Martin Champoux · TranslatePolitics.ca

Government Orders

2026-06-17

“I'm just padding the record to make my party look relevant.”

Government Orders

Government Business No. 13—Proceedings on Bill C‑22

2026-06-17

“We had debates before. Bills passed. Now the government doesn't want our ideas. The government wants to do what it wants. Screw democracy.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands on her speech. She has been in this House for many years. My colleague was very, very young when she was first elected, as we all know. She has seen various permutations of government. I was first elected in 2019. The Liberal government held a minority. We had to debate important bills and sensitive issues. The government had no choice at that time but to negotiate with one of the opposition parties. Even though feathers got ruffled on a few occasions, particularly among the Conservatives and the Liberals—some committees got pretty rowdy—bills were always passed in the end, thanks to the co-operation of the opposition parties. Now we have a government that has secured a majority through various manoeuvres, as everyone is well aware. The fact remains, however, that the views, ideas and contributions that opposition parties can bring to bills as important as Bill C-22 are essential. I think it is quite shameful that the government has decided to shut the door on these discussions. I would like to know whether my colleague for Saanich—Gulf Islands thinks that the Liberals got burned so badly over the past few years that now they are saying enough is enough, they can do what they like without giving the opposition a second thought, they can manage their affairs as they see fit, that is just the way it is now that they have their majority, and democracy be damned. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want to look good by complimenting my colleague's hard work. But I'm really asking whether Canada should become a surveillance state like other countries. Should we have cameras on every street corner? Should we be more willing to invade people's privacy and personal data? Should we forget our principles and be more like countries that don't respect their citizens' privacy? I want to talk about safety versus privacy trade-offs. I'm not sure which way we should go.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my young colleague on her speech, which I greatly appreciated. I know that she has worked extremely hard on this bill, as she does in everything that she undertakes. She did such a thorough and professional job, and I commend her for that. In her speech, she spoke of the difficulties that Canada may face in sharing information with other countries, particularly the United Kingdom, England. Certain countries have a history of experiencing attacks, acts of terrorism and various threats that have led to the introduction of different types of measures. I would like to ask my colleague whether she thinks that more flexibility is needed in terms of privacy protection in order to ensure public safety. Should we adopt security measures similar to those in some of these countries, such as having surveillance cameras on every street corner and greater tolerance for intrusions into personal data? Should we uphold our principle of protecting personal information, or should we instead align ourselves more closely with countries that may have less regard for such matters when it comes to their citizens?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I don't like hearing other people talk. Someone said their age. I'm telling on them.”

Private Members' Business

Spectrum Policy Framework for Canada Act

2026-06-17

“I want to pass this bill to expand government control of airwaves. Spectrum policy doesn't get updated often. Unused frequencies are like vacant lots, and they need to be managed. Industry wants less regulation, but I don't trust them. Some people don't have cell service, and they need it for safety reasons. This bill will improve the situation by making sure unused spectrum gets used. The CRTC must act quickly. Companies say there is 100% coverage, but that's not true. We need more transparency and efficiency, even if most people are already covered.”

