- 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 5:56:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his extremely relevant question. There can be no trust without transparency, and nothing is possible without trust. Let that be our starting point.
In the past, whether it was Mr. Johnston, the special rapporteur, or the Hogue commission, it certainly took a lot of effort to get the government to co-operate. It really took a lot of force and a lot of energy, and the government fought the process tooth and nail. That was unfortunate. It did not inspire trust.
As my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby said, these matters require co-operation. There can be no hypocrisy. We have to pull in the same direction, because interference is oblivious to party colours and partisanship. Interference works against all of us here, regardless of our political stripe.
This time, I hope and believe that the government will be a little less naive and more proactive, and that it will show the transparency we need to make fair decisions amid uncertainty.
169 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/24 5:54:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very relevant question.
I do think we need to work together. Foreign interference is not a partisan issue, nor does it concern the colour of the government in power. It concerns greed, power and interference itself. Therefore, I think it is crucial that we work together. When we look at an issue like interference and sum up the activity, it becomes clear that there are more things that bring us together here than divide us.
I would like us to focus on what brings us together so that we can develop the best possible tool to protect ourselves from foreign interference.
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
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
- Apr/29/24 5:14:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. He has a big heart, and it shows in everything he says.
Where this budget talks about health care, it directly infringes on a jurisdiction of the Province of Quebec. Health care is a shared jurisdiction, and the federal government should not interfere with it.
I think that the budget before us shows interference. Despite the good intentions voiced by my colleague, I would like to know how much importance he places on that interference.
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/23 8:22:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for his wise suggestions.
Many times this spring, I said that, while we were debating about whether interference had occurred, the interference was continuing to happen. While we were debating the need to appoint a commissioner or a rapporteur or what have you, the interference was continuing to happen. It continued happening and Mr. Nijjar was murdered in June.
Yes, it is high time we put words into action, rather strong, rigorous action, with the specific intention of protecting the public.
88 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
- 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/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/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 2:41:53 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/5/23 2:37:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to get answers about Chinese interference. When the Bloc Québécois asks how many elected officials in total have been the target of threats or disinformation campaigns, the government refuses to answer. When the Conservatives ask how many Chinese police stations remain open, it refuses to answer. When the NDP asks about the relationship between the special rapporteur's staff and the Liberal Party, it refuses to answer. Then, when all three parties call for a public inquiry, the government still refuses. This is an affront to democracy.
Where will we find the answers if the government refuses to provide them and refuses to hold a public inquiry?
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/23 11:26:54 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, let us get back to the basics when it comes to Chinese interference. The problem is China's actions and the fact that the Johnston report prevents us from dealing with them because, as a result of that report, there will be no inquiry into the Chinese police stations, the election candidates supported by China, the intimidation of the Chinese diaspora or the threats against elected officials. In the years I spent working as an ethicist, I lived by this adage: “Any action that needs darkness to succeed is probably more unethical than an action that can stand the light.” In this case, there is a lot of darkness. Let us shine a light on what is happening by holding an independent public inquiry.
128 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/30/23 12:49:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we cannot rewrite the past. If the previous Harper government did nothing, quite frankly, that changes nothing with regard to today's foreign interference. That is where we are now.
Should the former government have taken measures? Maybe, maybe not. Right now, the member across the way is asking me whether it is a problem that the previous government did nothing. The result we are faced with today is that this is where we stand now and we must act.
It is important to take action. In fact, it is necessary, because failing to take action only encourages foreign interference. I am not saying that nothing was done, but it is time to do more.
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/9/23 2:59:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it did take two years. The Liberals do nothing about Chinese interference until it makes headlines. They were fine with holding a $1,500-a-head cocktail party fundraiser with Beijing's buddies. They were fine with connections between a Toronto Liberal MP and the Chinese government. They ignored threats against an opposition member. That had to make headlines before the government started behaving like a government should.
The Liberals have no interest in casting light on interference. They would rather keep it all hidden and hope the media does not try to ferret out the truth. When will there be an independent public inquiry?
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 4:21:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques and congratulate him for his work on French-language science.
Raphaël Glucksmann, chair of the Special Committee on Foreign Interference in all Democratic Processes in the European Union, appeared before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics the other day and told us that the special committee held 300 meetings on foreign interference, that it put forward numerous options, and that it did nothing. He warned us not to make the same mistake.
I think that it is important to take note of this, to start working in the House and in committee and to do something, because doing nothing is not an option.
128 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/8/23 2:59:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, at their convention, the Liberals came up with a solution to the Chinese interference issue: stop the media from reporting on it. This was literally one of the resolutions that the Liberals passed last weekend.
As they see it, the problem is not that China helped or threatened members and their families; the problem is that the media talks about it. It is disgraceful.
To slough off the burden of dealing with Chinese interference, the Liberals have proposed a solution worthy of the Chinese Communist party.
Can they assure that House that any consideration of this solution is out of the question?
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
