- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Trois-Rivières
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 63%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $100,349.98
- Government Page
- Mar/22/23 6:40:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think that foreign interference has become more common in recent years because of technological advancements, but the tried-and-true persuasion techniques have always worked.
Earlier I mentioned Iran, China, obviously, Russia and other countries. The United Arab Emirates are now surveilling more countries than anyone else. They have the technology, and they are open about it. They are among the most prolific spies in the world in terms of the number of countries under surveillance. No one is worried about them.
Whether they are spying on Canada, I have no idea. One thing is certain, though: Surveillance is becoming increasingly common, increasingly harmful, and increasingly intrusive.
To be honest, I would look much further afield than just China.
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 6:38:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. It is an exceedingly difficult topic.
Protecting whistle-blowers is something many people are concerned about, but they are not doing anything about it. We need to get to the heart of the matter.
It is important to understand that, at CSIS, for example, a whistle-blower is a person who has reached the limit of what they can tolerate. CSIS members serve the government, and as someone who knows a few of them, I can say that they care very deeply about their country. When they reach that limit, the situation becomes intolerable. When they speak out, they are doing their duty. They are not criminals; they are heroes. We should come up with a system.
It is hard to understand, but we really need to consider creating a proper system for protecting whistle-blowers. If not, what is going to happen? There will be more situations like this one.
Today, more allegations have been made by Global News. I have only one word to describe them: devastating. To add insult to injury, at a certain point, I think an independent public inquiry becomes unavoidable. We need to think about what will happen in the wake of this, such as a system for protecting whistle-blowers.
219 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 6:37:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in 2015, I heard someone say that light was the best disinfectant. It seems clear to me. We could apply that concept today.
When I was young, there was a dictionary we used at school that was called Je doute, je cherche, je trouve, which literally translates to “I doubt, I seek, I find”. Right now I doubt. The government does not want to seek, so we may not find.
What I would like right now is an independent public inquiry.
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 6:35:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thought he was a friend.
To some extent, subjectivity is how one views an object. At the same time, we know that there are 360 degrees, and I believe that views can vary somewhat.
I am not convinced that subjectivity could be combined, nevertheless we must take inspiration from the fact that there are a number of viewpoints and we cannot neglect any of them. That is why we must be impeccable.
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 6:34:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, who sits with me on the the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, as he mentioned. I have to say that he always considers the public interest, which is remarkable. I will therefore consider his question carefully.
The question was whether credibility or legitimacy is at stake here. In terms of credibility, Mr. Johnston's reputation is impeccable. However, the relationship between Mr. Johnston and the other interests is not. It is somewhat obscure or murky.
In a matter as important as foreign interference, where information is being revealed in dribs and drabs every day, there is nothing better than to be lily white. One has to be beyond reproach, and that has nothing to do with credibility. It is something else. Therefore, I hope that we will have an independent and impeccable inquiry.
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 6:32:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, of course not. If he calls for an independent inquiry, then we will agree. However, I will say one thing. I will answer his question directly.
Imagine if, hypothetically speaking, the government appointed someone who has had an impeccable career in the field of, say, ethics, someone who has received accolades around the world, who received an honorary degree and is known for his publications. Imagine if it said that this person was independent, but that he had campaigned for the Bloc Québécois.
Setting aside my academic and professional record, would anyone have a problem with me being named rapporteur?
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 6:26:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague is having trouble hearing, and I am having trouble thinking straight.
I was saying that we have a rapporteur. We are told he is independent. There must be no conflict of interest or confusion of interests. There must be an absence of appearance as well. I was saying that the mere presence of Mr. Johnston creates doubt. Doubt breeds mistrust. Mistrust breeds defiance. We saw defiance on full display last winter. We do not like defiance. We do not want to get to that point.
However, I have questions for the government about this. They will precede the ones that will be asked of me. Nevertheless, what does it mean to call someone independent?
In Latin,“in” means “in relation to”, and the word “dependence” speaks of a choice. Someone who is independent is free to make their own choices. Is the rapporteur free to make his own choices? I do not know. I have not seen his mandate, but I am going to suggest four other things we should rely on.
Can we say that the rapporteur is neutral? I would be surprised if he was, because he still has to be for justice, for the public interest. He is not neutral.
Is he impartial? Impartiality is often confused with neutrality, but they are not the same thing. Impartiality means being able to decide fairly by taking a higher vantage point. An impartial person has a choice between A and B. He will make his choice, according to the principles that have been proposed to him. Is he impartial? That is my wish.
However, the two concepts that pique my interest are objectivity and subjectivity. It will come as no surprise to learn that the word objectivity comes from the Latin objectum which means “something presented to the senses”. An objectum is an object that is presented to oneself. It is in front of us; we see it. That is objective in English. We often confuse it with subjectivity, the subjectum, which is the person holding the object that is not yet in front of us.
Is the rapporteur looking at the object or holding the object? I hope a colleague will ask me that question. I would love to answer that one.
