Debates of Dec. 9th, 1994

Canada Grain Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred until 6.30 p.m. Monday, December 12.

The Government Whip on a point of order.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent to defer that vote from Monday at 6.30 p.m. until Tuesday at 5.30 p.m.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there agreement with the whip's proposal?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

moved that Bill C-56, an Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, today we begin the last stage of the debate on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. This debate has now been going on for ten years, a decade, and we are finally at its conclusion.

During this decade, several eminent persons were involved in the debate on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, including the former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment, Jean Charest, and the former Minister of the Environment, Lucien Bouchard.

I would like to do a thumbnail sketch of how we got from where we were in 1984 to where we are in 1994 on environmental assessment.

Ten years ago the federal government of the day introduced guidelines to be followed in the environmental assessment of all projects which in one way or another involved the Government of Canada. The intention of those guidelines was undoubtedly good, but the result was chaos.

The guidelines were vague and subjective. On the one hand they were incredibly complicated and on the other hand they were incomplete. The result unfortunately was arbitrary and haphazard decision making. That led to over 40 significant court challenges, probably the most famous of which would be characterized as the Rafferty-Alameda and the Oldman dam decisions.

Business people were frustrated because they could not get a straight answer on whether their projects were environmentally acceptable or not. Environmentalists were frustrated because the cause of protecting the environment was lost under the weight of hundreds of thousands of pages of legal documents.

The federal and provincial governments were bogged down in legal battles on obscure points of interpretation. The people of Canada felt excluded from the environmental assessment process because, as individuals, they did not have the millions needed to become involved in such battles, even if these fights had a direct impact on their daily life, their immediate environment and their economic prosperity.

All political parties in Parliament soon realized the need for a law clearly defining what constitutes federal responsibility in environmental assessment. After a number of years beginning with the then Minister of the Environment, Mr. Tom McMillan, through to Minister Bouchard through to Mr. Charest, Parliament passed that law with the support of every single party. Unfortunately, once the law passed for a number of reasons it sat on the shelf and was never actually brought into force by the previous government.

During the last election, the Prime Minister promised that if elected a Liberal government would proclaim the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. It would then introduce amendments to simplify, open up and strengthen federal environmental assessments.

Two months ago I was pleased to announce in this House that we would keep the Prime Minister's red book promise and proclaim the act. At the same time I was happy to introduce amendments to make the act fairer, more open, more straightforward and indeed to make the decision making more public.

With the passage of Bill C-56 the government will keep its red book promise. With the passage of this legislation Parliament, we the parliamentarians of Canada, will put our country at the forefront of nations in the world in approaching the extremely important issue of environmental assessment.

As our Prime Minister leaves for Miami today for the hemispheric summit, one of the issues that underpins economic development around the world is the necessity for open, transparent and public environmental assessment. Certainly this legislation will indeed underline Canada's pre-eminent position as a country that respects the open public and transparent process before projects are begun.

Environmental assessment must be a powerful tool for the future in which economic health, environmental health and human health are integrated. Indeed, that is one of the functions of the summit.

With that understanding in mind my colleagues and I have spent the last year listening carefully to environmentalists, academics, community representatives, business, labour and other levels of government and indeed most important, individual Canadians. We want to make sure the amendments we are proposing will advance the cause of sustainable development in the best possible sense. There are three simple but key amendments.

First, the federal government is implementing the principle of one project, one assessment for federal endeavours. We do not want a complicated process where there is a big assessment at the planning stage of a project, a second assessment at the implementation stage and then another assessment every time somebody decides to make a change. What is more, we do not want a whole group of federal departments and agencies conducting individual assessments on the same project. We want environmental assessments to be tough and fair. One comprehensive assessment of a project serves everyone's interest much better than several half-baked separate assessments.

Secondly, this bill guarantees the general public the right to participate in major environmental assessments by providing funding for their participation. This idea of involving the public was first proposed in 1987 by the former Minister of the Environment, the Hon. Lucien Bouchard, but was set aside in the bill passed in 1992.

We always believed that it was a mistake to set the issue of popular financing aside. Today, we are pleased to be able to repair this deficiency in the legislation. It is all very well to say that everyone has a right to participate, but we must ensure that they have the resources required to really be able to do so.

It is one thing to say that people have a say. It is another thing to give them the tools to exercise that right.

This amendment entrenches the public's right to really participate. It is the most basic common sense that those who have to live with a project have their say.

Third, Bill C-56 will take away the power of any individual cabinet minister to ignore or overrule environmental assessments produced by an independent panel.

Recommendations of an individual panel can only be modified by a decision of the entire cabinet. Any changes to an independent assessment will require a written, detailed public explanation for those changes.

This amendment ends the era of backroom deals made at the expense of the environment.

I am proud that our government has the honour of giving Canada a progressive, fair, practical, sensible environmental assessment system. It introduces a new way of thinking. From now on, we will make decisions with due consideration for their environmental impact. The environment completely disregards man-made geographical boundaries.

