Debates of Oct. 29th, 2020

Opposition Motion—Prime Minister's Official Apology

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

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

Yes, the people she mentioned suffered, as did their families, but so did tens of thousands of Quebeckers who experienced doubt, uncertainty, anxiety and, in the worst cases, grief, through these difficult periods.

If the Bloc Québécois leader mentioned it in speech, that is good, but if it was important enough to mention in his speech, why did he not include it in his motion?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief.

This historic pandemic has plunged so many of us into mourning.

Does my colleague believe it is our duty to remember the dead and the grief we have felt and still feel, unfortunately, as we weather this pandemic?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

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

As a government, as parliamentarians and as a society, it is always our duty to remember the important moments that have punctuated our history. Just as we must remember the events of 50 years ago, we must also remember today's events in the future. That is why our actions today matter so much.

How will people judge parliamentarians' ability to work together to fight the pandemic? Just as we judge the events of 50 years ago, we will be judged with respect to the events of today.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today after my colleague who grew up in Sherbrooke, the beautiful riding that I now represent.

In 1970, the October crisis was difficult for all Quebeckers, and 50 years later the ever-present memories of those events are still painful. We have a duty to remember the innocent victims and their families. These people are always uppermost in our minds when we talk about the October crisis.

It is important to reflect on our history and to study and understand it. That is how we learn from what we have done. The lessons of our history remain rooted in our memories and guide our future actions. Our children and grandchildren must learn from the past. They need to know that violence has never been and will never be an acceptable way to promote political ideas.

Today, 50 years later, we are in the midst of another crisis unlike any we have ever experienced before. This health crisis is the collective fight of our lives, and every effort is being made to fight it. COVID–19 has devastated Canadians from coast to coast, and Quebec has been hit particularly hard. Quebec is the epicentre of the pandemic in Canada and its economy has been hit harder than any other province.

The government's role is to keep the public safe from both violence and disease. I am therefore rising in the House today to report on what the government has done to fight this unprecedented crisis and to support Quebeckers in need, particularly in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

I would first like to remind the House that Quebec's economy was in good shape before the pandemic. In February 2020, our GDP was up 2.9%, and we recorded an unemployment rate of 5.1%, the lowest since 1976. Businesses were thriving, and their long-term development was robustly supported by our government's efforts to promote innovation and growth.

With the lockdown, much of our economy is on forced pause. Everyone’s life has been disrupted. This is especially true for entrepreneurs and workers in small and medium-sized businesses. These businesses are a source of good local jobs, but also of local pride. They are the backbone of our economy and our communities.

Faced with the uncertainty and risks caused by the crisis and with the calls from the provinces and municipalities, our government very quickly understood the importance of helping them weather the crisis and acted very quickly. Since the beginning of the crisis, the Prime Minister has announced a series of measures to support workers and businesses. These measures constitute the largest economic assistance program in Canadian history.

These include the Canada emergency wage subsidy, which is designed to help businesses keep their employees and rehire the ones they had to lay off. This program has supported more than 3.7 million Canadian workers to date, and many in Quebec have been able to take advantage of it.

Our government has also worked with financial institutions to provide small businesses with access to a wide range of loans with attractive terms, including the SME loan and guarantee program, through which Export Development Canada can guarantee 80 per cent of new SME operating credit loans and term loans. This financial support is available to our businesses, whether they are exporters or not.

Another example is the Canada emergency business account. Launched in April, CEBA provides interest-free loans that include a partial write-off for small businesses that have seen a decline in revenues due to COVID-19, but still have fixed costs. By helping these businesses with these costs, CEBA supports the resumption of normal business operations post-COVID-19.

Lastly, we introduced the co-lending program for small businesses, in which the Business Development Bank of Canada works with financial institutions to co-finance term loans for up to $6.25 million in additional funds, in an effort to meet small businesses' operational needs in terms of cash flow. We have been responsive to needs, and have continuously defended and improved assistance.

