- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Trois-Rivières
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 63%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $100,349.98
- Government Page
- Sep/19/23 8:58:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia for her speeches, which are always insightful and sensitive.
I would like to ask her the following question. After seeing all the hesitation and avoidance that the government was careful to display all spring, does she believe that the government will really do anything about this situation, apart from the inquiry that is already in progress?
These facts are weighing heavily on our minds this week.
83 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/23 8:10:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I will begin by offering my sincerest condolences, and those of the Bloc Québécois, to Mr. Nijjar's family as well as to the Sikh community.
In my riding, there are not many people who belong to the Sikh community as such, yet I have still received many calls in the past day from people who tell me that these things should not be happening. They are asking why the diaspora community is not protected. Certainly, that is one of the first questions we must ask ourselves, but we must also take a step back and look at the big picture for a moment.
We did not just start hearing about foreign interference yesterday. There were many discussions in the spring, of course, but the topic has been on many lips for a few years now. Last spring, I asked dozens of questions, all of which went unanswered. The government downplayed the situation and said to be patient.
We rose numerous times to call for an independent public inquiry, a request that was repeatedly refused. Most days this spring, the government denied that an inquiry was important or needed. Our requests were brushed aside until it was impossible to brush them away any further. The government has been “actively passive”, to use a phrase I am fond of. It was quick to do nothing. However, its “do nothing” approach became an “allow interference” approach.
It is a sad observation to make today when we look at the state of the world, particularly with the situation in Ukraine, with Armenia. The world today is not as idyllic as it once was. There are rogue states. If we take off our rose-coloured glasses for a moment, we will realize that some of these rogue states are our partners. Some of our partners are rogue states.
Interference can take several forms. Of course, there is social media propaganda, for example. People can be manipulated into believing a lot of things. There is also corruption among elected officials, like we discussed at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, or the infiltration of institutions. Some people thought that the Trudeau Foundation had been infiltrated, which may or may not have been true. There can also be direct action, as we saw in Vancouver in the case at hand.
Throughout the spring of this year, we talked about Chinese interference, although my colleague mentioned China, Iran, Russia and India, which are the four countries in question. Witnesses told the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the Standing Committee on Ethics that they were getting FaceTime calls in the middle of the day showing them their grandmother back in China and that they were scared. I myself saw and heard from frightened witnesses at the Standing Committee on Ethics.
We called for a public inquiry until this one could start. The commissioner was appointed recently. September 18 marked the start of the commission's activities. That same day, however, the Prime Minister told the House of Commons what happened in British Columbia in June. It was a rude awakening for several people who believed that this kind of thing only happened in other countries. This incident happened here at home. We found out that Mr. Nijjar was killed on June 18, 2023, and that the Government of India was alleged to be behind the killing. How is that possible when India is our partner? How is it possible when Canada is investing so much money with India under the Indo-Pacific strategy? It is impossible but true.
According to Sam Cooper, in 2017, the Prime Minister's Office apparently blocked a CSIS operation due to “political sensitivity” on the eve of his trip to India, which has since become famous for a variety of reasons. That is not all. In 2019, CSIS reiterated in a classified report marked “Canadian Eyes Only” that Indian interference had continued unabated.
It has been mentioned often this evening, but we cannot help but wonder why. Why is this information tolerated, downplayed and kept secret when, as we now know, people's lives are on the line? People may escape death, yet still have their lives ruined. These kinds of things are not acceptable, and we cannot pretend that we did not know. The government was notified.
The National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians also said that the government usually discounted warnings from CSIS about the behaviour of China and India toward diaspora communities. That goes to show that CSIS, the Prime Minister's Office and NSICOP all knew about it.
Honestly, it is hard not to wonder whether foreign interference is a sign of the times. It is happening more frequently now. Is it due to a lack of awareness about the importance of international relations? Is it due to a lack of courage by government? Is it purely, simply and unfortunately the product of indifference, neglect and tolerance of interference?
A fundamental distinction must be made, given everything that has been said so far. Intelligence must not be confused with evidence. We cannot jump to conclusions. We need to understand that intelligence suggests something, whereas evidence demonstrates something. The two concepts are not one and the same; they are on different levels. However, when I read the reports, I saw that they contained a lot of intelligence. A lot of intelligence does not equal evidence, but it should give one pause. It would seem, however, that despite the amount of intelligence at its disposal, the government once again decided not to listen to CSIS.
I want to say it again: We are not in a world where everything is rosy. There are rogue states that no longer hesitate to use any means necessary to advance their own interests. One example is surveillance. At the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, we conducted a study on Pegasus, a powerful surveillance tool used mainly by rogue states. There are ways of manipulating peoples' thoughts, as I was saying earlier, with propaganda and the conspiracy theories that abound these days.
In the present case, it is important to note that after yesterday's condemnation in the House of Commons, Canada's friends, allies and partners did not appear to step up to support the Prime Minister. This surprises me, because when the two Michaels were detained, allied states quickly rose up in unison and supported him unreservedly. However, in that case, we were dealing with evidence, not with intelligence or allegations. There is a distinction there.
