- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Trois-Rivières
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 63%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $100,349.98
- Government Page
- Nov/6/23 2:58:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is even worse in Trois-Rivières. There are 288 SMEs there that have said they will go bankrupt if the federal government does not defer payment of the CEBA loans for a year without them losing any subsidies. That would mean 288 bankrupt businesses. Imagine the number of job losses that would represent.
The minister must not allow this to happen through her failure to act. Does she know how many bankruptcies are likely to occur in her region? How can she possibly explain to these business owners that she is going to abandon them instead of offering them the one-year deferral they are asking for?
114 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I will do my best to be enlightening during the time allotted to me.
As we know, thinking is not a crime that leads to death, unlike COVID-19. All of the bills introduced here, even the most ridiculous, can be debated. When I think of the word ridiculous, I cannot help but think of this bill from the member for Niagara West.
Over the course of my career as an ethicist, I heard half-truths, short answers, evasive statements, ridiculous statements and frankly idiotic statements. In fact, I think that is exactly what we find ourselves facing today: idiocy.
What is idiocy? It can be recognized by its love of inaccurate statements. Idiocy is the opposite of reason. When we debate a subject here, we have to be able to give meaning and direction to what we say. When what is being said makes no sense, it is akin to going the wrong way and getting lost. Without meaning, we go astray, get out of line, which leads to mistakes. That is where we are at today, because this bill is fundamentally a mistake. I will try to demonstrate that.
Generally speaking, the public must be given information. It is interesting that this word basically comes from two separate words. It means to put words “in formation” in order to understand and learn, because learning enables us to make a decision.
The opposite of reason is what we have often heard from the member for Niagara West in his speeches, which are ridiculous on more than one level. We often hear about freedom, but it is important to understand that one person's freedom ends where another's begins, as we have always said. It is also important to understand that there are others to consider.
These days, it is annoying how, since we got cellphones, like iPhones for example, if we want to know where we are, we just have to open Google Maps and there is a little blue dot showing us where we are. We are the centre of the universe, and everything else revolves around us. That is how I feel when I read this bill. It seems as though the person who drafted it feels like they are the centre of the universe and that everything revolves around them. It is not very inspiring.
Bill C‑278 prohibits quite a few things, but what I mainly see is that the sponsor of the bill is asking us to believe the same thing he believes. He wants us to share his obsession with vaccines and adopt his views, which he is attempting to pass off as the truth. I have a problem, which is that Bill C‑278 would put beliefs ahead of the public interest.
Of course, the Conservative Party will support this bill. That is obvious. When a person does not believe in climate change, they are likely to believe in anything. It is deplorable. However, the Bloc Québécois will not support the bill because it contains theoretical views that are at odds with science and common sense, the thing the Conservative Party likes to crow about and say it is championing.
This bill is meaningless. It is nonsense. It is a mistake.
550 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 12:38:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg North for his passionate speech.
If the Bloc feels that the awarding process is flawed, it may be because things are not clear or because that is a habit with the Liberals. In this case, we should not confuse slander, which is an untrue accusation, and the truth.
My question for the member for Winnipeg North is this: How can he defend the indefensible?
72 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 12:07:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very insightful comments.
What does he think of the secrecy surrounding the ArriveCAN app and the fact that we have to search for and find answers and that this all seems to have been done in secret?
45 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 11:11:42 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his hard work.
There have been numerous scandals over the years. Contrary to what the member for Kingston and the Islands said, I was not born at the time of World War II, but I remember it. I was not born at the time of the Peloponnesian War either, but I remember it too.
The only way to restore confidence is to expose what happened and enable people to understand, to fully comprehend what is at stake.
84 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 11:09:45 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member from Hamilton-Centre for his question. I work with him on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, and his perspective is always refreshing.
First, Canada has the worst whistle-blower protection regime. Under the current regime, there is no way of knowing whether one person made 40 complaints or whether 40 people made one complaint. It is really anonymous and confidential. Second, the more specific the complaint, the easier it is to determine who the whistle-blower in question is. That is what we want to focus on right now. Under the current regime, the whistle-blower is done for in every case.
