- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Trois-Rivières
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 63%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $100,349.98
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, in small doses, candour can have a certain charm. It says that someone does not mean any harm. However, naivety is always a flaw because it stems from lack of judgment.
When it comes to foreign interference, the government has been very naive in recent years. This naivety is coupled with the government's standing flaw: pride. Pride prevents it from quickly admitting to and correcting its mistakes, and going so far as to hide what should be disclosed, even at the expense of the common good.
I am also pleased that Bill C‑70 represents a change in direction. I will say right off the bat that the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of Bill C‑70, countering foreign interference act. With this bill, the government is telling us, or trying to tell us, that it has finally shaken its naivety. That is a good start.
As always at the federal level, there is concern that efficiency is not the government's priority. These are things that can and should be corrected in committee and will not change the principle of the bill. As I was saying, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C‑70 at second reading. We hope it will be sent to committee quickly. Once we get to committee, we will have to be vigilant and careful, because this bill deals with fundamental issues
In fact, there are three main reasons for moving this update of Canadian laws along. The first reason is the international situation. These are tense times. There is a new cold war—not entirely cold, but more complex, with more players. Russia and China are more aggressive. Influence campaigns, lobbying and disinformation campaigns are on the rise.
We saw this five years ago with the case of the two Michaels. In December 2018, at Washington's request, Canada arrested Meng Wanzhou, the CFO of telecoms giant Huawei. Rather than go after the Americans, China preferred to go after its defenceless little brother, Canada. In retaliation, the Chinese government arrested two Canadian citizens in China and took trade measures against Canadian and Quebec farmers—
369 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
- Oct/24/22 2:54:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, our farmers were not asking for more pesticides on our foods. In fact, no one was asking for that except Bayer, the multinational that manufactures the pesticides in question. At the time, the government was accused of not conducting any studies to justify this decision, other than the study conducted by Bayer itself.
Today, the government is refusing to disclose to Vigilance OGM the study that led to its decision. Believe it or not, it is justifying that decision by saying that the information in question was provided by a third party.
The third party in question would not happen to by Bayer by chance, would it?
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/4/22 2:44:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, every time we ask the government for the Roxham Road contracts that it refuses to disclose, it responds that to the government, and I quote: transparency is critically important.
That is a rather Orwellian response. Refusing to disclose contracts out of concern for transparency is not that far removed from being told that war is peace.
I am blinded by all that transparency. Seriously, hiding public contracts is not transparency, it is secrecy.
Can the government actually be transparent and simply disclose who it gave taxpayers' money to for Roxham Road? People have the right to know.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/3/22 2:29:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, honestly, we are not talking about top secret documents here. We are talking about leases signed for land, trailers and hotel rooms.
By refusing to disclose all the contracts tied to Roxham Road on a questionable pretext, the government is the one sowing doubt. The government is the one whose actions are reminding us of the billions of dollars awarded without a call for tenders to the big Liberal family during the pandemic. The government is the one suggesting that there is something to hide.
Why wait to be forced to be transparent? Why not simply disclose the contracts?
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