Official Hansard

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”. If Quebeckers and Canadians were asked what that makes them think of, 99.9% of them would probably mention ghosts or James Bond villains. Very few of them would talk about frequencies, airwaves or broadcasting in general. However, spectrum is absolutely essential to broadcasting and communications as we have known them today and for decades. There is a reason why this topic is of interest to me. Before I got into politics, I dabbled in various fields, including radio. I worked at radio stations for three decades. That might be hard to believe. 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. Issues related to spectrum, airwaves and broadcasting involve the technical side of the field that I was in and was genuinely passionate about. Back in my day, although we are not talking about the 1920s or 1930s, we did not have this level of congestion. Regulations were in place, and the government was exercising some control over frequency usage, but it was not as important back then as it is today. It has been quite a while since this policy was last revised. It was revised in 1992 and again 15 years later, in 2007. Now, in 2026, almost 20 years later, we find ourselves needing to review these regulations and this framework. 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. That is the analogy I would use to explain why spectrum allocation and frequency usage need to be managed in much the same way. There are telecommunications companies that have acquired frequencies but do not need to develop them or lack the resources to do so, because developing these services is quite expensive. As a result, they are holding these unused frequencies that could be put to other uses. We have heard the industry call for more deregulation, rather than a stronger framework. I feel a little uneasy about that request, particularly in this case. 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. It is much better than it was just a few years ago, but it still means that over 200,000 people do not have access to a cellular network. In 2026, not having access to a cellular network is, of course, a problem for communication. It is certainly a problem when it comes to entertainment. Nowadays, entertainment is increasingly delivered through our electronic devices, our cellphones and tablets. In some cases, it is through our computers, but the fact remains that we need this system, these frequencies. We can say that those 200,000 people who do not have access to entertainment can always read a book or go play outside. Yes, there is always a way to make do, but these 200,000 people also do not have access to emergency safety services. We have seen cases where this mattered. There have been situations where people needed to call the fire department or an ambulance urgently—after an accident or during a forest fire, since wildfires sometimes cut off regular communications where they are usually available—but were unable to access even the most basic emergency services. This is a cause for concern. This is a cause for concern, and there is no reason why we should be prevented from providing this service simply because the companies do not want to develop it, even though they hold the required spectrum. People get the impression that everything is fine because almost everyone is connected. However, we are talking about an essential service. It becomes an essential service as soon as there is an incident like the ones I just mentioned. Bill C-268 contains meaningful, positive measures that will improve the current situation. People in rural areas, such as Drummond, will no longer have to wave their phones around trying to get a signal. These measures are primarily aimed at ensuring that unused spectrum is put to use in one way or another. I think it is a waste to hold these resources and not take the necessary steps to use them, particularly in regions and situations where there is a pressing need that must be addressed. I also like the idea of delivery timetables. According to Bill C‑268, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, would be required to act within a fairly short time frame of six months after the act's coming into force. It seems to me that the CRTC already has a rather large backlog of urgent matters to address, so entrusting it with managing this bill as a priority might be risky. There is a history of inaction at times due to the excessive workload that the CRTC faces. However, if everything goes well, we could already see results within six months of the bill's passage and implementation. I find that encouraging. The other thing is that there would be a verification process to ensure the accuracy of data, such as mobile coverage data. 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. However, when we are passing through the rural parts of our ridings, it is rare not to come across areas where communications literally cut out and where there is no signal at all. It is very frustrating, once again, to be told that 100% of the territory is covered when we run into situations like that. What are we waiting for? Are we waiting for something serious to happen before we realize that cell service has become something that we can no longer do without and for which we have an obligation to establish mechanisms to ensure reliable service? 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. However, I will say it again, the argument that 99% and a bit of the population is covered is not enough. That is much better than 10 years ago, so congratulations may be in order. However, I find it extremely concerning that there are even a few people in this context who do not have access to basic security and emergency services. This requires us to act quickly. On that note, I think it is pretty clear that the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑268 from my colleague from Compton—Stanstead.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Combatting Hate Act

2026-06-16

“You're leaving us for the Quebec election. You did a good job defending lots of industries and fighting forced labour. I'll miss having a friend next door to joke with but now we'll be allies fighting for Quebec as its own country.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton made an announcement today, June 17, or maybe it is June 18. I am not very good with dates, as my colleague knows. Today, June 16, he announced that he is leaving us to run for the Parti Québécois in Quebec's general election this fall. I want to congratulate this extraordinary colleague who wears such sharp suits and ties and has such a unique sense of style. He is an activist. That is a privilege that we have as members of the Bloc Québécois. Our party is full of activists, men and women of conviction who are dedicated to the interests of Quebeckers and to a great and noble cause: making Quebec a country. The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton now intends to champion this cause at the Quebec National Assembly. We were colleagues and, from now on, we will be allies. What a colleague he was. He has done impeccable work as the critic for international trade over the past six years, whether in the midst of a trade war or a pandemic. He has masterfully defended the aluminum, forestry and aerospace industries, among others. He worked with the member for Berthier—Maskinongé to protect supply management, and he has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to combatting forced labour. Everything he did in the House, he did with conviction and generosity. He is an activist. The Bloc Québécois is losing a member who is appreciated by everyone, a friend. Personally, I am also losing a riding neighbour with whom I had the opportunity to laugh and have fun, and I will miss that. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I thank the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton for his years of service and his sincere convictions. I look forward to working with him in the future. I am sure we will meet each other again in our efforts to fight for Quebec as a country.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I also want to cheer for this bill to pass. No Jewish groups I know disagree. The bill counts as "protecting" the Jewish community. Jewish people need special protection because there is a lot of anti-Semitism. I want the Liberal member to agree the bill will let Jewish people feel safe.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I was thinking along the same lines as my colleague from Mount Royal. I congratulate him on his speech. Indeed, the Bloc Québécois's call over the past several years to remove the religious exemption from the Criminal Code has finally been included in Bill C-9, which we are debating today. Like my colleague from Mount Royal, I have never heard any group representing the Jewish community speak out against this request from the Bloc Québécois. On the contrary, it is seen as yet another tool to protect Jewish communities, which have been particularly targeted by hate crimes over the past few years and even in recent days. Once again, we are witnessing extremely troubling acts of anti-Semitism in our society . I would like to know what my colleague thinks. In fact, he just touched on the answer a bit in his response to our Conservative colleague, but I want to know what he thinks the repeal of this exemption will mean for the sense of security among Jewish communities in Canada.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

