Martin Champoux

“This budget bill is 300 pages long, and the government is cutting debate short. It gives more subsidies to oil and gas, and it calls hydrogen made from methane clean energy, which Hydro-Québec says is wrong. The government should listen to experts and opposition members on these big issues.”

“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-31 is 300 pages long. Consultation with the opposition parties has been minimal. There was no actual technical briefing, apart from the one held three weeks after the bill was introduced. It seems quite likely that even before MPs managed to get a briefing, reporters or others outside the House of Commons had received more information than members of Parliament. The bill addresses some very important issues. It expands subsidies to the oil and gas industry. It also allows the possible use of hydrogen production using methane as a clean energy, which contradicts what Hydro-Québec says. It seems to me that Hydro-Québec knows what it is talking about where clean energy is concerned. My colleague just told the Conservative member that we are debating Bill C-31 in the House. That is true, but the Liberals are limiting our debate time with this gag order. Does my colleague agree that such important issues as this warrant greater consideration for the opinions of experts and opposition members?”

In response to a question from Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

“I will vote against this motion. Big online companies hurt French culture and Canadian artists by not paying into our broadcasting system.”

“Madam Speaker, I gave a 20‑minute speech to express just how important Quebec’s francophone culture, and even francophone culture in Canada, is for protecting the French language and supporting our creators in Canada, whether they are anglophone or francophone. All content creators, broadcasters and artists are deeply troubled and affected by the arrival and dominance of digital giants that do not contribute to the broadcasting system. That is why we are going to defend our position and vote against this motion.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Frank Caputo

“People are struggling to afford food and housing, but we should not cut support for artists and creators. If we want to save money to help people, we should stop giving tax breaks and subsidies to rich oil companies and other big corporations.”

“Where should I start, Madam Speaker? The member brought up a lot of different issues. First, yes, we are in a difficult economic situation. Yes, Quebeckers and Canadians are finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet and, yes, the lines at food banks are growing. We are aware of those problems. However, that is still no reason for us to be telling our artists, creators, broadcasters, performing arts producers and content creators that they are not important and that we are going to let them be steamrolled because we do not want to add to the burden of the multinationals that are coming here to make a quick buck. If my colleague really wants government money to be better spent, then perhaps he should take a look at big oil, which is raking in tens of billions of dollars a year while benefiting from tax breaks and government subsidies. If we were to cut back a little on the billions of dollars that we are giving already-rich multinationals that have absolutely no need of our help, then perhaps we would have the means to provide a little more support to Quebeckers and Canadians who are currently struggling.”

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“I apologize to the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie for getting a fact wrong earlier. Quebec's only official language is French, so we need special rules to protect it. I agree that groups like the CRTC and CBC/Radio-Canada must stay independent, and the government should respect their decisions. The recent CRTC decision is a good start, but we need more action.”

“Madam Speaker, I take note of the question from my colleague from Winnipeg North, but first and foremost, I would like to acknowledge that my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk was absolutely right. The member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie had indeed returned to the Department of Canadian Heritage by then. I apologize to him. That was a public mea culpa. My colleague from Winnipeg North talked about the fact that Canada is a bilingual country and that some institutions are independent. I fully agree with him. However, Quebec is a nation whose only official and common language is French. That is why extraordinary measures are sometimes needed to protect this distinctiveness. I completely agree about the independence of the institutions established to regulate, as is the case with the CRTC and with CBC/Radio-Canada as the public broadcaster. That is what I hope this government will respect when it comes time to implement the decision that was just rendered by the CRTC. As I said in my speech, I believe that this decision is a step in the right direction, but it is just one step, and other measures will need to be added later on. As for the independence of institutions, I completely agree with my colleague.”

In response to a question from Gérard Deltell

“I want to honour the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie for his political work. It is hard to belong to a national party where you must often accept decisions you disagree with. I think he was tired of being disappointed by his government's environmental choices.”

“Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to pay tribute to the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie for his career and his political commitment. I think that is very honourable. If there is any member who respects that, it must be my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk. However, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie was not the Canadian heritage minister when the digital services tax was abolished. That was last year, under the current Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture. The member for Laurier—Sainte‑Marie was the environment minister at the time. That being said, my colleague is in a much better position than I am to know that a member of a major political party that has to represent interests across Canada, contrary to our mission as members of the Bloc Québécois, is forced to swallow a lot of bitter pills on a regular basis. Perhaps one day, my Conservative colleague will be tired of having to swallow the bitter pills that are the social convictions of his western colleagues. I get the feeling that our colleague from Laurier—Sainte‑Marie was fed up with having to put up with the disappointing experiences he endured on the environmental front.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 20 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 →
• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

“The government cancelled the digital services tax to please the Trump administration, and it failed. That tax would have brought in over a billion dollars a year to support our media and arts sectors. The government refuses to bring it back, and I worry it will keep giving in to the United States.”

“Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my insightful, eloquent, and personable colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean for his question. It certainly took everyone by surprise when the government decided to simply scrap the digital services tax last July. That tax, which would have brought in between $1.2 billion and $1.5 billion annually, could certainly have helped support the media and the cultural sector. They did this in the hope of securing concessions from the Trump administration, which turned out to be completely futile. What is more, the government stubbornly refuses to reinstate this tax in the form of a levy, which, once again, would generate funds that could literally save many sectors of the cultural industry that are currently struggling. It is stubbornness. It is a lack of goodwill. What worries me right now is that this decision by the CRTC might be overturned, or that the government might ask the CRTC to go back to the drawing board and reverse this decision for the same reasons, that is, to kowtow a little more to the Trump administration. I am deeply worried about the disengagement we have been seeing.”

“I oppose the Conservative motion. American streaming companies make millions here and must help pay for local TV and movies. This money protects French and Quebec culture. Quebec should also control its own broadcasting rules so our shows do not disappear.”

“Madam Speaker, I was surprised to hear the member for Winnipeg North essentially deliver two speeches. First, he gave a 20-minute speech, and then he basically gave another one in response to the questions he was asked. Before I get started on today’s completely ridiculous opposition motion—and let me be clear, by “opposition”, I mean the Conservative opposition—I want to point out that we in the Bloc Québécois would never have launched such an attack on one of the tools we have to defend Quebec culture and, yes, even Canadian culture. Before I begin to discuss the Conservatives’ ridiculous stubbornness in attacking anything that could possibly help our culture survive and even thrive in the new global digital environment, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the contribution of the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, not in his capacity as environment minister, as members did yesterday, but in his capacity as heritage minister. He and I both won our seats in the 2019 election and, like everyone else, I figured he would immediately be given the environment portfolio because of his long-time passion and activism. What a surprise it was when the then prime minister put him in charge of Canadian Heritage. I am sure a lot of people—himself included—thought that was not his dream job, but I do admire how seriously he took it. During his time at the department, he made it clear that culture truly mattered to him. In fact, he was the one who introduced the first version of the bill to modernize the Broadcasting Act, Bill C‑10 at the time, which died on the Order Paper when an election was called the following year after weeks and months of excruciating Conservative filibustering. Bill C‑10 became Bill C‑11 in the 44th Parliament, and again, against all odds and despite all the Conservatives’ stalling tactics, we ended up passing the bill in 2022. That means it is partly the political legacy of the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie that we are defending here, because the CRTC decision that this motion is challenging stems from that act, which he introduced in November 2020. However, I doubt that this is an argument for today’s cause. Still, I too would like to commend the contribution of this member, one of the few parliamentarians to stand up for their deeply held convictions and stay true to them, so much so that he chose to leave politics rather than swallow his frustration at his government’s decisions and its lack of commitment to the environment and climate change. I hope that this government and this Prime Minister will not cause the current Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture the same disappointment. Let us get back to the Conservatives’ motion, because we have to. We have no choice. Basically, what this motion is saying is that if people want to watch American shows, even if it means that Quebec and Canadian shows disappear, that is just fine. It is fine for American streaming giants to come here and make millions, if not billions, of dollars in Quebec and Canada without contributing to our broadcasting system. They think that is fine. Come to think of it, it would also be fine if there was no longer a Canadian and Quebec broadcasting system at all. Robert Charlebois, a great Quebec singer whom most of my Conservative colleagues have probably never heard of, used to sing that living in this country is like living in the United States. The Conservative motion talks about the contribution that they are calling the Netflix tax, a commitment by American giants to use part of their revenues to ensure that original Canadian and Quebec productions are made, both in English and in French. Given a choice between protecting Quebec and Canadian culture and artists and defending Netflix, Amazon Prime Video and Disney+, the choice is clear for the Conservatives, and that is most unfortunate. I cannot believe that some Quebec Conservatives, whom I hold in high regard, are endorsing such a motion. It is embarrassing. Our artists are barely able to fund their work and our producers are struggling and being forced to