- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Trois-Rivières
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 63%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $100,349.98
- Government Page
- May/6/24 11:30:40 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will keep the public interest in mind while making my remarks rather than uttering sentences in the future tense about some potential future government.
No one can be against virtue. This is hardly a new idea. In fact, the greatest philosopher ever, Socrates, once said that “no one knowingly does evil”. Let us bear that in mind. This morning we are studying Motion No. 112, which deals with interference and violence. The motion is divided into three parts, which I will summarize to ensure that our arguments are placed in the proper context.
The first section moves that the House of Commons recognize that “Canada takes global security very seriously.” As we know, Canada is part of the Five Eyes. Canada is maybe the fifth and a half country, but it is nevertheless a member of the Five Eyes and, as such, it receives and provides information on the national security of member states. In recent years, questions can certainly be asked about the effectiveness of this, because it seems that when it comes to interference, we have not reacted in a very timely way. Nevertheless, there is a desire to see Canada take global security seriously.
The motion also discusses the killing of a Canadian citizen, Hardeep Singh Nijjar, in a place of worship on Canadian soil. This is an example of threats and interference by a country. India, Iran, Russia, China and many others are recognized for their practice of interfering in some way or another in the affairs of numerous states.
The motion goes on to say that “the government should immediately review its measures that hold to account any person or agents of a foreign state undermining democratic institutions, engaging in acts of violence, or violating human or international rights, in order to bar these persons from entering Canada, and report to the House”. No one is against virtue.
Reading Motion No. 112 made me smile a bit, I have to say. The motion—and it is a good motion—calls on the government to play the role it should have been playing. There should be no need for Motion No. 112 because these measures should already be in place. In concrete terms, Motion No. 112 talks about reviewing the measures Canada takes to hold to account foreign agents seeking to undermine democracy. No one can be against that.
When it comes to ignoring measures, the government is number one. We have only to think of the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg, the incidents involving Chinese interference, the incidents during the election that Justice Hogue commented on last week and the harassment of certain members of the diaspora. It seems to me that we should have started demanding accountability a long time ago. When we talk about accountability, we have to differentiate between matters of influence and matters of interference. Influence is leading someone to come on side of their own accord. Interference is meddling in someone’s affairs.
We know that, since 2015-16, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service warned the government on a few occasions that there were risks or information that had to be taken into account. We know that in November 2020, the House of Commons adopted a motion to create a foreign agent registry, but that has still not happened. Actually, last November, I proposed introducing a bill to create such a registry, which would have some teeth and a very broad scope, but so far we have not seen anything. It has not yet happened.
The interference issue, however, has been known for a long time. We could say that the government had a slightly naive view of China and was a bit complacent toward that country. Indeed, in all these years they have not done much, other than denying the bill or attempting to dodge the issue. This struck me in the case of the Winnipeg laboratory. Six hundred pages of the report were redacted, and now the equivalent of about 14 remain. That is certainly cause for concern.
The same goes for the federal election. They said that nothing happened, but they realized that something perhaps did happen in the case of the member for Don Valley North and the former Conservative member for Steveston—Richmond East.
In fact, it is interesting, because, although this report says there was interference, it also says there was no impact on the outcome of the election and that the same party would have come to power. However, it might not have been the same member sitting in the same place. It is important to realize that.
These types of missed opportunities include the 2023 Rosenberg report. There was an investigation into interference and the Trudeau Foundation. It is funny that just 23 out of the 23,000 words in the report referred to interference or to China. Here again, this looks like a missed opportunity or an attempt to dodge the issue.
In the case of the Trudeau Foundation, cheques were written in Mandarin, donations were reimbursed and the board of directors was a bungling mess; in short, this was a crisis. The Trudeau Foundation is not the government, let us be clear about that. However, there is a connection, and there is a need to rebuild trust. In a democracy, trust is key. Trust is the act of delegating one's future to someone else. That requires a relationship of trust. Otherwise it does not work.
Morris Rosenberg filed his report. I was rather dissatisfied with it. After that, we figured there would be an independent special rapporteur appointed. We recognized Mr. Johnston’s capabilities. However, we challenged his independence. We did not approve. He said that there was nothing there and that there were documents that could not be made public because they were classified as secret or top secret. Pressure was applied to help us get to the bottom of things. In short, Mr. Johnston resigned.
