- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Trois-Rivières
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 63%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $100,349.98
- Government Page
- Jun/14/23 2:41:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, foreign interference continues while the government is still waffling, wondering what to do about the special rapporteur fiasco. It still cannot take the first step, which is to announce whether it intends to launch a public and independent commission of inquiry.
I am reminded of those profound words, full of wisdom, from Talleyrand, a French diplomat, who said something to the effect that there is only one way to say yes, and that is yes, and all the others mean no.
So is that a yes on an independent public inquiry?
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/23 2:43:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what does Mr. Johnston recommend in lieu of the independent public inquiry that everyone is calling for? Mr. Johnston recommends himself. That is what he is offering us. Mr. Johnston is substituting himself for an inquiry, despite the fact that the House is asking him to step aside. He wants to hold his own hearings that will in no way be independent. David Johnston is the man who dismissed the idea of a public inquiry on the basis of information that he refuses to disclose. David Johnston wants to control what might be discussed in public at his own hearings. It may be less expensive, it may take less time, but it will be less clear.
Is there anyone who would claim that this is not smoke and mirrors?
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/23 2:41:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, during this morning's committee meeting investigating Chinese interference, David Johnston explained why he believes a public inquiry had to be avoided. His reason? In his opinion, an inquiry would be expensive and time-consuming.
Does anyone know what else is expensive and time-consuming? That would be the three months of work in progress since February that we have spent calling for an independent public inquiry, which is supported by everyone except the Liberals and their special rapporteur. The Liberals' resistance to shedding light on this matter is the expensive waste of time. It is damaging public confidence. When can we expect an independent public inquiry?
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 2:46:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my democracy is suffering, and I hope that I will not get an answer that I have already heard.
I want to come back to what we learned the day before yesterday about the member for Durham. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service informed him that he was the target of a disinformation campaign by Chinese authorities during the 2021 election. That is important. We are talking about the leader of the opposition at the time, someone who could have legitimately expected to become prime minister, someone who was the leader of the party that got the most votes in 2021. We are not talking about just anyone.
The interference is not targeting the government. It is targeting our democracy as a whole. We are all concerned, and we are all calling for a public inquiry.
What will the government do?
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 2:45:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the opposition parties have been calling for a public inquiry into Chinese interference since February. The Prime Minister refused and instead appointed a special rapporteur, despite all opposition.
Three months later, we are at the same impasse. David Johnston finally tabled his report, in which he blamed the media, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the opposition, everyone except China or the government. That is why, yesterday, the House again called for a public inquiry because the will of the people has not been respected and because we are still stuck at the same impasse.
When will the government finally launch an independent public inquiry?
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 2:38:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' answer to getting to the bottom of foreign interference is to ask the leaders of the opposition parties to read confidential information that they will never be able to discuss publicly. We already had a Prime Minister who refused to keep the public informed. Now, on top of that, we have opposition party leaders who would not be allowed to do so.
We need more transparency, not less. We need more transparency and less secrecy. What we need is an independent public commission of inquiry that guarantees greater transparency than a rapporteur who is neither public nor independent.
Seriously, what are they waiting for?
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 2:37:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, since we found out that there was Chinese interference in the election process, the government has been acting as though it is in charge of elections. It is acting as though Parliament does not have a say and democracy falls under the exclusive authority of the Prime Minister.
It is pretty crazy that the majority of parliamentarians elected by the majority of the population have less clout than an unelected rapporteur, a friend of the Prime Minister who was appointed by the Prime Minister and reports to the Prime Minister.
Will the Prime Minister finally launch an independent public commission of inquiry, as the majority of elected members of the House are asking him to do?
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 12:52:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the idea of “what will happen” is what is missing from their motion. It is very important because, right now, the NDP has real power. It has the option of withdrawing its support for its deal with the government. If it withdrew its support, the government would be forced to act a bit differently.
I wish the NDP would tell us today that it is tabling this motion and that, if it does not work, it will withdraw its support for the government.
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 12:50:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I really appreciate his concern and wisdom.
I would say that, right now, there is one person, that is, Mr. Johnston, who is saying that he has seen something, but that he cannot talk about it. I am not sure that having three other people also tell us that they have seen something but cannot talk about it will restore public confidence.
My intervention is based on the need to restore trust. I do not think that Mr. Johnston's suggested method is the only one; there could have been others. Also, I do not think this is the best way, and I would like to hear about others. As we know, in essence, I am asking for Mr. Johnston's recusal, as is my colleague. I am not about to start following his recommendations, either.
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 12:49:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we cannot rewrite the past. If the previous Harper government did nothing, quite frankly, that changes nothing with regard to today's foreign interference. That is where we are now.
Should the former government have taken measures? Maybe, maybe not. Right now, the member across the way is asking me whether it is a problem that the previous government did nothing. The result we are faced with today is that this is where we stand now and we must act.
It is important to take action. In fact, it is necessary, because failing to take action only encourages foreign interference. I am not saying that nothing was done, but it is time to do more.
