Alexandre Boulerice

[Business of Supply, October 29th, 2020]

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.

[Business of Supply, October 29th, 2020]

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.

[Business of Supply, October 29th, 2020]

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.

[Business of Supply, October 29th, 2020]

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.”

[Business of Supply, October 29th, 2020]

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.

[Business of Supply, October 29th, 2020]

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?

[Business of Supply, October 29th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader of the Bloc Québécois for his speech and this initiative.

Obviously, this is a very broad and highly complex issue. It is important to remember that, at the time, the only newspaper that opposed the War Measures Act was Le Devoir. The only political party that opposed the War Measures Act was the NDP, under the leadership of Tommy Douglas. I think that bears repeating.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about what it means to have a government that suspends the civil and fundamental rights of its citizens and then conducts raids to arrest people like Gaston Miron, Gérald Godin and Pauline Julien.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, October 28th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that clarification at the end of his speech. At the time, in 2019, the NDP voted against the motion because the Conservatives had rejected the amendment proposed by our former NDP colleague from Sherbrooke, aimed at including some very clear language about maintaining and guaranteeing jobs. I think that is an important thing to mention. I will talk more about jobs later.

I would like to provide some background on the tax system within the federal system. Apart from 1917-18, when taxes went to support the war effort, taxation was historically under provincial jurisdiction. The federal government took control in 1942. It was supposed to be a temporary measure to fund another war effort. Twice, world wars led to the central government and the provinces switching roles on taxation and collecting income tax, including individual income tax.

What happened next will of course come as no surprise. After the Second World War, Ottawa did not hand taxation back over the provinces. It held on to it until a deal was reached between St-Laurent and Duplessis, in 1955. They agreed that Quebec could collect taxes from its own citizens and ensure that Quebec taxpayers did not pay more taxes than other Canadians. At the time, there was a negotiation, and a balance was struck.

After that, many people started asking for a single tax return, because Quebeckers are being penalized to some degree. They are the only taxpayers in the federation who have to fill out two tax returns when all of this could be simplified. I will come back to the real effect of this simplification at the end of my speech.

Recognizing this demand, the NDP passed a resolution at our 2018 national convention here in Ottawa. Similar to our Conservative friends, this motion was supported by a majority, who were in favour of a single tax return for Quebeckers, administered by the Government of Quebec. It is important to note that it would be administered by the Government of Quebec.

Yes, we adopted the Sherbrooke declaration, which recognized that Quebec is a nation, that things are done differently in Quebec because of its history, language and culture, that Quebec is capable of doing things differently, and that what is offered to Quebec is not necessarily offered to the other provinces. That is important.

According to the NDP, the concept of asymmetrical federalism is based on the recognition of Quebec as a nation. It is unique and special. That is also why the Sherbrooke declaration contains the principle of opting out of new federal programs with full compensation, which is important to Quebec. The ability to opt out with full compensation is something that is offered to Quebec alone, not to all the provinces.

For example, if a new universal public pharmacare program is introduced, Quebec would be able to opt out with full compensation. It could keep its hybrid regime, even though I think it needs improvement. The NDP was the first pan-Canadian party to endorse the idea of a single tax return. I think that is an important aspect of the work that was begun by Jack Layton and continued first by Thomas Mulcair and then by the current NDP leader, the member for Burnaby South.

For those who are interested, the resolution that was adopted included two “resolved” statements, and the second is just as important. It states that the transfer, this jurisdiction that would be given exclusively to the Government of Quebec, must not be done on the backs of workers and employees in the public service. That is when we initiated a consultation, reached out and had a dialogue with the people represented by the Quebec chapter of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. They had concerns. During our meetings, they told us that they were worried about possible job losses in Mauricie and in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. They also did not know how these reassignments and transfers would be made without job losses. That spoke volumes to us.

The NDP is a party that was basically originally established by co-operatives, agricultural co-operatives and the labour movement. Our primary concern is still workers, their families and their communities. We do not want to make any commitments or decisions that would compromise their working or living conditions, their careers, or their future in their workplaces.

We have left no stone unturned. We looked at the options and what other duties could be assigned. Earlier, I heard the suggestion, which was also the first thing that came to mind for us, that there is so much work to be done to fight tax evasion and tax havens that these employees could be assigned to do that work and sent to conduct international investigations.

However, it is much more complicated than that. The employees handling people's tax returns do not have the training to quickly turn into investigators and conduct in-depth investigations into major international tax cheats. If it were possible, or if I were to find a magic wand tomorrow morning, I would be happy to reassure these people and tell them not to worry because everything will be all right. That is not reality. This is one of our concerns.

Do we agree with the principle of the bill? Of course we do. It is in keeping with Quebec's autonomy, the recognition of Quebec as a nation, and asymmetrical federalism.

However, do we have the guarantees we need with regard to protecting jobs in the region? All that is still an open question. We have doubts and concerns in that regard. I think it would be a good idea to call witnesses and examine this issue in committee so that we can get to the truth of the matter about whether this would be possible. Of course, as a party of labour, socialism and social democracy, we have concerns about the jobs of people in the regions. We care a lot about that, and we would not want to take any action that would hurt those people.

We have often heard the superficially valid argument that filling out one tax return is bad enough, but that it is twice as bad for Quebeckers, who have to fill out two, and that it is unfair to boot. It is more onerous and takes a lot of time. No one likes that.

However, that argument is becoming less and less relevant. It was true back when everyone would go to a credit union in February or March to grab a tax return kit from the pile by the widow next to the teller, bring it home, look through the guide, turn the pages and fill in the numbers using their T-4 and RL-1 slips. This is much less common now.

The idea of not filling out two tax returns sounds nice and appealing because everyone wants to make things easier. However, the latest figures I have seen on this subject show that these days 91% of Quebec taxpayers file their tax returns online. It is no longer the case that people head to a credit union to pick up the forms and sit down, surrounded by papers, to fill in each box.

Now, people buy software, which usually lasts a few years, and they only have to fill in the numbers once. They can then send an email to the Canada Revenue Agency and another to Revenu Québec. This means that the vast majority of people are already filling out just one tax return.

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if you have ever sat in front of one of these software programs. You do not have to click twice. You fill in the boxes once, and the software automatically fills in the rest. The argument I just made loses value over time. There may be just 9% or 10% of the population left who actually fill out two tax returns. That is the reality, and I think we have to tell it like it is.

Do we want to run the risk of losing hundreds of jobs in Quebec's regions, in Mauricie or in Jonquière? I have not seen any evidence about reassignments. I have talked about this several times with people on the ground, and it is not clear. Are we going to run this risk for something that will not have any real impact on the public or on the well-being of Quebec's taxpayers?

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, October 28th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his passionate speech. That was a pretty impressive list he reeled off.

Thanks to the NDP's vision in recognizing Quebec and its autonomy, ours was the first national party to support the principle of a single tax return. We made that official at our 2018 convention.

However, we have concerns about maintaining jobs in the regions. My colleague mentioned the unions, but his opinion is not unanimous. The Quebec chapter of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, which is part of the FTQ, has serious concerns. We have been talking to those workers for several years now, and the idea of reassignment seems more like magical thinking than a real action plan.

What does my colleague think of that?

[Foreign Affairs, October 28th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among all parties, and I believe you would find the consent of the House for the following motion:

That, given the situation in Algeria, where for over a year, millions have been legitimately calling for a rule of law that guarantees individual and collective freedoms, the House:

(a) condemn ongoing political repression in Algeria; and

(b) call for the respect of human rights and the release of prisoners of conscience and political prisoners.