The Prime Minister constantly repeats how important Canadians consider the environment to be and we must find answers together. Canada is working actively to harmonize environmental assessments throughout the world and will be pleased to sign agreements on this. I know that every one of us here in this House wants to protect the environment and that no one wants to act against the environment for short-term gain.

I hope that our efforts to achieve positive results throughout the world will have the same results here in Canada. We must work together to avoid duplication and overlap.

We have demonstrated our willingness to co-operate on environmental assessment by signing harmonization agreements with two provinces already. We are a few months away from signing harmonization agreements with two other provinces. We are actively negotiating comparable comprehensive agreements across the country.

We want to show that Canada's federalism can be flexible. We want to show that at the federal level we are doing everything we can to make Canada work better for the environment, for individual Canadians, for the protection of the heritage of our children.

Unfortunately, one government recently decided to boycott the harmonization discussions: the Quebec government.

All those interested in protecting the environment must ask the Quebec government if it really wants to avoid duplication and overlap. Come back to the negotiation table; come back to talk to us. We are not only prepared to speed up the harmonization process, but also to meet Quebec's officials to improve our environment. When it comes to the environment, no one must act alone.

Sustainable development is a common goal for all; it is everyone's responsibility and it knows no frontier. It is important not to get involved in jurisdiction battles, so as to ensure the best possible environment for our children.

The amendments before Parliament will not create environmental paradise on earth overnight. They will, however, produce a solid, thoughtful and democratic foundation for environmental assessments and for making sure that environmental thinking is a central component of planning. That is what sustainable development is all about, making the right decisions before the fact instead of cleaning up after the fact.

Future decision makers, the young people of today and their children, will have to think differently than the way we thought in the past. Thanks to this legislation we believe they will have the tools necessary to translate environmental goodwill into every day decision making.

The new Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is extraordinary in that it changes our way of thinking. We must think before we act. We must think about sustainable development and we must think about the fact that the environment knows no borders.

One project-one assessment, public involvement, government accountability are three simple principles translated into reality by today's amendments.

We are ready to translate into reality the principles stated by the former Minister of the Environment.

With these three measures we will finally be ready to move forward in January with the proclamation of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the agency. We can finally move forward to a new and wiser generation of environmental assessment.

It has taken us 10 years to reach the point where finally we are ready to move ahead. I want to thank the thousands of people who participated in that process.

In absentia, I would like to thank the Leader of the Opposition who was one of the first thinkers of how we could remake environmental assessment. I want to thank the former Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, the Minister of the Environment. He supported this new process of environmental assessment.

I want to thank the thousands of Canadians and Quebecers who understand so well that the environmental assessment process affects everyone's life, and that we not only have a right but a duty to participate in it. We hope that the three simple amendments which we propose-one project, one assessment; public financing, and participation of every minister in the decision-making process-will improve the process set in place by the Hon. Lucien Bouchard.

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Comox—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before I start I would ask for unanimous consent of the House to extend the clock for approximately five minutes so I may complete my speech.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Comox—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this bill today.

Bill C-56 proposes amendments to three sections of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The basic principle behind environmental assessment is addressing concerns in the early stages of development in order that action can be taken before the project is too far along. This is a relatively new process at the federal level.

A number of years ago EARP, the environmental assessment and review process, was introduced with guidelines. Not until CEAA was passed by Parliament in June 1992 did we have any meaningful legislation at the federal level. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act replaces the EARP guidelines and provides for a new process of federal environmental assessment.

It has taken two years for this bill to be proclaimed into law. Although the bill was tabled two years ago the regulations were only published two months ago.

The minister has stated that the amended act will be proclaimed into law by January 1995. Once CEAA is proclaimed federal environmental assessment will be legislatively entrenched.

As this process is still quite new at the federal level, there are still many bumps to be ironed out. The amendments to the act contained in Bill C-56 attempt to address some of the problems already encountered with federal environmental assessment.

Bill C-56 proposes to amend the act in three ways. First it requires participant funding be established by the Minister of the Environment. Second, it encourages, where possible, that one federal environmental assessment be carried out per project. Third, it requires cabinet approval instead of ministerial approval of responses to panel recommendations.

At first sight these three recommendations appear quite positive. However a closer look at these amendments reveals that they represent few initiatives on the part of the government. These three amendments do little to change the status quo. Further, they are inadequate in living up to what they attempt to accomplish.

During the course of the subcommittee hearings we heard from several environmental experts regarding this bill. Many of these presentations expressed a common concern that Bill C-56 does not live up to its expectations. Amendments to the act to guarantee intervener funding, to broaden the scope of decision making authority and to reduce timely and costly duplication, to guarantee one assessment per project have been requested since consultations on reforming the act began seven years ago. These are worthy goals that need to be addressed but the goals are simply not realized in this bill.

I would like to address each of these three amendments in turn. The first clause amends section 4 of the act and adds a clause which emphasizes the need for responsible authorities to carry out their actions in a co-ordinated and efficient manner with a view to eliminating unnecessary duplication in the environmental assessment process. This clause has been referred to as the one project, one assessment clause.