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 11:08:39 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Kingston and the Islands for his question.
In Quebec, people trust the Bloc Québécois.
25 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 11:07:36 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very relevant question. Quebeckers' trust in the Liberal government is waning.
Given my past experience, I noticed that the culture of secrecy and cover-ups seems to be part of the Liberal Party's DNA, and that is a problem. Whether we are talking about the sponsorship scandal or things that happened before that, all of these cover-ups and this secrecy are not conducive to building trust, and yet trust is exactly what is needed today.
85 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 10:58:36 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was saying that the worst obligation for a prince is always having to cover things up.
Unlike the Conservatives, who were not pleased to speak to our motion last week, I am pleased to speak to the Conservative motion this morning. I am pleased to talk about it.
A lot of attention has been given to inflation. However, I will look at this from another angle, specifically, from an ethical perspective. Ethics is about doing the right thing. Currently I am concerned. I am concerned because the articles we read in the media leave us with a lot of questions. They leave us hanging. They pique our interest and then fail to report on what really happened with ArriveCAN. I am concerned and this is why.
For several years now, the government has made a habit of outsourcing its services. Many services have been outsourced to the private sector. Here we are talking about GC Strategies. Again and again, private firms are benefiting from the government's decision to let go of the expertise it should have internally. By outsourcing its services, the government is draining departments of their expertise, thereby becoming vulnerable to the whims of its outsourcers. I recently read a book about the McKinsey firm entitled When McKinsey Comes to Town. Companies like McKinsey advise governments and, on some level, influence public policy despite the fact that they are not elected. I am therefore concerned. I am concerned that the government is outsourcing this procedure and the related expertise.
GC Strategies knows all this. The company is a two-person intermediary that finds resources elsewhere. Without this intermediary, however, the government of Canada could not act. I am a little concerned about that as well. I wonder what that company had that the departments in question did not. Outsourcing worries me. I am concerned that companies are influencing public policy and making choices that governments should be making.
On several occasions, the government has shown a culture of secrecy and cover-ups. Secrecy means preventing others from seeing and knowing, and to cover up is to make believe. The government's culture is often to make us believe something other than the truth. We are kept in the dark. Essentially, there are some files, of which ArriveCAN is a prime example, that show us how secretive the government's intentions are. It does not want us to understand. I am concerned about this culture of cover-ups.
As they say, people who know they are serious tend to be clear, while those who want to look serious tend to be secretive. I think this applies here.
Basically, when I look at ArriveCAN from an ethics standpoint, what strikes me is the fact that they talk about trust. Trust is the foundation of life in society. Without trust, we are constantly asking questions, which, incidentally, is what we are doing now. Trust means not having to provide proof. When there is no trust, we need a facsimile or substitute: transparency.
When trust is not possible, we must content ourselves with transparency. However, trust is more important. Transparency enables us to see behind a policy, but trust enables us to live together. Montaigne talked about loving without hate and hating without love. That is what trust is, the ability to work hand in hand without always having to provide proof.
The thing I dislike about ArriveCAN is the constant need for proof, the constant need for one party or another to introduce a motion or go to committee to demand an explanation about what was done because we do not understand. It is never particularly clear.
When trust is not possible, we must content ourselves with transparency. When the government engages in dissimulation, it prevents us from seeing its intent. It is on the verge of lying. I am not saying that it is lying. What is lying? It is making someone do something they would not have done had they known the truth.
I travelled to Rwanda this summer, and I had a hard time entering my information in ArriveCAN. When I returned to Canada, no one even asked to see it. That is how useful it is. I was a little taken aback.
Once again, lying is what hinders communication between two entities. The government is not quite lying, but almost. That is when we need to act ethically. When we are lost in a fog of uncertainty, a grey area, we need to act ethically, which means that, in a discussion such as this one, I am going to focus a little less on myself and a little more on others. I will think about others. In a situation like this, I know that I am going to have to be open-minded to understand what is at issue.
