René Villemure

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, February 1st, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his suggestions. The answer is an unconditional yes.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, February 1st, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I salute my Acadian colleague who is a fellow member of the Canadian Branch of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie. I can only agree; however, to be fair, I would say that, unfortunately, when it comes to official languages and French, the Liberals' intentions have always been verbs conjugated in the future tense. I would like the government to commit to doing what my colleague just said, because what he said is not bad at all. Nevertheless, it needs to differentiate between bilingualism and our two official languages. They are not one and the same.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, February 1st, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Drummond.

Many people have said that the throne speech was a compilation of platitudes, a short collection of empty words designed to appeal to hardcore Liberal converts, the ones who will get behind anything. It has been said that say the throne speech contains commitments, promises. Let us be clear. The word “promise” comes from Latin. The prefix “pro-” means “forward” and the verb “mittere” means “send forward”. I do not think that is the case here.

If we really think about it, the throne speech only contains three things: first, old news; second, silences; and third, repetitions.

With respect to the “old news”, the throne speech confirms that the Liberal government plans to continue interfering with areas under provincial jurisdiction, such as housing, police reform, mental health, natural resource management, and the prevention of violence against women.

Now, let us talk about the “silences”. There is a deafening silence when it comes to health transfers, the transition to green finance, EI reform, seniors, agriculture, and many other issues.

Now to the third point, the “repetitions”: unacceptable immigration delays, access to clean drinking water in indigenous communities, international aid, making web giants pay their fair share, and so on. I could go on because the list of recycled, unkept promises is infinite, but life is short, so I will stop there.

The throne speech talks about bilingualism and foreign policy. Since I have just 10 minutes, I am going to talk about two issues, both of which qualify as “old news” or “repetitions”: the French language, and the absence of a clear foreign policy direction.

With respect to the French language, the throne speech is a step backward. It creates the illusion of aspiring to equality for English and French, but all it really offers in return is institutional bilingualism. The proposed means are not commensurate with the stated ends. French and English can never be of equal importance. A mere eight million francophones are up against 400 million anglophones.

When it comes to the preservation of French, real equality for the two languages is just wishful thinking. It will take asymmetrical measures to restore equity. I want to make it clear that “equity” is not the same thing as “equality”. Equality means “everyone is the same” or “the same thing for everyone”, whereas equity means everyone gets their due. Equity means adjusting symmetry so that both languages can take on their rightful importance. That is not going to happen overnight.

As the Bloc Québécois critic for the international francophonie, I can assure my colleagues that French and the francophonie are doing well around the world. It is projected that French will be spoken by 700 million people around the world by 2050. If the Liberal government's current momentum is any indication, it will not have much to do with it.

In order to move things forward, I have proposed that the Jeux de la francophonie be held in my riding of Trois‑Rivières. The games will bring delegations from 50 participating countries and nearly 5,000 participants and supporters to Trois‑Rivières. These people will do more for the French language during the games than the half measures proposed in the throne speech.

Perhaps the Prime Minister has forgotten, but French is an identity, a culture, a way of life and a way of seeing things. This way of seeing things is an asset, and we must not squander it.

It would be better to protect the French language than to repeat yet another intention. Do my colleagues know what an intention is? It means being about to do something, but not having done it yet. Rather than intentions, we would like results. If the Liberal government is unable to take real action on the French language, it should let Quebec do it for itself, by not opposing its initiatives.

Next, I want to talk about Canada's foreign policy or, I should say, its lack of foreign policy. When it comes to diplomacy and global affairs, time and consistency are key to building lasting ties that allow us to expand our influence and wield that soft power on the international stage. I get nostalgic thinking back to a time when Canada was seen as a key player, a country that would be called upon to settle disputes or provide unique perspectives or solutions. I remember when Canada had a foreign policy.

