Pablo Rodriguez

[Business of Supply, October 29th, 2020]

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?

[Business of Supply, October 29th, 2020]

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

I ask myself the same question. Why did the Bloc Québécois choose to hide this part of our history? It is part of a whole. The events of October 1970 are the continuation of everything that happened before, whether it was the death of so many people, the bombs planted everywhere, the wounded, the dead, the kidnappings, an assassination, the torn families, the grieving families or the suffering society. Why did they not talk about that?

[Business of Supply, October 29th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Sherbrooke.

We are here in this House to discuss the motion moved by the hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly and leader of the Bloc Québécois on the October crisis. This motion brings us back to a sad and tragic period in our history. In fact, it brings back painful memories and also makes us say: never again. It makes us realize how far we have come while reminding us how privileged we are to live in this society that chose democracy, dialogue and respect for differences.

Let me preface my remarks by telling the House about something a little more personal. I arrived in Quebec a few years before the October crisis. We arrived in Quebec as political refugees. My father was a candidate for governor and a lawyer who represented countless political prisoners who in fact were student leaders or union leaders who were against the regime at the time. My father was jailed and tortured. A bomb was placed in our home. All of us were injured: my father, my mother, my sister Juliana, who was 2, my sister Monica, who was 4, and I was 7. We knew it was a matter of time before we would be killed. We knew it. It was clear.

We left Argentina to take refuge in Canada, in Quebec. I actually grew up in Sherbrooke. At the time, we said it was more than just a city. We were adopted by Quebec, by a democratic society, a society where issues are resolved through politics, not violence. I grew up like all Quebeckers of my generation, and Canadians, learning what happened during those years. People of my generation, even those born here, and I did not directly experience this dark chapter in our history.

That is why it is important that we take the time to reflect on everything that happened during those years, but also on what has happened since then, how far we have come as a society. I got involved in politics at a young age, very young. We debated sovereignty and independence all the time, at CEGEPs, universities, cafés, bars, but we debated with words. We debated in a civil, correct manner. Some people in my family are sovereignists. Some of my best friends are as well, and I love each and every one of them. We debated, we argued, and then we made up. That is how we do things back home in Quebec.

I applaud how the debates evolved, along with our ability to debate. A sign of a mature and responsible democracy is one that can go through difficult times, learn from those times and emerge stronger as a society. This is one of the reasons I am so proud to be a Quebecker.

The October crisis and the events leading up to it were the only time in the history of Quebec during which citizens turned to weapons, violence and terrorism for political gain. On the 50th anniversary of this crisis, the Bloc Québécois has decided to dredge up these sad events. The Bloc Québécois has every right to do so, but it has a moral and political obligation to rise above partisan debate and to share all of the facts.

I know that everyone here regrets the events that led to the October crisis in 1970. Everyone does. However, the Bloc Québécois's motion presents just one side of the story, and I find that incredibly sad. Yes, there were arrests, but we all know that is not the whole story. That period was marked by many other tragedies.

On Saturday, October 10, 1970, at 6:18 p.m., Pierre Laporte was playing with his nephew on his front lawn. That was the last time his family saw him alive. Why does the Bloc Québécois not mention this? Why is it ignoring the assassination of this man, who was an MNA and a minister, but above all, a son, father and husband?

I would like us to remember Wilfred Vincent O’Neil, a 65-year-old veteran who died when a bomb exploded behind the building where he worked as a night watchman.

I would also like us to remember Mr. McWilliams and Mr. Pinish, who were killed by a group of FLQ members during an armed robbery at a gun store. I would like us to take a moment to remember Thérèse Morin, a 64-year-old woman who was killed by a bomb planted at the factory where she worked, and Jeanne d’Arc Saint-Germain, who was killed when a bomb went off at National Defence headquarters in Ottawa.

It is sad to see that the Bloc motion does not condemn these crimes that led to the October Crisis in 1970. Moreover, this is not the only oversight in the Bloc Québécois motion.

