Debates of Oct. 29th, 2020

Opposition Motion—Prime Minister's Official Apology

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks.

I remember the events of 1970 like it was yesterday. At the time, I was working as a reporter in Montreal.

It is clear that, after the War Measures Act was declared, those arrested in the police sweeps were merely highly vocal critics of the governments of Montreal and of Quebec. They were Quebec nationalists; I had friends among them.

At the same time, and given that many historians today recognize the realities on the ground in Quebec at the time did not justify the War Measures Act, the Prime Minister of the day, Pierre Trudeau, had little choice when he received the panicked request from Mayor Drapeau and Premier Robert Bourassa for the Government of Canada to act. They believed there was much more going on than the reality on the ground, which was a number of thuggish murderers.

Does my colleague recognize the fact that, were a similar request made today, the Government of Canada, lacking the facts on the ground, would have to act in a similar way?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have no recollection of the October crisis in 1970 because I was not born yet. I have only read books, and seen reports, films and documentaries about it. In addition, friends of my family, of my father, were close to people who were arrested.

If we put ourselves in Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s shoes, we can see that the situation was indeed difficult. I think that he should have been the most reasonable and composed person, but that he, instead, made the situation worse. Mr. Trudeau is also the father of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He acted contrary to subsequent political actions and his political legacy, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which followed the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. I find his position at the time contradictory.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent told us that it was a shame that the Government of Quebec had asked for this. Conservatives now argue that because the Quebec premier had requested it, it was okay to declare martial law. Today, the former party of the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent in Quebec City is asking for an apology from the federal government.

According to my hon. colleague, is the Government of Quebec wrong to ask the Government of Canada for an apology?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do think this definitely warrants an official public apology.

These events occurred in very troubled times, but I think the government wanted to stifle and stamp out a peaceful, democratic grassroots movement at the same time. The net was cast a bit too wide. As Tommy Douglas said at the time, it was like using a sledgehammer to crack a peanut.

I would like to quote a sentence I really appreciated from Jean-François Nadeau's article:

By condemning the violence used by both the state and the revolutionaries, Lévesque and Ryan will be amongst those who would defend the profound sense of institutions that were turned upside down by the winds of the moment, to the point of turning against the population.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I find I am learning a great deal from this debate, particularly from the perspectives of the government and official opposition House leader.

Would the member not agree it seems we are looking at a relatively small portion of the bigger picture of what took place? Is that the right thing to be basing a vote on?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if we in the NDP had to draft such a motion, we probably would have worded it a little differently. However, we do agree with its substance, in other words, that invoking the War Measures Act was excessive. It was an attack on the fundamental freedoms of Quebeckers and it went too far. We obviously think this warrants an official apology. That is why we will support this motion, just as the NDP stood up for rights and freedoms during the time of Tommy Douglas.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his speech. He said a number of important things, but two of them made a particular impression on me.

First, that it is still an emotional issue today. It is the same for me, despite the fact that I am the first speaker from English Canada to take the floor. I am speaking to you today from New Westminster, British Columbia.

Then, the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie said that two wrongs do not make a right. He is absolutely correct. Of course, we are thinking about the victims of the violence that took place at the time, but that does not take away from the tragedy experienced by hundreds of people who were jailed without a trial or a valid reason, and not allowed to call a lawyer. In addition, soldiers and police officers showed up in the middle of the night at thousands of houses. Canadians had never seen anything like it.

I was an eight-year-old child in British Columbia during the October crisis. I saw it through the eyes of a child. I saw the images on television, and I even remember what I felt when I saw the soldiers, machine guns and tanks in the streets of Canada. I was worried that the same thing would happen in my neighbourhood, and that Canada was not the country I thought it was. Even at eight years old, I knew that there was something extremely troubling in the actions of those soldiers in the streets.