Above all, acting ethically means doing the right thing even when no one is watching. I have a story about this from classical philosophy. There was once an emir who had a ring adorned with a small diamond. By twisting the ring on his finger, he could become invisible. Well, he lost the ring, of course. It was found by one of his slaves, who put it on, twisted it around and went off to the harem. The rest can be imagined, but in all the excitement, the ring twisted back around and he became visible again. Let us say he had a rough day after that.
This is what I mean: Acting ethically means doing the right thing even when no one is watching. We, the opposition members, including the Conservatives who moved this motion, are watching. All we see is secrecy. We are not okay with that.
I would like someone to explain why the government used such a strategy, specifically an outside business that subcontracted its services. I do not know much about IT services, but I do not see how something would start at $80,000 or $250,000 and end up costing $54 million, even though I understand that there are many things included in the cost breakdown. It seems to me that an organization as large as the Government of Canada should be able to do such work itself without resorting to this type of middleman.
I am curious and I would really like some help understanding this situation, shedding some light on it and getting rid of the secrecy. That is what I want, but I am not sure we will be able to do it.
I will quickly conclude by saying that, beyond the fact that the ArriveCAN app appears unnecessary, as I did not use it when returning to Canada, I find it outrageous that money is being spent frivolously and that we often accept it and just let it go.
Paul Valéry, an author that I really like, said that it is not the wicked who do the most harm in this world. It is the maladroit, the negligent and the credulous. The wicked would be powerless without a certain quota of the good.
It is time for the good people to stand up and say that enough is enough. I would like to get to the bottom of this.
1210 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 10:58:02 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to wash the member for Kingston and the Islands' mouth out with soap since I have had enough of his constant lack of respect.
I will begin by saluting my constituents in Trois-Rivières.
I will be sharing my time with the member for Terrebonne if she gets here in the next 10 minutes.
The worst obligation for a prince, may be—
73 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 1:24:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Kanata—Carleton for her point of view. I congratulate her on proposing a cross-partisan idea. I would like to hear it. I think we got to this point because of a lack of leadership. Nevertheless, I have the following question for the member: Does my colleague think that the Prime Minister should allow a free vote on this motion, as a way of showing leadership?
74 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 12:22:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Steveston—Richmond East. I have the pleasure of working with him on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.
I really liked his definition of patriotism, and I think it is something we need to consider here. However, he was quick to paint patriots as the good guys, the ones who wanted to adopt the Emergencies Act, and said that the others were not patriots.
I want to know two things. First, does he therefore think that Bloc members are not patriots? Second, does he think that the Emergencies Act was the only solution, despite the problems and illegal activities that were going on?
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 3:20:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I was saying that I agree with my colleague, the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. The end goal is to restore order. We share that goal and agree entirely. We fully agree that the harassment, the tragedies, the disruption of people's lives and the economic losses are unacceptable.
Now, if we want to restore order, is this the best way, or is it the only avenue left after so much inaction?
76 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 3:19:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I can only agree, for the most part, with the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.
People have the right to protest, but not to occupy. Harassment, economic loss and tragedy are unacceptable. As we agree on the end goal, I have a question for him.
Is this the best way we could find—
57 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 2:52:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with what my colleague from Calgary Rocky Ridge said. I understand why he rejects this law.
If this act was not the answer, what was? Was it leadership? Was it vision? Was it a law?
40 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 12:23:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I could not agree more. We have to be very careful.
This kind of legislation can serve the public good, but it has to be more specific. This one does not meet the fundamental criteria.
37 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 12:22:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I cannot believe what I am hearing.
We are not abandoning anyone. Contrary to what the member is insinuating, we are not the ones talking about “anglophones”, “francophones”, “racialized” and “non-racialized” people. We are talking about everyone. We have to deal with this situation for everyone, as complete equals.
The member's comment is malicious. I do not agree.