I will remind members of the Quebec Conference in 1943. That was a long time ago, but the conference brought together Churchill, President Roosevelt and his French counterpart in Quebec City. Some of the decisions made at that conference changed the course of history. Canada did change the course of history with the Iraq war, but since then there has been nothing. I remember when Canada did not choose new foreign affairs ministers based on polls or personal preferences. Diplomacy takes time; it requires consistency and perseverance. Diplomacy calls for long-term commitment and proven action, not just talk or a show of intentions. I may sound wistful, but I also remember a time when Canada made foreign policy decisions without first looking to the United States. I remember a time before Canada decided to simply copy the Americans instead of thinking for itself. I remember a time when Canadian prime ministers knew and understood that they could make their own decisions. I remember a time when Canada had a vision for its foreign policy and clear objectives.

Many challenges lie ahead in 2022, including China and Huawei, Ukraine, international immigration, humanitarian crises, American protectionism, and so on. The throne speech does not address any of those troubling issues, but maybe that is my fault. I expected too much of the throne speech, but I guess that was about nostalgia for a bygone era. In the Speech from the Throne, I would have liked to see the Liberal government outline a direction for its actions, a path to follow, a way forward; instead, it was just empty rhetoric.

I do not want to end on a sour note, so I will say this: I can only applaud the throne speech, but with no hands.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, February 1st, 2022]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague talked a lot about things that were missing from the throne speech and things that were included in it. However, I want to ask him about the topics he avoided.

Will Canada be able to restore its international reputation on foreign policy? Canada has been known as a peacemaker and a deal broker. Now, it is irrelevant.

Could my colleague explain how he would restore Canada's reputation without turning the country into a virtual arms dealer?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, February 1st, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate everything that my colleague said, but I still have doubts about the issue of housing. Health is very important, but once a person is healthy, where are they going to live?

There is a dire need for social and affordable housing. The need was dire during the pandemic, and the situation has only gotten worse. Would your government be willing to convert certain unused federal buildings to social and affordable housing?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, January 31st, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague, who talked about all the things on which the Speech from the Throne is silent. There are silences in several sections of the throne speech. There are some repetitions, but there are also silences. I am concerned about the latter, particularly as regards agriculture.

Speaking for my riding, I would say that the throne speech is silent on the French language. It talks about bilingualism, but it does not mention the French language. I suggest to my colleague that we combine our silences so that we can speak out more strongly in response to the throne speech.

[Public Services and Procurement, December 14th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, renewing the lease on the facility near Roxham Road is yet another Liberal ethical failure.

The mere fact that the renewal was concluded in secret and untendered, and that it was awarded surely by chance to a Liberal donor, confirms this.

Providing smuggling services at the border is illegal, and yet Ottawa is making it easy for people to cross. It is illegal and unsafe to cross the border anywhere other than at border crossings, but Ottawa facilitates it. To top it all off, this is an ethical failure because the government is facilitating something that is illegal.

Why is the government making it easier for people to circumvent the law rather than controlling border crossings?

[Criminal Code, December 14th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I will focus on some of the myths that my colleague stated as facts.

The member for Charlesbourg—Haute‑Saint‑Charles may not identify with some of the positions taken by the Bloc Québécois, but I can assure the House that as Quebeckers, we do not identify whatsoever with the positions taken by the member for Charlesbourg—Haute‑Saint‑Charles.

He claims in no uncertain terms that Bill C‑5 gives more rights to criminals. Firstly, I would like to know his definition of criminal. Does he make a distinction between a career criminal and an occasional criminal? Does he believe that occasional criminals can be rehabilitated?

[Criminal Code, December 14th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, mandatory minimum penalties have clearly not proven to be effective over the years. As an ethicist, I worked with police officers and prisons. In both cases, I was able to observe two types of inmates: repeat offenders for whom not a lot can be done, and who are serving what is likely an appropriate sentence, and first-time offenders who are serving time because they made a mistake.

If we vote in favour of doing away with mandatory minimum penalties, we still need to think about maintaining such penalties for firearm-related offences, including the trafficking and possession of firearms.

Does the hon. member agree with me on that?

[Criminal Code, December 13th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, I have to agree.