Later on, in high school, I learned more about the October crisis. Of course, I heard about the courage of many of the people involved. That is when I learned about Tommy Douglas. He was someone who had the courage to stand up, even when the media and political elite were saying that the government was doing the right thing. I had started learning our history and understanding how the federal government had acted inappropriately and with excessive force.

Later on, I lived in Quebec for 10 years. I did my university studies there. I did not speak a word of French. At the time, I could only dream of making such a speech before the House. I began my studies in Chicoutimi, then continued them in Sherbrooke and Montreal. I began to understand Quebec society and all its strengths.

At the time, I also had the opportunity to meet Pauline Julien and become her friend. We were taking a Spanish course in Montreal. In addition to being talented and extremely friendly with everyone, Pauline Julien was much better than me at Spanish. She spoke a little about that sad time in her life and told me that, at the time, she understood that she also had allies in English Canada.

Today we are discussing an important motion, and I must say that I am very disappointed with the speech by the leader of the Bloc Québécois, partly because he ignored the role played by many people in English Canada. There was Tommy Douglas, of course, but also the entire NDP caucus and organized labour. I find it very unfortunate that all of the voices raised in English Canada against the invoking of the War Measures Act have been forgotten.

I find that is making the English Canada of the time into a caricature.

We are discussing such an important motion. I find that it is unfortunate to do away with those voices and to make everyone outside Quebec into a caricature. The reality, in fact, was that Tommy Douglas stood tall, even through the criticism of the media and political elite that he was doing it for civil rights and for individual freedoms. He did it despite all that criticism, and I find it unfortunate that he should be erased from history in such an important motion during such an important debate. Courageous voices in Quebec, but also those outside Quebec, have given us the knowledge today that the federal government did not have the right to do what it did at that time. It did not have the right to imprison so many people. Tommy Douglas and the NDP showed their courage in a number of matters. The party was the first to push for bilingualism, it was the first to recognize Quebec's right to self-determination. That is what led me, at the age of 14, to take out my first party membership card. I still have it today, 40 years later.

I find that this motion is extremely important. First, apologies can heal scars that, as we know, remain very raw today, though the events occurred 50 years ago. It is important that apologies be given.

As some members already mentioned, some people's civil rights, democratic freedoms and fundamental rights were suspended not because they posed a risk or a threat to society, but because of their political opinions. I hope that this will never happen again in Canada. We need to learn from our mistakes, and the only way to do that is to apologize. That way we can heal the scars and turn the page.

We also need to stop with the caricatures. I criticized the leader of the Bloc Québécois earlier because his depiction of English Canada was a real caricature, which I find extremely unfortunate.

I am in New Westminster today. There is a French immersion school two blocks from my house where hundreds of children are learning French. I can see it from where I am. Before the school year begins, parents line up for an entire weekend to register their children in French immersion. The reality in my neighbourhood is the same in communities across English Canada. I therefore think this caricaturing of English Canada is unfortunate.

I am also opposed to the fact that a minority in English Canada is caricaturing Quebec. I am opposed to that. We need to understand that in order to eliminate caricatures and talk about important things. I think that today's apology is part of that process, that journey.

Finally, we need to work together to build a society where everyone is included. I am talking about both Quebeckers and indigenous people, who are often left out. The sad stories in recent months clearly show that there is still racism to overcome. We also need to address systemic racism. We need to work together to apologize for the mistakes of the past and become a more inclusive society.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I heard my NDP colleague say that he was disappointed with my leader's speech, assuming he did not acknowledge that the historic leader of the NDP, Tommy Douglas, voted against the War Measures Act. I do not know if he listened because I was sitting in the same place where I am sitting now, and I heard my leader acknowledge by name that Mr. Douglas' vote was for everyone's rights and freedoms. It is good to recognize that sometimes there is good in what other parties do.

I am also disappointed in my colleague's speech because he kept saying that the NDP was doing a good job and that the Bloc was making a caricature of things. Personally, I thought my leader's speech was very good.