As I mentioned during second reading of this bill, the harmonization process simply does not go far enough. Although the possibility for more than one federal assessment is reduced, the fact remains there is still duplication of the federal and provincial assessments as well as the possibility for federal duplication between various departments.

Theoretically the amendment for one assessment per project minimizes the potential for duplication of federal activities. Where more than one department is involved, federal authorities are to attempt to co-ordinate environmental assessment activity. However I want to make it clear that this legislation does not mandate one assessment per project. This amendment merely makes it mandatory to take into account existing assessments.

The bill changes the assessment process so that departmental assessments should occur simultaneously rather than sequentially. In other words, there could be simultaneous co-ordinated effort but there will still not necessarily be one assessment.

If decision making triggers occur at different points in time, a single project may still endure more than one assessment. Therefore multiple federal assessments are still possible under the act as long as there are different federal triggers for any project.

It is well understood that the single most critical issue to industry is the length and the uncertainty of the assessment process.

Although I am pleased that this government is taking into account the need to co-ordinate the efforts, this bill lacks teeth. It lacks the teeth it needs to give it some meaning. We simply must stop duplicating our efforts and this bill does not decisively address that concern.

As it stands the bill still fails to live up to Canadian expectations for one assessment per project. The process needs to be co-ordinated to ensure there is no duplication between federal departments. This legislation would be improved if a lead responsible authority could assist in ensuring that one federal assessment is carried out. This would be a particularly good role for the agency. Such a responsibility would give the agency a greater role in the assessment process and would assist government in streamlining its functions and ensuring that one assessment per project becomes a reality, not just a consideration.

The agency could be given the responsibility to notify departments of their potential involvement in an upcoming environmental assessment, thus streamlining and co-ordinating the process. The agency could be the most effective body to ensure that the principle of one assessment per project truly becomes a reality.

We must not only deal with duplication between federal departments but also address the duplication between federal and provincial governments. At present we currently have two federal-provincial harmonization agreements in place, one with Alberta and one with Manitoba. Bilateral agreements as the minister mentioned between federal and provincial governments are being negotiated at other levels and they are intended to reduce duplication by allowing for a co-ordinated process.

We should be working toward a common set of environmental standards and goals for both federal and provincial levels of government. Federal-provincial harmonization agreements need to be worked out and signed by the provinces and the federal government to ensure that we truly have one joint assessment per project.

Let me remind the House of the horrendous cost for duplication. Forty-five per cent of federal programs representing expenditures of $40 billion overlap and compete to varying degrees with provincial programs. That comes straight out of the Treasury Board. Canadians simply cannot afford this costly duplication of services.

The second amendment to the act seeks to ensure that responses to public panel recommendations are decided by cabinet. This means that the decision to act or to reject on a panel recommendation is not made solely by the Minister of the Environment but by the cabinet. This amendment broadens the decision making authority to include more members in the decision. However, it simply does not go far enough.

As I mentioned earlier, the spirit of this clause is to ensure that responses to public panel recommendations are decided by cabinet, but cabinet remains undefined. Cabinet could be a few ministers or it could refer to the full cabinet. The term cabinet is very loose. Cabinet has many versions and it can be many things. There are inner cabinets, outer cabinets and committees of cabinet. The term cabinet is simply too loose. As it stands, important environmental decisions can still be controlled by two or three ministers with their own agendas.

Current government amendments represent only a small step forward and they change very little. If we are to ensure that the assessment process is fair and democratic this clause must be amended to replace cabinet or governor in council by order in council.

Not all responses by governor in council are orders in council. Order in council responses are more formalized and must be published in the Canada Gazette and tabled in Parliament. This amendment, which would have improved the procedure, I proposed during report stage and was unfortunately rejected by the government.

Another problem with this bill is that there are no guidelines on how or when cabinet review will be undertaken. There are no guidelines which spell out which projects will be assessed or which assessments, once completed, will be forwarded to cabinet for review. I would hope guidelines for environmental assessment procedures would make it very clear to all participants exactly what the rules are.

As it stands, there is nothing to prevent cabinet from reading the report and ignoring important recommendations. There is nothing to prevent a few members of the cabinet from rejecting panel recommendations purely on a political basis.

In addition, it is not clear whether the cabinet would be able to change either a panel's recommendations or a mediator's report. There is no clear definition of what the cabinet can or cannot do. This must be clarified in the regulations that guide the assessment process, otherwise we are no farther ahead than we were before.

Bill C-56 is yet another example of this government's failure to live up to its red book promises. Bill C-56 effectively takes decision making authority from the minister and gives it to an undefined cabinet. What it does not do is give authority to the agency or panels as promised in the red book.

The Liberal red book promises to amend the act to shift decision making powers to an independent Canadian environmental assessment agency subject to an appeal to the cabinet. The agency's relationship to government would be roughly similar to that between the CRTC and the cabinet.

This agency simply has none of the powers of the CRTC as promised in the red book. For example, this bill does not entrust decision making powers to an independent Canadian environmental assessment agency subject to an appeal to cabinet.