There is objectivity and subjectivity. I, personally, am looking for objectivity, to be honest. I think we need objectivity; otherwise, doubts will continue to persist and we will head down the same path again.
Now the thing to do, and I am sure everyone will agree, is to act responsibly, and I am referring to what the government should do, not the rapporteur. The word “responsible” is often mentioned, but rarely defined. I will continue with my definitions. The word “responsible” comes from two Latin words. The first, res, means “thing”, and the second, spondere, means “promise”. A responsible person is someone who can promise a thing. Is the government being responsible in this case? To answer that, there is a little test with three questions.
Here are the three questions. Does the Prime Minister or the government have the choice of means? In my view, yes, they have the choice of means. There are many means available to the government. Next, is the government exercising that choice of means, or is it stuck with just one option? I think we have a problem here. The first question is whether there is a choice of means, the second is whether that choice is being exercised, and the third is whether there is a will to act.
As far the will to act goes, I think that if the government were any more reluctant, it would be dead. It is extremely reluctant to act, and this reluctance is not healthy for democracy. It is not healthy because even if everything that is being said were true, doubts are keeping us from finding out or understanding the truth of the matter. We will certainly insist on having a public, independent and, I would add, objective inquiry.
I am adding an extra layer of difficulty here, but if the government is so sure that it is right, and I will give it the opportunity to respond, it should agree to make an objective choice, which cannot be done with the presence of Mr. Johnston, regardless of his credentials. I am the first to acknowledge academic value, but the shadow cast by doubt leads us to believe that this will not work out.
765 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 6:24:22 p.m.
- Watch
You read my mind, Madam Speaker.
I was about to say that in order to stop a leak, you need to recognize that there is a leak. We talked about the special rapporteur. The government says that he is independent. Not every interest is a conflict of interest. However, when we look at the interests, we have to sometimes wonder whether there is not a confusion of interests. Perhaps it is not a conflict of interest, but a confusion of interests.
There is a saying to the effect that justice must be done and that it must appear to be done. It is the same thing when we talk about a possible conflict of interest. We must appear to be above reproach. In this case, the very presence of Mr. Johnston raises a little something we call doubt and doubt causes mistrust.
What do we need to do here? Are we creating more mistrust? That does not make sense. Supposedly, we want to do the opposite.
If my colleagues are not interested in my speech, they can just tell me. Apparently, they are not interested.
I was talking about doubt. I would like to ask a question if I can be heard over the din of the many discussions—
211 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 6:20:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am very happy to stand here today in the House. I would like to say hello to the citizens of Trois‑Rivières.
For weeks now, we have been talking about China's interference, and for weeks, most of us have agreed that we need an independent public inquiry. I think we all agree on that, with the exception of a few indomitable Gauls. Usually we are the indomitable Gauls.
What is at stake here is the public interest. There is no room for partisanship; partisanship is for elections. We need to act in the public interest. I must admit that what I am seeing is that the government is more interested in praising the leak than acting in the public interest.
Those who work in ethics always try to determine the right thing to do, so long as the intent is to do good. This is a serious question that requires introspection and a certain distance from the issue. It involves being willing to discuss the issue in question. In ethics, one tries to determine what should be done in the circumstances. Our anglophone friends talk about doing the right thing, whereas in French we talk about ce que nous devons faire pour bien faire. Whoever wants to do that needs guidelines.
Right now, I am unaware of any laws respecting foreign interference, so we cannot say that we will enforce the law. However, we will have to do something, since the current legal vacuum needs to be filled. In order to determine what to do, we need to determine what happened.
In the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, of which I am a member, we recently raised many questions concerning foreign interference. We are talking about foreign interference from China, but we could also be talking about Russia, Iraq or any number of other countries. I would especially like to mention a question I asked a few witnesses the other day. I asked them whether the current government was familiar with China, and the answer was a resounding “no”. I asked them whether the current government understood China, Russia or Iraq, and the answer was “no”. It is hard to stop a leak when we do not know that there is a leak. In this case, we need to start by recognizing that there is a leak.
Half-heartedly, feeling threatened, the Prime Minister recognized that perhaps it might be time to act. The decision was then made to appoint someone who would bear the title of rapporteur. European legislation often refers to rapporteurs. A rapporteur examines a situation, drafts a short summary and provides that summary. Unlike what is currently being alleged, the rapporteur will not decide whether there will be a public inquiry or not. The rapporteur will simply report facts. The person to whom the rapporteur reports those facts will decide what will happen. The rapporteur is being called independent. I will not question Mr. Johnston's résumé, obviously, but I will clearly question his proximity to the Trudeau family, with the Pierre Elliot Trudeau Foundation—
529 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 5:48:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there is a lot of talk this week about the special rapporteur. People keep saying that he is independent. I have my doubts about that.
I would like to ask the member for Winnipeg North a question. If the rapporteur is independent, is he objective?
I am asking him the difference between independence and objectivity.
58 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