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 12:40:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise to speak. I want to say hello to my constituents in Trois-Rivières, who talk to me about Chinese interference every weekend. They talked to me about it again recently and asked me what is going to happen with the special rapporteur. We do not really know.
Stromae sang, “I'm not alone in feeling all alone”. Mr. Johnston is also all alone.
We are here today to discuss the NDP's motion, which we support, even though it does require some clarification. Of course, the House called on the government to launch a public inquiry back in March. Now, the NDP is calling for the special rapporteur to recuse himself. I should really call him the “special raconteur” because he is telling us such a fascinating story. The NDP is also asking that the public inquiry be led by an individual selected with unanimous support from all recognized parties in the House. I am going to voice a concern about that, because unanimous support is a lot to ask. I think it would be better to aim for the support of two-thirds of the House or something like that. Nevertheless, we understand that Mr. Johnston is the only one who thinks he is right. The Canadian, Quebec and U.S. media are all saying that the situation is untenable, but he is digging in his heels.
I did not like the tone of the previous debates. Even in the weeks leading up to the analysis of today's motion, we were told that Mr. Johnston is an illustrious individual with unrivalled experience and a vision that has prepared him for this sort of job.
All of those things may be true. However, the problem that we have with Mr. Johnston is not his past. It is his present. Right now, he is in an untenable position. He is in a conflict of interest, or, at the very least, there is the appearance of a conflict of interest.
In both cases, why do we talk about conflict of interest when it comes to ethics? It is because conflicts of interest can undermine trust, and trust is the cornerstone of democracy. To elect someone is to place one's trust in someone else. In a case like this one, trust was placed in the government, which decided to subcontract a decision to a person who is far from independent. All of this can affect trust and arouse mistrust. We should not be surprised if it eventually leads to distrust.
People are tired of seeing this sort of thing. Those who watch question period know that there is a reason it is not called “answer period”. Whenever we ask a question about Mr. Johnston's independence, the reply we get is that he is a model citizen. If my children had answered me that way when they were young, I would have scolded them for it, because that is not a real answer.
Foreign interference is nothing new. It has gotten worse over the years. Chinese interference flourished around the world in 2019, but the free trade agreements facilitated economic dependence and exchanges on various research and industrial matters. Interference became more and more common starting in the 1980s. Today, we cannot deny the fact that foreign interference exists.
The government's solution was to appoint someone and make up a title for him. In Quebec, the French word “rapporteur” is not a good quality. It is more of a defect. A “rapporteur” is someone who reports on what other people said, and not always in the right way. Nevertheless, they decided to appoint someone. The Prime Minister, who is the only one who can call a public inquiry, because that is his privilege, his power and his responsibility, said no. He decided that he did not want to be caught out and that he would delegate the responsibility to someone else and respect their decision.
I am sorry, but Mr. Johnston does not have the right to decide whether or not a public inquiry should be held. That privilege belongs to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister can consult his party, and he could have consulted Mr. Johnston. He can consult all he wants, but it is not up to a third party to decide whether an inquiry should be called. That is called responsibility.
Honestly, responsibility is something people do not pay enough attention to today. Let me explain the concept. “Responsibility” comes from two Latin words: res and spondere.
Res means “thing”, and spondere, which gave us the English word “sponsor”, means “to promise”.
This means that someone who is responsible is someone who can make a promise. Logically, one would think that the Prime Minister can make a promise. However, there are three criteria for responsibility. Does the person have authority to act? In this case, the answer is yes. Does the person have sufficient authority to act? The answer is yes. The most important question is, does the person have a desire to act? In this case, I saw no desire to act. The Liberals saw the NDP's motion in March, but they disregarded it. They do not have much more regard for today's opposition motion.
Let us get back to Mr. Johnston, all alone in his corner. His reputation, his experience and the fact that he was appointed by Mr. Harper are the arguments coming from across the aisle. They have been repeated ad nauseam, which is a phrase meaning a very long time. That is not the problem. The problem is that there is no trust.
I was told I should have trust in Mr. Johnston because he is extraordinarily credible. I will repeat it in the House: Trust is “credibility plus legitimacy”. In this case, we do not have what comes after the “plus”. Mr. Johnston's legitimacy is contested by everyone except Mr. Johnston. My grandfather used to say that when someone feels like they are the only one who is right, there is probably something wrong. He has no legitimacy.
It has been said that Mr. Johnston participated to a certain degree in the Trudeau Foundation. It has been said that he sent his children to study in China. We do not know how he paid for that, though, because sending children to study in China is expensive. It has also been said that Mr. Johnston sponsored a Confucius Institute. I am not condemning Mr. Johnston for all this. I am simply saying that it affects his credibility, so much so that he has none left.
If there is no trust in the process, then as an ethicist, I would say that the process is useless. The government is delaying a decision because we got a striptease of revelations over time. Every time we almost get somewhere, there is not enough trust.
People are asking us why we do not look at the documents. In my opinion, it is a trap. The Liberals want to force us to remain silent. We will not paint ourselves into a corner. Moreover, we do not think we should listen to someone we do not believe is legitimate, period.