The head of the agency is not independent from the minister. The minister appoints this person to the position, which again makes it more of a patronage appointment than an independent agency. In no way is this agency at arm's length from the government.

Section 7 of the CRTC legislation gives the commission licensing powers which are essentially final decision making powers. There is clearly no similar commission being proposed in this act. The panel or the CEAA is not given decision making powers or powers as responsible authority.

In addition, the CRTC under the Broadcasting Act has all the powers of the superior court. This is not the case with the assessment agency.

The CRTC is a quasi-judicial commission. This is also not the case with any of the decision making powers under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

The principles of fairness of decision making which are required for the CRTC are not required for the process of decision making under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

During the hearings on this bill several witnesses presented concerns that Bill C-56 does not give the agency or the panels the power to make decisions with an appeal to cabinet. This bill as presently drafted fails to address these concerns.

Clearly responsibility for environmental assessments are not in this act vested in an independent agency as promised in the red book and the relationship of the CRTC to government bears little relation to that between the agency and government.

Yet when a motion was put forward during report stage amendments to recognize the agency as an independent body, the Liberals voted it down and in doing so voted against their own red book promise. We hear so much about the red book, yet here we have the government not only ignoring a promise, but actually voting it down in the House.

There appears to be a great discrepancy between government promises in the red book and government actions in the form of legislation.

In Ontario the assessment process has been amended to make all decision making by an environmental board binding unless appealed to cabinet. In practice most decisions are final. This process works, plus it saves time and money.

I would now like to move on to the third and final amendment of this bill dealing with participant funding. Section 58(1)(i) of the act currently enables the minister to establish a funding program to facilitate public participation in mediation and assessment by review panels. Bill C-56 proposes to repeal this measure and replace it with a new section that requires the minister to establish a participant funding program rather than leaving it up to the minister's discretion as is currently the case.

Of all the stakeholders in the environmental decision making process, ordinary Canadians are those most directly affected by the environmental impact of projects. Participant funding is an important tool as it enables stakeholders to participate in the decision making process.

As I mentioned in the House on second reading, regulations are needed to guide the amount and distribution of participant funding. I recommend that the government broaden the scope when developing these regulations. The participant funding program will not be up and running until criteria are set up. Regulations could take as long as a year before they are brought into force which means that it will be some time before the participant funding program becomes a reality.

Participant funding regulations should ensure that those people directly affected by a project have an opportunity to participate. However, there must be guidelines to ensure it does not become a growth industry, funding courtesy of the taxpayer.

We do not want to start an intervener industry. Funding would be at a level to allow effective participation by those who can demonstrate they will be affected by a project. Guidelines for participation should consider whether the applicant represents a clearly ascertainable interest that should be heard at the hearing and whether separate representation of the interest would assist the panel and contribute to the hearing.

Guidelines should also take into consideration whether the applicant has attempted to bring other related interests under an umbrella group that would facilitate the retention of common experts and council and whether direction is included that only those costs that are directly related to the preparation and presentation of a submission are recoverable.

Regard should be given to whether there is a requirement for submissions and presentations to be conducted economically and last, whether a special power is required to deny costs in cases in which a submission or presentation is unnecessary, irrelevant, improper or the cost claim is excessive.

Alberta currently has established criteria in place for participant funding and could serve as a guide when regulations are drafted. According to Environment Canada sources the amount of participant funding is limited to $1.2 million per year and comes from the green plan. Although funds are currently limited by the budget, the number of dollars is open ended as the government can decide to increase or decrease these funds in future years.

One proposed amendment which I brought up in committee and which I feel still merits consideration for this act is that of proponents paying a portion of the intervener funding. How much the proponent would pay could be at the discretion of the minister or included in the regulations.

Some of the witnesses on C-56 raised concerns that intervener funding tends to be quite small, sometimes to the point of undermining the usefulness of having any critique whatsoever. As long as the funding comes only from taxpayers, funding will be less than if the proponent paid for a portion of the fund.

Let me make it clear, however, that I am not suggesting proponents should be forced to pay for every interested critic of a project. Guidelines would need to be quite specific in this area to protect from abuse. Several of the witnesses also suggested the agency be granted the authority to award participant funding under ministerial guidelines rather than vesting the authority solely with the minister.

This suggestion should be looked into either as an amendment to the act or as a regulation guiding the participant funding regulations. This amendment to the act would allow the agency to be empowered with some decision making powers, decision making powers that the agency is sorely lacking at present.

Participant funding regulations need to identify what the money can be used for and accountability must be assured. This amendment as it stands does not ensure that all Canadians and interest groups can participate equally in a full and meaningful way in all phases of various environmental assessment processes. This is beyond the scope of the bill. However, some choices must be made in the regulations which will ensure there is a selection process to ensure those parties that play a significant role have adequate funding.

In addition, attention must be paid to the fact that funds are not endless, nor are the timeframes for the assessment process without some constraints. It is not fair to subject one project to an endless tirade of inquiries. There must be a balance in the process to ensure a fair and reasonable assessment takes place.

