passed away and whose thoughts led to an almost unexpected consensus at the time regarding the importance of removing religion from education and health care. The Parent commission marks the beginning of what is referred to as the Quiet Revolution, with bold reforms such as the creation of a ministry of education, CEGEPs, high schools and, especially and primarily, access to higher education for all.”
“From the Parent commission to Bill 21, including Bill 101 and its iterations over time, the most recent being Bill 96, Quebec embarked on a massive emancipation process in the early 1960s, a major undertaking that hit many an obstacle, as one might expect with such transformative societal reforms. Along the way, Quebec has constantly come up against opposition from Canada, whose multiculturalism model is simply incompatible with Quebec's legitimate aspirations. This was the early 1960s. The Quebec of that era was a more traditional, mostly rural society, still dominated by the Catholic Church. Education was faith-based and inequitable, since it too was still dominated by the church, and it was not very accessible to ordinary people.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj. I would like to take us in a different direction with today's debate. I thought that it might be beneficial for a number of colleagues here, who regularly hear Quebec's grievances but are not familiar with our history, to learn a little more about our journey, which is so culturally different from Canada's. Together, then, let us go over the history of Quebec values, from their emergence to their affirmation, as well as the resistance they sparked.”
“When examples like these are given, does that not encourage fearmongering and exaggerated statements that could turn a certain segment of the population against the Bloc Québécois's approach?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by wishing Shana Tova to my colleague from Mount Royal and to the entire Jewish community in Quebec and Canada who are celebrating the new year today. I acknowledge the fact that my colleague and I will likely never agree on this type of issue. However, having worked with my colleague many times, I admire his openness to intelligent and lively debate. Even so, I have to say that outrageous and offensive statements were made in the factum filed with the Supreme Court and in the arguments made by some of his colleagues. Some of the examples they provided include summary executions, the suppression of freedom of the press, the rollback of women's rights and the rollback of access to abortion, even if those members later added that these were merely examples and that they were rather unlikely to occur.”
“The day before he left for Nepal, on June 23, Charles Page gave a fantastic patriotic speech at our national holiday celebrations in Drummondville. That is when I realized how proud he is to plant our flag, his fleur-de-lis, at some of the highest summits in the world. We are so proud of Charles, and I thank him for that.”
“Mr. Speaker, some superheroes wear capes and fly, but the one I am honouring today wears warm clothes, a toque and boots with crampons, and he is a climber. On August 12, while most of us were enjoying the summer sun, Charles Page from Drummondville was facing the worst weather conditions imaginable as he reached the summit of K2, the second-highest mountain in the world at 8,611 metres, and the most dangerous for the daredevils who to dare to scale it. Charles conquered Everest last year. K2 was his fifth mountain over 8,000 metres in three years. He is the only Quebecker to have climbed both Everest and K2. He still has mountains to conquer because, believe it or not, Charles has been mountain climbing for only the past three years.”
“What my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé was asking, and what I too would like to know, is whether our colleague will talk to his caucus about the possibility of introducing a bill that would eliminate the religious exemption that is currently in the Criminal Code.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to pick up on the question that my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé asked the member for Winnipeg North earlier, because it was a simple question. We talked about a bill that we introduced in the previous Parliament and that the member must be familiar with. It sought to eliminate the religious exemption in the Criminal Code that allows people to call for hatred and violence under the guise of religious speech. We have already had this discussion. It took place at the Standing Committee on Justice. The member for Winnipeg North already knows the ins and outs of this discussion.”
“However, recently, the federal government quietly appointed as a judge a Liberal donor who does not even meet the basic criteria for being appointed as a superior court judge in Quebec or the provinces. Now, his appointment is being challenged and we are once again talking about the issue of judicial appointments. Will my colleague commit to persuading his government to review these procedures and to ensure that judges are appointed in a responsible, fair and independent manner?”
“Mr. Speaker, I commend the parliamentary secretary for his speech. As we said a few times this week, my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord did incredible work on the issue of judicial appointments. Judicial appointments are supposed to be impartial. However, we know that nothing could be further from the truth. The shortage of judges in the system is one of the problems we are speaking out against today and one of the problems that today's Conservative motion seeks to remedy. The shortage of judges means that cases are dragging on. Offenders are not being tried quickly enough. They are being released because their cases are not being heard quickly enough.”
“Does he see this as another example of the divide between what Quebec society values and what the rest of Canada seems to value when it comes to freedom of expression in a religious context?”
“Madam Speaker, in the speech he gave just now, my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord quoted comments made by Adil Charkaoui, a very controversial religious leader, during a demonstration literally calling for Jews to be hunted down and exterminated. These extremely violent and hateful comments were made under the guise of religion. As my colleague quite rightly pointed out, the authorities did not even bother to arrest him and bring him to justice, because such statements are protected under the Criminal Code. Whenever we raise this issue with our fellow MPs, particularly the Conservatives, they say that the police already have the power to arrest people who make such statements, but that is false. Here is my question for my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord.”