Points of Order

2026-06-16

“I don't have a real answer right now. I'm stalling for time.”

Government Orders

Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30

2026-06-15

“You like talking, but you keep changing sides. You stood with us on culture bills like C-11. Now your government turned its back on culture and caved to American tech giants on taxes. You picked taxpayers to pay instead of making streaming services pay their share. You flipped sides and took the wrong one. You profit from them now and make us pay.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, time seems to stand still when my colleague from Winnipeg North rises to speak. This parliamentary secretary was here during the previous Parliament. He has been here for quite some time. In the previous Parliament, I remember sharing his point of view on a very important broadcasting bill, Bill C-11. We debated it in the House. The Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP were on the same side back then. We believed that we had to fight for culture. Today, his government is doing the opposite. His government is turning its back on culture and giving in to American threats by caving on some very important things, including the digital services tax, which was supposed to bring some tax fairness to the system. We just saw the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, make an important decision, which the government overturned and sent back to the drawing board. The government refused to implement the 15% contribution that the CRTC had just mandated and has instead chosen to have taxpayers foot the bill for the share that streaming services should have paid. We were equally passionate about Bill C‑11 and the principle that streaming services and U.S. tech giants should pay their fair share. However, his government is going in exactly the opposite direction. Has my colleague changed his mind? Has he switched sides? Does he think that it is a good idea to let streaming services and tech giants skip out on paying their fair share and contributing to the broadcasting system that they are profiting from immensely?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want the Green Party to complain more about all the ways this government is bad for the environment. Maybe that will make the government look bad.”

“You say we need money. I say we should take from oil companies. That will give us more money to spend on other things.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my Conservative colleague knows full well that Quebeckers and Canadians are struggling financially. Groceries are expensive. Everything is expensive. Even families that were well off not too long ago now have to make sacrifices and choices. There are solutions at our fingertips that could have been discussed in committee and that could have been discussed more broadly here in the House. For example, eliminating the subsidies to oil companies would generate about $27.5 billion in revenue for the government over five years. That is an estimate from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Would my colleague agree with this type of measure, which would ease the financial burden on Quebeckers and Canadians?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“You talk a lot about fighting climate change. But your government keeps subsidizing oil and making it easier to use pesticides. That's not helping the environment. Do you agree with those measures? How do they help the environment?”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country. The name of his riding brings to mind landscapes, nature and beauty, and I cannot help but believe that my colleague is worried about the environment and climate change. In fact, he mentioned it in his speech, talking specifically about greenhouse gases and the fight against greenhouse gases. The Bloc Québécois called for an end to the oil subsidies, which would have generated approximately $27 billion in revenue for the government over five years. Instead, the government is maintaining the oil subsidies and, on top of that, it is relaxing the pesticide regulations. These are two measures that actually run counter to what my colleague mentioned earlier. They run counter to the fight against climate change. I would like my colleague to tell me whether he agrees with these measures and how they help the environment.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

Indigenous Affairs

2026-06-15

“I just wanted to show a document to my colleague. The document is about our budget requests for culture. We made these requests before.”

“You lied earlier so I need to correct the record. The Bloc did submit requests even though you claimed we didn't. I have proof to table.”

Oral Questions

Government Priorities

2026-06-15

“The Prime Minister is not standing up to the United States. He should tax tech giants and Netflix like Europe and Australia do. But he is not. Canada is pulling out. This threatens Quebec culture. The Prime Minister is selling his soul to please Donald Trump.”

