Debates of Oct. 29th, 2020

Opposition Motion—Official Apology from the Prime Minister

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Excuse me. The hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles on a point of order.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our colleague's comments have nothing to do with the motion being debated today. Can he move on to something else?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I appreciate the point of order raised by the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

I see that the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin has about one and a half minutes left in his speech. I would ask him to ensure that his comments are completely relevant to the matter being addressed by the House, and I invite him to adjust the last minutes of his speech accordingly.

The hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin.

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the subject I am speaking about is a most compelling one at this time in Canada. I am not as concerned with history. We will be talking about the present.

We will adjust our support as the situation evolves, but rest assured that we will never turn our backs on Canadians.

As the Minister of Finance said yesterday, we will continue to provide support to those who need it, as we have been from the start of the crisis, because that is the thing to do.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure the member went to great pains to prepare the remarks he is continuing to read after the last point on relevance was read. However, the opposition day motion is not related to the speech he is continuing to read, even after my colleague rose on the same point.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin has run out of time.

We will now proceed with questions and comments.

The hon. member for Shefford.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little shocked after listening to the speech by the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. It was completely off topic.

In life, I can walk and chew gum at the same time. I can deal with the pandemic and take eight seconds to apologize to the 497 Quebeckers who were victims of the war measures. At the same time, I can also work on the pandemic in committees, which, by the way, were stopped by the government's six-week prorogation.

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the October crisis was difficult for many Quebeckers. I remember it very well because I was there. It is important to remember that, at the time, the federal government responded to formal requests from the Government of Quebec and the City of Montreal. Rewriting history today is out of the question.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my voice to those of my colleagues who are disappointed the hon. member spent almost all of his time speaking about the COVID recovery and not the motion before the House, which I think raises a very important issue.

I am proud to be a New Democrat and very proud of the fact that in the 1970 October crisis our party stood in the House and opposed the War Measures Act. We did so because of its extreme suspension of and attack on civil liberties. I keep hearing about how the fact the Province of Quebec and the City of Montreal wanted federal government involvement somehow justifies the move by the federal government and Pierre Trudeau to suspend civil liberties in this country.

I wonder if my hon. colleague has any comment. Does he agree the decision by Pierre Elliott Trudeau in the seventies to suspend the civil liberties of Quebeckers was a justified response when there were obviously great political problems in Quebec at that time?

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I agree 100%. I was there. I was 28 years old at the time, I was teaching high school, and I can say that it was a step forward.

Today, the Bloc Québécois is trying to rewrite a condensed version of history and sow division for partisan purposes. We know it. However, our government is committed to bringing Canadians together and supporting them as we tackle the greatest public health and economic challenge of our generation.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin said earlier that he is not really concerned with history, but if he learned more about it, I am sure he would be sitting on our side. Jacques Parizeau used to say that history is not taught anymore because it turns people into sovereignists. I would like us to focus on the motion.

Will the member recognize that the invocation of the War Measures Act was an abuse of power that warrants an apology?

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, certainly not.

Reflecting on the October crisis allows us to see how far we have come. Since 1970, violence has never been used as a political tool in Quebec or in Canada. Our concern is what is going on now in Quebec and across the country, and that is the COVID-19 pandemic.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We have time for one short question or comment.

[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 appreciated my colleague's speech. He seems to want to deal with what is on the minds of all Quebeckers, and all Canadians in fact, at this point in time.

Could the member expand on anything else he would like to comment on, such as just how important it is that we continue to work hard every day with regard to the pandemic?

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am greatly concerned with public health and with the vision for the future of young and not so young people. I want to invest my energy in working on measures that will protect the future of our constituents.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I promise to speak directly to the motion in my speech.

In 2003, Jacques Parizeau, one of the greatest statesmen in the history of Quebec, if not the greatest, said, “I did not put anyone in jail, but I was called fascist and intolerant. That is what image is all about. Pierre Trudeau had 500 people thrown in jail, but he is a great democrat. I do not want to play this game anymore.”