However, what we heard when we met with entrepreneurs is that, despite the extensive economic and social safety net we set up, smaller businesses were still having a hard time. For that reason, we introduced the regional relief and recovery fund, or RRRF, with a total budget of $962 million, including $211 million for Quebec. The fund is administered by Economic Development Canada for Quebec regions, either directly or indirectly through key partners like community Futures development corporations and the PME MTL network.

This fund is designed to support businesses at the heart of our local economy that cannot benefit from existing federal programs or that have needs that are not covered by these programs. It provides SMEs and organizations that lack liquidity with emergency financial support to enable them to remain operational by helping them pay their employees and cover their fixed costs, among other things.

Through the RRRF, we have already been able to offer financial and technical support to more than 300 companies across Quebec and thus contributing to the resilience of a number of SMEs in that province. We have also carried out 3,600 SME financing projects in peri-urban and rural areas under the RRRF with the help of the CFDC network. Overall, between May and October, more than 15,000 jobs were protected in Quebec in thousands of small and medium-sized businesses thanks to the support granted under the RRRF.

All of these measures have helped protect many jobs in Quebec, provide emergency support to families and keep businesses afloat as they deal with the impacts of the health crisis. This crisis has not spared any sector of our economy and, with the second wave, additional support is clearly needed.

That is why, on October 2, our government announced an additional $69.8 million for CED to help businesses in Quebec recover from the impacts of COVD-19. This amount flows from the additional $600 million in national RRRF funding. This additional investment brings the total amount of assistance provided in Canada through the RRRF to more than $1.5 billion, and the amount for Quebec to $280 million.

In the Speech from the Throne, we also reiterated our commitment to support businesses and regional economic development and to continue backing communities in the fight against the pandemic. That is why the government intends to introduce legislation to implement the new Canada emergency rent subsidy and to extend the Canada emergency wage subsidy in the near future.

However, at the same time as we are providing short-term support against COVID-19 to SMEs in Quebec, we are also preparing to help them to take advantage of the business opportunities that are emerging in the new economy taking shape before our eyes. Let me give the House a concrete example.

CED has just organized the fifth Symposium on the Canadian Defence and Security Market. It brought together the major players in this key industry in our economy, as well as SMEs and research centres in Quebec, in order to create productive networking opportunities for our companies. Let us not forget that Quebec occupies an enviable place in the defence and security sector. In fact, of all jobs in the Canadian defence industry, 23% are located in Quebec.

Because of this initiative, the SMEs were able to look to the future and position themselves at the heart of the the business opportunities in this sector and the new economic realities of the post-COVID-19 era that are beginning to emerge. We can see that the decisions we are making now will have a major impact on our future prosperity. We are choosing to invest.

Our message to workers and SMEs is clear. We were there for them with emergency measures and support, and we are here for them now, standing by them until our economy can reopen in stages.

We are working with them as we learn from the past—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for her remarks.

During his first term, the current Prime Minister apologized on the Government of Canada's behalf six times.

In the parliamentary secretary's opinion, why would this Prime Minister not agree to apologize now given that he issued a number of apologies during his first term?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent for his question.

The October crisis was a major event in the history of Quebec and Canada, and we must not downplay its repercussions and its importance to the families involved, especially the families of Mr. Laporte and Mr. Cross, as everyone knows.

However, during the present crisis, our priority is to look after the health and safety of Canadians and to unite Quebeckers and Canadians during this extraordinary time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand why the member for Sherbrooke would want to change the subject, but we will bring her back to today's topic.

Earlier, we were told that we omitted historical facts from our request for an apology, which is completely false. We actually spoke of deplorable events that occurred in that period.

I would like the member for Sherbrooke to tell me whether, in 1988, 1990 and 2006, when the Government of Canada apologized to the Japanese, Italian and Ukrainian communities for the First and Second World Wars, the government was ignoring the war and the horrors that had taken place. I would like her to respond.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will say to my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé that, on the contrary, from the start of the speeches and today's debate, our government has been much more open about all the events surrounding the October crisis, that is to say the historical events, the bombs, the murders, and that it views this event taken as a whole.

I will turn this question back on my colleague: Why did the motion not reflect all these historical elements?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, even though I have yet to see a connection with the motion currently on the table.