My colleague did not state a single time that the operation was aimed at subduing the sovereignists, that it was the sovereignists who were targeted. Why is he unable to say so?

I would like him to admit this fact. I was disappointed in that part of his speech.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question.

I said it was for political opinions. The people who wanted sovereignty, Quebec's independence, were the ones targeted. That is why I specifically mentioned my friendship with Pauline Julien.

We only want Tommy Douglas' position to be recognized, which is why my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie specifically questioned the leader of the Bloc Québécois. This is how the leader of the Bloc Québécois finally admitted that voices in English Canada had risen up against the tragedy of kidnapping people and putting them in jail. It is the caricature of English Canada and what exists outside Quebec that I found unfortunate and inappropriate.

The motion is a good one, and the credit goes entirely to the Bloc Québécois. It must be adopted. However, the speeches must reflect the motion and the importance of the apology.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am sorry to have to speak English today.

I know most Canadians think the October crisis happened only in Quebec, but as I was preparing for this debate I learned that the Francophone community in my riding of Edmonton Strathcona was also impacted. Students at the Campus Saint-Jean were arrested during this attack on our civil liberties that Tommy Douglas and the NDP spoke out against.

Today the Francophone community and Francophone culture in my province are under attack again. The UCP government is refusing to support the Campus Saint-Jean, despite a legal contract to do so.

Knowing how important it is to recognize, and indeed to cherish, our Francophone culture in Quebec, would the member agree that protecting Francophones across Canada is vital to healing the scars caused by the October crisis?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Edmonton Strathcona is a very strong and powerful voice in the House of Commons, and it does not surprise me that she is standing up on that very important issue given the turmoil the provincial government is causing in Alberta. She is right to point out that it is important to defend Francophones across the country, which is why I am a New Democrat.

In every single province where the NDP has been in power, we have put in place strong protections and additional measures and services for the Francophone population. That is something no other party can pretend to have done at the provincial level. The member knows the struggle in Alberta of Leo Piquette: the NDP MLA who also pushed for Francophone rights in New Brunswick. What we have seen across the country is consistency with the NDP when it comes to bilingualism and supporting Francophone minority language rights. It is something I am very proud to express as a New Democrat, and is something no other Canadian party has done.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is for Steve Albert, Richard Amyot, Claude Anctil, Lise André, D'Arcy Archambault, Jean-Luc Arène, Spiros Argiros, Michel Aubé, Claude Auclair, Élaine Audet, Florent Audette, Nick Auf Der Maur, Lise Balcer, Marcel Barbeau, Robert Barbeau, Louise-Francine Barsalou, René Bataille, Pierre-Marc Beauchamp, Pierre Beaudet, Marc-André Beaudin, André Baudry, André Beaulieu, Gérard Beaulieu, Guy Beaulieu, Louis Beaulieu, André Beaulne Laflèche, Jacques Beaulne Laflèche, André Bélanger, Jean-Pierre Bélanger, Richard Bélanger, Roger Bélanger, François Bélisle, Francine Bélisle, Michel Belleau, Henri Bellemare, Claudette Bertrand, Jean Bertrand, Jacques Bérubé, André Bilodeau, Denis Bilodeau, Jean Bilodeau, Monique Bilodeau, Pierre Bilodeau, Robert Bilodeau, Michel Bissonnette, Normand Bissonnette, Denis Blanchard, Jocelyne Blanchard, Véronique Blanchard, Yves Blondin, Monique Blondin Martin, Jean Boisjoly, Pierre Boissonnault, Michel Boisvert, Diane Boivin, Jean-François Bonin, Paul Bonneville, Denise Boucher, Pierre Bourgault, Yves Bourgault.

I rise in the House today to remind hon. members of Canada's five agreements for enacting the War Measures Act.

We want to note that this episode is one of the most traumatizing in the history of Quebec and one of the darkest chapters in the history of the Government of Canada.

It is high time that Ottawa recognize its mistakes and apologize to Quebec.