I read a copy of the letter that Quebec Premier Robert Bourassa wrote to the Prime Minister of Canada requesting that he bring in the Canadian army. Here is an excerpt:

Under the circumstances, on behalf of the Government of Quebec, I request that emergency powers be provided as soon as possible so that more effective steps may be taken. I request particularly that such powers encompass the authority to apprehend and keep in custody individuals who, the Attorney General of Quebec has valid reasons to believe, are determined to overthrow the government through violence and illegal means.

This letter was written by the Premier of Quebec. He asked the Government of Canada to intervene, which it did.

I will now come back to the Bloc Québécois motion. The motion calls for an apology, but it ignores many of the facts and much of our history. As I said earlier, the events that led to the October crisis are sad, tragic and deplorable, and the motion does not reflect that. In fact, it does not even mention those events. This is one of the reasons why we cannot support this motion.

Nobody wants another October crisis. In order to prevent history from repeating itself, it must be addressed in its entirety—its beauty and its ugliness—without erasing the things we refuse to acknowledge. The Bloc's motion presents a partial account of the events and history. We cannot ignore the death of Pierre Laporte, nor can we ignore the other victims and the pain inflicted on their families. This is not a mere historical detail that we can allow ourselves to forget. Furthermore, we cannot ignore the climate of violence at the time, nor can we ignore that the Government of Canada answered the premier of Quebec's request.

Today, the Bloc is trying to rewrite history in an effort to make it fit the party's ideology. With all due respect to the leader of the Bloc Québécois, his account of history is incomplete. We will not indulge in the partisan politics that seek to divide Quebeckers. We will not do that out of respect for the victims, their families and all Quebeckers. I have a deep love for Quebec, and I am convinced that my Bloc Québécois colleagues do as well. To love Quebec is not to divide Quebeckers. Quite the opposite, it is to unite them.

[Access to Information, October 26th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, a Conservative member said the following:

The decision on what to reveal is made by non-partisan public servants, for whom it has long been a tradition not to reveal cabinet confidences. That has been the case going back to all previous governments of all party stripes.

Who said that? It was the member for Carleton.

[Health, October 26th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, after trying to plunge the country into an election last week, the Conservatives are moving another motion that our greatest experts and scientists are saying is dangerous. It is dangerous because it undermines the negotiation of contracts for vaccines, tests and protective equipment.

What is important here is to not let partisanship jeopardize the work of the government. Instead, we should be working together for all Canadians.

[Infrastructure, October 23rd, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, five years ago, Canadians chose a progressive government that was open to the world, would be there for all Quebeckers and Canadians, and would deal with the Quebec Bridge.

We made a promise and the bridge will be fixed. Mr. Charest has submitted his report and it is being studied. I can say that this is a matter that will be dealt with by the Government of Canada.

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, October 23rd, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, once again, we acknowledge the work of these guardian angels. I know many of them because they come from my region of eastern Montreal.

I am pleased that the Bloc Québécois raised this issue because it is extremely important to recognize all that these people have done from the very start and the personal and family-related sacrifices they have made. That has not gone unnoticed, and the Government of Canada will work with them.

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, October 23rd, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, we recognize the extraordinary work being done by the guardian angels, the men and women who have been working diligently from day one, making a difference for so many people by accompanying, helping, feeding and washing them and accomplishing many different tasks. The government recognizes this work and stands by them.

[Business of the House, October 22nd, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that my colleague came at his gracious question in a roundabout way.

This afternoon, we will continue with the debate on the Conservative Party's motion, of course.

We still have a number of important bills on the legislative agenda, including the MAID bill, the conversion therapy bill and the judicial training bill.

Tomorrow, we will begin debate on Bill C-5, regarding a national day for truth and reconciliation.

Starting on Monday, we will take up the second reading debate of Bill C-6, the bill regarding conversion therapy.

Lastly, I note that Thursday, October 29, will be an allotted day.

[COVID-19 Emergency Response, October 22nd, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, we want to work with all of the opposition parties. That has been our goal from the beginning. We have succeeded in doing that several times. Let us remember all the times when we obtained unanimous consent or the support of one opposition party or another. That is what matters to a person who has lost their job, to a mother who is worried because her child cannot go to school, and to all Canadians.

Yesterday, I reached out to the opposition, and I am still reaching out. Let us work together for the well-being of Canadians.