SoVote

René Villemure

Member of Parliament
Member of Parliament
Bloc Québécois

Trois-Rivières
Quebec
Voting Attendance: 63%
Expenses Last Quarter: $100,349.98

Government Page

Context: House Hansard - 195 - May/11/23

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

May/11/23 5:31:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I always like to listen to the member because I know he speaks from the heart. Throughout the day, I often heard speeches implying that the Bloc was against immigration, which is not the case at all. We are not against immigration at all, but we are for an immigration policy, that is for sure. I have heard a lot of arguments involving the labour shortage and economic considerations, but that was always in the short term. I also heard a lot about stirring up trouble. I would like the member to clarify something for me: In his view, if a people want to avoid the annihilation set out in the Century Initiative, is that such a bad thing?

121 words

Context: House Hansard - 169 - Mar/20/23

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Mar/20/23 1:23:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, foreign interference is a subject that we all agree on. Last week, when we were in our ridings, my constituents in Trois-Rivières talked to me about this at length. They have doubts, and when doubt gains a foothold, it is not a good thing for society, because anything can happen. I believe that we must all act in the public interest to dispel the doubts. When doubts persist, mistrust creeps in, and often defiance takes over. We do not want to see that. We do not live in Donald Trump's world. We do not want that. If we want to understand a situation, we must evaluate what is happening and avoid making three mistakes. The first is to speak without being asked, which in itself is impertinent. The second is to remain silent when asked to speak, which is disingenuous. The third is to speak without taking note of the other person's reactions, which is being wilfully blind. Disingenuousness and willful blindness are what led to today's discussion. It was the Prime Minister who was being disingenuous and willfully blind by insisting for weeks that there was nothing going on and that everything had been taken care of. Suddenly, at the press conference announcing the miraculous advent of the special rapporteur, the government admitted that the same thing had happened in 2016, 2017, 2019 and other years. At last, as if by magic, something came out. Personally, I do not go in for disingenuous behaviour and willful blindness. Let us look at the motion before us today. The Conservative Party, in the person of the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton, is proposing that all of the work of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the Special Committee on the Canada–People's Republic of China Relationship be referred to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. It is an ambitious motion. One thing I noticed is that the motion calls for numerous witnesses to be invited to speak for several hours. I think it is calling everyone but my brother-in-law Luc. I am the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. We already have our own work to do. We would be happy to take on this additional task, but things need to be done in the right order. Right now, we are conducting a study on foreign interference. The motion says that we would receive the work that has already been done, but, at the same time, it gives us a very long list of witnesses to hear from. The committee does have some experience in this area, and in my opinion, these witnesses will confuse the issue. Not only is the list of witnesses long, but it is also missing a lot of relevant names, which is worrisome. We are okay with taking on the study in committee, but judging from the way this motion is written, I think we would still be at it in October 2025. It is unrealistic to think that these people will all come and provide helpful testimony in good faith and that we will achieve a result. I believe that it is an understatement to say that our Prime Minister and his government are not particularly interested in foreign affairs. That is not what they like to do. In the span of a few years, we have seen several ministers come and go, yet when we know that diplomacy takes time, patience, and relationship building. One advantage that China has over Canada is that the Chinese Communist Party was in power 50 years ago and will probably still be in power 50 years from now. It has the luxury of time. We, on the other hand, are in reactive mode. Our Prime Minister has successfully leveraged Twitter diplomacy, but apparently he was the only one who did not know that interference was already happening and that things were going on. Everyone knew it, I knew it, and my brother-in-law Luc knew it too. Last week in committee, we started studying foreign interference. I asked all the witnesses whether they thought the Canadian government understands China. The response was unanimous. There were Chinese Canadians, academics. They all said that the government does not understand China. I then asked whether the government knows China, and they said that it does not know China very well. There is clearly a need to look deeper and reclaim relationships. China is moving slowly and stealthily, while we are trying something more spectacular. China's actions are a bit like a silent transformation, like erosion. We might pass by a place one day and, several years later, the shoreline might look very different. The transformation is silent. We might not see the change, but it is happening. It is the same with interference. We do not see the change, but it is happening. What should be done about this? Like everyone else, we in the Bloc Québécois want to know what happened. We want to know what happened, when it happened, who was involved, and who knew about it. We want to find out, but without too many witnesses and too narrow a focus. We are talking about interference in elections, but also in scientific research and technological patents on society itself. Several subjects are involved, so the focus can be much broader. Interference is not only electoral. Incidentally, for those who believe that China would ever try to dominate Canada, I think they are wrong. Influence is a problem, but there is more to it than just the election issue. If this motion is adopted, I would also like for us to try to find out the truth in the interest of the public good and not in the interest of finding someone to blame. Some people might like to find someone to blame, but that does not get us very far. It is good to know what happened in the past so that we do not make the same mistakes, but what really interests me is what is happening in the present. What are we going to do so that these types of things do not happen again in the future? That is another aspect. As I was saying, before the special rapporteur was appointed, the Prime Minister did not know anything. Since then, he has admitted to taking several steps. I also have a problem with the special rapporteur. I worked in the field of ethics long enough to understand that a conflict of interest does not necessarily exist just because someone knows someone. However, when there are serious reasons for doubt, then appearances would suggest that there is something there. Ethically speaking, the close ties between Mr. Johnston and Mr. Trudeau are unacceptable.

1154 words

Context: House Hansard - 68 - May/10/22

Mr. René Villemure

May/10/22 12:51:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very relevant question. Charles Taylor, a world-renowned philosopher, participated in the commission that bears his name, during which he took some positions that he later walked back. I do not know what Charles Taylor would say today. I suppose it would depend on whether we are talking about Taylor 1 or Taylor 2. Nevertheless, I think that, unfortunately, all choices wind up being binary. In terms of philosophy, we are better off not choosing avoidance. In a case like this one, we need to choose between believing or non-believing, beliefs or non-beliefs. We are unfortunately dealing with a series of binaries that require a binary choice. Under these circumstances, I think that this is the only worthwhile option.

132 words

SoVote

Member of Parliament

René Villemure