In concluding I wish to take the opportunity to highlight another problem with this bill. During second reading I raised concerns regarding the amount of ministerial discretion allowed in the act. I noted the minister may or may not call for a review, and the fact that the minister appoints the mediator or panel members. These concerns were also raised by a number of witnesses.

Panel members are appointed by the minister. Therefore there is no permanent body that one could refer to as an agency that decides who will staff a particular hearing. The panel approach is hardly an independent agency, as members can be appointed at the whim of the minister to suit particular cases as the minister sees fit. This has direct influence on the outcome of any panel decision.

As well, during second reading I addressed concerns about the exclusion and inclusion list that makes up the regulations guiding what is and is not to be included in the assessment process. In addition, the fact that there are no regulations regarding the transport of hazardous waste still concerns me.

It is with regret I note the government has shown little initiative with the bill. The act as it stands remains virtually unchanged. We desperately need to move forward on environmental issues. There is little point in spinning our wheels for the sake of appearances. The bill requires reworking before it will begin to live up to the spirit that was intended. I have suggested some improvements for the bill, including my motion to change the final decision making authority from cabinet to order in council.

In conclusion, the government had the opportunity to move legislation that would have had a substantial impact on how environmental assessment is carried out in Canada. Unfortunately it failed in the attempt.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Colleagues, the hon. member for Don Valley North has given me written notice that he will be unable to present his motion during the hour provided for Private Members' Business next Monday.

Despite our best efforts and many phone calls it has not been possible to find a member who will substitute for him on Monday. Accordingly I would request the table officers to drop that item of business to the bottom of the order of precedence.

The hour provided for Private Members' Business will therefore be suspended and, pursuant to Standing Order 99(2), the House will meet at 11 a.m. for consideration of Government Orders.

It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think you would find consent for the following: If a vote by division bell is requested on Motion No. 257 later this day, the vote will not be deferred until Monday but will be deferred until Tuesday at 5.30 p.m.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from November 1 consideration of the motion.

Recognition Of The Patriotes Of Lower Canada And The Reformers Of Upper Canada

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today to Motion No. 257 under Private Members' Business. The motion seeks to recognize the efforts of certain important Canadians both in Lower Canada and in Upper Canada. I applaud the initiative because it is important for us to recognize the efforts of those important figures in our history.

It is important to recall the efforts of such people as William Lyon Mackenzie, the great Liberal leader who was the grandfather of a great Liberal Prime Minister, William Lyon Mackenzie King. It is very important to recognize the leadership efforts of Louis-Joseph Papineau, an important reform leader in Lower Canada. I applaud that initiative.

Unfortunately where I take some exception to the motion is that it is somewhat incomplete. It ignores the efforts of some important Canadians from the maritime region or Atlantic Canada, most notably the great leader from Nova Scotia, Joseph Howe, who was very instrumental in helping to achieve responsible government in the country. It is absolutely silent on the leadership efforts of Canadians such as Mr. Howe.

One would have to question somewhat the historical accuracy of the motion as I see it before me. It speaks of the Patriots of Lower Canada and the reformers of Upper Canada. Then it equates those to geographic regions as being Quebec and Canada. For those of us who have had an opportunity to study Canadian history that is historically inaccurate. The then Lower Canada is roughly equivalent to the province of Quebec, which has geographically grown many times since becoming part of Canada or since 1867.

To equate the then Upper Canada with Canada is somewhat misleading. One would conclude that it is the Canada of today. Indeed that is very inaccurate. It ignores the Atlantic provinces, the two founding members of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. As we know, under Confederation we had four founding provinces. This particular historical equation ignores Atlantic Canada and all provinces that subsequently became members of Confederation. It is somewhat historically inaccurate.

Its intention is probably good, but it is important that we recognize in as total way as possible the efforts of all Canadians such as Mr. Howe and others.

I have some difficulty supporting the motion. I can support its main thrust but having noted its inaccuracies I just spoke to and the incompleteness of the motion I would like to move the following amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the words "democratic government".

It then becomes more accurate historically. It then addresses the concerns I raised about ignoring the efforts of certain very important Canadians in the fight for responsible government, particularly those from Atlantic Canada and most notably Mr. Howe. I submit that my amendment is an improvement upon the member's motion.

[The Deputy Speaker]

While the Chair is waiting to examine the amendment, we might continue with the debate and the ruling will be made in due course as to the receivability of the motion.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to discuss the motion put forth by the member for Verchères. It would have the government officially recognize the historical contribution of the Patriots of Lower Canada and the reformers of Upper Canada to the establishment of a system of responsible democratic government in Canada and in Quebec, as did the Government of Quebec in 1982 by proclaiming by order a national Patriots day.

It is extremely troubling for me to stand before the House and unequivocally support a motion dealing with an issue that historians have not even settled on. The hon. member is asking us as parliamentarians to stand and officially recognize the contribution of the Patriotes and reformers. That point is clear. I cannot.

This is an issue which Canadians will have to make an individual value judgment about and the appropriateness of recognizing the extent of the contributions of the Patriotes and reformers. It would be wrong for parliamentarians as a whole to make a judgment about an event in history that is still controversial in the minds of many Canadians.