I would like to remind the House that when the War Measures Act was enacted on October 16, 1970, the Government of Canada gave itself the power to suspend the basic freedoms of its citizens. This legislation enabled it to trample on the rights of Quebeckers during a time when we were at war with no one. The Canadian government gave itself this power and abused it.

I would also like to remind the House that 97 Quebeckers were arrested and imprisoned, some of whom were famous, including union member Michel Chartrand, singer Pauline Julien, poet Gaston Miron and journalist Gilles Paquin. Most of them were workers and mothers and fathers with families. The only thing they were guilty of was being Quebeckers with political opinions that inconvenienced politicians in power in Ottawa.

Today, the government has the responsibility of recognizing the gravity of the decisions it made at the time. It must take responsibility for its mistakes and recognize its wrongdoings so that Quebeckers' rights and freedoms are never violated in the same way ever again.

Since 2016, the government has presented many apologies for past injustices. It is high time that the Canadian government apologize to Quebec.

First, we condemn the enactment of the War Measures Act when there was no justification for its use. That was the first time in Canada’s history that such measures were taken in peacetime.

One of the ministers at the time, Donald Campbell Jamieson, wrote in his memoirs that the government had no serious grounds for using the army against the population.

Some members of the opposition rose in the House to condemn the government’s actions and the total lack of evidence to support the far-fetched, long-discredited idea that there was a supposed insurrection in Quebec to justify its authoritarian approach.

The government turned a deaf ear to these concerns and decided to go ahead without any evidence that such use of extreme force was justified, when only war, invasion or insurrection should allow a government to exceptionally use the army against its own people.

The Government of Canada had no valid reason to use force against Quebeckers. It did not attempt other courses of action and did not even bother justifying the use of force against Quebeckers. This is very serious and unacceptable

Why did the government decide to act in that way? The government could have chosen another approach, but instead it decided to use brute force, fear and intimidation for the sole purpose of trying to undermine the aspirations of Quebec independence and silence political supporters of sovereignty. It was through fear and intimidation that the Canadian government decided to deal with what the cabinet at the time called “the Quebec question”.

Fear is measured by the number of guns and tanks on our doorstep. Fear is more than 12,000 soldiers in the streets of Quebec’s cities and towns. Fear is more than 30,000 searches, sometimes in the middle of the night, and more than 4,600 seizures. Fear is the air force, which, according to the head of the air force at the time, deliberately flew over Montreal at low altitude to frighten the public.

Intimidation is shattered windows, broken-down doors, entire families staring down the barrel of a machine gun or children woken up in the middle of the night by shouting soldiers. Intimidation is when police officers arrest someone without cause, taking them by force and forcing them to leave their children without supervision. Intimidation is citizens being imprisoned, without being allowed to phone their families to let them know what is going on. Intimidation is unacceptable stories of police brutality, days-long arbitrary detentions, unacceptable detention conditions, corporal punishment and psychological torture.

This was a bleak time in Canadian history. We strongly condemn these violations of the fundamental freedoms of Quebeckers. We condemn that the Canadian government at the time chose to quash the sovereignist movement and handcuff Quebec's democracy.

It is high time for Ottawa to acknowledge its wrongdoings and apologize to the victims of this show of force. I remind members that of the 97 people arrested, 90% were released without charge and 95% of those charged were acquitted or had their cases thrown out.

In conclusion, I would say that Quebeckers are entitled to an apology from the Prime Minister, on behalf of his government. Since 2016, the Canadian government has been rightly making apologies for its treatment of Inuit peoples, for residential schools, to the Jewish community, to the LGBTQ+ community and to the Indian migrants from 1914. We are now demanding an apology for Ottawa's affront to the liberty of Quebeckers. Quebeckers remember October 16, 1970. The Bloc Québécois will never forget that day.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her speech.

The October crisis was extremely sad, especially for Pierre Laporte's family and for the families of the other victims.

