Paul Mercier

[Marine Transportation Security Act, November 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-38 to provide for the security of marine transportation now before us meets an obvious need. Our party is in agreement with the principle of this bill and approves the enforcement procedure. Rather than waste my colleagues' time, I will limit myself to recalling briefly the bill's objectives, its highlights and its reception by the stakeholders. Unlike my predecessor, I will leave considerations not directly related to the bill aside.

First, the objectives. The bill's objective is to introduce in the marine sector the same security principles found in the air and rail transportation sectors. Although these sectors have security measures regarding boarding, there are none in the case of marine transportation. The government cannot, therefore, intervene in emergency situations, such as when a vessel is threatened by unlawful activities or poses a risk to a port facility.

The legislation focuses primarily on transportation of passengers. Screening measures will be instituted in ports to ensure that weapons and other explosives are not brought on board. This measure is aimed at preventing hijacking, sabotage and hostage-taking.

We all remember the tragedy of the Achille Lauro about ten years ago-and we are only now considering action. A group of Palestinian terrorists took over a Greek ship by force and took the passengers and crew hostage. Since then, the International Maritime Organization has established security standards to be observed in port facilities and on vessels. These standards, which were first developed in 1986, were ratified by Canada in 1993. The purpose of the bill before us is to implement these security measures.

It should be noted that 85 per cent of passengers on cruise ships are Americans and that the American government carries out surveillance of port security measures worldwide. In certain cases, it may recommend that American citizens avoid certain ports. Guaranteeing security in our ports is a way of protecting our tourist industry.

The bill puts in place the legislative framework and authorizes the minister to make regulations to deny certain vessels access to Canadian waters and re-direct vessels posing security concerns to a secure place. For example, a vessel subjected to a bomb threat would be directed to proceed to a place where it poses less of a security threat to persons, vessels and marine facilities, before undergoing authorized screening by Canadian officers.

The bill makes it illegal for passengers or crew to have on board weapons or materials such as explosives that could be used as weapons. It will apply to all vessels in Canada, whether registered in Canada or not, and shipowners and port authorities will be required to install a security system including sensor equipment like the ones used in airports. The legislation will also apply to port facilities and drilling rigs. Naturally, vessels and facilities under National Defence authority will be exempted.

The legislation will have teeth: in the case of a corporation, the maximum fine will be $200,000. I might add that the bill was well received by the community. It met with the full approval of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority and the Canada Ports Corporation.

For these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois will support Bill C-38.

[Recognition Of The Patriotes Of Lower Canada And The Reformers Of Upper Canada, November 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out, just for the sake of comparison, that although the Bastille was taken on July 14, 1789, it was only 100 years later that the storming of the Bastille became France's national day. The Bastille was taken by Parisians, but, to go back to what my colleague opposite mentioned earlier, in spite of the fact that this was the doing of Parisians alone, the whole country now commemorates this local event as its national day. This example illustrates why we are asking that these events be recognized.

No matter what the members of this House think of the future of Canada, it seems legitimate for us to look at our past with respect and emotion, to honour this handful of men who, more than a century and a half ago, helped shape our democratic institutions, and sometimes paid for it with their lives.

[Recognition Of The Patriotes Of Lower Canada And The Reformers Of Upper Canada, November 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the motion of my colleague from Verchères is of particular interest for me because many events of the 1837 Rebellion occurred in my riding, in the town of Saint-Eustache, which became historic, and in neighbouring villages.

It is impossible to visit this region without seeing traces of these events mile after mile. Some of the villages and localities have evocative and significant names. One village was razed and others were burned to a greater of lesser extent. The English burned these villages in reprisal.

The facade of the main church in Saint-Eustache still bears the marks made by English cannonballs. Many streets in the town are named after participants in these events. The Jean-Olivier Chénier Local Community Service Centre recalls the leader of the Patriotes in this region. These are all visible remnants of the 1837 Rebellion which brought the Patriotes face to face with the British army. We who live in that region cannot forget those events even if we wanted to. The signs are there right before us.

Before anything else, I have to dispel a myth which has to do with the confrontation that did not occur because the Patriotes wanted sovereignty. The motion does not mention only the Patriotes of Lower Canada but also the Reformers of Upper Canada. Let me quote my colleague, the hon. member for Verchères, who presented this motion. He said on June 20, 1994: "The aim of the motion I have just respectfully submitted for the consideration of this House today is to rectify this perception [that they were criminals] and to achieve, at long last, recognition of the historic contribution of the Patriotes of Lower Canada and the Reformers of Upper Canada to the establishment of a truly responsible and truly democratic government in Canada and in Quebec".

At the time, the Patriotes and the Reformers were fighting for a cause that is still dear to our hearts, quite simply democracy.

Therefore, whether they were from Upper or Lower Canada, the insurrectionists were fighting to have the colonial assembly, which represented in the people, take a more active part in the exercise of power and gradually take over the internal management of the colony. As we know, the management of the colony's affairs was, at the time, conducted by London, through the governor and councils.