Today, just like Mr. Parizeau, many of us refuse this Canadian narrative and do not want to play this game anymore. Those 500 men and women were workers, mechanics, booksellers, activists, poets, artists and free spirits from all corners of Quebec, and their only crime was to want Quebec to be independent.

The following 59 names are part of a list of nearly 500 people who were victims of genuine acts of state terror: Yves Pételle, Robert Patrick Pheeney, Madeleine Piché, Jean Pilon, Jacques Pinsonneault, Jacques Plante, Marcel Pleau, Claude Poisson, Jacques Poitras, James Poland, Bernard Potvin, Jean-Pierre Potvin, Claire Pouliot Bonenfant, Roland Prénovost, Charles Prévost, Jean Prieur, Denis Pronovost, Gilles Pronovost, Francine Quirion, Pierre Raby, Mario Racette, Rodolphe Racicot, Jean Racine, John Rankin, Robert Reed, Lory Richard Rice, Jean-Marc Rioux, Jean-François Rivard, Jocelyne Robert, Gilles Rocheleau, Yvon Rodrigue, Lise Rose, Suzanne Rose, Rose Rose Doré, André Rousseau, Louise Rousseau, Claude Rousson, François Roux, Clément Roy, Denis Roy, Jean Roy, Normand Roy, Serge Roy, André Royer, César Rutigliano, Raymond Sabourin, Colette Saint-Hilaire, Gilles Saint-Pierre, Marcel Saint-Pierre, Claude Samson, Luc Samson, Michèle Saulnier, Alain Saumier, Maurice Savard, Clément Séguin, Daniel Séguin, Bertrand Simard, Penny Simpson, Eric Skup and Vivian Skup.

My colleagues and I will name them all today.

On the night of October 16, 1970, alone, 50 years ago, more than 450 people were arrested and detained under the War Measures Act. Ottawa has never released an official list of those arrested during that raid.

The invocation of the War Measures Act resulted in 32,000 warrantless searches. Of the 500 individuals who were arrested, 90% were released without being charged. As well, 95% of those who were charged were eventually acquitted or had their charges dropped.

In 1977, the Government of Quebec set up the Keable commission on police operations in Quebec. Its 451-page report revealed that, in 1970 and the years that followed, RCMP officers had planned and carried out a campaign of surveillance and provocation of organizations with ties to separatist groups.

The report emphasized the RCMP's illegal actions, including attacks, arson, theft and bogus communications. It was a large-scale operation designed to instill a permanent climate of fear in the community. I would note that Ottawa refused to co-operate with the commission. Is it any surprise that 50 years later, in 2020, we are met with deafening silence from Canada's political class?

The War Measures Act was adopted in 1914. Other than during the two world wars, it was invoked just once, in October 1970, in peacetime, as though the events of that October could be compared to the two huge, deadly global conflicts that marked the 20th century. In October 1970, the act was actually invoked before Minister Pierre Laporte was killed.

Under the War Measures Act, a person could be arrested and detained for 21 days, and searches could be carried out without a warrant and without just cause. Rights and freedoms were suspended.

In 1970, there were 290 bombings a month, on average, in the United States, and in 1969, France was grappling with the Algeria issue and bombs were going off in its cities, yet neither country responded with anything close to the War Measures Act.

Ottawa justified the War Measures Act on the grounds of an apprehended insurrection. If a coup was brewing in Quebec, surely Canada's intelligence services should have—

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Shefford on a point of order.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot forgot to mention that he will be sharing his time with the member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay.

The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères.

If the threat of a coup was hanging over Quebec, surely Canada's intelligence services should have been aware of it. They should have been the first to say that the War Measures Act needed to be invoked. However, the RCMP commissioner indicated at the time that investigations were moving along nicely, that the police forces were collaborating and that measures such as those set out in the War Measures Act, including mass arrests, would slow down the investigation of October's events.

The commissioner later stated under oath that Ottawa had not consulted the RCMP about the existence of an apprehended insurrection in Quebec or about the proclamation of the War Measures Act. Jean-François Duchaîne's report on the events of October 1970, which was submitted in 1980, indicates that the idea of calling in the Canadian army came from the law enforcement community, but that the idea of using the powers set out in the War Measures Act did not come from the RCMP. In other words, according to the RCMP, the situation could have been fully managed under ordinary laws without suspending the basic rights of Quebeckers.