Would it be worthwhile for the Prime Minister to apologize? Although he has apologized in the past, he rarely makes amends.

What does the member think about that?

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her question.

There have been many apologies. In some cases, they have been made for the right reasons; in others, they have been made for questionable reasons.

Fifty years later, we can say that the October crisis was a catastrophe. For the 97 people affected, receiving an apology would mean that today we recognize that their fundamental rights were violated without cause and out of authoritarianism. These people expect us, the parliamentarians, to acknowledge that they were wrongfully deprived of their rights and freedoms. However, they must receive a proper apology.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

As a Quebec NDP member, I am very proud to rise in the House today to debate the motion. At that time, Tommy Douglas fought tooth and nail to defend civil liberties and fundamental rights. I think it is worthwhile mentioning it.

Could my colleague talk about what befell Quebec's social movement, the intellectuals and the artists? What were the intentions of the police and the federal government when they arrested people like Gaston Miron, Pauline Julien and Gérald Godin?

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, first, we recognize the position taken by the NDP leader at that time. I believe we have done that. We would like the NDP to support this motion.

What did it destroy? It destroyed the most legitimate aspirations of the people who were basically advocating for freedom, rights and democracy. In Quebec, there was excitement created by the people, but also by activists and journalists. They were brutally told to be quiet, and that is unacceptable.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech, which was very moving.

She began her remarks with a series of names. I would like to add one, if I may: Pierre Bibeau. Mr. Bibeau, who now lives in Saint-Alexis-des-Monts, called my constituency office this week. He was agitated, touched and very emotional about the Bloc Québécois' plans to move a motion this week demanding an apology. When he was 20 years old, Mr. Bibeau was arrested and confined, I would say, for seven days without any contact with his family. Mr. Bibeau lived in Sorel at the time.

I will ask my colleague, thinking of people like Pierre Bibeau, how does she feel when certain NDP MPs tell us we are caricaturing history? How does she feel when certain Conservative MPs tell us that it is the Quebec government's responsibility?

Is this not another example of the federal government wanting to do and say everything, but never taking responsibility?

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to extend my regards to Pierre Bibeau and to all the others.

The two emotions that stand out the most for me right now are outrage and anger.

This was a significant moment in history. It was significant, and a deliberate choice was made. When the prime minister of the day said, “Just watch me”, this led to beds, families and homes in Quebec being taken hostage by a situation, without cause or justification. Yes, the situation was difficult, but it could never, ever have warranted such a heavy-handed response.

Why will the government not apologize now, 50 years later, rather than 100 years from now?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, for want of an apology that carries more weight than mine, and as the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, I apologize to the 13 people from Saguenay and Lac-Saint-Jean who were victims of the War Measures Act in October 1970 and to their families.

Like my colleagues, I will name some of the people who were unjustly imprisoned, lest we forget: André Bourque, Pierre-Louis Bourret, Gérald Boyer, Claire Brassard, Gilles Breton, Pierre Breton, Normand Brière, Réjean Briggs, Gerald Brimicombe, Jean-François Gérald Brossin, Michel Bruneau, Paul Caissy, Eugène Campeau, Georges Campeau, Jean-Louis Cantara, Paula Cantara, André Cantin, Gilles Caplette, Daniel Car, M. Carboneau, Diane Carmiglia, Claude Caron, Luc Caron, Rhéal Casavant, Jean Castonguay, Pol Chantraine, François Charbonneau, Jean-Pierre Charette, Madeleine Chartrand, Michel Chartrand, Micheline Chartrand, Réginald Chartrand, Yves Chartrand, Jean-Louis Chelminsky, Livain Chénard, Robert Chevrette, Gilles Choquette, Bob Chornenki, Nicole Chrétien, Yannick Chuit, M. Clark, Gérard Claveau, Jean Cléroux, Marcel Cloutier, Pierre Cloutier, Robert Cloutier, Kevin Cohalan, Marcel Corbeil, Gilles Cormier, Raymond Cormier, Rosaire Cormier, Serge Corriveau, Suzanne Corriveau, Gilles Cossette, Jean-Marie Cossette, Cécile Cossette, Christian Côté, Marcel Côté.