Then there was the Hogue commission, which promised transparency and did a thorough job. It recently tabled a report confirming foreign interference, with nuances, of course.
It was only once it had lost the people’s trust that the government agreed to take action. That is not reassuring. It does not build public trust in the government, since Canadians do not know whether our elections are working, if the nomination system is working, or if—getting back to my initial point—everything was done to protect national security.
Personally, I like Motion No. 112. However, I cannot say that the government was quick to take action. Rather, it tried to make us believe that the Prime Minister was doing something. Not doing anything is not exactly taking action.
With a foreign policy that, in my opinion, is vague at best, and perhaps even naive, we cannot manage these incidents piecemeal. We need a coherent vision to be able to provide a coherent response. For now, we appear to respond only when we are forced to do so, on a case-by-case basis. I believe we need to think about the rogue states around us, because there is an increasing number of them, and see what we can do.
Since it would be hard to be against virtue, the Bloc Québécois will support motion Motion No. 112, despite the fact that it is a timid measure at best.
1247 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/23 8:45:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I often listen to my colleague opposite, and he always speaks from the heart.
I would like to ask him for a heartfelt answer. As a member of the community involved, and knowing that diasporas are affected, what does he think should be done to better protect and reassure communities and make them feel safer?
57 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/23 8:28:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, my colleague raised a very valid point.
All of us here are members of Parliament, regardless of our political affiliation. Our ideologies may differ. Members are familiar with mine. However when it comes to protecting Canadians, we must all speak with one voice. Any division is unacceptable when it comes to safety.
I thank my colleague for his question, and I hope my Conservative friends will heed the call being made directly to them this evening to get involved and to be deserving of the position they hold.
90 words
All Topics
- 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
- May/8/23 9:12:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle for painting such a clear picture of the doubts that unfortunately prevail in the House. As she indicated, the government has certainly taken its sweet time on this.
We were told that Ottawa could not act quickly because of the potential consequences. Obviously, every action has consequences. They are actually part of the action itself. It seems to me that any government must be prepared to accept the consequences of its action or inaction in terms of protecting democracy. I would like to know what the government will have to do when it gets to that point. It has appointed a so-called independent rapporteur, so at least it has begun to take action.
What can the government do to really remove all doubt?
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 4:17:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is essential that we stand together.
Solidarity is an interesting word. It comes from the word “solid”, so it has to be strong. Solidarity means standing united to achieve a common goal. I think that we need to determine what this common goal is, what protecting democracy means. When one person is targeted, everyone is targeted.
Last week, a shiver went down my spine when I read the word “MPs” in The Globe and Mail. That cannot be tolerated. I think that the initial reaction reported here, that of not believing the victim, at the time the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, is not only hurtful, but an assassination of his character.
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/23 6:38:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. It is an exceedingly difficult topic.
Protecting whistle-blowers is something many people are concerned about, but they are not doing anything about it. We need to get to the heart of the matter.
It is important to understand that, at CSIS, for example, a whistle-blower is a person who has reached the limit of what they can tolerate. CSIS members serve the government, and as someone who knows a few of them, I can say that they care very deeply about their country. When they reach that limit, the situation becomes intolerable. When they speak out, they are doing their duty. They are not criminals; they are heroes. We should come up with a system.
It is hard to understand, but we really need to consider creating a proper system for protecting whistle-blowers. If not, what is going to happen? There will be more situations like this one.
Today, more allegations have been made by Global News. I have only one word to describe them: devastating. To add insult to injury, at a certain point, I think an independent public inquiry becomes unavoidable. We need to think about what will happen in the wake of this, such as a system for protecting whistle-blowers.
219 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague's comments.
Bill C‑27 is a good bill, but it is incomplete. We need to go further with respect to protecting the rights of minors, in particular. Today, minors are vulnerable, but they are the ones sharing the most data without it being protected. They will have to live with that for their entire lives. Therefore, I completely agree.
I hope that in committee we will be able to propose amendments that are accepted by the government in order to protect minors.
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, to reassure my colleague, Quebec does indeed mention that the right to privacy is a fundamental right.
What is most important is that the Quebec act protects the data, no matter where it is used. It is protected based on the location of the individual. The laws apply in that place. At the same time, we do not only consider the size of the entity, but also the source of the data.
These are minor differences, but they are important at a time when data is shared around the world.
92 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
