- 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/19/23 2:48:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the government's response may be worse than the situation itself.
It says that it has given instructions to inform ministers from now on about hot issues that concern them, such as the transfer of prisoners of interest or threats against elected members. This government has been in power since 2015 and it is telling us it is now requiring its ministers to be made aware of their portfolios. That raises an ethical question.
Which is worse: Ministers who do not know anything about anything or ministers who wait until the eighth year of government to require being informed of their portfolios?
104 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
- May/16/23 2:42:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the government is going to set up a committee that will think about making a plan.
It is only right that elected officials be informed if they are targeted by foreign intimidation or interference. It is not right for them not to be informed when they or their loved ones are being victimized or threatened.
Finding out this kind of news two years after the fact raises even more questions for the Prime Minister. First, why did the government not inform these MPs sooner? Coincidentally, it was two Conservatives and an NDP member who were targeted.
Had they been on the right side of the House, would they have been informed in a timely manner?
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/23 2:41:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about Chinese interference.
On Saturday, The Globe and Mail reported that CSIS has contacted at least two other MPs who may have been threatened by Beijing in 2021. That means that at least three elected members of the House were known targets, and none of them were informed until now. This is serious.
It was hard enough to believe that the Prime Minister had not been informed about the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, but three members, frankly, is unbelievable and unacceptable. Why did he withhold this information for two years?
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 3:00:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that is not what the resolution said.
Last week, the Prime Minister blamed CSIS for failing to inform the member for Wellington—Halton Hills that he was the target of threats from China. That is false. CSIS warned the Prime Minister's Office as early as 2021. The top security adviser to the Prime Minister confirmed this to the member. Why is this important? It is important because, once again, when it comes to Chinese interference, the Prime Minister is telling the opposite of the truth. What he has been saying since day one flies in the face of the truth. He has no credibility to get to the bottom of this.
When will there be an independent public inquiry?
123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/23 2:46:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that was not an apology.
A member of Parliament and his family are threatened. The government is informed, but keeps that information to itself for two years. Let us pause for a moment and think about the gravity of the situation. On top of that, according to The Globe and Mail, other MPs might also have been targeted.
Three questions come to mind. First, has the government been informed of any other MPs who have been or are being threatened? Second, has it notified the MPs in question? Third, if not, is it because the MPs in question are not part of its political party?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.
Obviously, artificial intelligence can be put to good or bad use. One thing puzzles me, though. Generative AI, which describes ChatGPT, has recently displayed truly superior ability. It managed to gather a trove of data that would have been unimaginable even a few months ago. However, the legality of how this trove of data was obtained is unclear.
In relation to the part of Bill C‑27 that deals with personal information and privacy, I would like to ask my colleague if she is concerned about how ChatGPT obtains data.
101 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I just want to put a question to my hon. colleague from Calgary Rocky Ridge, with whom I worked on the ethics committee and who is knowledgeable about situations concerning access to information. It is a question that the people of Trois‑Rivières asked me when I was out in the community.
With the arrival of ChatGPT, is it not true that a large part of this bill will have to be rewritten because it has become obsolete due to this important change in the reality of access to information?
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, Bill C‑27 was supposed to tighten control over personal information, but it fails to address that practice and it does not recognize the fundamental right to privacy as recommended by the Privacy Commissioner.
Bill C‑27 does not require businesses to seek valid consent of clients before sharing their data. The simple act of requesting an electronic receipt does not constitute authorization to provide our personal data.
Will the government amend Bill C‑27 to protect client data rather than the right of businesses to share the data without consent?
96 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
