Martin Champoux

“I agree that social media companies must be held responsible for the content young people see. I want to know how far the member thinks that responsibility should go, and if companies should have to share their algorithms and safety reports.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to congratulate my colleague from Lethbridge on her speech. I was moved when she mentioned Amanda Todd and the tragedy in Tumbler Ridge. I found those events very upsetting. I fully support her statement that platforms that host content, whatever it may be, must be held accountable for the content that is made available to everyone, but especially to young people and vulnerable youth. I agree that platforms must be held accountable. However, my colleague and I may not agree on how to do that. Does she think that platforms should be more transparent, for example when they are asked, for obvious reasons, to disclose their algorithms or the reports they have carried out on measures implemented to ensure user safety? I would like to know how far my colleague thinks platforms’ accountability should extend.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 41 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“Our culture needs American streaming platforms to pay levies. The Prime Minister made our broadcasting law meaningless by dropping these fees. I want the minister to tell the Prime Minister he made a mistake.”

“Mr. Speaker, I have said this before, but it bears repeating: The future of our culture depends on requiring American streaming platforms to pay levies. However, every time we talk about it, the minister descends into partisanship. That is a shame because the levies were the result of long-term work carried out across party lines. We have no problem saying that in Quebec, the amendment to the Broadcasting Act was seen as a good move by the Liberal government. However, the Prime Minister made it effectively meaningless by scrapping the levies. Will the minister stand up today and announce that he has the courage to tell the Prime Minister that he made a mistake by scrapping the levies?”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Opposition question in Question Period

  Respect 68 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “announce that he has the courage to tell the Prime Minister that he made a mistake by scrapping the levies?”.

  See full analysis →

“Quebec television needs steady funding from American streaming platforms to survive. A one-time payment of $600 million is not enough, and a future government could just cancel it. I want the government to follow the law and bring back the fees on these streaming companies.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of answer we got in June. We will say it again, and we will say it every time. There is no future for Quebec television without a fair share of funding from American online streaming platforms. It is not possible to replace the long-term contribution from the tech giants, which is protected by the Broadcasting Act, with a one-time payment of $600 million that any government could cancel, depending on the mood of the day. It is irresponsible and even illegal. The government is acting as though we are still in the 1990s. Will the government respect its own law, its own word, and ask the CRTC to reinstate the levies?”

“Jean-Luc Mongrain has died. He was a great news host who stood up for regular people in Quebec for fifty years. I send my condolences to his family and thank him for his work.”

“Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers and the media community were shocked to learn of the passing of one of our great communicators. Jean‑Luc Mongrain passed away last week at the age of 75. Jean-Luc Mongrain was an ardent critic of incompetence and a champion of ordinary people. He had no patience for dithering and half measures. He transformed the way news is done in Quebec with his unfiltered interviews, his unsparing questions and his search for the truth, eye to eye. Although he initially set out to become a theologian, he would go on to leave his mark on Quebec over five decades, first on the radio, then on the TVA airwaves and later as an anchor for TQS. While he sadly did not succeed in eliminating every senseless municipal bylaw or shortening the list of school supplies for our youth, he did set new standards for being outspoken on our airwaves. Behind this formidable interviewer was a man whose qualities were never all that well hidden: a passionate man, certainly, but also a generous, respectful and kind man, a man with a big heart. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I would like to offer my sincere condolences to his loved ones and, above all, thank him.”

“Filmmaker Anne-Claire Poirier recently passed away. Her feminist movies pushed Quebec forward by making people face difficult social issues. I send my condolences to her family, and I thank her for her work.”

“Mr. Speaker, can cinema help advance society? Can art be a real driver of social progress and collective development? Anne‑Claire Poirier, who passed away recently, is unequivocal proof that the answer to these questions is “yes”. Her work is irrefutable proof of the impact cinema has on social progress. She was a pioneer of feminist filmmaking, and her films forced us to confront head-on issues that have transformed Quebec society. These include the erasure of women from history, the challenges of pregnancy, abortion, rape, prostitution, addiction and homosexuality. Her films included titles like Mourir à tue-tête and Tu as crié LET ME GO. Her unflinching films sent a shockwave through Quebec and sparked real debates that helped move our nation forward. We owe her an extraordinary debt of gratitude, and her legacy continues to shape who we are today. I offer my deepest condolences to her family and loved ones. To this incredible woman, I say, “Thank you. The Quebec nation is grateful.””

