Luc Desilets

[Business of Supply, October 29th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this chamber.

We have been saying it over and over all day, but I think that some still do not understand. In the middle of the night on October 16, hundreds of Quebeckers were arrested unfairly, arbitrarily and sometimes violently. I am going to name some of them: Zav Levinson, Gaston Lorrain, Jean Lorrain, Raymonde Lorrain, Serge Loyer, André Maheu, René Mailloux, Denis Mailloux, Félix Maltais, Michel Maltais, Francis Marin, Normand Marion, Emery Marleau, Claude Martel, Denis Martel, Mathieu Martin, Jacques Massé, Colette Mataigne, Pierre Melançon, François Mercier, Pierre Mercille, Réal Michon, Gaston Miron, Roger Monette, Serge Mongeau, Paul Morel, Gilles Morin, Guy Morin, Joo Raymond Morin, Marcel Morin, Maurice Morin, Michel Morin, Pierre Morin—that is an entire dynasty—Robert Murphy, Pierre Nadeau, Serge Nadeau, Suzanne Nadeau and there are more. There were 497 people arrested.

In October 1970, Pauline Julien was arrested. I feel the need to say it again. She was an author, composer and actor. She is an icon of Quebec music who is known in Canada and Europe and was the wife of a minister as well. My colleague just mentioned Jocelyne Robert, but there is something he did not say. She was pregnant and gave birth to a daughter who has a problem with her sight linked to this arrest.

In October 1970, Michel Chartrand, a well-known labour leader, and Robert Lemieux, a Quebec lawyer and civil rights activist, were arrested. That is strange. There was also Nick Auf der Maur, who was just mentioned and who was a journalist and a city councillor, another politician. The police also arrested Gaston Miron, our national poet, whose voice resonates still. They arrested Denise Boucher, a writer and poet, and many others. Such a thing was unprecedented in a western nation. These were young people, nationalists and separatists. What a shame, they were separatists. They were intellectuals, labour activists, lawyers, artists, writers, teachers, poets, and plain old activists.

Regardless of which party these people supported—at the time, it was the Parti Québécois—nothing justifies those actions. These people were freethinkers, men and women who played an important role in post-Quiet Revolution progress. People of strength and conviction, they cared deeply about Quebec, about their nation's future.

The War Measures Act was already archaic, dating back to August 12, 1914. It was used three times, namely during the First World War, the Second World War and the third war, the one declared by the federal government against the sovereignists. The purpose of the legislation was to give the government every power imaginable when under the threat of war or during an invasion or insurrection. None of those three things have anything to do with Quebec.

This legislation set aside for an indeterminate period the rights and freedoms of Quebeckers and allowed the government to respond quickly. That is one of the main reasons for using this legislation. It was enacted quickly, behind closed doors, and we know what happened next. In the end, the federal government trampled individual liberties as no other government had done before. That same Liberal government struck down, here in this chamber, parliamentary freedoms not so long ago, but that is another topic.

In all, 497 arrests were made under the act. On top of that, 30,000 people were raided and others were detained by law enforcement. People were imprisoned and interrogated and suffered physical and psychological harm; this has been proven over and over. People were beaten in prison. They were beaten for having certain convictions.

As my colleague mentioned, people were made to believe that they would be executed. Some had a gun pointed at their head or their chest when they were arrested. People were arrested and stayed in their homes with a gun pointed at them for hours before being taken to the police station. We are talking about people believing that they would be executed. I cannot get over it. That was just 50 years ago.

People were incarcerated around the clock and had no access to a common room, showers, books, pencils to write with, the right to a visit and, above all, access to a lawyer. I will repeat that they had no access to a lawyer. That is the foundation of our legal system which is supposed to be so democratic.

We were reminded on every street corner, especially in Montreal, by an army of 18,000 soldiers deployed in Quebec that Canada was at war. I lived on the outskirts and was very young. I will tell you about it later. When you see tanks, armed men and so many soldiers, it is hard to understand. Eighteen thousand soldiers were needed for this operation, which I would say was an outright act of political terrorism. Political terrorism is a strong term. That is what I think.