In fact what lies at the heart of the controversy is the methods used by the Patriotes and reformers. To some they are considered to be great Patriots. Yet to others they are considered to be nothing more than traitors who deserved what they received.

I also state unequivocally that the Patriots and reformers have some legitimate concerns which need to be addressed. I am sure that everyone, and not only in the House but all Canadians, would agree with that.

However we would be doing a great disservice to the idea that it is possible to have the freedom to debate ideas and achieve things through peaceful means, while at the same time lending

credibility to the notion that the end justifies the means, that it would be all right to raise arms against the state when there is a dispute. By no means do I support the idea that violence is a way to achieve a political end.

Support for the motion would then also be essentially a stamp of approval for the violence which took place during the revolts of 1837 and 1838. There were many deaths during those quasi-revolutions and I would certainly not want to suggest this is the proper way to bring about change.

Let us now take a moment to look at a few of the major players of the Patriote and reform debate, because I feel it is important sometimes to look at the past as if the lessons learned are forgotten. We are doomed to relearn them.

I also believe there are a number of similarities between the Party Patriote and the Bloc which need to be highlighted. In fact Papineau as Speaker of the House had no qualms about pocketing a large government salary while at the same time plotting his revolution. Interestingly enough we have seen much of the same during this 35th session of Parliament.

Papineau was also quite happy to extract harsh levies from the habitants living on seigneuries in the Ottawa Valley and allowing English merchants to do the same.

Papineau, through his charisma, focused habitant grievances against the English and reflected the fury of the francophone professional class who, as they saw it, had been systematically denied government advancement.

He also headed a party which demanded economic development at the local and regional level. Their concerns seem to be much of the same type of rhetoric to which many of us have listened every day in the House.

It is extremely important to illustrate that the lower Canadian revolution failed not only because of the division of the province into French and English but because of the divisions among the French themselves and of the type of men who attempted to make it. To upset a regime requires more than oratory, more than a prophetic fanatic such as Papineau was. It requires the support of the masses. The Patriotes had none of this.

Joseph Howe was primarily responsible for the election of a majority of reformers in Nova Scotia. He managed to bring about political change and bring about responsible government without having to resort to violence. This would be a good lesson for everyone to remember.

There is a more subtle lesson to be learned from all this, that the politicians might think they know what is best in terms of the best interests of society and those who encompass it, but it is ultimately up to the citizens of that society to determine what is best for them. Politicians better start listening to the people and not their own rhetoric.

Another key problem with the motion is the narrowness of its scope. It does not even attempt to recognize that a lot of people have made significant contributions to responsible government in the country other than simply the Patriots and reformers, many of whom are from western Canada. These other individuals would include William Aberhaart, Ernest Manning of the Alberta Social Credit and Agnes Macphail of the Progressives who was the first woman ever elected to the House of Commons. Let us not forget about the contributions of Henry Wisewood of the Alberta wing of the Progressives during the 1920s.

A final problem we see with the motion is the fact that we already celebrate the contributions of Canadians from the past on Canada Day. It is a time when Canadians can look back and reflect on all those individuals who contributed in some form or another in terms of greater representative democratic governments.

In conclusion, I will not impugn any motive or agenda beyond the motion. Yet many people feel that the motion appears to be the legitimization of a rebellion in the dismantling of the state apparatus, the legitimization of the use of force. Therefore I cannot support it.

As I mentioned earlier the reformers, Patriots and all their followers certainly have enriched Canada's history. In opposing the motion I do not want to belittle their contribution in any way. However I am concerned that if we legitimize the actions of those such as the Patriots we will be sending out the wrong message to those Quebecois who are sovereignists.

The PQ seem to be using the battles of 1837 and 1838 to legitimize its struggles against Canadian federalism. A Patriotes in Quebec has become anti-English, anti-federalist. The original Patriots fought for responsible government while the PQ Patriotes seemed to be fighting for the demise of this great country.

It is for these reasons I urge all the members of the House to vote against Motion No. 257.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Before recognizing the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe, I wish to say that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for London-Middlesex is in order.

As it is in order it is therefore an amendment on which we will vote next week.

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say to the member of the Reform Party who just spoke that we recognize English Canada and anglophone culture. They are our friends. And now, I welcome this opportunity to take part, at the request of my party, in the debate on the motion presented by the hon. member for Verchères, a motion that reads as follows: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should officially recognize the historical contribu-

tion of the Patriotes of Lower Canada and the Reformers of Upper Canada to the establishment of a system of responsible democratic government in Canada and in Quebec, as did the Government of Quebec in 1982 by proclaiming by order a national patriots' day.

The dramatic events known as the Rebellion of 1837-38 have often been depicted in textbooks and travel guides as the actions of a band of criminals who challenged the established order. The purpose of the motion submitted by the hon. member for Verchères is to rectify this perception and to recognize officially the historic contribution of the Patriotes of Lower Canada and the Reformers of Upper Canada towards establishing genuinely democratic and responsible government in Canada and in Quebec.