“I want the House to pass this bill to make September Ukrainian Heritage Month. Over one million Canadians have Ukrainian roots, and they give a lot to our country. Russia is attacking Ukraine and stole 20,000 Ukrainian children. This month must not be just a symbol. We need to use it to teach people about Ukrainian culture and keep supporting Ukraine in this war.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to be the first to rise to speak to Bill S-210 this evening. I feel like a bit of an imposter because I see some of my colleagues here who are really committed to this cause, including the sponsor of the bill in the House of Commons. I know that he cares about this cause and that he is the chair of the Canada-Ukraine Friendship Group, which I am proud to be a part of. Before I begin my speech and speak to Bill S‑210, I too would like to take a few seconds to congratulate the new members of the Quebec National Assembly, particularly in my riding of Drummond. These two people are very dear to me: Natalie Bisaillon, who is the first woman elected as the first member in the new riding of Marie‑Lacoste‑Gérin‑Lajoie, and Charles Page, who was elected as the member for Drummond—Bois‑Francs. Some colleagues may recognize his name, because I have recognized the accomplishments of Charles Page in the House on two occasions. He is the only Quebecker and only Canadian to have climbed five of the eight tallest mountains in the world. These are mountains measuring 8,000 metres or more, including Everest, Annapurna and K2. It is a great privilege to see him conquer another mountain: Quebec City’s Parliament Hill. I believe that he and Ms. Bisaillon will rise to the challenge. I wish them every success. I also want to congratulate the voters in the riding of Drummond, many of whom turned out to vote and actively participated in democracy, as several million Quebeckers did in this election. I have never set foot in Ukraine. I have no family members or ancestors of Ukrainian descent. I knew next to nothing about Ukraine before I arrived here in Parliament in 2019. I was a member of the Canada-Ukraine Friendship Group before the events of February 2022. It took the horror of February 24 of that year to open my eyes, and the eyes of thousands of Quebeckers and Canadians, to this great country that is fighting to protect its identity, culture and independence from a brutal attacker attempting to recapture a country that had broken free with the collapse of the Soviet Union. First of all, let me state that Vladimir Putin is a brutal invader. His goal is to bring Ukraine, and then perhaps Europe and the world, under his sway, under the control of a dictatorship that is completely out of step with the human values that should guide today’s world. While news broadcasts and reports continue to bear witness to Russia’s ongoing attacks and relentless campaign against Ukraine, which are still claiming dozens of lives and causing injuries even today, the signals we are hearing and observing suggest that support and vigilance are softening among countries that are supposedly friends of Ukraine. A kind of complacency has set in, with countries feeling like the war has dragged on long enough and that it may be time to resume talks with Russia, restart negotiations or ease sanctions. I find it deeply troubling to hear such sentiments coming from countries that still claim to be partners, allies and friends of Ukraine and the Ukrainian people. We must never forget that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is illegal and brutal. Canada must continue throw its full support behind efforts to condemn and resist this aggression, working alongside our allies. We cannot forget that there are approximately 20,000 Ukrainian children who have been deported to Russia. For years now, many of these children have been subjected to indoctrination, stripped of their cultural identity and deprived of their identity by this regime, which we must continue to oppose. As I said earlier, before coming here, I knew next to nothing about Ukraine. I knew it was a country in Europe that had been under Soviet rule for decades, of course, like many others. Then I discovered a wonderful country, a country with, as I said, its own unique identity and culture that its people cherish. Above all, in the face of the challenges we all know it has endured, the resilience it has shown is truly admirable. I also discovered people, human beings, who reach out to us, who visit us regularly and tell us not to give up on them, because they are nothing less than a bulwark for Europe, a bulwark for the freedom of countries in the west. What they are going through and what they are defending is who they are and what they want to protect. They are also standing in the way of this madman who will not stop there if we give up. Their resilience is to be commended. In short, I greatly admire the people, their culture and the things I have discovered about this country, which I look forward to visiting. Talking about Bill S‑210 and then supporting the bill is like taking a step forward. This is a month that obviously recognizes Ukrainian heritage and, if all goes right, aims to celebrate, highlight and share the customs, identity and culture of Ukraine. It is also a month to recognize the contribution of a pretty big community. There are 1.3 million Ukrainians living in Canada. The community is very vibrant, very active and very well established in a number of regions. In recent years especially, Ukrainians have settled in other regions, temporarily at first, but I think they have integrated nicely into their communities. Many Ukrainians have settled in Drummondville, in my region. These are people who have learned French, who have gotten involved with community activities in Drummondville and who are very much appreciated. In short, this month would recognize the contribution of this community and also make people aware that the first Ukrainian immigrants arrived in Canada in the late 19th century. As I said when we studied and debated this bill when it was first introduced, I think it is a great idea to designate specific months to celebrate the heritage of a given country. In the case of Ukraine, I think it takes on special significance, particularly in light of recent events. I think we need to ensure that it is not merely symbolic. That is the pitfall of this kind of bill. Often, a particular month is designated as “x heritage month” in response to a request, and then it tends to be somewhat forgotten. That is wrong. If heritage months are to be designated, they must be worthwhile. It is important to ensure that these tools are used to showcase that heritage, to educate people and to raise awareness. We would all be greatly enriched if we used the month of September every year to showcase the culture and identity of Ukraine, and above all to honour the resilience of Ukrainians and remind everyone of the importance of supporting Ukraine in its current fight.”