I just want to point out that 18,000 soldiers is 15 times the number of soldiers Quebec managed to get in the middle of a pandemic, while people were dying in our long-term care homes. That is 15 times the number of soldiers. Quebec had to fight to get soldiers in our long-term care homes. I repeat, that was 15 times the number of soldiers.

Politicians used the pretext of an apprehended insurrection to justify their excessive response. History has made all of this abundantly clear. My colleagues in the House are saying that we will see what history has to say. Fifty years later, history is here, and there is every reason to support what the Bloc Québécois is saying today.

The federal government's goal was to quash the rise of the sovereignist movement in Quebec. I remind members that the Parti Québécois had just gotten its first representatives elected. As my colleague said, the Mouvement souveraineté-association and RIN, the Rassemblement pour l'indépendance nationale, had just merged. The sovereignist movement was strong, and that was scary. There was definitely fear.

Although the 1960s brought about a lot of change, and many countries in Europe, America and Central America had some tumultuous times, none of these civilized countries invoked such a barbaric law. Many people, including Robert Stanfield, said it was absurd.

I would like to add something that I hope will speak to my colleagues.

I remember those 497 arrests and the 30,000 searches mainly because I was and am part of the collateral damage. I remember the collateral damage. I experienced it when I was 12 years old. With all of my 12 years, I remember the search that was done of my own home one morning. I remember my mother standing in the door frame telling me not to be frightened. It was just enough to scare me. She had two RCMP officers on either side of her, one of whom was making sure that his long gun was plainly visible under his jacket. I was told to get up and I did. I was in my underpants. I, as a 12-year-old boy, was then searched, and so were my brothers and my sister. This was all simply because my father was a photojournalist. He worked in a newsroom, and newsrooms were frightening at the time. The people there were armed with a pencil. That is why my father was on the list, and I find that deplorable, of course. He was well-known, listened to, respected, and he was one of the people who had to be silenced at the time. That is why we were searched. I will always remember that. Consider these 30,000 searches and multiply that by four or five. That will show the collateral damage caused to these people, their children, their fathers, their mothers and their spouses. It was appalling.

That is why we are asking for an apology. I have a feeling the questions will come later. We do not want an apology for the death of Pierre Laporte. No one condones that criminal act. We want an apology for the application of a completely senseless law, the War Measures Act.

[Canada Revenue Agency Act, October 26th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, we are here today to once again debate the bill to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act with regard to organ donors. This bill comes from the member for Calgary Confederation, who first introduced it in 2015. It was known then as Bill C-316, and it went as far as first reading in the Senate in late 2018.

This bill seeks to authorize the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, to enter into an agreement with Quebec, a province or a territory to be able to collect from individuals via their income tax return the information required for establishing an organ donor registry. This bill also seeks to enable the CRA, if authorized by the individual on their income tax return, to share the information collected with the province or territory in which the individual resides under that agreement.

The Bloc Québécois does not have a problem with this bill and we support it. However, it is unlikely that the Government of Quebec will want to enter into an agreement with the CRA because Quebec already has its own income tax return and, as the Government of Quebec has said and continues to say, we want to implement a single tax return that would be managed by Quebeckers.

This bill does not actually have any bearing on what we want. Again, what is good for Quebec is good for the Bloc Québécois. That said, even if Quebec did want an agreement, we would not have a problem with sharing that information. Quebec is free to sign an agreement or not in this case because this bill does not commit Quebec to anything or limit it in any way. It is when the opposite is true that we strenuously object.

We are fine with letting the CRA collect information and provide it to those provinces that want to participate in such an arrangement. We actually think it makes sense because the CRA handles all the tax returns outside Quebec.

I would point out that the number of transplants performed in Canada has increased by 33% over the past 10 years. Even so, there is still an organ shortage. According to the latest data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information, or CIHI, 4,351 Canadians were on a transplant waiting list in 2018. That is a huge number. That same year, only 2,782 organ transplants were performed in Canada.

For example, the number of Canadians with end-stage kidney disease rose by 32% over the past decade, which partly explains the increased demand for organ transplants.

According to information from CIHI's Canadian organ replacement register, in 2018, there were 1,706 people who received one or two kidneys, 533 who received a liver, 361 who received lungs, 189 who received a heart and 57 who received a pancreas.