I wonder why no one is stepping up to support Canada this time. To move the debate forward, the government will have to present credible, irrefutable evidence. If it must act, it must do so in the public interest and set aside partisan interests. Speaking of partisanship, as my colleague from Montarville pointed out earlier, these allegations are coming at a very opportune time for the government, which was embroiled in all kinds of problems. That has been completely overshadowed by the matter before us this evening.
At the end of the day, the problem is that the relationship of trust between the public and the current government has been damaged. Trust is what makes it possible to believe without requiring proof. When we do not believe, we demand proof. Because of the government's laissez-faire attitude toward foreign interference, people doubt its intention to act. That distrust is harmful to the public interest.
Members of diaspora communities need to know that the government will protect them. They need to know that it will take swift and sure action in response to foreign interference and protect them. The people of Quebec and Canada need to know that the government has a credible plan to address foreign interference and that it is not just avoiding the issue, as we saw last spring.
In conclusion, we cannot put the economy ahead of security. Even though Adam Smith said that trade is security, this is about an economic partnership with a state that interferes in our affairs. That is not sustainable. We are just putting off dealing with the problem. We can no longer afford to be naive. We need to tell it like it is: The world is a tough place. We need to face the facts and take action. The government has to maintain both security and the sense of security.
1423 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/23 7:31:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for his speech, which, as usual, was full of common sense and sensitivity.
According to him, what prompted the government to actively wait to call an independent inquiry when these revelations had already been piling up for some time?
45 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 3:04:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, observers of federal politics have come to the same conclusion about this session. They call it four months of time wasted by the Liberals on trying to avoid an inquiry into Chinese interference.
A waste of time is what everyone is taking away from this government's stubborn defiance of the will of the people and of the House. It is high time we moved on to the next steps. The government says it is open to ideas, and the Bloc Québécois is co-operating.
Will the Prime Minister finally announce the launch of an independent public inquiry into foreign interference?
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/23 11:40:18 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, hope springs eternal, but as Paul Valéry added, it is like walking a tightrope.
The government says it wants to work together, but there is only one week left for parliamentary business. It has one week to announce a commission of inquiry, and it does not have carte blanche. The government must have the consensus of the House regarding who will lead the commission. It must give the commissioner the flexibility to define the terms of reference. It must ensure that the commission can conclude its work before the next election.
The clock is ticking. The government must announce this commission of inquiry immediately, so why waste precious time?
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/23 11:39:08 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we have just one week left until the House rises for the summer. There is only one week left for the government to finally launch the commission of inquiry into Chinese interference that the public has been calling for since last winter.
I urge my Liberal colleagues to face reality. They must all realize by now that this commission of inquiry is inevitable. Above all, I appeal to their democratic values. There is a real risk. They must also realize that such a commission would absolutely have to publish its recommendations on how to better protect democracy before the next election.
Will the government give the green light to this independent public commission of inquiry?
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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/13/23 2:44:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, nobody in their right mind would accept that kind of position without making sure that they were independent from the government. That is why the government needs to announce a real commission of inquiry and give the commissioner the latitude they need concerning their mandate. At this point, the government's failure to disclose key details is the main thing holding up the inquiry. The government has been avoiding a public inquiry for almost four months now, while foreign interference continues, so it would be easy to believe that it is still trying to hold up the process.
What is the government waiting for? When will it give the public all the facts?
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 2:38:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, David Johnston was trapped. From day one, the mandate he received from the Prime Minister went against the will of the public and the House. Now that he has honourably stepped down, the government is signalling openness and is asking us to suggest candidates to lead an inquiry. The Bloc will collaborate, but first the government needs to clarify what kind of inquiry it is talking about.
Is it talking about a public and independent commission of inquiry, or is it talking about restricted hearings with no power or independence? In other words, does the government want the names of potential commissioners, or does it want the names of people it can trap like Mr. Johnston?
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 2:57:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, let us take a step back.
There is foreign interference in our electoral system. About a dozen ridings were targeted. The former leader of the opposition was targeted, along with at least two other members. This is extremely serious. The House itself is being targeted. The legitimacy and integrity of the members of the House are being undermined by foreign interference. That is why the House continues to push for a public inquiry.
What is the government waiting for to launch the inquiry?
85 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 2:45:38 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/1/23 2:43:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, let us recap. The Trudeau Foundation accepted a donation from China in 2016. China dictated the terms of the donation to the foundation. The CEO of the foundation later told the media that the donation came from a Canadian company. Years later, the foundation's new CEO wanted to investigate that donation and was persecuted for it.
When Chinese interference started making headlines, the Liberals chose two former foundation members, Mr. Rosenberg and Mr. Johnston, to investigate. What a farce.
When will there be a real independent public inquiry, one that does not involve any members of the Trudeau Foundation, for goodness' sake?
107 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