trim not only the fat, but also the muscle, while American multinationals are making billions of dollars at their expense. The CRTC’s decision did not fix everything, far from it, but it is more than just a step forward. It is a necessary step if we want to be able to stand up to the cultural tsunami that is being unleashed by the web giants. Forcing them to increase their contribution to original content is not a penalty or a tax. It is about catching up. It is a matter of fairness. Our traditional broadcasters have always had clear obligations: fund local content, promote the French language and support the next generation. Only digital platforms are exempt from that. Although this measure is necessary, it is not sufficient in and of itself. First, we need to ensure that the money collected is actually used to support the creation of Quebec content, particularly French-language content. Quebec must receive its fair share. Most importantly, Quebec needs to be able to decide for itself how the investments will be used, but I will come back to that later. Second, we must also guarantee that this contribution is not limited to funding. Quebec content, French-language content and Canadian content must be discoverable. As anyone who has seen The Glass House on Prime Video can attest, our TV shows are outstanding. They must be available and they must be given a chance to be successful. I would add that they must also be given a chance to be aired by the licensed broadcasters, which have been contributing to the system for decades.These broadcasters are once again being harmed. They must be able to afford to broadcast our TV shows, our original content, our stories. Lastly, it is important to beware of unintended consequences. We also do not want the platforms to pass on this increase to Quebec consumers in the form of price hikes. Once again, the public should not pay the price for the government’s past inaction or for making contributions to original Quebec and Canadian productions more fair. The Bloc Québécois will continue to fight to ensure that every dollar contributed by the streaming platforms is used to strengthen our cultural identity, protect our language and support and develop Quebec’s unique creativity. That is why, today, we are reaffirming our clear and consistent stance that Quebec should have its own communications regulator, a CRTC that is just for Quebec. The current CRTC makes decisions that profoundly affect Quebec culture, but it does so within a Canadian framework where Quebec is just one minority among many. Even with the best of intentions, this structure cannot fully reflect Quebec’s reality. It cannot give francophones the weight they deserve. It cannot prioritize our creators the way we would. It cannot fully grasp the complexity of our cultural ecosystem. The result is that, all too often, CRTC decisions dilute Quebec’s unique characteristics with a one-size-fits-all approach. A Quebec CRTC would be better at defending our culture. It would allow us to adopt rules tailored to our market. It would allow us to impose clear requirements for French-language content. It would allow us to provide greater support for our emerging artists. It would ensure that local content is truly discoverable. It is not enough simply to produce content; that content must also be seen, heard and discovered. These days, the major platforms have algorithms that overwhelmingly favour dominant content, much of it in English and too much of it foreign. Our content is in there somewhere, but it is often invisible and hard to find. If Quebec had its own CRTC, it could implement concrete measures, such as spotlighting Quebec content, adapting quotas, mandating promotion and requiring algorithmic transparency. The Conservatives do not like that word, but it would not be a burdensome requirement; it would be a lifeline. Let me go back to the CRTC decision. We do support that measure, but with clear conditions. First, the proceeds must truly benefit Quebec, not in theory or in some watered-down way, but concretely. The funds must not be folded into bigger federal programs that force Quebec culture to compete with vastly different contexts. Quebec must get its share, and it must be able to decide how to use the funds. Second, these contributions must be used to strengthen French-language content, not just to fund Canadian content as a whole. The language issue is crucial to Quebec. Without decisive intervention, the presence and influence of French will decline. Third, no matter what, the cost must not be passed on to consumers. We know full well how the web giants operate. When they are forced to meet new obligations, they either challenge them in court or try to pass on the cost to users. The Bloc Québécois is opposed to forcing Quebeckers to offset the web giants’ contribution costs. These companies are making a profit from the market. They have to contribute. If we want future generations to be able to keep living, creating and dreaming in French, we need to take concrete action, even if it seems draconian to some people. Increasing the streaming services’ contribution is only one step. The Conservatives want to stop our cultural content from flourishing in the new digital environment. The Liberals must not follow their example. It would be a real shame if the new Prime Minister and the new Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture did to culture what they have done to the environment, in other words, if they completely destroy the legacy of the member for Laurier—Sainte‑Marie.”