Perhaps I should make myself clear at this point. We are talking about recognizing the merits of the Patriotes, not about rehabilitating them or obtaining a pardon, as though they were criminals. In fact, we think it is high time the federal government recognized the fact that these events were part of the historic current of social and political unrest that affected both the colonies and their mother countries in the 18th and 19th centuries.

In Canada these events, which occurred at a time of great political upheaval in Western Europe, were centred in Ontario or Upper Canada, in Quebec or Lower Canada, and in Nova Scotia. The goals of the Patriotes of Lower Canada and the Reformers of Upper Canada were threefold. Basically they were fighting for civil and political rights, for the establishment of truly democratic and responsible institutions, and for the emancipation of their respective nations.

Above all, they were seeking recognition of the people of Lower and Upper Canada as nations capable of taking control of their own future. Any colony hopes one day to become the master of its own political and economic destiny. In 1840, the Act of Union completely denied our existence, "a people without history", it was said. The confederative pact of 1867 seemed to want to establish a relationship based on the equality of two founding peoples, but in the history of this country, the francophone nation of North America has been confined to the status of an ethnic group, only a little harder to assimilate than other immigrants.

The Patriotes reflected the awareness of French-speaking Canadians that they were a different nation. They wanted to obtain recognition of this fact from London and the other citizens of Canada. However, the definition of Canada in the Constitution Act, 1982, still does not reflect the reality of two founding peoples in Canadian society.

The second goal was the establishment of truly democratic institutions. More specifically, the Patriotes demanded the establishment of the principle of responsible government or, in other words, the creation of an executive consisting primarily of members of the House of Assembly and responsible to it, that is, accountable to the people rather than to the British Crown.

Thanks to the action of the Patriotes and Reformers, we have inherited a system of responsible government as well as democratic institutions and traditions of such great value to the Western world.

Finally, the third reason for the Patriotes and Reformers to revolt was, in large part, the civil, political and economic liberties that several nations were starting to exercise. These were commendable motives that left their mark on 19th century history. In fact, the late René Lévesque wrote, in a letter dated November 21, 1982, that the 1837-38 events and all the years leading to these events were undeniably motivated by a genuine and powerful democratic surge, coupled with a stronger than ever national assertiveness.

Arguments against recognizing the Patriotes of Lower Canada and the Reformers of Upper Canada do not hold water. It was first argued that adding another public holiday to the calendar would be both costly and unjustified. Allow me to point out that, in the mind of my colleague from Verchères, there was never any question of adding a public holiday or establishing a national patriots' day in Canada. It was for information that the hon. member for Verchères referred, in his motion, to the national patriots' day proclaimed by the Government of Quebec.

They then said that the violence associated with the 1837 rebellion should not be condoned. Fine, but we must remember that the Patriotes and Reformers expressed their grievances and demands in pamphlets, newspaper articles, mass demonstrations, pleas and speeches in the House of Assembly for many years before some of them took up arms. This motion is not intended to justify or legitimize the 1837-38 rebellion but simply to pay tribute, regardless of these violent events, to these men and women who believed in the need to establish a system of responsible and truly democratic government.

Some of my colleagues rightly pointed out that the Patriotes and Reformers are not the only ones who helped establish a system of responsible government in Canada. Although the Patriotes and Reformers are certainly not the only architects of our system of responsible government, their very significant contribution should not be ignored.

That is why we, in the Official Opposition and the Bloc Quebecois, are proud to support the motion of our colleague from Verchères and to ask this House to approve it without reservation.

[The Deputy Speaker]

As no one else apparently wishes to speak, I recognize the hon. member for Verchères.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to go over the comments made during these three hours of very useful and informative debate.

It is my responsibility to conclude the debate on this motion, which I had the honour of tabling in this House, and which merely seeks to recognize the undeniable historical contribution of the Patriotes of Lower Canada and the Reformers of Upper Canada to the establishment of a system of responsible democratic government in Canada and in Quebec.

Although I am a sovereignist, I have no intention of rejecting our common values and experiences. And the chapter of our history which saw the emergence of the patriot and reformer movement is part of those common experiences.

I would like to read you an excerpt from a letter sent to me by a government member from Ontario. I do not think he will be upset, because I simply want to show to what extent these events are part of our common history.

He writes: "If there was a time in Canada's history when French-speaking and English-speaking people joined together to defend democracy, it was definitely during the 1837-38 rebellion which shaped the country as we know it today. The violence which occurred in Upper and Lower Canada was minimal and short-lived, compared to what happened in just about any other country that experienced similar incidents. Since then, Canadians have resolved their differences through debate, rather than with arms. This explains why a separatist party is now the Official Opposition in Parliament, something I am proud of".

Mr. Speaker, this was made possible essentially by the actions of the Patriotes of Lower Canada and the Reformers of Upper Canada.

Contrary to what the Reform Party member claimed, Quebecers are not using the Patriotes to denigrate their English-speaking comPatriots. Some prominent Patriotes and Reformers were English-speaking, and we are proud that they participated in the Patriotes movement.