Any political violence within a democratic framework is obviously unacceptable, but when people's rights and freedoms are taken away, when hundreds of Quebeckers are arrested without a warrant, when they are held without charges, when they are threatened and traumatized, it seems to me that an apology is in order.

Why does my colleague think her government systematically refuses to apologize to all those people who were arbitrarily arrested?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in response to my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, I will say that my comments were intended to show that we, in the government, have decided to look ahead.

The Bloc, however, is deciding to look back. As we are doing in managing the current crisis, our priority is on Canadians, a strong, just, green recovery, and giving our children and grandchildren a great country to live in.

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

Mr. Speaker, does my esteemed colleague from Sherbrooke not think it is inappropriate and surreal that we are here today, during a pandemic, with hospitalizations, deaths and case numbers spiking, and yet we are debating this subject rather than measures we should be taking to protect Quebeckers?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his comment.

I agree with him. As I was saying, in these difficult and extraordinary times, it is important that our government prioritize the health and safety of Canadians, and we are committed to doing just that, as well as bringing together and supporting all Quebeckers and all Canadians.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, he was a lawyer and journalist committed to fighting corruption. He was elected four times and served as an MNA for nine years. He was a cabinet minister during Jean Lesage's Quiet Revolution. He was Premier Robert Bourassa's deputy premier, but above all, Pierre Laporte was a man, a son, a husband and a father. Sadly, he never had the great joy of seeing his children grow up or witnessing the birth of his grandchildren. That is because, while playing with his nephew, he was kidnapped by terrorists. A week later, he was found strangled to death.

Today, since we are talking about October 1970, our thoughts are with the family of Pierre Laporte, the victim of criminals, terrorists and the FLQ.

The War Measures Act was not passed overnight, and the October crisis did not happen overnight either.

In the 1960s, the idea of independence for Quebec was brought to the fore by political groups such as Ralliement national and Rassemblement pour l'indépendance nationale. I do not support this position, but I have a great deal of respect for it. Quebec independence is an idea that exists and that is promoted by people who believe in the democratic ideal. Unfortunately, beginning in 1963, separatists chose the path of violence and terrorism.

All too often, we forget that between 1963 and 1970, the FLQ committed 200 acts of terrorism, including bombings, hold-ups and thefts. These people organized training camps. They bought guns in the United States. They even prepared cells for the hostages they would take in the terrorist acts they were planning.

Wilfrid O'Neil was a 65-year-old night watchman who was killed when a bomb exploded at the recruitment centre where he worked. Thérèse Morin was a 64-year-old worker who lost her life when a bomb planted by the FLQ went off at her place of work. Jeanne d'Arc Saint-Germain was a 50-year-old Ministry of Defence employee who was killed by an FLQ bomb.

Those people should never be forgotten. There are a dozen or so people like them who lost their lives between 1963 and 1970 as a result of the 200 terrorist acts committed by the FLQ.

Ten years ago, Lysiane Gagnon wrote the following about Jeanne d'Arc Saint-Germain, Thérèse Morin and Wilfred O'Neil: “the FLQ was posing as defenders of the working class, but those who died in the FLQ attacks prior to October were all low-income earners.” October 1970 did not start in October 1970.

Let us now talk about what happened during that terrible month, that shameful month for all of Canada: the kidnappings.

On October 5, a British diplomat, James Richard Cross, was kidnapped by FLQ terrorists as he was leaving his home. The next day, the FLQ issued its first communiqué, in which it made seven demands, including the release of “23 political prisoners”.

It was totally irresponsible and outrageous for the FLQ to call these 23 people political prisoners. As Yves Boisvert wrote in La Presse on October 12, “The jailed FLQ members were never political prisoners. A political prisoner is someone who is arrested for having ideas that are subversive in the eyes of a regime. The FLQ members in prison had committed ordinary crimes”.

That is why they were in prison. That is why the police intervened.

On October 8, the public broadcaster read out the FLQ manifesto on air. Unfortunately, during that entire week, from Monday to Saturday, the FLQ continued to perpetrate violence and issue communiqués in which it clearly stated that the kidnappings would continue and that the hostages might be executed.