I want to thank all the donors who have signed their cards and have consented to organ and tissue donation. It is one of the most noble gestures a person can make, but one that is not easy, I admit. I also want to commend the work done by doctors who specialize in organ and tissue retrieval and those who perform transplants.

We need to do more, however. On December 31, 2018, there were 3,150 people waiting for a kidney, which represents twice the number of kidneys available, 527 waiting for a liver, 270 for lungs, 157 for a heart and 156 for a pancreas. We need to use every conceivable means of reducing this long waiting list.

In 2018, 223 people died while on a waiting list for transplant. That is obviously 223 too many. Every new initiative gives hope and can save a life or lives.

Our great sovereignist family was privileged to be able to count on one very courageous, generous and engaged supporter. Tomy-Richard Leboeuf-McGregor sadly passed away nearly two years ago on November 19, 2018, at the age of 32.

Tomy was born with cystic fibrosis, a serious, degenerative lung disease. Tomy's life not only changed but was actually saved when he received a lung transplant in 2013. Driven by a will to live, to give and to give back to others, he became very committed to the organization Living with Cystic Fibrosis, whose mission is to promote quality of life for people living with cystic fibrosis. He even served as its executive director.

Tomy was a staunch advocate for Quebec independence. He was active in the Parti Québécois and the Bloc Québécois. He ran for the Parti Québécois in 2014 and for Projet Montréal in 2017. One of his goals was to promote organ donation.

I want to say to him and his brother Jonathan, his partner Éric, his grandparents and his two sources of pride and joy, Alexis and his niece Sarah-Joan, that we proudly continue to be his voice and carry on his fight.

For all these rather emotional reasons the Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of the bill introduced by our colleague from Calgary Confederation, which seeks to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act with regard to organ donors, on behalf of all these people waiting for a transplant, their family and Tomy.

[Judges Act, October 8th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. I very much believe in taking things one step at a time.

There is nothing grandiose about this bill. It is important, essential, and will bring us up to date with the times. It is clear that a lot of other changes could be made when it comes to training judges. It is clear that indigenous peoples suffer immeasurable prejudice. It is clear that someone with addictions will not necessarily be judged the same way because of how some might perceive that group of people.

I hope this bill will pass quickly so that we can move on to something else. I am all for taking things one step at a time provided those steps are taken quickly.

[Judges Act, October 8th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

We can argue back and forth across the House. The government decided to prorogue Parliament. As for the Conservatives, they unfortunately delayed the passage of the bill.

This is the third time we are debating this bill, and we all hope it will be the last. The idea is to vote in favour of this bill as soon as possible.

[Judges Act, October 8th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, we are here today to again debate the Judges Act and the Criminal Code.

Bill C-3 amends the Judges Act to restrict eligibility for judicial appointment to persons who undertake to participate in continuing education on matters related to sexual assault law and social context. It also amends the Judges Act to require that the Canadian Judicial Council report on seminars dealing with matters related to sexual assault law. The purpose of these seminars is to ensure that this theme is addressed in the continuing education of judges. Finally, the bill amends the Criminal Code to require that judges provide reasons for decisions in sexual assault proceedings.

This bill would have been passed two months ago if not for the prorogation by the Prime Minister, which was totally useless given the empty throne speech and Prime Minister's address to the nation. This has delayed our work and obviously upended our schedule and parliamentary agenda. We have lost two months because the government wanted to flee Parliament and politics in general to avoid the ire of the opposition over yet another Liberal scandal. How cynical, some might say.

We were elected as legislators to provide solutions and make the changes expected and desired by Quebeckers. There needs to be more co-operation and less partisanship, less squabbling and more collaborating. That is what everyone says they want, but every day we often see that is not the case despite the good will of some.

Sexual assault trials resonate strongly with ordinary people. In fact, they obviously have a serious impact on the reputation and life of those involved and they also revictimize the survivors of sexual assault. Unfortunately, this type of trial sometimes gives rise to problematic interpretations of the law. It is in this spirit that the bill proposes that candidates seeking to be appointed as judges must agree to participate in ongoing training on matters related to sexual assault law and social context.