In short, what the insurrectionists wanted, and the reason why I think the whole country has the duty to recognize them, was, and I repeat, the democratization of the institutions of their country.

Whether it was in the field or at the end of a rope, will we say that the sacrifice of those who lost their lives was in vain? No, because in spite of their defeat, their uprising had the result of drawing the attention of London to the people's aspirations that it had consistently ignored until then. It was as a result of the 1837-38 events that London asked Lord Durham to conduct an inquiry and to propose some solutions to the problems raised by these aspirations from colonies in the north of the United States of America.

The Durham report, which was of course open to criticism in many respects, particularly for us, Quebecers, nevertheless proved the Reformers and the Patriotes right, in the sense that the report ridiculed and criticized the Constitution Act of 1791, which, while giving a representative government, did not accept the principle of responsible government. That was exactly what the insurrectionists had been demanding and, on that point, Lord Durham was in agreement with them.

It would be an overstatement to say that, in and of themselves, the actions of the Patriotes and the Reformers resulted in the Durham mission, the awareness that this mission raised in London and, consequently, the recognition in 1848 of responsible government. It would be unfair to others who helped make our institutions more democratic. The fact remains, however, that this action led to the decision to send Lord Durham on his mission and that the conclusions of this mission strongly influenced London's decision in 1848.

I repeat, the Patriotes and the Reformers were not the sole instigators of the movement towards democracy that started in 1848, but it is important to recognize the part they played, and I will get back to this. We want to give everyone his due.

The causes that in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries moved first the Americans, then the French and then the Canadians to rebel violently against authority must be seen in context, and the context was, of course, different for each group. However, the main theme was the same: the will of a mature people to manage its own affairs. This phenomenon was to spread to a number of western countries.

Without going so far as to defend violence, we cannot afford to ignore, for the sake of being politically correct, the important and in some cases unique role played by popular uprisings in the history of democracy.

In Canada as well, history has shown that acts of violence occur only as a last resort, when people try to make themselves heard and all peaceful methods have failed. Perhaps I may recall what was said by the hon. member for Portneuf and emphasize the respectful tone of the resolutions he read to us and the fact that they included the desire to achieve their purpose through legal means. It is only when they realized that legal means were ineffective that they resolved to take arms.

All attempts had failed. There were speeches in the House, demonstrations in the streets, editorials in the newspapers. The Patriotes and the Reformers finally decided to resort to armed rebellion because they had failed to obtain that London limit the discretionary powers of the Governor.

In Canada as everywhere else, violent action, even when defeated, usually brings some movement, even on the part of a previously inflexible government.

It is in this light that the motion seeks recognition of the historic contribution of the rebels of 1837-38, who fought for the democratization of the institutions of the time.

We should not be surprised by the fact that it took so long to realize the significance of the events of 1837-38. By the way, we should remember that the Church took 130 or 140 years before allowing-

[Recognition Of The Patriotes Of Lower Canada And The Reformers Of Upper Canada, November 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am willing to speak now, but I think that it was not the order in which it was agreed to do so.

[Recognition Of The Patriotes Of Lower Canada And The Reformers Of Upper Canada, November 1st, 1994]

No, Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

[Immigration, November 1st, 1994]

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry, but we cannot follow the debate because we cannot hear the simultaneous translation.

[Railway Transportation, October 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport again. Why did the minister not give directly to the Standing Committee on Transport, in which the opposition is represented, the mandate of reviewing the CN privatization plan, instead of assigning this responsibility to a special task force made up exclusively of Liberal members?

[Railway Transportation, October 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. On September 22, Canadian Pacific put out a proposal to buy all of the CN rail network east of Winnipeg. The federal government responded on September 29 by setting up a parliamentary task force on the privatization of Canadian National.

Does the minister not think he was cavalier announcing the creation of such a task force just days before the federal-provincial conference of transport ministers, while the future of rail transport depends to a large extent on its connection with highway transport, which comes under provincial jurisdiction?

[Rail Transportation, June 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, for remote areas of Canada, the train is often a prime link with the rest of the country. The train is also a powerful engine of economic development for many communities, and is a factor contributing to the quality of life of the local residents.

The Chaleur line, for example, makes a strong contribution to the revitalization of the entire Gaspé Peninsula by generating tourism activity which benefits from the loveliest coastal region in eastern North America.

This government seriously lacks vision if it does not understand the potential of a railway system offering quality services. Contrary to all other industrialized countries, Canada is giving up on rail transportation. This is a decision of concern to the entire Canadian public, and the government should hold regional public hearings before going ahead with it.

[Rail Transportation, June 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the frequency and quality of services obviously influences passenger traffic.

Are we to understand that the government is preparing to abandon major railway lines in several regions without directly consulting the people affected or involving them in the decision-making process and without consulting the Standing Committee on Transport?