Sadly, at 6:18 p.m. on October 10, while Pierre Laporte was playing ball with his nephew in his front yard, two people showed up and abducted him. Pierre Laporte would never see his family or loved ones again. The only people he would ever see after that were the terrorists who had abducted him.

Things really escalated after that, and understandably so. After 200 attacks in seven years, the abduction of a diplomat, the publication of FLQ communiqués clearly stating that it would commit further terrorist acts, and the abduction of a cabinet minister who was also the deputy premier of Quebec, tensions were rising significantly.

That is why, on October 12, 1970, at the request of the Quebec government, the Canadian government deployed troops in Ottawa and in the province of Quebec. The fact that it was the Quebec government that asked Ottawa to send in the army is a fundamental historical fact.

On October 14, 16 political figures from Quebec urged negotiations and the release of the “political prisoners”. I want to emphasize that we do not share this perspective, and we find it unfortunate that these political figures employed the terrorists' terminology. In our view, that term did not in any way apply at the time.

Unfortunately, October 15, 1970, was the pivotal day for all these events. That day, the National Assembly met to discuss the two abductions and the ongoing crisis. Of course, at the time, it was not yet called the October crisis.

Here is what Premier Robert Bourassa said about the army:

We have therefore requested the support of the army to allow the police forces to continue to protect both public buildings and the public. ...Democracy in Quebec is currently under threat. ...and it is our primary and essential responsibility to safeguard it. It is with this aim...that we intend, with the co-operation of all members, to assume our responsibility.

There it is, in black and white. The premier told the National Assembly that he had requested the support of the army and that it was his responsibility. He was not the only one to think that way.

Do the hon. members know who said the following on October 15, 1970?

The premier's appeal to us is certainly perfectly understandable and justified under the circumstances.

Who said that? It was not a Liberal supporter, or a friend of the government, or even a government minister. It was the house leader of the Parti Québécois, Camille Laurin, the father of Bill 101.

Let us consider the context. Later, on October 30, the leader of the Parti Québécois, René Lévesque, wrote this in his column in the Journal de Montréal:

The army is occupying Quebec. It is unpleasant but undoubtedly necessary at a time of acute crisis.

At the time, on October 15, after two kidnappings and threats of further kidnappings, everyone understood that we really did need the army. Even the PQ thought so.

On the evening of October 15, the government gave the FLQ an ultimatum and six hours to accept it. It was to no avail.

More importantly, even though there had been two kidnappings and the FLQ was threatening to commit more, 3,000 people gathered at the Paul Sauvé Arena in Montreal to read out texts like the FLQ manifesto and raise their fists in the air while chanting the FLQ slogan, “FLQ, nous vaincrons”, which means “FLQ, we will prevail”.

It is important to remember that that is what was happening the night of October 15 to 16, 1970. Between 1963 and 1970, there had been 200 terrorist attacks and a dozen deaths. The FLQ had kidnapped a diplomat and Quebec's deputy premier and was threatening more kidnappings.

An FLQ communiqué published at the time clearly stated the following:

In accordance with previously established plan 3...the Chénier fundraising cell has just kidnapped the Minister of Unemployment and Assimilation, Pierre Laporte. The minister will be executed...

The FLQ communiqué stated in black and white that it was threatening to execute people.

Even though there had been two kidnappings, threats of more and a threat of execution, 3,000 people gathered to chant “FLQ, we will prevail”. These were the circumstances that led to the invocation of the War Measures Act. It was at this point that the Government of Quebec requested military intervention, and we must remember that it had already made a very formal request that was backed by the National Assembly. Then the federal government met, and at four o'clock in the morning, after a long debate, it invoked the War Measures Act.

At the time, the Sûreté du Québec was in charge of police operations, with support from the Montreal police and the RCMP. The army was deployed to support the police, but the Sûreté du Québec made the arrests.

A total of 497 people were arrested without a warrant. They were not allowed to speak to a lawyer, and they were thrown in jail without being told anything. Most, if not all, of these people had no connection whatsoever with the crimes perpetrated by the FLQ. This was an abuse of police power, and we cannot forget that the Sûreté du Québec was running the show.

