SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

Member of Parliament

Martin Champoux

  • Member of Parliament
  • Member of Parliament
  • Bloc Québécois
  • Drummond
  • Quebec
  • Voting Attendance: 68%
  • Expenses Last Quarter: $108,134.67

  • Government Page
Context: House Hansard - 294 - Mar/22/24
Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)
  • Mar/22/24 1:32:12 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, we agree that there is something downright scandalous about this whole thing. First of all, this is a company that greedily gobbles up all it can without a shred of restraint and, clearly, without a shred of remorse at this stage. When invited to explain himself before a House of Commons committee, Mr. Firth displayed incredible arrogance. The amount of disdain was unbelievable. We know that committees have certain tools they can use to convince or even force uncooperative witnesses to testify, but there are a few who resist, such as the one we are talking about today, Mr. Firth. I would like to ask my colleague if he believes that committees have enough tools to inspire the authority required to stop this kind of uncooperative witness behaviour. We have seen similar behaviour at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, and we saw it this week at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, when a witness had no interest whatsoever in answering questions about the SNC-Lavalin affair. Do the committees have enough power? Should we not give them better tools so that we do not have to have a 2024 version of a pillory to make witnesses understand that they have to answer the committee's questions?
214 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 92 - Jun/20/22
Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)
  • Jun/20/22 7:21:16 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-11 
Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague from Perth—Wellington. It is usually a great pleasure for me to work with him on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. We do not always agree and sometimes have our differences, but that happens even in the best of families. I want to remind the House that when we started studying Bill C‑11 in committee, we agreed to do so as quickly as possible, at the request of the cultural industry and broadcasters. However, it was the Conservative Party, through my colleague from Perth—Wellington, who asked the other committee members to set aside 20 hours to hear from witnesses. We agreed on that. This was a suggestion from the Conservative Party and my colleague from Perth—Wellington. My question is the following. Why did my colleague later decide that 20 hours was not enough? We already had all of the requests to appear for the witnesses and organizations. What happened at that point to make my colleague change his mind and decide that the 20 hours he had requested were no longer enough?
187 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border