“I want the new member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord to talk to workers in his riding about this bill. It threatens workers' rights and the right to strike by letting the government stop strikes it finds too disruptive.”

“Mr. Speaker, I see that you are showing our colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord a great deal of generosity and understanding as he delivers his first speech, but I am sure you will have the opportunity to remind him of our customs here. I want to congratulate him on his first official speech in the House. I too would like to welcome him and congratulate him on his victory in Chicoutimi—Le Fjord in the by-election last August. I would very much like him to commit to speaking with his constituents and the workers in his riding who do not see the danger that exists in Bill C‑39 in terms of workers’ rights and the right to strike, among other things. The right to strike is under threat, because the government could step in and put an end to any strike action thought to be a little too disruptive. There are many aspects of this legislation that represent a step backwards in terms of workers’ rights. The Canadian Labour Congress has brought this to our attention on several occasions. I would like the new member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord to commit to telling his constituents the truth and sharing these facts with them, to see what they really think.”

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“This bill hurts workers' rights. It lets the minister ignore mediators and stop strikes, giving the government total control over bargaining. I want the government to promise that the committee will add strong protections for workers.”

“Madam Speaker, the government keeps trying to reassure workers, particularly on the issue of labour rights, which, quite frankly, are literally being trampled by Bill C-39. Despite the government’s attempts to sugar-coat it, Bill C-39 actually weakens protections for workers’ rights, which is a real cause for concern for trade unions across Quebec and Canada. They are trying to sugar-coat all this by saying there will be a mediator to advise the minister, but the minister will still have the right, under the bill, to disregard the mediator’s recommendations. The minister will have the right to stop a strike if he believes it is going too far and is in some way detrimental to the project at hand. Workers who hear this feel that they are losing their bargaining power and their dignity, in a sense. Their rights are truly being trampled by this bill. Despite the government’s attempts to sugar-coat things and its claims that it is putting all kinds of protections in place, at the end of the day, the minister is the one who will have the final say on matters affecting workers during bargaining and strikes. I would really like to hear my colleague from Winnipeg North do his level best to reassure me about that, but I am not sure he will be able to. I would also like him to tell the workers, unions and labour representatives watching us that he is truly committed to ensuring that, when the committee studies Bill C‑39, solid protections for workers’ rights will be added. As things stand, the bill offers no reassurance at all.”

“The government is making taxpayers pay for culture instead of big internet companies. This public funding is not reliable, because any government can cut it at any time. I want the minister to change his mind and bring back the fee on these companies to protect Quebec and French culture.”

“Mr. Speaker, the government has said that it is dropping the levy and that it will make up for it with public funds. Where is it going to get that money? Directly from the pockets of taxpayers is where. The problem is that, instead of taking money out of the pockets of multinational Internet companies, the federal government is sticking citizens with the bill while giving them no say in the matter. On top of being grossly unfair, this approach replaces sustainable, legally protected funding for culture with a one-time amount that any government can cut at any time. Will the minister finally reconsider and choose the side of francophone and Quebec culture?”

“European countries make American streaming platforms pay a fee, without raising prices much for users. Canada gave in to American pressure and canceled this fee. I want the government to bring it back.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see how people dodge the issue. Discoverability is one thing. Contributing financially is another. The Prime Minister wants to build closer ties with Europe and distance himself from the Americans. When it comes to culture, the European Union requires American streaming platforms to pay a levy. It imposed a levy without any significant price hikes for users. In contrast to the 27 European countries, Canada is going it alone and bowing to American pressure in the fight for cultural diversity. Since it wants to draw closer to Europe, will the government reinstate the levies that it should never have scrapped?”