A few hours later, on the following day, October 17, the FLQ released a communiqué stating that it had decided to take action. Pierre Laporte was executed. He was found that evening in the trunk of a car, covered in blood, and the autopsy carried out a few hours later confirmed that he had been strangled to death.

René Lévesque wrote: “Those who coldly and deliberately executed Mr. Laporte, after watching him live and hope for so many days, are inhuman beings. They have imported here, into a society where it was absolutely not justified, an ice-cold fanaticism and methods of blackmail by assassination that belong in a jungle from which there is no way out.”

Not too long ago, FLQ member Jacques Lanctôt said, “Pierre Laporte was killed, and it was not an accident.”

On November 5, the first terrorist was arrested, and on December 28, the FLQ members were extradited. That was the October crisis of 1970, but it did not end there. A few months later, on March 12, 1971, justice minister Jérôme Choquette rose in the National Assembly and announced a compensation plan for the 497 people who had been arrested. He was following the recommendations of the ombudsman, who had received complaints from people who had been arrested. He was the one who recommended that they be compensated. The ombudsman, Louis Marceau, said at the time that the police powers had not been exercised with the necessary care and moderation. We agree with that conclusion.

However, the ombudsman never mentioned the federal government's responsibility. The justice minister told the National Assembly, “We hope that the government's approach will convey its sincere desire to repair any harm that may have been caused to individuals during this time of crisis”. The Quebec justice minister never said anything about the federal government.

During the same debate on the compensation proposed by the ombudsman for those who had been arrested, the Parti Québécois house leader, Camille Laurin, said that his party would support “anything the Minister of Justice could do to correct acts that resulted from the government's overreaction”.

There is no mention of the federal government's responsibility, and rightly so, since it was the Quebec government that asked the federal government to step in. It was the Quebec government that asked the federal government to send in the army. Are we supposed to apologize based on that? We will have an opportunity to come back to that in greater detail. That fact is that by compensating the victims who were arrested, the Quebec government proved that it admitted responsibility.

All in all, 497 people were arrested, 103 were compensated, 26 were charged, and 21 were convicted. The question we are asking today is, should the federal government apologize?

We do not think so. We acknowledge the police blunders and mistakes that were committed during these troubling times. As we said earlier, 497 people were arrested without being allowed to contact anyone. Some stayed in prison for a few days, and others for a few months, but on average, they stayed for a week. Of course, that is one week too many.

We will note, however, that the arrests did not come out of thin air. The October crisis of 1970 did not happen overnight. First there were 200 acts of terrorism committed by the FLQ, followed by the kidnapping of a diplomat and the publication of communiqués warning that there would be more kidnappings. Another did follow, that of the deputy premier of Quebec. The FLQ threatened to kill him, and that is indeed what they did. This business did not come out of thin air. A few hours before the War Measures Act was invoked, 3,000 people gathered and started chanting, “FLQ, we will prevail”.

It was the Quebec government that asked the federal government for help from the army, it was the Quebec government that admitted responsibility by compensating the victims, and also, it was the Sûreté du Québec that carried out the police operations. That is why we believe that the federal government should not apologize, since, given the circumstances and events that contributed to this, the responsibility lies first and foremost with the Government of Quebec, which requested this help.

I will let the Liberals explain why, in their first four years in office, they have apologized six times. When we Conservatives apologized, it was for special cases. In 1998, under Brian Mulroney, we apologized to the 21,000 Canadian men, women and children of Asian descent who were imprisoned for three years in internment camps. The federal government was entirely responsible for that, so an apology was called for.

On June 11, 2008, here in the House, Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper apologized to Canada's first nations for the residential schools, where 141,000 children suffered over the course of more than 100 years. This is a very serious matter, because we are talking about lost generations, and it continues today. Yes, an apology was called for.

It is clear that the apologies that we Conservatives made on behalf of the Canadian government were for events for which the Canadian government was entirely responsible. Sad to say, this was the case with respect to Chinese Canadians, and with respect to first nations as well. That is why we apologized.

