René Villemure

[Privilege, October 1st, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a comment before responding to my colleague. The witness admitted in committee that he had lied to the journalists when he told the story. Believing a liar, in my mind, is not exactly a win.

The Liberal government seems to have this kind of self-defence deeply rooted in its DNA. We only have to look at how many times the Ethics Commissioner has levelled allegations or issued verdicts against this government. Questioning the integrity of someone like the Prime Minister, for example, is bad enough. Now we are constantly questioning the integrity of ministers of the Crown, when something like that should only happen on rare occasions. It shocks me. As an ethicist, downplaying these kinds of things is not an option. I think it is habit in part, perhaps as a result of being in power for so long, but it is also a kind of entitlement, and that is unacceptable.

[Privilege, October 1st, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be here today.

I was there when Stephen Anderson appeared as a witness before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. I was able to see first-hand his attitude toward the requests that had been made. We knew all along that promises would not be kept. His dismissive attitude was disturbing and must be discussed today. Parliament is built on trust. We have to trust each other. The public trusts us. People elect us and put their trust in us. We need to live up to that.

Trust means that you do not have to provide evidence. In this case, not only do we need evidence but the promised evidence has not been provided. The bond of trust has been completely broken. We are bordering on what my colleague referred to earlier as shame. Personally, I would go even further; I think that when we look at some of the debates at committee or even in the House, there is a cruel lack of decency. Decency is something that exists when people have some kind of social contract that leads them to do the right thing. Beyond that, what we are seeing is nonsense.

Mr. Anderson came to committee and told us that he could not provide the information right away. He promised that in a matter of days—I forget how many days—he would provide us two things: the phone records and the identity of “Randy”. We gave him the time to gather his evidence and do his things. Then, we were buried under the phone records. It practically took a team of investigators to find some sort of path. One thing is for sure, what was missing was the ability to determine who “Randy” was. We did not find out. Does “Randy” exist? I do not know. Is he the same Randy? I do not know.

One thing is certain, Mr. Anderson's attitude was, in my opinion, shameful. It is unacceptable, and I advise my colleagues across the way not to try to defend the indefensible, because that only makes matters worse. Everyone in life can serve as an example. Mr. Anderson is a bad example. It is not a good example. It is not an example of what should be done in committee. The committees are not a court, especially not the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, because we see all sorts of abuse.

Committees are a place where we often look for solutions to clearly defined problems, like disinformation or social media. Conflicts of interest are also an issue under our purview. I am not someone who would take legal action unnecessarily or make allegations out of obligation, but frankly, it was impossible to believe Mr. Anderson. It is not complicated. He even seemed flippant about the fact that he was a bad example.

As a responsible parliamentarian, I will support my colleague's motion. Responsibility is the ability to answer for one's actions. Mr. Anderson promised to answer for his actions, but failed to do so. In light of this attitude, we have no alternative but to say there must be consequences. Even though he said it was not his intention, the consequences are part and parcel of the underlying intention. Enough is enough. Actions have consequences, and the two cannot be separated. Therefore, Mr. Anderson must be held accountable for his actions and face the consequences. My language may seem harsh, but he left us no alternative. Unless we impose consequences for Mr. Anderson's actions, we will be left with a Parliament that lacks any credibility, where mistrust and chaos prevail. This is the decadence of a government on its last legs, as mentioned earlier, a kind of complacency that lulls people into believing that nothing is wrong and that everything will be fine.

Mr. Anderson is like the tree that hides the forest. In that sense, this matter must be brought to its conclusion. I will fight a headwind if I have to. This is contempt of the House. Again, these are not meaningless words. These are strong words. It does not look very good on a resumé. Mr. Anderson must therefore answer for his actions and come before the bar, because the credibility of Parliament is at stake.

To anyone who opposes my position, I would say that Mr. Anderson perhaps had it coming. He did everything he could to be treated this way. Mr. Anderson has taken indecency to a whole new level. I therefore believe that Mr. Anderson's appearance at the bar is inevitable. The credibility of Parliament is at stake. Public trust in parliamentarians is at stake. At a time when cynicism toward politicians is at an all-time high, we must take action and bring Mr. Anderson before the bar.

