- 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/27/24 5:38:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.
Today is a sad day, because we cannot help but be disappointed. I will read part of the motion that was moved. It states, and I quote:
That the Speaker's ongoing and repetitive partisan conduct outside of the Chamber is a betrayal of the traditions and expectations of his office and a breach of trust required to discharge his duties and responsibilities, all of which this House judges to be a serious contempt and, therefore, declares that the office of Speaker shall be vacated effective immediately...
That is serious. We are not trying to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. This is something extremely important. The role of the Speaker of the House is the highest office in the House, so the Speaker must be beyond reproach.
For some time now, I have been hearing that the Speaker made a mistake, that these things happen. I think it could be x, y or z. The key word in the motion is “trust”. What is trust? It is the ability to rely on someone else, and I will add without having to check constantly. Trust is an element of faith. Members should have faith in the Speaker. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
One mistake can happen. Three mistakes is a pattern. It is not the same thing. We have to be careful. Unfortunately, I believe that the Speaker did not understand what his role entailed. I think he wanted to take up the role and he is happy to be in it. However, I do not think he understood. We are talking about comprehension. I would like to provide a bit of background. I love to play with words. The word “comprehension” comes from the Latin “comprehendere”, which means to grasp the whole situation. I do not think the Speaker has been able to grasp all that he is. His vision is a little narrow. He sees part of the whole situation, the partisan part. Having worked with the member for Hull—Aylmer on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, I can attest that partisanship is part of his terms of reference.
Members will not be surprised to learn that the Bloc Québécois is going to ask the Speaker to step down. We have not had any confidence in the Speaker since December. This is nothing new. Despite the fact that most members of the House are actively contesting them, the Speaker continues to make decisions that show a lack of impartiality and neutrality. Neutrality is rather demanding concept, but we should at least be able to expect the Speaker to be impartial. In this case, impartiality is the ability to choose for the common good. Unfortunately, we do not think that the Speaker has that quality.
We are talking about repeated errors. Let us make a distinction between three different words that deal with the same thing. What is a mistake? A mistake produces an unintentional result. If someone is following a path and takes a wrong turn and gets lost, they can backtrack and find their way again. That is fine. People can make mistakes once. It can happen once.
There is a difference between a mistake and an error. An error is when someone should have known. In these cases, the Speaker should have known. A person cannot be Speaker and assume that they can attend a function wearing their Speaker's robes without sending an implied message. That person cannot assume that a partisan message like the one recently sent by the Speaker does not have any consequences. They cannot do that. That would be an error.
There are things that are more serious than a mistake, like negligence. Negligence is when someone should have known better, but did not bother to know. They did not pay enough attention to know what they should have known. It is like saying that a doctor acknowledged symptoms, but did nothing about them. That is negligence. The Speaker's repeated negligence bothers me. As an ethicist, I am bothered by this. I believe that the Speaker, our supreme adjudicator, collectively brings us to make the right choices, to be guided the right way. Currently, because of the lack of trust, we are uncertain. The lack of trust turns into mistrust. Then we look at all of the Speaker's actions and we wonder if he is in the right place, on the right side. Mistrust does not make for a good environment. It is something that makes us too prone to looking at and questioning every action. We cannot doubt the Speaker's decisions every day.
I pay close attention to the Speaker's actions, and I find him extremely partisan. Some of his decisions are a bit hard to take. I am not saying that all of his decisions are partisan, I am saying that none of them should be. He is just not quite up to the task.
It always makes me smile when I hear him address members as his colleagues. A Speaker has no colleagues. The people under his authority are not his colleagues. His inability to elevate himself is exactly the problem. I am not blaming him for being partisan, but a person cannot be partisan and be Speaker at the same time. There is no overlap between the two roles. Depending on the circumstances, this would be a mistake, an error or negligence.
If we cannot trust the Speaker, or if we distrust the Speaker, what happens next? Distrust leads to defiance. Defiance is precisely what creates trouble, being unable to accept authority and then going a little overboard to compensate for too much partisanship. The issue at the centre of our debate is trust, or should I say, a lack of trust, which leads to defiance and, in turn, worsens an already tense situation.
I repeat that the Speaker holds the highest office and must therefore be beyond reproach. If I were in his shoes, I would be questioning myself when I stood in front of a mirror. I would be wondering if I were the right person for the job. I have a great deal of respect for the role of Speaker. It is a very important position, but one needs to be better prepared.
Earlier, my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît was saying that someone who holds the position of Deputy Speaker of the House may be in a better position to fulfill all the duties that come with the position. I think it is difficult to take someone who is very partisan, which is nothing to be ashamed of, and make them Speaker overnight. I can understand being partisan, but that is incompatible with the role of Speaker.
I think that the Speaker should make the only choice he has left, since his first choices were not very good, and decide himself to step down.
1188 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/5/24 6:01:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague's questions are always straight to the point and quite brilliant.