“The government is failing to get results with the United States, and manufacturers in my riding are suffering. Tariffs are hurting them, and the rules for temporary foreign workers cause serious problems. The Liberals are ignoring these issues, and it will cost Quebec jobs and businesses.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech. The government boasts that it is truly the best at negotiating with the United States, yet this is producing absolutely no results at the moment, except that we appear to be lying flat on the ground, waiting for the U.S. to walk all over us. The government seems to be focused on negotiating agreements with other countries, particularly in Europe and Asia. Meanwhile, businesses are suffering terribly. My riding of Drummond is home to an extremely vibrant manufacturing sector, but it is struggling desperately these days for a number of reasons. First, the tariffs have hit us hard. The impact has been devastating. There is also a very serious concern regarding the rules that have been put in place for the temporary foreign worker program. When we raise these issues with the government, there is no response, no action. The Liberals seem to have no interest in solving the real problems that will cost Quebec jobs and businesses, even though solutions are within reach. I would like to hear my colleague’s thoughts on the fact that this Liberal government is incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time and incapable of addressing real problems on the ground.”

“The government wrote this economic update without talking to the other parties. It does not do enough to help businesses in rural areas, especially manufacturing companies. I want to know why the government left them out.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my Conservative colleague for his speech, which I missed. I was going to ask him to give me a five-minute summary of his speech this morning, but I nevertheless agree with him on several points. The government recently secured a majority. It is only fair to question the manoeuvring that led to this outcome. The government prepared an economic update without consulting the opposition parties or considering any requests that might have come from the other parties, which are doing their work thoroughly. Now we have an economic update that does not include adequate support measures for businesses in the regions, particularly in the manufacturing sector. I would like to hear my colleague’s thoughts on how the government handled the economic update. Why is there nothing concrete in it to help businesses in the regions?”

“Members who just arrived need to follow the rules and listen quietly to the person speaking.”

“Mr. Speaker, for those who just arrived, I was saying that there are a few rules here, including showing respect for those who are talking. They may not be used to having such large numbers in the House. They will get used to it eventually—”

“Canadians have not given the Liberals a majority government since 2015 because they are unhappy with how this government has performed.”

“Mr. Speaker, I was interested by what my Conservative colleague just said about Stephen Harper’s majority, which was won through votes. The last time the Liberals won a majority through votes was in 2015, with Justin Trudeau’s promise of sunny ways, and we know where that got them. This was followed by minority governments because Canadians were dissatisfied with this Liberal government’s performance. We saw what happened again in the last election, in 2025. I guess what I am saying is not interesting to the members who are speaking right now.”

“Government members need to show up if they want to have a debate. Also, the government's math for committee seats does not add up. If seats matched the House fairly, Liberals would get six seats, not more. I want the member to explain their math.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Kings—Hants can thank me. Because of me, he had a slightly larger audience during his speech. Half of them left afterward, but that was down to him. He will have to manage that with is colleagues. The other comment we heard while you were counting members was that I was interrupting the debate. If there is no one to debate, there is no debate; it is called a monologue. Government members have to be present for a debate to happen. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said, “We are proposing to adjust committee membership proportionally to reflect the party standings in the House.” If we did that proportionally, the Liberals would be entitled to 6.2% or 6.3% representation in committee. As anyone who has done first-year high school math knows, that would be rounded to the nearest whole number. In this case, Liberal representation in committee would therefore amount to six members. How does my colleague explain the creative math that his leader and his government used to calculate party representation in committee?”

“The Liberals want to silence Parliament. I want to know if enough members are here to debate this.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have moved a motion that will muzzle Parliament. I wonder whether there are enough of us to have this discussion or whether we are doing all this for nothing.”

“The Liberals do not have the math to add an extra member to each committee. They are ignoring parliamentary rules and traditions just because they are frustrated with Conservative delays. I want the government whip to explain why the Liberals think they can break our traditions to take control of these committees.”

“Mr. Speaker, with regard to the whip’s somewhat ridiculous argument, I would say that the Liberals should have about 6.2 people on each committee, and usually when rounding, we round to the nearest whole number. That is six, not seven. We do not round up when the number we are rounding is 6.2. It does not work like that. He finally let the cat out of the bag earlier in his speech. We heard him express his frustration at how the Conservatives have been acting in recent years. I understand that they have been filibustering a lot and that that has not always been easy for the Liberals, but that is no reason to flout parliamentary decency. That is exactly what the Liberals are doing. They are flouting parliamentary decency and failing to respect the rules and traditions of Parliament. I would like my colleague opposite, the government whip, to explain why the Liberals suddenly feel as though they have the right to flout the rules and traditions of Parliament and use their majority to take control of committees, including the ones where the government has to be accountable to the people.”