- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Trois-Rivières
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 63%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $100,349.98
- Government Page
- May/29/24 5:51:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, a number of things are missing from the bill.
The first thing I will bring up has nothing to do with the individual, but rather the profile of the interference commissioner. Do we want a judge, like we do for the ethics commissioner? Do we want a legal expert? Do we want an ethicist? One never knows. What is the profile we are looking for? These things will be determined later, by regulation. I trust in that and I do not see any issue with it, but many details are still to be determined.
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 4:20:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech, which was fascinating, accurate and straight to the point.
The people in my riding of Trois-Rivières know that I used to work in ethics, so they often ask me questions about this, about what happened with ArriveCAN. People wonder how that could happen, how people can come to committee and give half answers, evasive answers and sometimes even false answers. We are debating a motion that would compel the person in question to come tell his story before Parliament.
In these times where people are losing faith in our institutions, are we also seeing the decline of decency in society?
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/24 4:13:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I have the pleasure of serving with him on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.
Regarding the alternative facts that he often cites—instead of repeating ideas written by others, that criticize without offering solutions or that disregard the separation of powers—I would like to know whether they are deceptive, or a distortion of the truth.
72 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/27/24 4:39:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we have been talking about procurement and ArriveCAN. There were plenty of disasters before ArriveCAN. When we look at the government's real capacity to manage passports, borders, when we look at WE Charity or employment insurance, Canada Life, we realize one thing: the government is incapable of carrying out its fundamental duty, which is to provide services to the public.
I have seen my colleague and his colleagues show some contrition many times. They say they are sorry, that this will never happen again, that the investigations are under way. In reality, these incidents occur on a regular basis.
Earlier my colleague talked about ethics. I would like to know what she thinks, ethically speaking, about these endless scandals.
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 4:15:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague. I am pleased to be working with him on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.
Yes, the machine is broken. It cannot see beyond its immediate surroundings. The machine is stuck and cannot think beyond its narrow confines. What happens outside its immediate surroundings does not appear to be taken into consideration.
The issue here is trust. Trust is a very fragile thing. It is the ability to rely on something without having to examine it closely. Today we have to examine everything. We cannot close our eyes for an instant and think that things will be done properly.
The opposite of trust, what happens when trust is broken, is distrust. What does distrust lead to? It leads to defiance, which itself often leads to revolt, revolution or, at least, some undesirable action. I think that everything we do today must be aimed at restoring trust in the government, the machinery of government and the House of Commons, because with broken trust, all we will have is distrust and defiance.
183 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 4:28:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics recently heard from the chair of the EU Parliament's committee on foreign interference and disinformation. Raphaël Glucksmann told the committee that China's strategy was to sow chaos in the countries it targets. He also told us that the Chinese ideogram for writing “chaos” is the same as that for writing “opportunity”.
Can my hon. colleague believe that this chaos that has prevailed in this place since the beginning of this week is due to the actions of the Chinese government, which are paralyzing the House and forcing us to react to an extremely serious subject, but which is blocking the work of Parliament on foreign interference?
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/28/23 11:16:38 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on February 21, ethics commissioner Mario Dion had to step down for health reasons after 43 years of public service, including the past five as Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.
Mr. Dion elevated the role and today I want to thank him for his excellent work. Throughout his tenure, Mr. Dion helped safeguard public trust, despite the many violations by government members that he had to contend with. He said, “I firmly believe that educating regulatees and the public about the importance of avoiding conflicts of interest serves to help restore Canadians' trust”.
His successor faces an immense challenge. Mr. Dion can leave with his head held high. The Office of the Commissioner is a credible and trusted institution.
I will close by saying that this strategic position urgently needs to be filled by someone everyone can agree on, because without a commissioner, there can be no investigations, and that is just unacceptable.
I want to thank Mr. Dion.
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 8:06:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. We have been serving together on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics for some time now, and I tend to really value his judgment.
I would like to ask him the following question. In his opinion, with all the experience he has, is this a good budget or a bad budget?
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/21/23 11:40:59 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the vacant Ethics Commissioner position is problematic. No investigations can be conducted until the position is filled.