Oral Questions

Canadian Identity and Culture

2026-06-11

“You won't make America pay. You're letting them walk all over us. I want taxpayers to make American tech companies pay instead.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the word in French is not “programme”. The correct word is “émission” or “série”. While our media outlets continue to lose millions of dollars in revenue, the Prime Minister tried to placate Donald Trump by ending a decade-long campaign by the cultural sector to ensure that the tech giants pay their fair share. In response, Donald Trump has issued additional threats regarding CUSMA. I would like to read a quote from a Quebec filmmaker, a certain Mr. Falardeau. I do not think the Prime Minister knows him. Mr. Falardeau said, “If you lie down, they will stomp on you. If you remain standing and resist, they will hate you, but they will call you ‘sir’.” Is the Prime Minister not the least bit tempted to take that advice so he might actually be called “sir”?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Statements by Members

Sophie Faucher

2026-06-11

“A famous person died. That makes me sad.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, somewhere in the great beyond, Sophie Faucher is listening to the outpouring of praise and kind words that followed the announcement of her premature passing. The radiant and dazzling Sophie Faucher exuded a powerful and luminous energy that made her loved by all. This great actress, the daughter of another great actress, could shift effortlessly from drama to comedy, from writing to voice acting, from Frida Kahlo to Maria Callas, drawn to these extraordinary women perhaps because she saw herself in them. We certainly saw her in them. Everyone will talk about her ability to fly off the handle one moment and burst out laughing the next; to be moved to tears one moment and outraged the next. A true Quebec icon, she was the embodiment of what it means to live life to the fullest. It is a sad loss. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I offer her family and her many friends and admirers my deepest condolences.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

2026-06-10

“I don't like the part of the bill that stops people signing multiple candidate forms. It's not an endorsement, it just says they can run. I think that goes too far. But I appreciate my colleague's thoughts.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, what a shame there is no unanimous consent. We would never have turned down an opportunity to be educated and informed. I do not understand why they denied it. It would have been instructive. Returning to the speech by my colleague from St. Albert—Sturgeon River, whose thoroughness I appreciate, there is something in Bill C-25 that concerns me somewhat. I agree that we should tighten the parameters a little, particularly when it comes to the endorsing candidates. However, when we collect signatures for a nomination form, which many of us have done, we make a point of telling people that this is not an endorsement of the candidate or the party. It is a recognition that this person is eligible to stand as a candidate in an election. In proposing this measure, which prevents people from signing multiple nomination forms in the same election, it seems to me that we are going against that principle in a way. Saying that people can only sign one form is a bit like saying that by signing a nomination form, that person is endorsing that particular candidate. I feel that this measure may go a bit too far. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I like this bill. It stops fakers. The Prime Minister fakes who he is. He said he would stand up to Donald Trump. He didn't. The bill says that's not allowed. Is the Prime Minister breaking the bill's rule?”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the parliamentary secretary on her speech. From the outset, I want to say that the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-25 for a number of reasons. In her speech, my colleague mentioned some of the provisions that Bill C-25 would introduce, including prohibiting individuals from falsely representing themselves to be someone they are not. The current Prime Minister got elected by claiming to be the only one capable of standing up to Donald Trump in negotiations with the United States. The record of the past year suggests that is totally far-fetched, it is false, and we can see that. According to my colleague, does that mean that, under the provisions of Bill C-25, the Prime Minister himself would be in violation of the law?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I'm not sure that was very parliamentary. But I do agree the Conservatives seem to be looking for reasons not to support this bill. They keep bringing up mandatory minimums instead. But I think our system is the best we have. And I'm not sure harsher sentences actually work better than rehab. Do you have any evidence they do?”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I am not sure it is very parliamentary to say that questions are dumb. I am seriously wondering about that. That said, it is rare for me to agree with the member for Winnipeg North, but at the moment, I must admit that I am a little perplexed myself. I get the impression that the Conservatives are finding reasons not to support this bill, even though it has been requested by groups advocating for victims of crime and domestic violence. I always hear the Conservatives bringing the issue back to mandatory minimum sentences. Our system is far from perfect, but it is quite likely the least imperfect one out there. I do not know of any studies showing that harsher sentences are more beneficial to society than rehabilitation programs for offenders. Does my colleague have any scientific arguments or supporting data to back up his claim that mandatory minimum sentences work better than rehabilitating offenders?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