The House is on summer break, scheduled to return Sept. 15
House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was quebec.

Last in Parliament April 2025, as Bloc MP for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert (Québec)

Lost his last election, in 2025, with 40% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Business of Supply October 29th, 2020

Mr. Speaker, no one is denying that Pierre Laporte was killed in Quebec and that it was tragic. However, our motion is about the nearly 500 people who were arrested.

I am pleased that the member brought up the story of Jocelyne Robert. I encourage members to visit the Bloc Québécois Facebook page. I did some interviews and videos with her. Her story is very interesting. Radio-Canada also published an article about her this morning.

There are all kinds of similar stories. I have met all kinds of people.

For example, Louis Hains is quite interesting. He was 20 years old in 1970. He came from a conservative family. He had voted for Trudeau in 1968 because he thought it was fun to have a prime minister who drove around in a convertible and dated Barbra Streisand. Then, Louis Hains met Pauline Julien's daughter, which opened him up to a whole new world. One night, people came to arrest Pauline Julien and Gérald Godin. Louis Hains was there. He was 20 years old and was dating Pauline Julien's daughter, who was 18. Another night, people came for him, who was just 20, and his girlfriend, who was just 18, and Pauline Julien's son, who was just 16. He has an interesting story, but I unfortunately do not have the time to share it.

Business of Supply October 29th, 2020

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

He is quite right in his comments. Nick Auf der Maur was indeed among the people who were put in jail.

We consider the death of Pierre Laporte to be a national tragedy. It should never have happened. The Bloc Québécois readily accepts that. October 17, 1970, is the day when the concept of violence as a political tool in Quebec and Canada was abandoned. Since then, nobody thinks about using that as a tool.

We are strongly opposed to political violence, and we condemn the death of Pierre Laporte. However, this motion is about the 497 people whose rights were violated. Fundamental freedoms were suspended. We were under a dictatorship in October 1970. Today, these people deserve our consideration, be it only a gesture to say it was a mistake and should never have happened. This is what our motion proposes, and this is what we expect from the government.

Business of Supply October 29th, 2020

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.

Criminal Code October 28th, 2020

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

I have a simple question. Bill C-7 is very important, and all of the questions it raises are very delicate. However, right now, there are people who are expecting us and the federal government to pass legislation.

Does my colleague not agree that we could have used the five weeks during which the government prorogued the House to pass this bill and respond to the wishes of those who are waiting on the federal government so that they can take the next steps?

Criminal Code October 27th, 2020

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my hon. colleague's speech.

I found one aspect somewhat intriguing. Everyone agrees that we need to pass this bill quickly. Some people who have experienced trauma are waiting for us to pass it. However, there are several other pressing issues, including medical assistance in dying. Some of these bills could have been passed a month ago, but the government decided to prorogue the House for five weeks.

Would my colleague agree that we could have used those five weeks to move some of this legislation forward? People are waiting for us legislators to move things forward.

Criminal Code October 27th, 2020

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated my colleague's speech. Like her, I agree with the bill we are debating today.

I recently watched the TV series Ratched, which is set in a psychiatric hospital in the 1950s. In the series, they treat homosexuality with a lobotomy. It really drives the point home that this was happening in the 1950s.

I am shocked to see that in this day and age, gay and trans individuals are still not fully accepted and face a great deal of intolerance. I am very aware of the suicide rate among gay people.

In 2020, this bill is progressive and brings us into the 21st century. What should we do today to make trans and gay individuals feel more accepted? As legislators, what can we do to advance Canadian society even further?

Criminal Code October 27th, 2020

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I am glad she is on the right side of this issue and agrees that Canadian society in general and Quebec society in particular still have a ways to go.

I myself did not realize conversion therapy was even available in Canada. This bill does not seem progressive to me. It barely brings us into the 21st century. Knowing that we need a more tolerant and open society, what are we doing to ensure that society does a better job of accepting homosexual individuals in Quebec and Canada?

Criminal Code October 26th, 2020

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent, very moving and very eloquent speech on this issue.

I have to admit that until just a few weeks ago, I did not even know that conversion therapy was allowed in Canada. I did not think that such a barbaric practice could exist. I am so glad that we are passing legislation today to prohibit it, or at least moving in that direction. I do not even find this to be an especially progressive bill. Today we are simply bringing Canada into the 20th century. Now we need to go even further.

My colleague mentioned something that was very interesting, picking up on something my colleague across the aisle asked about. In New Zealand, 20% of elected representatives are homosexual; in Canada, it is only 2%. Is there something we can do about that from a legislative standpoint? Are there any measures we could bring forward? How did New Zealand achieve that level of representation?

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

Business of Supply October 22nd, 2020

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question the member just asked our Liberal colleague about why the government prorogued the House for five weeks if it is so worried about public servants losing 14 days gathering documents. We could have been responsible and worked for the well-being of Canadians and Quebeckers, but the Liberals prorogued Parliament for five weeks.

I will now move on to my question. We are in a very difficult situation. Premier Legault said again today that we will not be able to handle 1,000 cases per day in Quebec for very long. People are dying. It is not easy. It is a well-known fact that health care has been underfunded for the past 20 years or so, but the Liberals do not seem prepared to permanently increase health transfers.

Does my colleague agree that the provinces' request to increase health care funding from 21% to 35% is legitimate?

Business of Supply October 22nd, 2020

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I am trying to understand the chain of events. Last night, we voted on a motion that would have created a committee to analyze things like the government's spending over the past six months. It would have looked into WE Charity and the new $237-million Baylis scandal. The government refused, saying that we would not have time, that there were too many documents, that it would paralyze Parliament and that we could not study this, so we will not be studying it.

Today, the opposition is proposing another committee, this time to look into the government's handling of the pandemic and management of health care in the midst of a global health crisis, and the government is preparing to vote against it.

My hon. colleague talks about transparency and says we will accuse them of trying to avoid being transparent. It is true that we would like the government to be more transparent.

Could my colleague explain to me how the government plans to be more transparent if we cannot look at what it has been doing for the past six months?