Two ministers from the Trudeau government subsequently confirmed that no evidence was ever submitted that would have led cabinet to apprehend an insurrection. At the time, however, there was public talk of a conspiracy involving 3,000 terrorists armed with machine guns and dynamite. They were supposedly infiltrating both levels of government, no less. Ottawa went as far as to make up a story about a plot aimed at forming a transitional government. This plot allegedly involved René Lévesque, Jacques Parizeau, Marcel Pepin and Claude Ryan, a well-known federalist who became the leader of the Quebec Liberal Party and one of the joint leaders of the “no” side during the 1980 referendum. The very idea is preposterous, but that did not prevent Marc Lalonde, the Prime Minister's chief of staff, from making such a far-fetched statement to the editor-in-chief of the Toronto Star. It was pure delusion. The government was fearmongering in order to justify an excessive and essentially political response that was an affront to liberty.

Ottawa wanted to crush the independence movement that was growing in Quebec. Ottawa must apologize, nation to nation. It is a question of dignity. The War Measures Act was invoked twice before the October Crisis, as I said earlier. After each occurrence, Canada apologized to the victims of this overreach and sometimes even offered compensation. In 1988, Canada apologized to victims of Japanese origin who were displaced and interned during the Second World War. In 1990, Canada apologized to victims of Italian origin interned during the Second World War. In 2006, it apologized to victims of Ukrainian origin interned during the First World War.

Will the Quebec nation get the same consideration? The list of innocent people to arrest was drawn up by Ottawa. The police even asked Trudeau, Marchand and Pelletier, the so-called three doves, since Gilles Vigneault said that our three doves were just our frogs from an earlier time, to play with the list, that is, to remove and add names. What a democracy. This is straight out of a banana republic. René Lévesque said that the Trudeau government behaved like a totalitarian government in peacetime, and he was quite right.

The tragedy of October 1970 must not go unchallenged. The deafening silence from Ottawa today, more than 50 years later, is absolutely reprehensible. In 2004, the government imposed the name of Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport on our Montreal airport. That not only adds insult to injury, but it also shows the consequences of not being the master of our own house. Pierre Elliot Trudeau claimed to be the champion of rights and freedoms, but he will never be that champion for the Quebec nation, nor will he ever be the person Canada tries to convince us he was. He never showed any remorse for the state crime for which he was the key culprit. He was always even proud of his decisions. He was nothing more than a destroyer of a people.

Tomorrow we will mark the 25th anniversary of the stolen referendum of 1995. When Quebec democratically and peacefully chooses independence, one of the first decisions that we will make is to change the name of the Montreal airport. Until then, an official apology—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The time is up. Moving on to questions and comments.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[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, we know now that the Bloc's primary purpose, outside of attempting to break up Canada, is to rename the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Airport. Pierre Elliott Trudeau is the one who brought in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for all Canadians.

With respect to the French language, Pierre Elliott Trudeau was probably the most able-minded and strongest advocate for Quebec remaining a francophone province and the rest of Canada becoming bilingual. One of the reasons many kids and adults speak French in the province of Manitoba is because of the efforts of Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

Could the member provide his thoughts on those two points?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Pierre Elliott Trudeau may be the great architect of French Quebec.

However, he is also the architect of Canada's government of judges, which put Bill 101 through the wringer.

I would ask my colleague to be serious the next time he speaks to us about this issue.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with everything the hon. member said, but I do agree we made mistakes in the past based on the information we had at the time, such as the Japanese internment, the internment of Ukrainian Canadians. These situations were based on the information given to our leaders. It was the same situation in Quebec.

The Quebec government and the mayor asked for help, but there was overreach in this situation. An apology is in order for those who were victimized by that overreach, the people who were collateral damage in this situation.

There is a lot of dissension on this. Would the Bloc accept amendments to the motion to make it more acceptable to other members of the House?