This is in no way intended to diminish the pain and suffering of the 497 individuals who were arrested without a warrant and spent entire nights in jail without being allowed to speak with anyone. However, when it comes to acknowledging the government's responsibility and offering an apology, we believe that, in this particular case, the responsibility lies with the provincial government, since it was the one that requested federal assistance.

The Bloc Québécois motion reminds us of this sad episode in our democracy and the fact that an elected official was murdered in cold blood by terrorists, criminals whom René Lévesque called inhuman beings, because they watched him live, suffer and die before their very eyes.

We must also remember that a dozen people lost their lives, including Jeanne d'Arc Saint-Germain, who was probably from Gatineau. There is no bridge named after her, but she was a victim of the FLQ.

This is why, when we start a debate or open a history book, we do not just read the sentence that suits us. We read the entire book. This is also why, in our opinion, Pierre Laporte is the ultimate victim of the October crisis of 1970. All our thoughts are with him and his family.

[Michel Boudrias, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this morning I heard a lot of rhetoric about the terrorist events that occurred at the time. However, this debate is about the 500 people who were incarcerated arbitrarily and unjustly and, contrary to what my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent says, with the obvious complicity of the federal government, given its jurisdiction over defence, the army and especially the War Measures Act.

If it is right to recognize the mistakes that were made and the injustices against certain people in the past, such as the Japanese citizens who were unjustly incarcerated during the Second World War, then it is right to do so in these circumstances. That is what we are talking about this morning.

The point is to acknowledge the mistakes and apologize to the 500 people who were unjustly incarcerated with the legal complicity of the federal government. They incarcerated 500 Quebeckers who had absolutely nothing to do with the terrorist acts that keep being mentioned. That is not what we are talking about this morning.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House that among those arrested, 21 were found guilty.

Like I said earlier, the police made mistakes, and people suffered. When presenting apologies, it is important to address the situation as it happened. Nothing would have happened if the Government of Quebec had not requested it.

The federal government cannot decide to send in the army like that. In fact, that is what we are seeing right now in a different dispute. We all know it. I cannot draw any parallels between what happened in the past few months and what happened 50 years ago. We must be careful.

Too often, we hear in some documentaries and statements the claim that prime minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau woke up one night and decided to send in the army to quell the separatists. That did not happen. The Government of Quebec, the province's supreme authority, asked the federal government to intervene. Would the Bloc Québécois rather that Ottawa say no to Quebec? That is not our position.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for Louis—Saint-Laurent for his speech. He gave quite the overview of the situation, brought us back into the context of the time and evoked some very painful memories for all Quebeckers and Canadians.

My colleague spent a lot of time in the National Assembly. Time and time again, he has heard the sanitized versions of history that ignore the context and the victims. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say regarding the reasons why our Bloc Québécois colleagues are desperately trying to sanitize this version of history.

Why must their side of history be the only one that is heard?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is their choice and their decision. That is on them. They will have to take responsibility for their actions, as do we. We are very proud of the positions that we take and we take full responsibility for them.

It is important to understand that we are not talking about an isolated incident but a combination of factors that contributed to the state of heightened tension that occurred the night of October 15 into the morning of October 16, 1970. All too often people forget that, from 1963 to 1970, there were 200 bombings that killed 10 people, including Jeanne d'Arc Saint-Germain, who likely lived in the member's riding. There were also successive kidnappings, kidnapping threats and the execution of hostages. All of these things led to the use of the War Measures Act.

The Government of Quebec requested it. The Sûreté du Québec conducted the operations. Five months later, the Government of Quebec offered compensation to those who had been arrested. The primary responsibility lies with the Government of Quebec. Had the Government of Quebec not requested it, the army would not have been sent in and the War Measures Act would not have been invoked.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very thorough and serious speech. It was well-researched, as always.

That being said, I do not necessarily agree with his conclusion. Personally, I do not think that the wrongs of some people cancel out the wrongs of others or that the suffering of some cancel out the suffering of others.

There were massive raids. A total of 31,000 apartments and houses were searched and 500 arbitrary arrests were made. It resembled the authoritarian regimes of Chile, Argentina or Greece under the colonels. These police blunders would not have occurred had it not been for the suspension of civil rights and the invoking of the War Measures Act, which the NDP opposed at the time.