However, the House is currently looking into the Chinese interference scandal, which could require clarifications about the role played by Liberal actors. The Prime Minister himself is embroiled in a scandal concerning his Christmas vacation with friends who make donations to the Trudeau Foundation. If the Liberals were to leave the interim Ethics Commissioner position empty much longer, questions would be raised.
Will the Liberals provide the opposition with a list of candidates on Monday?
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/21/23 11:40:05 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the interim Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner has stepped down following the controversy regarding her family ties to the Liberal minister.
I would like to reiterate that we never questioned the integrity and competence of Ms. Richard, who is doing the right thing. The Liberal ministers should never have put her in this untenable position. Now, these same ministers have to appoint someone else. They have demonstrated several times that they do not have a good grasp of ethics, so this disqualifies them from moving forward on their own. Unfortunately, I am not available.
Will they finally propose a candidate that all parties can agree on?
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague referred to privacy as a fundamental right. The former privacy commissioner also raised the topic of privacy as a fundamental right before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.
I would like to know what he means when he uses these words. Does he consider privacy to be a fundamental right?
61 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 6:20:29 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
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
When we reviewed the geolocation project at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, we realized that someone with a Telus phone had not consented to their data being shared. It is very clear.
There is already an education component in the Privacy Commissioner's mandate, but I think it needs to be exercised more, because right now, when people click on “I agree”, most of them do not know what they are agreeing to.
As part of a recent committee mandate, we recommended that it should be possible to continue without accepting. I think there needs to be good privacy education in schools and at home. However, I also think that the Privacy Commissioner should be doing more on the prevention side of things. Right now, we are basically left to our own devices. Once we click “I agree”, it is too late.
160 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Bay of Quinte, who was also my colleague at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. We all miss him a lot.
He raised what I consider to be a very important point. He said that the bill in question does not treat privacy as a fundamental right. That really resonated with me because the Privacy Commissioner of Canada identified it as a prerequisite for moving forward.
I would like my colleague to comment on that.
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/3/22 6:24:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Elmwood—Transcona on his whole speech. I would like to pick up on the first part of his speech, in which he talked about respect.
That is an important concept because we are here to debate ideas. We all have our convictions. We are moved by an ideology, but we have convictions. The thing about convictions, raw convictions, is that they do not bother to consider the consequences. The resulting debate tends to be fruitless.
The next level up is responsibility, which is concerned with the consequences of convictions.
What the member did earlier was take the next step and engage in discourse ethics, which means laying down arms, demonstrating mutual respect and advocating for our ideas in a civilized manner. That is what I heard in the first part of his speech.
Here is my question for him. What are the risks of failing to promote respect and veering increasingly toward incivility?
163 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/3/22 2:28:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the decision to make Roxham Road and all its facilities permanent raises some serious ethical questions.
We know that the government awarded two Liberal donors at least seven contracts without a bidding process. We have no idea if there are more.
Since the government refuses to disclose all the contracts, this afternoon, I will be asking the Standing Committee on Ethics to investigate the ethical aspect of awarding contracts.
If the government has nothing to hide, it should disclose these documents itself. Will it make public all the federal contracts tied to Roxham Road?
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/22 4:51:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North. I should be a little candid here, because as a newly elected member, I do not know all the rules. However, to answer both points, I believe that all committee reports should have a life. Now, is this the only time they can have a life? I do not have the answer to that, being new to Parliament. I do not think there is any committee work that should remain in the shadows, and I believe that everything is better in the light, frankly. Should it be during government orders or on an opposition day? I think there is probably strategy on both sides, but I cannot assume bad faith.
One thing is for sure: I am on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics with the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot, and we work very hard. Until recently, we have had unanimity on just about every decision we have made, with the Liberal Party and everyone. Honestly, I think it is nice that we can all work for the common good together. I think the outcome of the work should at least be heard.
200 words
- 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
Mr. Speaker, yes, I have heard those concerns. In the first bill, I was concerned about possible adverse effects, but quite honestly, I was reassured. My specialty is ethics, and I am quite familiar with issues around freedom of expression.
I currently have no fear for those who want to post a TikTok or share a cat video under Bill C‑11.
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
