House of Commons Hansard #22 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was water.

Topics

Small BusinessOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Markham—Thornhill Ontario

Liberal

Mary Ng LiberalMinister of Small Business

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member of Parliament for his advocacy for small businesses in Don Valley North.

Since the very beginning of this pandemic, we have listened to small businesses. The member has been excellent at sharing feedback from those businesses in his riding so we can better serve them.

To date, the CEBA has helped more than 770,000 businesses. I am pleased to announce that businesses operating with a personal account now can have access to this important interest-free loan.

The member of Parliament for Don Valley North can tell the businesses in his riding that we are for them every step of the way.

SeniorsOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

NDP

Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. Speaker, 14 long-term care facilities in Alberta have COVID-19 outbreaks; 90% of COVID-related deaths in the province are seniors. The government needs to do much better to support our seniors. The priority needs to be on care for our loved ones, not on the bottom line. Care standards need to be put in place and they need to be enforced.

When, what date, will the government put in place national standards to protect our seniors?

SeniorsOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Thunder Bay—Superior North Ontario

Liberal

Patty Hajdu LiberalMinister of Health

Mr. Speaker, I share the member opposite's deep concern for the outbreak of COVID-19 in long-term care facilities. Of course my heart goes out to all the families that have lost a loved one in every community across the country.

In fact, early on we understood that long-term care homes were particularly vulnerable to COVID-19 infections. That is why we provided $740 million for measures to control and prevent infections. We have also provided, as the member knows, help with long-term care through the Canadian Armed Forces, and the Red Cross is still on site at a number of care homes across the country.

We will be there for provinces and territories. We will work with provinces and territories to strengthen standards so no matter where one lives, one has a safe—

SeniorsOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

The hon. member for Vancouver Granville.

COVID-19 Emergency ResponseOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Independent

Jody Wilson-Raybould Independent Vancouver Granville, BC

Mr. Speaker, as we hear demands for an apology from the Prime Minister for his father's invocation of the War Measures Act of 1970, as we hear the current COVID October crisis spike in terms of cases, I remind the House that the Emergencies Act replaced the War Measures Act in 1988.

In light of what is happening in Canada, in the U.S. and around the world, could the Prime Minister please tell us if he intends to invoke the Emergencies Act, as our COVID crisis continues to seriously endanger the lives and health and safety of Canadians? Further, is he confident his actions and his leadership today will not see demands for an apology for not invoking the Emergencies Act 50 years hence?

COVID-19 Emergency ResponseOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Honoré-Mercier Québec

Liberal

Pablo Rodriguez LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, when we go back to the events of 50 years ago, we have to remind ourselves and keep in mind that the Province of Quebec had requested the intervention of the army at that moment.

Again, if I may go back to the Bloc opposition motion today, it just speaks about part of our history. When we want to be true to ourselves, we should speak about the whole story, not just part of it.

Flight PS752Oral Questions

3:10 p.m.

NDP

Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. Speaker, I think if you seek it you will find unanimous consent for the following motion.

I move:

That the House:

(a) condemn the threats, harassment and intimidation tactics which are targeting family members of flight PS752 victims;

(b) call for the government to investigate the complaints; and

(c) call for greater action to protect the safety of all family members of flight PS752 victims.

Flight PS752Oral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

This being a hybrid sitting of the House, for the sake of clarity, I will only ask those who are opposed to the request to express their disagreement.

Accordingly, all those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay. Hearing none, it is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay. There being no dissenting voices, I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed from October 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

It being 3:10 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Wednesday, September 23, the House will now proceed to the deferred recorded division on Bill C-7 at second reading stage.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #15

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 39 minutes.

Business of the HouseGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am happy, pleased and enthusiastic to ask my counterpart on the government side to tell us what is on the agenda for the upcoming days in the House.

Business of the HouseGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Honoré-Mercier Québec

Liberal

Pablo Rodriguez LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I am equally happy, pleased and enthusiastic to answer my colleague's question.

This week, we wrapped up debate at second reading of Bill C-6, on conversion therapy, and Bill C-7, on medical assistance in dying. I would like to thank the opposition members for their co-operation on these bills.

This afternoon, we are continuing the debate on the Bloc Québécois opposition motion.

Tomorrow, we will resume debate at second reading of Bill C-5, regarding a national day for truth and reconciliation.

On Monday, we will start second reading debate of Bill C-8 concerning the implementation of Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action 94.

I would like to inform the House that Tuesday, November 3 and Thursday, November 5 shall be allotted days.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Official Apology from the Prime MinisterBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook Nova Scotia

Liberal

Darrell Samson LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up where I left off. To summarize, this happened after the Premier of Quebec and the mayor of Montreal asked the federal government to provide them with the tools they needed to support the province during the crisis.

I also mentioned the importance of pointing out that the police and the army were under the responsibility of the Quebec department of justice, not under the responsibility of the federal government. Leadership involves making a decision based on the facts and data available at a given time. It is easy, 50 years later, to wonder if the right decision was made. The federal government received a request and offered its support.