These men and women were guilty only of the crime of thinking for themselves, for their people. Imprisoning, torturing and threatening human beings is unacceptable regardless of the time or circumstances. That much is obvious. Let's not be afraid to say so.

Some 500 people, including men, women, minors, intellectuals, unionists, artists and separatists, were treated like political prisoners under conditions similar to those in the worst political regimes on the planet. The Bloc Québécois wants an apology. Of course, we cannot go back in time, but the government can at least salve the still open wounds of those victims who are still alive.

As for the mistakes made by Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s government, it is up to its political heirs to publicly apologize for the abuses committed against innocent citizens. As brilliant and thoughtful as these prisoners were, and despite historical hindsight that no longer leaves room for ambiguity when it comes to the offensiveness of the War Measures Act, 50 years later, there are still Liberals and Conservatives emerging from the darkest corners of the House who drank their fill of the cocktail of demagoguery concocted by the government in 1970, to the point where they have lost all their inhibitions.

How colonized do you have to be to justify abject violations of the most basic rights of 36,000 of our fellow citizens by invoking an emergency that has been refuted time and again over the years? Only colonizers could make Quebeckers, and in particular separatists, accountable for the isolated acts of a few disorganized radicals, knowing full well that none of the victims of the War Measures Act were ever even charged.

Today, we know that the War Measures Act was not used to stop the FLQ but to destabilize separatists. If the hon. members of the House do not believe that the government should apologize for this dark episode in the history of Quebec, then they must forget that the October crisis is also part of the history of Canada. By yielding to authoritarianism, the federal government made Canada the only western democracy to use martial law to subdue a small group of radicals.

Let us not mince words. The use of the War Measures Act was intended to criminalize the act of challenging of the Canadian federal regime using force, coercion and terror. Simply put, people were punished for their opinion. The Prime Minister said that the legacy of all of his successors was open to review, including that of his father.

With all due respect to the Prime Minister, I think that it would be honourable to apologize to the victims of the police state that his father and his government knowingly helped put in place. It should not be difficult for him, because it made no sense at the time, and it still makes no sense. When the War Measures Act was invoked, the RCMP commented that it was not necessary to take measures to curtail Canadians’ freedom. The victims’ testimonies speak even louder than the RCMP.

Thirteen men from my region were imprisoned. I am now going to quote from some accounts recently obtained by Radio-Canada: “The police came in through three doors of the house.” “They pulled us out of our beds and began to search our rooms.” One of them said it was a rough arrest. Others said that, once they were arrested, the police did not even want to let them use the washroom and that they were interrogated only seven days later.

Many victims suffered after being released. One of the men arrested in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean was a trade unionist and he said that he had to take a step back from the union movement until 1980 so that he would be forgotten. Ten per cent of those who were arrested suffered from depression. The police broke down doors, searched through people's belongings and, armed with machine guns, arrested parents as their children looked on, terrified, in the middle of the night. Law-abiding citizens were stigmatized and traumatized for life. People had to hide out because they were labelled as FLQ sympathizers, and all of this was done with the Canadian government's blessing.

These were poets, singers, authors, trade unionists, Mirons, Godins, Juliens and Chartrands. When a country does this, it is denying ideas. It is absolutely despicable and a real disgrace, which is exactly why it is cowardly for the government to refuse to apologize. Such behaviour is not worthy of the ideals this government claims to defend every day before Quebeckers and Canadians. The worst thing about it is that the Prime Minister is not the only one in denial about the War Measures Act.