What enables trust in a given environment? I would say that it is the ability to understand. If people want to understand, they need to be informed.
Certainly, being presented with a bill, law, or treaty that is essentially a done deal does not allow us to engage with each other and make it our own. We can assess it, but we do not really own it. I believe that our aim here, in the house of democracy, must be to build trust. To do this, we need to be better at sharing information.
The risk is quite simple: If we do not build trust, we breed mistrust. If we do not address mistrust, we end up with non-confidence.
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 12:50:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I really appreciate his concern and wisdom.
I would say that, right now, there is one person, that is, Mr. Johnston, who is saying that he has seen something, but that he cannot talk about it. I am not sure that having three other people also tell us that they have seen something but cannot talk about it will restore public confidence.
My intervention is based on the need to restore trust. I do not think that Mr. Johnston's suggested method is the only one; there could have been others. Also, I do not think this is the best way, and I would like to hear about others. As we know, in essence, I am asking for Mr. Johnston's recusal, as is my colleague. I am not about to start following his recommendations, either.
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 4:15:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague. I am pleased to be working with him on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.
Yes, the machine is broken. It cannot see beyond its immediate surroundings. The machine is stuck and cannot think beyond its narrow confines. What happens outside its immediate surroundings does not appear to be taken into consideration.
The issue here is trust. Trust is a very fragile thing. It is the ability to rely on something without having to examine it closely. Today we have to examine everything. We cannot close our eyes for an instant and think that things will be done properly.
The opposite of trust, what happens when trust is broken, is distrust. What does distrust lead to? It leads to defiance, which itself often leads to revolt, revolution or, at least, some undesirable action. I think that everything we do today must be aimed at restoring trust in the government, the machinery of government and the House of Commons, because with broken trust, all we will have is distrust and defiance.
183 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 4:13:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my heart goes out to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills.
I would like to ask him this. The government's blunders are piling up. Just consider the Trudeau Foundation, the appointment of an independent rapporteur who is not independent, or the failure to notify the member in a case like this or to formally crack down on foreign interference.
Is this not the very essence of what it means to undermine public trust in the government?
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/28/23 11:39:35 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, at this point, the ties between the Prime Minister and the Trudeau Foundation are clear. His family, his friends and his staff are involved, as we heard in committee this morning.
The ties between the Chinese government and the foundation are also clear after a $140,000 donation was made. The Trudeau Foundation is a collection of Liberal Party friends, and that is why it is of interest to China. All Quebeckers understand this.
One question remains: Who can trust anyone from the foundation to investigate Beijing's attempts to get close to Liberal circles?
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/28/23 11:16:38 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on February 21, ethics commissioner Mario Dion had to step down for health reasons after 43 years of public service, including the past five as Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.
Mr. Dion elevated the role and today I want to thank him for his excellent work. Throughout his tenure, Mr. Dion helped safeguard public trust, despite the many violations by government members that he had to contend with. He said, “I firmly believe that educating regulatees and the public about the importance of avoiding conflicts of interest serves to help restore Canadians' trust”.
His successor faces an immense challenge. Mr. Dion can leave with his head held high. The Office of the Commissioner is a credible and trusted institution.
I will close by saying that this strategic position urgently needs to be filled by someone everyone can agree on, because without a commissioner, there can be no investigations, and that is just unacceptable.
I want to thank Mr. Dion.
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/20/23 2:38:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it would be impossible for anyone looking at this situation not to wonder. We are in the midst of a crisis over Chinese interference. On one side, we have a Prime Minister who is still intimately associated with the Trudeau Foundation. On the other side, we have China, which has paid a lot of money to get as close as possible to the Trudeau Foundation. In the middle, we have an arbitrator, the special rapporteur chosen by the Prime Minister, who is a friend of the Prime Minister and a member of the foundation. One has to wonder.
How can the government hope to restore trust without an independent public commission of inquiry?
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kingston and the Islands for his speech, which was informative as always.
However, I would like to know how this bill will enhance public trust in the Internet. What mechanism in Bill C‑26 will help guarantee public trust?
47 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 11:08:39 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Kingston and the Islands for his question.
In Quebec, people trust the Bloc Québécois.
25 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 11:07:36 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very relevant question. Quebeckers' trust in the Liberal government is waning.
Given my past experience, I noticed that the culture of secrecy and cover-ups seems to be part of the Liberal Party's DNA, and that is a problem. Whether we are talking about the sponsorship scandal or things that happened before that, all of these cover-ups and this secrecy are not conducive to building trust, and yet trust is exactly what is needed today.
85 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from British Columbia. His riding is magnificent.
I would really like to hear his thoughts on something. I picked up on some major distrust of the CRTC. In my opinion, the CRTC is a relic of the 20th century, but I would like my colleague to expand on why he does not trust it.
Why is he so suspicious of the CRTC?
68 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