Should the federal government not bear some responsibility since the vote took place here in the House?

Those people are at least entitled to an apology.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the facts do not quite add up. It is important to acknowledge that had it not been for Quebec's request, these events would not have taken place, but more importantly, if there had been no FLQ, this would not have happened. These 497 people were arrested because of the actions of criminals, terrorists and murderers. That is what we must always remember.

Could we go so far as to say that the 497 people who were arrested are collateral victims of the FLQ? That is my question.

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

Mr. Speaker, at the same time in the United States, more than 1,000 bombs a month were exploding. Was martial law declared? At the same time in France, in May 1968, there was a big revolution, something that had not happened for years. Was martial law declared?

I would like the hon. member to explain to me why Canada was the only western democracy to do so.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if Brittany asked the Élysée to declare martial law. I do not know if the State of Wisconsin asked the White House to declare martial law and call in the army. What I do know is that the Government of Quebec asked the federal government to call in the army. These are historical facts.

When we interpret events, we must be careful, because we look at them through our present-day perspective. They happened 50 years ago. It is nevertheless strange to see that the Bloc Québécois regrets that Ottawa agreed to a request from Quebec.

I am very careful when I say this, but that is reality. Yesterday, the leader of the Bloc Québécois mentioned the RCMP. Is the Bloc Québécois saying that the federal government should have listened to the RCMP rather than the Government of Quebec?

I know it is sad to recall all these events, but reality and facts are stubborn. It was the Government of Quebec that asked for military intervention. It was the Sûreté du Québec that made the arrests, with the help, of course, of the army and the RCMP in Montreal. It was the Government of Quebec that compensated the individuals five months later.

[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 want thank the government House leader and the opposition House leader for the perspectives they have brought to this debate. I found it very informative.

The member talked about arrests and how that was conducted. Could he expand on that aspect and the role the military played?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in my respect for my colleague, I will answer his question in English.

We have to keep in mind that those moments were very tough for everybody. Yes, we had to take a decision at that time. It is important to remind people of the fact that the Quebec government asked for the military and that the Sûreté du Québec called the shots during the arrests. The Quebec government recognized its role and took responsibility by offering compensation to those who were arrested.

Regarding the member's question about the role of the army, the army was there in support of the police, which was there to guide everybody. The Sûreté du Québec, the Quebec provincial police, was the operator of that situation, with the support of Montreal police, the RCMP and the military. However, those who were there to act were members of the Sûreté du Québec.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

This is a complex and very emotional debate, and it stirs up many things from the past for everyone who lived through that period, including friends and family members. I hope my speech proves that this is not a subject that I take lightly. It is not like any other speech one might give on a bill or trade agreement, for example.

This is important, because we are discussing events that happened 50 years ago. It is extremely difficult to look at something that happened half a century ago with today's eyes. I would therefore like to take a few minutes to provide some historical context.

For decades, Quebec's working class was exploited, scorned, humiliated, overlooked and treated like second-class citizens.

In the 1950s and 1960s, there was an incredible number of artistic and intellectual movements. I am thinking of the Refus Global manifesto, which would lead to greater emancipation of Quebec's French-speaking working class. There would be major accomplishments with the Quiet Revolution, the election of Jean Lesage and his government, the nationalization of hydroelectricity and the creation of the ministry of education. These were undeniable advances that were made peacefully in a democratic context. We can be proud of them and we continue to be proud of them today.

At the time, certain young revolutionaries thought that things were not moving quickly enough or going far enough. They were losing hope in peaceful, democratic changes and social progress. They made the fundamental mistake of using political violence, which is always unacceptable in a democratic and lawful society.

They committed violent acts that caused irreparable harm. They were responsible for deaths, injuries and kidnappings and they left many people in mourning. We must not minimize or leave that out of the discussion.

When a kidnapping occurs, the appropriate response is to conduct a search and have a police investigation. The job of the police is to find those who are kidnapped and bring them safely home. That is not what happened. That is the tipping point, the point of divergence that will also have serious consequences.