70 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 12:21:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member.
The fact that we are unaware of certain parts or sections of the act is indeed worrisome.
If we are to support it on Monday, as planned, I demand that we be allowed to read the whole text.
45 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 12:19:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.
Police discretion is important. The police must be able to act within the bounds that they find acceptable.
The current powers delegated to the municipalities and the provinces would have been able to cover most of the situations that have occurred. The problem is that they did not act soon enough.
I do not think that the issue is a lack of authority. I do not think that there has been a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms at all.
93 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 12:13:59 p.m.
- Watch
Absolutely, Madam Speaker. I fully agree.
The context that I am bringing here allows me to draw a line, which for the moment is drawn as a solid line but where we can see the dots that are connected. I will shorten my remarks on the line in question.
A little later, the Prime Minister was still making headlines about ethics and the SNC-Lavalin affair. When we read the report, we learned that the commissioner had tried to meet with him a hundred times, but that did not happen. In my opinion, this is avoidance. There too, he was not responsible for anything.
That has continued; this line is continuous and that is what we need to see. In 2020, as we know, the federal cabinet chose WE Charity to administer the Canada student service grant. There were ties between that organization and the Prime Minister's family, namely his children, his wife, his brother, and so on. The Prime Minister did not shoulder the blame in that situation, but we know what happened next. I mention all of this to say that the Prime Minister has a troubled relationship with ethics, with the concepts of what is right and just, which brings us to the Emergencies Act.
In my opinion, in these situations that I briefly described, the Prime Minister demonstrated a complete lack of judgment, and that is not what we expect from a leader. Even recently, on the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, the Prime Minister chose to go surfing rather than to pay tribute to a people he personally chose to honour. Is that an ethical failure? Certainly not, but it shows a lack of judgment. Once again that is not what we expect from a leader. The most recent example of a lack of judgment is the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
I am listing these failures in order to draw attention to the Liberal mindset. In my opinion, repeated errors in judgment and contempt are part of their DNA. When we have contempt for an object or person, we believe they are unworthy of respect or esteem. I will give three examples of contempt relating to the office of Prime Minister, the institution of Parliament and the people.
At the beginning of his mandate, the Prime Minister showed contempt for his office with the costumes he wore. He should understand that he is not acting in a play.
As for contempt for the institution of Parliament, the ethics breaches that I mentioned and the audacity of calling an unnecessary vanity election come to mind.
As for contempt for the public, after actively doing nothing, the Prime Minister uselessly invoked the Emergencies Act, which is not something that the provinces wanted or found to be useful under the circumstances—as my colleagues have clearly shown—because most of the powers used so far by police officers already existed at the provincial and municipal levels.
It is a strong-handed measure that is actually an admission of weakness. In fact, it is a textbook case of hubris—my friends know my background in philosophy. Hubris is when somebody becomes too vain, cocky or intoxicated with power, and eventually loses control and risks making poor and potentially fatal decisions.
The Prime Minister has made an art out of adding insult to injury through his lack of substance, numerous ethics breaches, poor judgment, contempt, arrogance and hubris.
The Prime Minister called an unnecessary snap election and invoked the Emergencies Act for no good reason, which did not help in Coutts, in Windsor, or even in Ottawa. That, to me, is unacceptable. How did we end up here? If we have been paying any attention at all, and add up the lack of judgment and leadership, it is hardly surprising that we are here today discussing this legislation.
When I look at everything that the Prime Minister has done, it seems to me that over time he has started to confuse public interest with political games, public interest with personal interest.
The Emergencies Act is the wrong response, a response lacking in leadership to a situation that required maximum leadership. The Emergencies Act, as I said, is a strong move, but it is an admission of weakness. Rather than bringing out the nuclear weapons, I think that he should have acted sooner. I wonder whether the Prime Minister should put the legislation in question to a free vote in order to see what all members of the House really think.
Before he racks up one too many lapses in judgment, I encourage the Prime Minister to ask himself whether he still feels like governing.
781 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
