Martin Champoux

“Victims' rights groups asked for this bill, but Conservatives are finding reasons to oppose it. They keep asking for mandatory minimum prison sentences instead. I want to know if my colleague has any real data showing that harsher sentences work better than helping offenders change.”

“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?”

“I support parts of this bill that protect victims of domestic abuse. But I think judges should look at many factors together, not just one, to decide if someone was controlling their partner. The Liberals rejected our change to do this, and I want to know why.”

“Madam Speaker, I would like to offer my full support to our colleague from the riding of Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, who, unfortunately, cannot be called by his name in the House. It would have been much simpler, as his riding has a very long name. We all heard about what happened today. We are all very concerned and wish him a very speedy recovery. We need his passion here in the House. I congratulate my colleague opposite on her speech. There are a number of provisions in Bill C‑16 that we like. It contains very important measures to protect victims, especially victims of domestic violence. However, the Bloc Québécois believes that coercive control should not be assessed by a single factor. A combination of factors should be considered. The Bloc Québécois tried to include provisions in the bill that would have judges consider a range of factors, meaning the situation as a whole. That amendment was rejected by the Liberals, and I wonder why, because it was something very reasonable, very responsible and very respectful of victims and what they go through in these situations. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that at this stage of our study of the bill.”

“Young people are losing retail jobs, while the government gives billions of dollars in tax breaks to oil companies. I want the member to say if she will support stopping these subsidies to help struggling taxpayers instead.”

“Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that my colleague talked about young people struggling to find work in the current economy. As I pointed out earlier to the member for Winnipeg North, 35,000 jobs were lost in the retail sector in the first quarter of 2026. These are precisely the kinds of jobs that are often available to younger people and those who may have less formal education. Meanwhile, the Conservatives fully support making massive investments in developing the fossil fuel industry. Billions of dollars are going to oil companies in the form of tax breaks, for example. Would my colleague be in favour of easing the burden on taxpayers a little, including the young families she seems to want to defend in her riding? People in my riding, Drummond, are also struggling. Would she be willing to reconsider the subsidies given to oil companies and redistribute some of those billions of dollars to taxpayers who are really struggling right now?”

In response to a question from Marilyn Gladu

“A member pointed out that very few Conservatives are here today. I want to know if our rules allow members to point out who is here and who is not.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am curious. My colleague on the opposite side mentioned the fact that there are very few Conservative MPs present, even though it is their opposition day. Like you, I thought this was a quorum call, but is it permissible to note the absence or presence of MPs in the House?”

“The government says things are going well, but Canada lost 35,000 retail jobs in early 2026. This shows that people cannot afford to shop. I want to know when the government will help people pay for groceries and basic needs.”

“Mr. Speaker, when I hear the member for Winnipeg North talk about good news and how lucky Canadians are to have the current government, I really have to wonder. I wonder if I am dreaming and if someone should wake me up. It is really astonishing. The Liberals’ self-congratulation is getting embarrassing. When figures come out, we can break them down and interpret them as we wish, but some of them do not lie. In the first quarter of 2026, 35,000 retail jobs were lost. Retail is the end of the line. It is clothing shops, supermarkets and convenience stores. That is where people go to shop for their everyday needs. The loss of 35,000 jobs in the first quarter of 2026 means that people cannot afford to buy from their regular stores. That is an alarming figure that shows that Canadians and Quebeckers are currently feeling much more financial distress than optimism, contrary to what my colleague would have us believe. At some point, will the government take concrete measures to help people pay for groceries and basic needs?”

“This bill has many good points and helps victims of crime. But court delays still hurt victims when trials are thrown out and the perpetrators walk free. What will the government do to fix these delays quickly?”

“Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that my colleague from Guelph discussed the perspective of victims in her speech. I think this bill is so important. It will make fundamental changes to how victims are treated during the very painful process they have to go through to obtain justice in situations that are sometimes troubling. My colleague mentioned this in a number of cases. There are a lot of very positive points in Bill C‑16. I believe she talked about respect, courtesy, compassion and fairness. She also talked about court delays. She says that Bill C‑16 will address the issue of court delays. I am not aware of any cases where a trial was halted, because of the Jordan decision, for example, and where the delay in justice, the stay of proceedings, served the interests of victims. The perpetrators are always the ones who come out ahead. What does the government intend to do to fix this problem quickly?”

“This bill has good parts, but it still needs more work. The government is rushing it and cutting our debate short. I want the government to give opposition parties more time to share their ideas on such an important bill.”

“Mr. Speaker, there are many positive aspects to Bill C‑16, as was mentioned earlier. There are, however, certain shortcomings and some issues that deserved to be explored in greater depth. For example, a number of amendments were proposed. Earlier, we heard the Conservatives place great emphasis on an issue close to their hearts: mandatory minimum sentences. The Bloc Québécois also had proposals to make. I am a bit concerned about the government’s approach these days. They are rushing things and cutting debates short. They are requesting time allocation, which are closure motions, strictly speaking. I wonder if the secretary of state could share his thoughts on this. Are there not important issues—such as this bill, which is extremely important to society as a whole—that warrant taking the time to show a little respect for the views of the opposition parties?”

“I apologize to the secretary of state for calling her by the wrong title.”

“Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to apologize to the secretary of state, who I referred to as a parliamentary secretary. I apologize and I thank her for the answer.”

“I need to clarify which day next week is an allotted day. The English and French translations said different days.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier, the parliamentary secretary said that Monday would be an allotted day. In the French interpretation provided by the interpreters, however, Tuesday was mentioned instead. My question is for clarification. Could the parliamentary secretary please tell us again what the allotted day will be next week? Will it be Monday or Tuesday?”

“This bill helps victims and deals with deepfakes. It is not perfect, and the committee should have listened to our ideas to make it tougher. But is this bill still better than nothing, so we can pass it now and fix the rest later?”

“Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated the speech by my colleague from Kildonan—St. Paul. Her passion for this issue was evident in her remarks. I know she has worked tirelessly and with great dedication on these issues over the years. I see in Bill C‑16 many improvements in terms of compassion and fairness for victims. There are also many improvements regarding the recognition of deepfakes. I therefore see very positive developments. My colleague is right to say that the collaboration that took place in committee left something to be desired. The committee rejected amendments and refused to discuss amendments from the opposition parties that were entirely constructive. Even if we can agree that we could be stricter on certain points—that we could place greater emphasis on minimum sentences, for example—does my colleague not think that there is still some improvement in Bill C‑16, that it is better than nothing, and that we can work on the rest later? Would that not be something worth considering?”

“The United States is our biggest trade partner, but the government is doing nothing to protect our economy from Donald Trump's trade policies. I want to know if people in Saskatchewan are worried about this too.”

“Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech. I know that her province of Saskatchewan obviously has very significant trade ties with our neighbour to the south, the United States. I also know that Saskatchewan was quite pleased to see that an agreement had been reached with China on canola. The fact remains that, historically speaking, our number one economic partner has been the United States. Right now, this government is doing nothing to solve the problem, or should I say problems, that we are experiencing because of President Trump’s extremely hostile economic policies. I would like my colleague to comment on that. This government behaves as though it were the saviour of the Canadian economy in the face of Donald Trump, but there is nothing in its track record over the past year to suggest that we are on the right track. I would like to know whether this is as much of a concern in Saskatchewan as it is for us.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →