House of Commons photo

Track Xavier

Your Say

Elsewhere

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word is quebec.

Bloc MP for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères (Québec)

Won his last election, in 2025, with 46% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Broadcasting Act November 19th, 2020

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech to justify Bill C-10, which is currently before us.

I have to admit that I was rather disappointed. The Liberals are saying that this is a great bill with extraordinary content, but the bill surrenders our culture to foreign businesses and leaves us with no control over anything. What is more, it does not provide any guarantees regarding French-language content.

Since the beginning of this week, we have been talking about the importance of preserving the French language. The member for Saint-Laurent denied the decline of French and the president of the Liberal Party said that Bill 101 is oppressive. On top of all that, the Liberal government is not imposing any obligations for French-language content on the media's future cultural productions. I cannot understand that at all.

Wilfrid Laurier described Confederation as the tomb of the French race and the ruin of Lower Canada. The Conservatives are denying climate change and the Liberals are denying the fact that the French language is in jeopardy.

I would like to know whether the member opposite, as a living representative of francophones who are losing their language, is ashamed to be part of Canada. Does he not understand that, in a way, his government's measures justify Quebeckers' desire to have their own country?

Airline Industry November 6th, 2020

Mr. Speaker, we have been waiting and waiting.

The Minister of Finance has shown that she has no desire to provide assistance to airlines. That explains why, eight months into the pandemic, the government still has no plan. There is no plan for regional service and no plan for airports. Planes need somewhere to land. There is no plan to refund passengers and no plan to protect jobs. All Ottawa does is give Air Canada money with no strings attached, which hurts its competitors.

When will there be a plan for the entire industry?

Airline Industry November 6th, 2020

Mr. Speaker, today we are voting on assistance measures for businesses. It is absurd that there is still nothing for the industries that have been hit the hardest by the pandemic.

There is nothing in the bill we are going to adopt that will save air transportation. Planes are stuck on the tarmac, airports are empty and left to deal with their fixed costs on their own, regional services have been cut, carriers like Air Canada are on the brink of bankruptcy and workers are being laid off.

When will the government take action to save the air transportation sector?

Business of Supply October 29th, 2020

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

The answer was, in part, in the question. How did we end up with a government that does not want to acknowledge its mistakes? That is the real question.

I am really disappointed because it is the 50th anniversary. In 10 years, there is a chance that most of the people who lived through that era will no longer be alive. The government has an opportunity to make it right and apologize to them. It should not pass up this opportunity.

Business of Supply October 29th, 2020

Mr. Speaker, I am going to give what I think is a very clear answer.

The sovereignist movement, like the entire population, has always considered the murder of Pierre Laporte to be a tragedy and has always condemned it. However, the federal government has yet to acknowledge that the War Measures Act of 1970 was unacceptable, that it violated our rights and that an apology is in order. That is why we are focusing on this subject today.

It does not mean that we do not care about the death of Pierre Laporte. We care very much. He was the representative for part of my riding. People back home have spoken to me about that time in history. I think it is important to extend all our condolences to the family of Pierre Laporte.

Business of Supply October 29th, 2020

Mr. Speaker, that is interesting because, just after the Canadian government thoroughly crushed the separatist movement, the Bourassa government took office, as the member said. However, it was later defeated. The Parti Québécois took over, and Quebeckers got their pride back.

The member mentioned how the Government of Quebec and the mayor of Montreal were supposedly partly responsible for asking for the infamous law to be invoked, but it is important to point out that it was invoked by the federalist parties and that people deeply regretted it later. Whether it was the ministers of the Bourassa government, the ministers of the Trudeau government or members of the Conservative Party, they recognized that they had made a mistake. It is important to remember that too.

Business of Supply October 29th, 2020

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to congratulate my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for her passionate and fascinating speech.

We are here to talk about the famous War Measures Act. I think that it is rather important. I was actually disappointed to hear our Liberal colleagues repeat all day long that we should not be talking about that today and we should have focused on another subject. I am deeply disappointed by their attitude and I want to say it from the outset. It is nevertheless an historical event. A 50th anniversary is a unique occasion. It does not occur every week. The October crisis left its mark on so many people that I do not understand why we should not talk about our history. It looks like the members opposite feel uneasy about our history. I think it is important to look closer into that, because uneasiness can often be a sign that something smells bad and that people have something to hide.

I did not live through that era, since I had not been born yet. I had to find out about it through history books, videos, documentaries and all sorts of content and testimonies that we still have today. What I learned was deeply shocking to me. I was shocked to see that the army was sent out in Quebec, that Quebeckers' rights were suspended, that more than 30,000 searches were carried out, that 500 Quebeckers were arrested arbitrarily, without a warrant and for no reason. Most importantly, I was shocked to see that decision-makers in Ottawa wanted to create a climate of terror in Quebec.

As I said earlier, I was not born yet at the time, but my father lived through this event. He was a child, about seven or eight years old. He once told me that he was afraid to leave his house around that time, because the streets were full of soldiers. On top of that, his father was a card-carrying member of the Parti Québécois, so it was serious. In the eyes of the Liberals, that meant you were almost like a hardened criminal. Every time my father, who was a child at the time, saw an army truck go by, he wondered if a soldier had taken his dad away. Every time he came home from school, he wondered whether his dad would be there waiting for him or whether he would be in jail. That would be really stressful and scary for a child at that age.

In the end, my grandfather was never imprisoned, but how many other families and children were frightened like my dad when he was just a kid? How many were not so lucky and saw family members thrown in jail? What were those people guilty of? They were guilty of having opinions. They were guilty of being nasty separatists, an opinion that was so dangerous that they had to be locked up and crushed.

Fifty years later, the government has still not published the official list of those arrested. It must be done. In fact, there may be a lot more, because those 497 people who have been listed are only the ones who were eventually found when we searched. Today, I want to mention several of them: Edward Martin Sloan, of Outremont; Thomas Sloan; Harold Slobod; Patrick Straram; Charles Felder Suddutch; Diane Synnett; Pierre Taddéo; Jocelyne Talbot; Monique Tardif; Claude Tedguy; Pierre Tétreault, of Montréal; Pierre Tétreault, of Longueuil; Richard Théorêt; Richard Therrien; Colette Therrien; Gilles Toupin; Julien Tourigny; Gérard Townsley; Tran Dung Tran; Gaétan Tremblay; Jean-Yves Tremblay; Pierre Tremblay; Réjean Tremblay; Yvon Tremblay; Louise Trépanier; Mona Trudel; Léonard Turcot; Normand Turgeon; Andrew Typaldos; Arthur Vachon; Pierre Vachon; Marcel Vaive; Pierre Vallières; Jean Van Schoorisse; Annie Vautier; Léo Veillette; Claude Veilleux; Fernand Venne; Pierre Venne; René Venne; Roger Venne; Gilles Verrier; Michel Viau; Frederick Vickerson; Do Duc Vien; Michel Viger; Pierre Villeneuve; Anne Villeneuve; Hélène Vinet; Robert Walker; Jeannine Warren Champagne; Daniel Waterlot; Leon Vincent Wright; Arthur Young; and Klaus Zezzar.

When we take a step back from the situation, we see that the real objective of this elaborate exercise, this whole charade, was not to flush out members of the FLQ, because almost none were found.

The real objective was to intimidate a people, to scare them and send them the message that what was happening to those who were locked up could happen to any one of them. This is serious, because this allegedly happened in a country of democracy, openness, peace and freedom of expression. In the end, it was clear that it was more of a country that prefers to lecture.

Sending out the army to crush a people is what dictatorships do. The Prime Minister, who is quick to apologize and has even managed to make a specialty of it, has shown himself incapable of apologizing for what his country, and especially his father, did to us.

However, even Jean Chrétien acknowledged it. The former prime minister, who was in the Trudeau cabinet at the time, said the following in his book Dans la fosse aux lions, published in 1985:

“One thing is obvious. The police did not need to arrest everyone who was arrested; they would only have had to arrest about 60 people, while they arrested more than 400”.

The next page reads as follows:

“In hindsight, I readily admit that the powers granted to the police by the War Measures Act were excessive, that a handful of would-be terrorists did not justify such a rush into battle”.

Those quotes were from former Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien.

Apologies have been given for other situations. For example, the Canadian government apologized to the Canadians of Ukrainian descent who were interned during the First World War. There were apologies to Canadians of Japanese and Italian descent during the Second World War. Once again, the Canadian government apologized. Meanwhile, when Quebeckers are the ones being arrested, Canada does not apologize.

Is the Prime Minister refusing to apologize for his father invoking the War Measures Act because if he does, he will potentially have to apologize for the other despicable actions his government has taken against Quebeckers or that his father took against Quebeckers?

There are plenty of examples. There was the Brink's affair, which the federal government carried out just before the 1970 election to make people believe that all of the money was being removed from Quebec and that there would not be a penny left in our banks. There were the many attacks perpetrated in the name of the FLQ that turned out to be planned by the RCMP itself, as was revealed by the Keable commission. There was the infamous Neat Pitch plan developed in 1972, a secret military plan to invade Quebec. After all, they needed to make sure that Quebeckers did not control their own future, so they had to figure out how to invade them. There was the RCMP's theft of the list of PQ members in 1973.

These kinds of events reveal the real nature of the Canadian regime. It is a hypocritical and oppressive regime that would go to any lengths when it comes to Quebec. None of this stopped the PQ from taking power a few years later, in 1976. Quebeckers stood up and held strong against the intimidation.

The most ironic part of all this is that this same prime minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, a few years after imposing the War Measures Act, imposed the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on us in 1982, which, since its inception has been used to gut Bill 101. There are people today who would like to use this same charter to attack our state secularism law. We really have to wonder, then, what could we possibly gain from being in this country that is simply incapable of respecting us.

What worries me the most is that the Canadian government refuses to apologize. The Canadian government seems to have no problem sending the military out on the streets and throwing innocent people in jail. In fact, the Canadian government has shown no remorse, which means this could happen again. I find that appalling.

That is what the government across the aisle is all about. Actually, it is not just the Liberals, since the Conservatives seem to be on their side. That is outrageous. Those members should be ashamed of themselves. In any case, I am ashamed of them. They can send out the army as much as they like, but they can never kill what will eventually emerge in Quebec: a free country where people can live happily and peacefully, fully independent. We will not send the army out against our own people.

Business of Supply October 29th, 2020

Madam Speaker, I would like to echo the comments of one of my previous colleagues and say that the member should speak to the subject matter of the motion at hand. I understand that he may make connections with other subjects sometimes, but it seems like 90% of his speech is on another subject, and I do not think that is acceptable.

Business of Supply October 29th, 2020

Madam Speaker, I must admit that I am particularly disappointed with the speech by my colleague across the way. I am not surprised, but disappointed. I am especially disappointed to hear him say that we should not have talked about the October crisis.

Fifty years ago, more than 500 people were imprisoned, and the War Measures Act was invoked by the federal government. According to him, we should not talk about it. I am trying to understand the logic behind it, but it is difficult. Is it because it is a black mark on Canada's history, or is it because the government is basically a little ashamed and does not want to admit it?

Business of Supply October 29th, 2020

Madam Speaker, I heard my NDP colleague say that he was disappointed with my leader's speech, assuming he did not acknowledge that the historic leader of the NDP, Tommy Douglas, voted against the War Measures Act. I do not know if he listened because I was sitting in the same place where I am sitting now, and I heard my leader acknowledge by name that Mr. Douglas' vote was for everyone's rights and freedoms. It is good to recognize that sometimes there is good in what other parties do.

I am also disappointed in my colleague's speech because he kept saying that the NDP was doing a good job and that the Bloc was making a caricature of things. Personally, I thought my leader's speech was very good.

My colleague did not state a single time that the operation was aimed at subduing the sovereignists, that it was the sovereignists who were targeted. Why is he unable to say so?

I would like him to admit this fact. I was disappointed in that part of his speech.