Again we see that, when it comes time to confront the history of Quebec and francophones, the Liberals and Conservatives have the same tendencies and lie in the same bed. The federal government can legitimately be arbitrary and violent as long as it does not bother Her Majesty the Queen. It is okay, Your Majesty, we will take care of it, say the accomplices in the wake of the worst episode of violation of basic human rights, second only to the residential schools of course.

The hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, who is also the Conservative Party's Quebec lieutenant, took exactly the same position as the Prime Minister by using the shameful death of Pierre Laporte to justify the unjustifiable. He proudly and triumphantly told the media that he will not apologize for that. Sadly, literally no one except the Conservatives and the Liberals use the death of a man to justify the imprisonment of innocent people. It is becoming utterly embarrassing, ideological and demagogic. It is pretty obvious in Quebec City. Every party agrees that the federal government should apologize. Even the Quebec Liberal Party thinks that all levels of government should apologize. I know that this is not the first time that the federal government cares little about what Quebec thinks, but I will continue to hammer the point home as long as independence is still not a reality.

I repeat that today we are simply trying to heal some old wounds. A little humility and perspective does not hurt anyone. The pain left over from October 1970 and the War Measures Act has clearly not dissipated. This pain remains, and it is up to the current government to turn the page.

Some of the most beautiful lines and verses in Quebec culture are the direct result of the trauma from the period leading up to or following the October crisis. Some examples include L'alouette en colère by Leclerc, Ti-Cul Lachance by Vigneault, Mommy by Richer and Gélinas and Bozo les culottes by Lévesque. Quebec will hear about and read about this period for a long time.

I want to end by reading a few verses from Gaston Miron's October. I want his words to resonate here in the House, which is guilty of imprisoning him for the sole reason that he believed in Quebec as a country. we will make you, Land of Quebec
a bed of resurrections
and a thousand lightning metamorphoses
of our heavens from which the future shall rise
and of our will which will concede nothing
men shall hear your pulse beating through history
this is us winding through the October autumn
the russet sound of roe-deer in the sunlight
this is our future, clear
and committed

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and congratulate him on a very heartfelt speech. He named many of the innocent victims of that horrendous crisis. He also quoted a number of artists.

I would like my colleague to explain his perspective on things.

In his opinion, why did the raids carried out in 1970 target Quebec artists in particular?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

I am infinitely grateful to my colleague for his question.

Artists are the heart and soul of a people. Anyone who wants to attack a movement like the separatist movement, anyone who wants to attack a people, takes aim at the heart and then at the soul. That is exactly what the Canadian government did with the War Measures Act. It took aim at artists. It took aim at the heart and soul of separatists and Quebeckers.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

I thank my colleague for his speech.

I have another name for him: Jeanne d'Arc St-Germain, a 50-year-old woman from the Ontario side of the Outaouais, a National Defence employee who was killed in a bomb attack on the National Defence headquarters.

What would my colleague like to say to her family?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

I do not know if this is any consolation 50 years later, but I would like to extend my deepest sympathy to them.

Unfortunately, I do not think this debate should focus on attacks by a disorganized radical group. The War Measures Act that the Canadian government invoked traumatized thousands of innocent people.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his very fine and very heartfelt speech.

Sometimes, in the House, it is as if I were witnessing a kind of dialogue of the deaf and a competition among people to determine who suffers and who is victimized the most. It annoys me a little because we must acknowledge both sides of the issue.

Could my colleague tell us more about the fact that a troubled and conflictual situation was used as a pretext to suspend fundamental rights and civil liberties in a totally arbitrary fashion, when there was no justification for doing so?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

I thank my colleague for his question.

There is indeed a dialogue of the deaf, it is obvious. One cannot justify the unjustifiable. When an entire population is victimized on a specific territory, one commits an unjustifiable, irreparable act.

Unfortunately, we are falling into demagoguery. I think there is a lot of demagoguery in today’s debate. All we want is an apology from the Canadian government so that these victims of war measures can heal their wounds once and for all. I sincerely believe that apologizing to these victims will help them do so.