Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

[Business of Supply, November 3rd, 2020]

Madam Speaker, most of Quebec is in the red zone right now.

Unlike the first wave, restaurants are among the businesses that are closed. My riding is extremely agricultural and is currently in the red zone. In fact, my colleague knows it well, because he used to live there, in the charming community of Saint-Liboire.

When we talk about the food supply chain, we are also talking about its role in the restaurant business. I would like to know how the rent assistance my colleague talked about could have a beneficial effect on these places we like to frequent.

[Business of Supply, November 3rd, 2020]

Madam Speaker, on the whole, we agree with the motion. There has been promises we have agreed with, but there was too much hemming and hawing, and things were taking too long. On the whole, we agree with the motion, which is asking the government to get serious.

As everyone knows, the emergency wage subsidy was meant to help people in emergency situations. It was not supposed to help parties that were rolling in dough. The Conservatives moved today's motion, and we know that both of their leadership candidates suggested reimbursing the money. They promised to reimburse it. Nobody really expects the Liberals to do so.

What have the Conservatives done to keep that promise?

[Business of Supply, October 29th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, it is understood that it was Ottawa's decision because it was voted on here. Let's be clear. Let's be honest. I would remind all those who say that Quebec asked for it that Quebec discussed it two weeks ago and agreed that what happened did not make sense.

Those who tell us that are people who do not want to accept the facts, who do not want to apologize, and we know that. Of course it is convenient to go back to that, to rewrite history and cherry pick the items the previous speaker mentioned.

In reality, they are the ones trying to rewrite history and deny that the legislation was voted on in this House, which is so quick to apologize to everyone on the planet. Apologize to the Quebec nation then. It is very simple. We will all be happy. Then we will move to something else until we get the name of the airport changed to make my colleague on the other side happy.

[Business of Supply, October 29th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I am speechless. My colleague's question is too much for me.

I invite all members to come to my office for a drink after the House adjourns. I will tell them what I think about that in due course, and I will have time to think about it in the meantime.

[Business of Supply, October 29th, 2020]

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

He did not specify what type of amendment he would like. It is difficult for me to speak to hypothetical questions, but I would still like to thank him for agreeing with the principle of an apology.

I hope that when it comes time to vote, he will stand with us.

[Business of Supply, October 29th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, Pierre Elliott Trudeau may be the great architect of French Quebec.

However, he is also the architect of Canada's government of judges, which put Bill 101 through the wringer.

I would ask my colleague to be serious the next time he speaks to us about this issue.

[Business of Supply, October 29th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères.

If the threat of a coup was hanging over Quebec, surely Canada's intelligence services should have been aware of it. They should have been the first to say that the War Measures Act needed to be invoked. However, the RCMP commissioner indicated at the time that investigations were moving along nicely, that the police forces were collaborating and that measures such as those set out in the War Measures Act, including mass arrests, would slow down the investigation of October's events.

The commissioner later stated under oath that Ottawa had not consulted the RCMP about the existence of an apprehended insurrection in Quebec or about the proclamation of the War Measures Act. Jean-François Duchaîne's report on the events of October 1970, which was submitted in 1980, indicates that the idea of calling in the Canadian army came from the law enforcement community, but that the idea of using the powers set out in the War Measures Act did not come from the RCMP. In other words, according to the RCMP, the situation could have been fully managed under ordinary laws without suspending the basic rights of Quebeckers.

Two ministers from the Trudeau government subsequently confirmed that no evidence was ever submitted that would have led cabinet to apprehend an insurrection. At the time, however, there was public talk of a conspiracy involving 3,000 terrorists armed with machine guns and dynamite. They were supposedly infiltrating both levels of government, no less. Ottawa went as far as to make up a story about a plot aimed at forming a transitional government. This plot allegedly involved René Lévesque, Jacques Parizeau, Marcel Pepin and Claude Ryan, a well-known federalist who became the leader of the Quebec Liberal Party and one of the joint leaders of the “no” side during the 1980 referendum. The very idea is preposterous, but that did not prevent Marc Lalonde, the Prime Minister's chief of staff, from making such a far-fetched statement to the editor-in-chief of the Toronto Star. It was pure delusion. The government was fearmongering in order to justify an excessive and essentially political response that was an affront to liberty.

Ottawa wanted to crush the independence movement that was growing in Quebec. Ottawa must apologize, nation to nation. It is a question of dignity. The War Measures Act was invoked twice before the October Crisis, as I said earlier. After each occurrence, Canada apologized to the victims of this overreach and sometimes even offered compensation. In 1988, Canada apologized to victims of Japanese origin who were displaced and interned during the Second World War. In 1990, Canada apologized to victims of Italian origin interned during the Second World War. In 2006, it apologized to victims of Ukrainian origin interned during the First World War.

Will the Quebec nation get the same consideration? The list of innocent people to arrest was drawn up by Ottawa. The police even asked Trudeau, Marchand and Pelletier, the so-called three doves, since Gilles Vigneault said that our three doves were just our frogs from an earlier time, to play with the list, that is, to remove and add names. What a democracy. This is straight out of a banana republic. René Lévesque said that the Trudeau government behaved like a totalitarian government in peacetime, and he was quite right.

The tragedy of October 1970 must not go unchallenged. The deafening silence from Ottawa today, more than 50 years later, is absolutely reprehensible. In 2004, the government imposed the name of Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport on our Montreal airport. That not only adds insult to injury, but it also shows the consequences of not being the master of our own house. Pierre Elliot Trudeau claimed to be the champion of rights and freedoms, but he will never be that champion for the Quebec nation, nor will he ever be the person Canada tries to convince us he was. He never showed any remorse for the state crime for which he was the key culprit. He was always even proud of his decisions. He was nothing more than a destroyer of a people.