In almost all these cases, a judge must assess the credibility of the witnesses, the victim and the accused. The judge's assessment can be influenced by preconceived notions that do not stem from malice, but from their lived experience, perceptions and culture.

The topic of training is something I relate to. I was a school principal for more than 20 years, and this was a topic and a problem that I had to work on and deal with almost every day. We had to work hard to get past the mindset that once someone got a degree they had mastered the subject. Times have changed, obviously, and we have come a long way. We have paid the price in recent years for that whole period of time when there was no continuing education. Now, graduating from university means the beginning of continuing education, which continues right up until retirement, for any field you can imagine.

It is all well and good for a teacher in the school system to have gotten a good education, but young people change and the way they learn changes. Boys need a different kind of stimulation than girls do, the curriculum changes at lightning speed and evaluation systems also go through drastic changes. A teacher cannot teach the same way today that they taught five, 10 or 15 years ago.

It goes without saying that we need to adapt our approach to the current context. Nevertheless, many people think that changes to training often fail to keep pace with society's needs, and I completely agree.

Ongoing training is top priority in every sector. There is an old saying: Adapt or die. In this case, with this bill, we might say, “Adapt or lose your credibility”.

People in our riding who know that we are debating this bill tell us this is fundamental. It just makes sense. I am hearing the same thing in Rivière-des-Mille-Îles as other MPs are elsewhere. Constituents are asking us to move forward, to stop stalling and to pass this bill quickly.

Making sure that judges get adequate ongoing sexual assault training will enable them to dig into cases differently, to ask questions the right way and to better understand witnesses' reality. Let us not forget that witnesses must testify in front of their attackers. Training will undoubtedly improve their rulings too. This bill will also make rulings more consistent, give our judges more credibility, and, most importantly, boost our justice system's credibility with respect to victims of sexual assault.

I am the father of a beautiful and amazing grown-up 30-year-old daughter. I protected her, coddled her and taught her as best I could. However, I often felt like I had to fight to protect her against a rather macho world, a world of men who all too often tend to denigrate women. These old tendencies remain in our society. I tried to shelter my daughter from the mean-spirited influence of certain uniquely male perspectives, certain stereotypes, myths and prejudices. At the very least, I take comfort in the fact that my daughter did not have to go through the court system. That would have been very painful for both her and for me.

This bill is a step forward. It is a start, a beginning. It is high time we took action to restore women's confidence in the justice system. Obviously, any action we take must respect the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. Making sure that judges are informed, in touch with the evolution of our society and more understanding of complainants' circumstances can only have a positive impact on our Quebec society.

What we want is for judges to be more transparent and more accountable when rendering decisions in sexual assault cases. We want these decisions to be reasoned and justified.

That is why the Bloc Québécois will be pleased to vote in favour of this bill. We will vote in favour of victims, all victims. I encourage the House to pass this bill quickly as a sign of respect for all victims of sexual assault, whether they be male or female.

[Judges Act, October 7th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, my question is quite simple: Given the importance of this bill and the fact that all parties seem relatively in favour of it, does my esteemed colleague believe it would be important for the vote to be unanimous or at least very strong?

[Judges Act, October 7th, 2020]

I thank you for your plea, my dear colleague.

My thoughts go out to you for your father, as I know he was very—

[Judges Act, October 7th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for her speech. I thought it was heartfelt, profound and deeply personal, which is something we do not often see in the House. I commend her for that.

I think that almost everyone in the House agrees on this bill, but I do want to ask her a quick question. Does she think that the bill goes far enough?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 1st, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Kitchener Centre. We all really appreciated his speech. The only problem is that the government does not seem to be walking the talk. I would like to get his opinion. He spoke with great pride about the environment, which is very important to the Bloc Québécois as well.

First, how is it that the government promised to plant two billion trees but did not plant a single one?

Second, does he feel bad at all about interfering in jurisdictions that fall exclusively to the provinces? I will not list every little thing, but some examples would be family doctors, day care services and urban parks.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, September 25th, 2020]

Yes, Madam Speaker.

The French interpretation is back online, but it was offline for at least five minutes.