I now have a question concerning the NDP's motion. As my colleagues know, we will support the motion, but I still have a question for the NDP. If everything in this motion happens, after the adoption of a motion in March, what will happen? The hon. member for Burnaby South will see the documents. The hon. member for Burnaby South will be outraged. What will happen then? Will he get mad? Will he withdraw his support?
What is interesting is that withdrawing their support for the deal between the parties does not mean the government will fall, but there will be more tension in the negotiations, and I think that this dimension ought to be added to the motion.
1355 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/24/23 2:40:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals think that the pursuit of truth is a conspiracy.
Obviously, this foundation, which was established in honour of the Prime Minister's father, is very influential. Given the meetings at the Prime Minister's office, the fundraising follow-up calls from the Prime Minister's employees and the ties with the Prime Minister's family and close friends, we get the distinct impression that China bet on the right horse when trying to get into the government's good graces. If one wants to get closer to the Prime Minister, one has to make a donation to his father's foundation.
We will no longer believe anything the Liberals say about this file. There is too much secrecy and never any truth. What are they waiting for? When will they set up an independent public commission of inquiry?
142 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/23 2:43:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, knowing that China interfered significantly in the last two elections, the Prime Minister has threatened to trigger another election with a confidence vote.
Before the details of China's interference tactics could even be investigated, before the electoral system could even be strengthened to counteract these illegal practices, the Prime Minister threatened to trigger another election, even if it means that Beijing can resort to the same strategy a third time in a row, scoring a hat trick.
When will we finally get an independent public commission of inquiry?
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/23 2:41:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the debate over Chinese interference in our democracy demonstrates the Prime Minister's systematic and long-standing lack of ethics.
He floated the threat of a confidence vote to keep his chief of staff, Katie Telford, from having to appear. In other words, he actually threatened to force an election, all to avoid telling the truth about information he has had for a very long time about Chinese interference.
What is it that the Prime Minister wants to keep Ms. Telford from admitting to, so much so that he would consider bringing down his own government?
101 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 2:45:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if they want to know what independence looks like, they should be asking us.
It would be easy to criticize Mr. Johnston's appointment as special rapporteur, but that would be letting the government off easy over its most significant ethical failure. CSIS is saying this is the greatest threat to national security, yet the government is choosing to cover it up. Seemingly unaware that foreign interference is spreading, it is choosing to buy time.
To put it bluntly, there are only two possible conclusions to the special rapporteur's review. The first is to sweep the whole business under the rug, and the second is to propose an independent public inquiry, which is what everyone is asking for.
Why not cut to the chase, be ethical for once and launch the inevitable inquiry?
138 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/20/23 2:44:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, China's interference is the greatest threat to democracy and national security. That was the blunt statement made by CSIS, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, last Friday.
The government's response should, at the very least, be on par with CSIS' fears, yet appointing a special rapporteur without a mandate or timeline does not rise to that level. At best, this is a case of wasting time until the special rapporteur comes to the only appropriate answer. At the end of the day, there is only one answer, one transparent and non-partisan solution, for combatting foreign interference.
Will the government finally launch a transparent and independent public inquiry?
112 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/7/23 2:49:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am getting even more goosebumps.
Foreign interference in our elections requires a transparent, independent and public inquiry. We know it will not be transparent because it will be led by a committee that is legally bound to secrecy. It simply is not entitled to be transparent.
We also know that the inquiry will not be independent either, because the Prime Minister will personally select his rapporteur. Given that we know that the inquiry will not be transparent or independent, it will obviously not be public.
What is the Prime Minister trying to hide from the public?
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/7/23 2:48:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that gave me goosebumps.
We need an inquiry into foreign interference in our elections that is both transparent and independent.
Instead, the Prime Minister is appointing a special rapporteur who is supposedly independent, even though this person will be appointed by him. Then, this special rapporteur, appointed by the Prime Minister, will decide what the inquiry will and will not cover. This special rapporteur, appointed by the Prime Minister, will be the one to decide whether the Prime Minister should do more to counter foreign interference.
This rapporteur may well be special, but are we really supposed to believe they will be independent?
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/7/23 2:47:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, foreign interference in our elections demands a transparent investigation. Let me say a little bit about what the Prime Minister's definition of transparency is.
Transparency for him means turning the investigation over to a national security committee, a committee whose members will not only be bound to secrecy, but to secrecy in perpetuity, a committee that will hold its meetings behind closed doors and whose proceedings neither the public nor parliamentarians will be allowed to follow, a committee that will not be able to say which witnesses it will meet or report their exact words, a committee whose report will inevitably be redacted.
Where is the transparency in that?
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/6/23 2:42:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, let us be serious. The Prime Minister must realize that he is sending the wrong message by refusing to create a commission of inquiry. What does he have to hide? What is he trying to protect? Who is involved and how?
Those kinds of questions are not the right message to send. The message should be that we will never let anyone interfere in our electoral system, and we will do everything in our power to prevent any foreign interference. To do that, we need an independent commission of public inquiry.
Will they set up an independent commission of public inquiry?
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