As I reminded my colleague earlier, the wrongs of some people do not cancel out the wrongs of others and the suffering of some does not cancel out the suffering of others. I feel that our discussion on the entire context of the time must be reasonable and nuanced.

It is at moments like those that things slip out of a government's grasp. The reaction is disproportionate. Instead of giving more powers to the police so that they can conduct police investigations, the ultimate weapon is used. Basic freedoms and civil rights are suspended. The War Measures Act is invoked and the Canadian army is sent against its own people.

This was the first and only time that has happened in our history. The NDP, led at the time by Tommy Douglas, said very clearly and explicitly that, in a democratic society, there is a danger in wishing to save democracy by attacking democracy, and wishing to preserve civil liberties by suspending them. That is going much too far.

We must not take this lightly. Considerable powers were given to the army to be able to bypass basic rights, end civil liberties, allow arrests without warrant, and imprison people for up to 90 days with no outside contact and before they were even told what they were accused of. At the time, only the NDP opposed those actions because it considered them to be excessive.

Let me paraphrase Tommy Douglas, the NDP leader at the time. He said that, in a democracy, the proper thing to do, the only thing to do, is to come to Parliament and ask Parliament to grant additional powers or, if necessary, to change the Criminal Code.

However, that is not at all what happened. The government bypassed Parliament and parliamentarians. It overreacted, sending the army out against its own citizens in peacetime. It was a serious crisis, but we were not at war.

Tommy Douglas continued by saying that basic human rights cannot be destroyed, suspended or disregarded simply because the country is cloaked in a climate of fear. We were indeed cloaked in a climate of fear, but that does not justify the government’s reaction. In a democratic and lawful society, people are considered innocent until proven guilty. That was all swept aside.

Tommy Douglas continued by saying that it was extremely risky and dangerous to revoke fundamental freedoms like that. He reminded Canadians of what happened in countries like South Africa, Rhodesia, as it was then called, and Czechoslovakia, and that it sometimes ended very badly.

It is difficult to tell the story 50 years later. My impression is that they did not want to bother with a small group or small active cells but rather to hit hard and create a climate of fear among Quebeckers. They wanted a wide-ranging response and they brought out the heavy artillery. When I say heavy artillery, I mean tanks in the streets.

There were also mass arrests: 500 people were arbitrarily arrested. There were raids in 31,700 houses, where people were woken up in the middle of the night with a machine gun in their face or in their children’s faces. Of course, they were traumatized and felt threatened. Items were seized from more than 4,200 apartments. The 500 people arrested were from every walk of life: artists, intellectuals, left-wing activists, socialists, unionists. They were people who wanted a better, fairer and freer society.

Still today, I cannot understand how people like Gaston Miron, Gérald Godin and Pauline Julien could have been arrested without a warrant under the War Measures Act. People were arrested who had no contact with the outside world and who had no idea what was going on in society. It is hard to imagine the anguish and anxiety these people felt at being jailed without knowing why, without knowing when they would get out or what they were accused of. Some people were physically intimidated and threatened at gunpoint while they were in jail. Do you not think that these people deserve an apology from the federal government?

The police committed some blunders and went too far. However, these blunders and excesses and raids only occurred because civil liberties were suspended and the War Measures Act was imposed. The raids were so sweeping, they bring to mind the lowest moments of the authoritarian regimes of Chile, Argentina, or Greece under the colonels. It is nothing to be proud of. We must acknowledge the harm and suffering inflicted on people who were unjustly arrested and families who lost a father, a husband or a friend.

I would also like to quote Le Devoir, the only newspaper that came out against the War Measures Act. At the time, it was run by Claude Ryan, a good friend of René Lévesque's. René Lévesque and Claude Ryan had a good friend in common named Pierre Laporte, and yet, neither Mr. Lévesque nor Mr. Ryan hesitated to say that invoking the act was unacceptable.

I would like to an article by Jean-François Nadeau in Le Devoir:

As political scientist Guy Lachapelle reminds us in a new book about the October crisis, Ryan and Lévesque were first and foremost allies in that time of turmoil: “During the 1970 crisis, political power sought to kill Quebec's democracy by attempting to silence everyone...who dared speak of freedom.”