- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Trois-Rivières
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 62%
- 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
- May/17/23 2:51:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety has issued a new directive to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS, a directive that was so important that it had to be made public. It says, and I quote: “CSIS will seek, wherever possible...to ensure that parliamentarians are informed of threats...directed at them”.
What does that mean? Should the directive not be telling CSIS that it always has to inform parliamentarians of any threat?
What does “wherever possible” mean? Whose discretion is it up to? Are we talking about CSIS, the minister, or maybe my brother-in-law Luc? Who?
Quite frankly, this directive is causing more confusion and concern than it is providing reassurance. Will the minister explain it clearly?
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/23 11:36:55 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims that he was unaware of the threats against the member for Wellington—Halton Hills in 2021. No one believes that, but let us say that it is true.
This morning, The Globe and Mail reported that CSIS had a file as thick as a brick against the expelled Chinese diplomat: taking of photographs, tracking dissidents for the Chinese regime, interfering with the staff of Liberal ministers to distance them from pro-Taiwan movements.
According to the paper, Global Affairs Canada and the Prime Minister's Office knew all that since 2020. Why did they wait until Monday to expel this diplomat?
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 2:57:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister meets with CSIS once a week. If we do not include his vacations and his many foreign missions, we can presume that the Prime Minister was given at least 50 briefings since 2021, when CSIS was informed of the threats against the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. In all those briefing sessions, no one apparently addressed an issue as important as threats against one or more MPs. Come on, that is unbelievable.
Of the fifty or so weekly meetings with CSIS, how many of them addressed the threats made against one or more elected officials?
101 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 2:41:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, speaking of newspapers, on Tuesday the Prime Minister accused The Globe and Mail of reporting false information when it said the government had been informed that an opposition member was the target of threats by China. Today, he is changing his story and confirming that the information exists and that CSIS had not shared it with the member. The information exists. The briefing note uncovered by The Globe and Mail clearly states that China could be targeting several MPs. It said “Canadian MPs” with an “s”. Are there other MPs? Who are they and have they been warned?
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/23 2:44:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the government, the Prime Minister's Office and therefore the Prime Minister himself were aware of the threats against the member for Wellington—Halton Hills.
The threats were directed at the member and his family, yet they said nothing and did nothing. No matter how we ask him the question, the Prime Minister gives us no valid reason. If parliamentarians and their family members can be targeted by threats because of votes or positions taken in the House, none of us are safe.
Will the Prime Minister apologize right now in the House to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills?
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