I would like to raise another aspect that is also very important. Exactly two months after the crisis, in December, in a survey of respondents from across Canada, 89% of anglophones said they supported the use of the War Measures Act, and 86% of francophones said the same thing. This demonstrates that the government acted as it should have. This is what Canadians clearly showed.

I will draw a little analogy. When someone is drowning and cries out for help, we come to their rescue.

I would now like to make a connection with COVID-19. We are in a new crisis. We had the first wave, and now we are in the second wave. Once again, the governments of Quebec and Ontario asked for support. We provided $19 billion to support Canada’s health care system. We provided $2 billion for education. We then offered the support of the Canadian Armed Forces, which helped out in seniors' residences in the two provinces in question, Ontario and Quebec. We deployed that resource.

It is very important to set the record straight. This day should have been a time to honour the victims, to think about Pierre Laporte's family, as well as those who faced challenges. It is an opportunity to acknowledge what these people went through.

What really bothers me is that the Bloc seems to want to rewrite history in order to create partisan divisions between the parties. The Liberal Party is here to help Canadians. During the pandemic, we have been there for Canadians. We are still here to help them, and we will still be tomorrow. We will make sure that the federal government can support all Canadians across this country.

Opposition Motion—Official Apology from the Prime MinisterBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Mr. Speaker, we have been very patient since this morning, but we are tired of hearing that it was not the federal government’s fault. Something happened in 1970, and human rights were violated. They are claiming that it was requested by Quebec. Is this a federal law or not? I would like our colleague to talk about that.

Will he acknowledge that the War Measures Act is a federal law, that invoking it was an action taken by the federal government, and that the federal government should therefore apologize? The other orders of government will deal with their apology, but we need one here and now.

Opposition Motion—Official Apology from the Prime MinisterBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Darrell Samson Liberal Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his important question.

I want to remind him that it is a Canadian law. That is the first thing I want to say.

The second is that the mayor of Montreal and the Premier of Quebec asked for support, and it was our responsibility to provide it. Who compensated people? Quebec. Who controlled things on the ground? Quebec. We were there to support Quebec and the people of Quebec. We did it then, and we will continue to support Quebeckers.

Opposition Motion—Official Apology from the Prime MinisterBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary 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 would like to follow up on the previous question. Given the fact that the federal government was being asked to act at the time by both the Province of Quebec and the City of Montreal, and the very nature of the background information, the vast majority of which is missing from this particular resolution, I am somewhat surprised by the reaction from the Bloc.

If today we had requests coming in from both the provincial government and the mayor of Montreal, Bloc members would be jumping up and down asking why the federal government was not doing what the Quebec government and the mayor of Montreal were asking.

Would the member like to share his thoughts on that?

Opposition Motion—Official Apology from the Prime MinisterBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Liberal

Darrell Samson Liberal Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's important question is the essence of this discussion today. As I stated in my speech earlier, the chief of police in Montreal sent a letter to the mayor, Mr. Drapeau, saying that it was extremely dangerous. In turn, the premier of Quebec and the mayor sent a letter asking the government to come to their aid as quickly as possible. Based on that, the government had to support Quebec citizens, which is exactly what it did. I know Quebeckers would be screaming if the government had not come forward, because as my survey showed, 86% of all French people in Canada were in support—

Opposition Motion—Official Apology from the Prime MinisterBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

We have enough time for one last question.

The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

Opposition Motion—Official Apology from the Prime MinisterBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Mr. Speaker, many events that occurred in October 1970 and well before then explain what was at stake, the seriousness of the situation, and the difficult decision that the federal government had to make once it received the Government of Quebec's request.

One of those events occurred a few hours before the act was invoked. Over 3,000 people gathered at the Paul Sauvé Arena, where the FLQ manifesto was read out in all its terrifying detail. Afterward, those 3,000 people raised their fists in the air and chanted the FLQ slogan, “Nous vaincrons”, which means “We will prevail”. They were excited about the idea of supporting a group that, just days before, had committed heinous crimes, kidnapping two people and threatening to kill them, and that was planning more crimes.

I would like to hear the member's thoughts on that. Does he think that those 3,000 people chanting the FLQ slogan hours before the War Measures Act was invoked was a factor in the decision-making process?

Opposition Motion—Official Apology from the Prime MinisterBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Liberal

Darrell Samson Liberal Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS

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

As I explained in my speech, a decision was urgently needed based on the information available at the time of the events. When the premier of a province and the mayor say there is a crisis and they are worried about an insurgency, any government has a responsibility to help its citizens. That is exactly what the government did, and now here we are.

Opposition Motion—Official Apology from the Prime MinisterBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

October 29th, 2020 / 4 p.m.

Bloc

Denis Trudel Bloc Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

I am very pleased to rise to speak to this motion. I do so with great humility and compassion, because this motion is about compassion for the people who were unjustly imprisoned in 1970.

My friend Pierre Falardeau often liked to refer to a Chinese proverb: “The ox is slow but the earth is patient.” Of course this is in reference to the struggle for independence, which can be one step forward and two steps back. With all the ups and downs, one must be patient. I think this proverb also applies very nicely to the motion we are debating today.