Tomorrow we will mark the 25th anniversary of the stolen referendum of 1995. When Quebec democratically and peacefully chooses independence, one of the first decisions that we will make is to change the name of the Montreal airport. Until then, an official apology—

[Business of Supply, October 29th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I promise to speak directly to the motion in my speech.

In 2003, Jacques Parizeau, one of the greatest statesmen in the history of Quebec, if not the greatest, said, “I did not put anyone in jail, but I was called fascist and intolerant. That is what image is all about. Pierre Trudeau had 500 people thrown in jail, but he is a great democrat. I do not want to play this game anymore.”

Today, just like Mr. Parizeau, many of us refuse this Canadian narrative and do not want to play this game anymore. Those 500 men and women were workers, mechanics, booksellers, activists, poets, artists and free spirits from all corners of Quebec, and their only crime was to want Quebec to be independent.

The following 59 names are part of a list of nearly 500 people who were victims of genuine acts of state terror: Yves Pételle, Robert Patrick Pheeney, Madeleine Piché, Jean Pilon, Jacques Pinsonneault, Jacques Plante, Marcel Pleau, Claude Poisson, Jacques Poitras, James Poland, Bernard Potvin, Jean-Pierre Potvin, Claire Pouliot Bonenfant, Roland Prénovost, Charles Prévost, Jean Prieur, Denis Pronovost, Gilles Pronovost, Francine Quirion, Pierre Raby, Mario Racette, Rodolphe Racicot, Jean Racine, John Rankin, Robert Reed, Lory Richard Rice, Jean-Marc Rioux, Jean-François Rivard, Jocelyne Robert, Gilles Rocheleau, Yvon Rodrigue, Lise Rose, Suzanne Rose, Rose Rose Doré, André Rousseau, Louise Rousseau, Claude Rousson, François Roux, Clément Roy, Denis Roy, Jean Roy, Normand Roy, Serge Roy, André Royer, César Rutigliano, Raymond Sabourin, Colette Saint-Hilaire, Gilles Saint-Pierre, Marcel Saint-Pierre, Claude Samson, Luc Samson, Michèle Saulnier, Alain Saumier, Maurice Savard, Clément Séguin, Daniel Séguin, Bertrand Simard, Penny Simpson, Eric Skup and Vivian Skup.

My colleagues and I will name them all today.

On the night of October 16, 1970, alone, 50 years ago, more than 450 people were arrested and detained under the War Measures Act. Ottawa has never released an official list of those arrested during that raid.

The invocation of the War Measures Act resulted in 32,000 warrantless searches. Of the 500 individuals who were arrested, 90% were released without being charged. As well, 95% of those who were charged were eventually acquitted or had their charges dropped.

In 1977, the Government of Quebec set up the Keable commission on police operations in Quebec. Its 451-page report revealed that, in 1970 and the years that followed, RCMP officers had planned and carried out a campaign of surveillance and provocation of organizations with ties to separatist groups.

The report emphasized the RCMP's illegal actions, including attacks, arson, theft and bogus communications. It was a large-scale operation designed to instill a permanent climate of fear in the community. I would note that Ottawa refused to co-operate with the commission. Is it any surprise that 50 years later, in 2020, we are met with deafening silence from Canada's political class?

The War Measures Act was adopted in 1914. Other than during the two world wars, it was invoked just once, in October 1970, in peacetime, as though the events of that October could be compared to the two huge, deadly global conflicts that marked the 20th century. In October 1970, the act was actually invoked before Minister Pierre Laporte was killed.

Under the War Measures Act, a person could be arrested and detained for 21 days, and searches could be carried out without a warrant and without just cause. Rights and freedoms were suspended.

In 1970, there were 290 bombings a month, on average, in the United States, and in 1969, France was grappling with the Algeria issue and bombs were going off in its cities, yet neither country responded with anything close to the War Measures Act.

Ottawa justified the War Measures Act on the grounds of an apprehended insurrection. If a coup was brewing in Quebec, surely Canada's intelligence services should have—

[Criminal Code, October 27th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that wonderful testimony. It shows that, when it comes to identity issues, it is always better to accept someone than to turn one's back on them. I think that goes without saying.

However, I find this debate has taken on a 1960s vibe. Members are trying to sell this, when it is an issue that should have been dealt with a long time ago.

Obviously, we support this bill. Conversion therapy is something that does not make sense. There is an industry of sects that organize large church services where they try to pray the gay away. There is nothing therapeutic about those services. Of course, it does not make any sense. There is nothing medical about them and they cause more problems than they solve.

I would like to know why something like this was not done before. Why, in March 2019, did the government say that this was impossible? The government said that it was impossible to ban this type of therapy.

[Business of Supply, October 22nd, 2020]

Madam Speaker, in his speech the parliamentary secretary spoke about the vaccine. We know that, so far, Canada has signed six agreements to procure 282 million doses of a future vaccine.

With respect to the amounts committed by the Canadian government to reserve these millions of doses, the federal government explained that payment would be made to the drug companies contingent on successful clinical trials. There is a lack of transparency on the contracts because we do not know their value. Several members of the COVID-19 vaccine task force, comprised of 12 experts, have business ties to drug companies that have already signed contracts with the government.

We know that Ottawa bowed to pressure and created a registry of declared conflicts of interest. Since June, at least 23 conflicts of interest have been declared.

If this is not a transparency problem, then what is it?