[Business of Supply, September 24th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, when I hear the Conservatives' speeches, I often think of the story about the wolf who promises to become a vegetarian. I have my doubts.

I listened to my hon. colleague's speech, and it made me think of something called obsession. An obsession is something that leads us to imaginary evil. Imaginary evil leads to delirium. When I hear the term “carbon tax”, it strikes me as an imaginary delusion created by an obsession, plain and simple.

I would like my colleague to comment on what she thinks is a fair share of that carbon tax. To hear her tell it, once the Conservatives are in power, the world will be beautiful and there will be rainbows and unicorns everywhere. However, I do not think that has ever really been the case.

How much of the carbon tax is not imaginary evil or a delusion?

[Business of Supply, September 24th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, it is almost painful to hear the desperate indignation of my colleague across the way. It reminds me of act 5 of Richard III, when he says, “A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!”

Nevertheless, historically, when Donald Trump was elected in the United States, people said that it made no sense. The thing to remember, however, is that Barack Obama's poor performance is what led Donald Trump to power. The one emboldened the other.

How much responsibility is the Liberal Party willing to accept for the Conservatives' apparent success these days?

[Carol Binet, September 23rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight the outstanding accomplishments of Mr. Carol Binet, who has been a shoemaker in Trois-Rivières since 1957.

Still hard at work, Mr. Binet's mastery of his craft is exceptional. His passion for shoemaking began when he was young. Over time, his shop became a true institution, serving clients from every corner of Mauricie. His business eventually expanded to include sewing and upholstery services along with a retail shoe store.

The people of Trois-Rivières feel privileged to have such a passionate, skilled craftsman as Mr. Binet in their midst. His unmatched interpersonal skills make every visit a unique and memorable experience. I recently asked him why he had not retired. He told me that if he retired, there would be no one left to make shoes. That was a good answer.

I am extremely proud to honour Carol Binet's outstanding achievements. I congratulate him not only on his career, but also for being a shining example of resilience and perseverance. I thank him for everything he has done for the people of Trois-Rivières.

[Committees of the House, September 17th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes for his speech. Here is the problem I have with his speech: I get his point, but the miserable situation he described with such over-the-top zeal made me think he was talking about Kazakhstan, only worse.

I would like the member to tell me where in Canada one might witness the vision he painted today.

[Countering Foreign Interference Act, June 12th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's speeches are always insightful.

I mentioned earlier that some aspects of the bill could have gone a bit further. Many of our amendments were rejected. I say that without bitterness.

I would like to ask this of my colleague. His colleagues had proposed several amendments as well. What more would he have liked to include? What does he think would have added value to the bill?

[Countering Foreign Interference Act, June 12th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question and especially for his work, which he always does with openness and compassion.

It used to be that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS, acted alone and could not communicate with the other agencies. It acted alone and was its own master in a way. It ensured its own accountability.

I believe that sharing information with the other services will nonetheless contribute to limiting the actions of CSIS because it will not be alone in self-regulation. It will have to be accountable to the other agencies. I believe that simply sharing will contribute to improving the situation that, admittedly, relied on secrecy.

[Countering Foreign Interference Act, June 12th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's questions are always relevant. The scale is plain to see. Concerning some of the proposed amendments, we were told that they would cost too much, even though the other side is spending $2.6 billion. Of course, the amount is disproportionate, which is exactly why it demands our careful attention.

It is funny, because people wonder what purpose Chinese interference serves. Its purpose is to create chaos. Chaos is what we have been witnessing here for a while now, because we have been dealing with that for a long time, primarily because the government is dragging its feet.

[Countering Foreign Interference Act, June 12th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and for her work on the committee as well.

Of course, we had to start somewhere, but we can do better. We managed to ensure that the law will be reviewed after an election, so that should happen in the next two years or so. I think it will be a good opportunity to review certain elements.

I personally would have preferred to see those elements included from the outset, because I think they are fundamental. However, I can understand that decisions were made by reflex rather than reflection and it is better to have something than nothing at all. Still, I would have liked to aim for perfection, or at least aim a little higher. We had come up with some possible solutions, but those solutions were not even entertained in committee. They were thrown out after 30 seconds. I would have preferred the opposite.