It has been 50 years since the War Measures Act was invoked and people have been demanding justice. For 50 years now, people have been calling for recognition of the trauma that those individuals endured. October 16, 1970, is a dark day in Quebec history. On that day, the government suspended individual freedoms and arrested 500 people. On October 16, 1970, Quebec lived de facto under a dictatorship.

What happened? How did a democracy like Canada end up that way? Why did the government do what it did? The government was afraid. It was not afraid of the FLQ; it was afraid of the rise of Quebec nationalism. We have to go back 10 years earlier to fully understand what happened.

Quebec in the 1960s was characterized by the economic, social and linguistic oppression of one people by another people. At that time, 44% of Quebeckers were under the age of 20. They flocked to the cities and wanted to shake things up and build a society that they felt reflected them.

Thousands of Quebeckers, both men and women, rose up and founded two democratic political parties. In the early 1960s, Marcel Chaput, André d'Allemagne and, later, Pierre Bourgault founded a movement that would become a political party. It was called the Rassemblement pour l'indépendance nationale. This party ran candidates in the 1966 election. In 1968, René Lévesque left the Liberal Party to found the Mouvement Souveraineté-Association, which would become the Parti Québécois, the PQ.

These two political parties had the same response to the oppression and exploitation of francophones in Quebec. The only possible response was independence.

In 1970, the PQ received 25% of the votes. Remember that at the time, a vote for the PQ was a vote for independence. In 1970, the independence movement clearly had momentum. That is what Pierre Elliott Trudeau would target. On October 16, 1970, Mr. Trudeau was not afraid of the FLQ, but he was afraid of René Lévesque and the thousands of people who followed him. It was this movement that they would try to crush in 1970. These were the people they would try to intimidate and arrest on the night of October 16, 1970.

They were people, young people, children and women who loved freedom and justice and who yearned for equity and equality, like the singer Pauline Julien, Guy Kosak, Gilles L'Espérance, Marie Labelle, Ronald Labelle, Raynald Lachaîne, Gérard Lachance, Robert Lachance, Donald Lacoste, Michèle Lafaille, Henri Lafrance, Robert Lafrenière, Jacques Lagacé, Hélène Lakoff, Serge-Denis Lamontagne, Hélène Lamothe, Daniel Lamoureux, Danièle Lamoureux, Michèle Lamoureux, Denis Landry, Richard Langelier, Robert Langevin, Yvan Lapierre, Harold Lapointe, Hélène Larochelle, André Larocque, Jacques Larue-Langlois, Claudette Larue-Langlois, Les Lasko, Jean Laurin, Michel Lauzon, André Lavoie, Michel Lavoie, Pierre Lavoie, Roger Lavoie and Urbain Lavoie.

We can see that these were family affairs.

There was also Jean-Denis Lebeuf, Alonzo LeBlanc, Côme Leblanc, Monique Leblanc, Thérèse Leblanc, Kristiana Leblanc. Again, a family affair.

We must not forget Manon Léger, Jim Leitch, Jean-Guy Lelièvre, François Lemay, Robert Lemieux, Serge Lépine, Marcel Lepot, who is a constituent of mine, Jean-Guy Leroux, Jean-Jacques Leroux, Loyola Leroux, Robert Leroux, Michel LeSiège, Gabriel Levasseur, Jean-Yves Lévesque, Michel Lévesque, Serge Lévesque and hundreds of others.

The only reason that the government gave for arresting these individuals was apprehended insurrection. Historians have been searching for 50 years. When we hear the phrase “apprehended insurrection”, we think there must have been boxes of grenades, crates of submachine guns, caches, guns or an army. Where were the military training camps? None were found. None have ever been found in 50 years.

I just named some individuals. We are talking about 497 people being arrested. This number represents realities and people. In the last few weeks, I have had the opportunity to meet individuals who were jailed in 1970.

I would like to talk about Jocelyne Robert. She was 22 years old in 1970. She was seven months pregnant. She was a separatist activist like thousands of others in 1970. She was living in Montreal with her husband and parents. One night in late October, police officers came into their house with submachine guns. Her father, who had just suffered a heart attack, was in a room in the back of the house. She unfortunately asked them not to make noise because her father was in the back room. They charged to the back of the house, broke down the door and pointed their guns at her father's head. He could have died.

They came back to her house three times. The third time, they arrested her and her husband. Jocelyne said that as she sat in the backseat of the car, flanked by two massive police officers, they showed her that her name was on a list. The officer then said something quite flattering. He said that they had received orders to shoot her if she tried to run. A police officer told her that in 1970.

In the middle of the night, Jocelyne underwent a gynecological exam in a small grey cell illuminated by a bare lightbulb. She was seven months pregnant. It took her 45 years to put into words what happened to her that night in October 1970.

Do we owe her an apology?

Will the government apologize to her?

She wrote a book a few years ago. She finally was able to get over this ordeal, but it took her 45 years. It is a lifelong trauma.

I could name many like that. I met many people who had a traumatic experience in October 1970 and never recovered. The apology we are demanding today is for them and for all the others, dead or alive. We are demanding an apology so their traumatic experience will not have been in vain. We want to be able to tell them that it was not a dream, that their pain is real, that it was a mistake and that it should have never happened.