My first speech in this House was to explain the relevance of this motion. This second opportunity allows me to correct a number of objections made by members of the other political parties in the more than two hours of debate on this motion.

The first objection was that the Patriotes and the Reformers were not the only ones who contributed to the establishment of responsible government. We were reminded, and rightly so, of the invaluable contribution of the Hon. Joseph Howe, a politician from Nova Scotia, who also contributed greatly to the establishment of a system of responsible government in Canada, and we recognize it. However, that does not mean that we should not also recognize the value of this structured movement which, for years, conveyed the aspirations of many people in Lower and Upper Canada.

The Patriotes and the Reformers were, first of all, honest citizens-business people, politicians, farmers, professionals-who, before some of them opted for armed struggle, had tried to make their point democratically.

We do not deny that they were not the only ones to whom we owe responsible government, but their very significant contribution cannot be ignored. Does the fact that we recently honoured the Canadian heroes who fought on the beaches of Normandy diminish in any way the merit of those who distinguished themselves at Vimy, Dieppe and Monte Cassino? Of course not, Mr. Speaker. It is self-evident.

Then, honouring Patriotes and Reformers will in no way diminish our gratefulness to persons like Joseph Howe, something I wanted to stress in this House.

Second objection. It has been said that it would be costly and unjustifiable to add a new legal holiday. We never said we wanted a legal holiday. We wasted almost an hour debating this, when it is not even in the motion.

With your permission, I will quote from the presentation I made to the Sub-Committee on Private Members' Business, on May 11, to make sure that this motion was deemed votable. Allow me to quote myself: "-the motion I am presenting to you is not aimed at establishing a national statutory holiday in honour of Patriotes and Reformers".

That is to say that, even before this matter came to the House of Commons, I had clearly stated that the motion was not intended to establish a national statutory holiday to honour Patriotes and Reformers. Of course, it will be up to the government of Canada to decide how it wants to celebrate and recognize the priceless contribution of the Patriotes and Reformers.

This argument can be explained two ways, it is either due to a blatant ignorance of the facts and of the meaning of the motion, or to a deliberate manoeuvre to derail the debate, something I am not accusing anybody of doing.

As I was saying, it has always been very clear in my mind, and that of my colleagues, that it is up to the Government of Canada to make the final decision, once the House adopts the motion, on how it intends to honour and recognize the historical contribution of the Patriotes and Reformers.

Third objection. We were told that the violence of the rebellion of 1837-1838 could not be condoned. Fine, but it must be recognized, as my colleague for Richmond-Wolfe so rightly pointed out, that for years, Patriotes and Reformers had expressed their point of view, their opinions, in speeches at the House of Assembly and at public meetings, as well as in newspaper articles. That is how Patriotes and Reformers had presented their views.

In remembering the Patriotes' actions, one should not choose to recall only the violence some of them ultimately resorted to.

The purpose of this motion is not in any way to legitimize or justify the rebellions of 1837-38. Of course not. As my colleague from Richmond-Wolfe mentioned, the motion simply seeks to pay tribute to the men and women who, notwithstanding these violent protests, believed it was necessary to have a truly responsible and democratic government in this country.

Of the people who believed and took part in this movement, some entered public life and are still highly respected today for their convictions, like Louis-Joseph Papineau, Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine, Robert Baldwin and George-Étienne Cartier, to name a few.

After the first hour of debate, which was rather deplorable, I might say and where all kinds of objections were used to sidetrack the debate, I sent all members of this House a letter to clarify the situation concerning the three objections that were raised.

In the second hour of debate, we heard new objections. First, we heard mainly from our colleagues in the Reform Party that the bad sovereignists of today are using the actions of the Patriotes and the Reformers to justify their claims. This argument demonstrates a poor knowledge of our history.

I will remind the members that the Reformers, who would be Ontarians today, are included in the motion. It has absolutely nothing to do with the sovereignist movement. That is not why we are presenting this motion. We want to recognize the contribution of the Patriotes and the Reformers to the establishment of a system of responsible democratic government.

I must also remind hon. members of something I mentioned in the first hour of debate, namely that there are groups in Ontario which support our initiative and encourage us to bring the House to recognize the invaluable contribution of the Patriotes and the Reformers.

Let us not forget that the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau even went to Australia to unveil a plaque honouring the Patriotes of Lower Canada and that another Canadian government official unveiled a similar plaque in Tasmania to honour the Reformers of Upper Canada. There has never been formal recognition from the government, and that is what we are seeking.

Of course, it is possible to make a connection between the actions of the Patriotes and the actions of today's sovereignists. But if we had wanted to give that meaning to the motion before us today, we certainly would have excluded any reference to the Reformers of Upper Canada.

The hon. member for Calgary Southeast said in her speech, and I quote:

If this House is seriously fighting for a strong Canada, it would be hypocritical for its members to vote in favour of this motion.

What a pity to make such a narrow and restrictive interpretation of the motion before the House. I say to her that if this House rejects this motion, it will be more than hypocritical. Not to admit a historical reality for purely partisan reasons is beneath the dignity of this House.

During the second hour of debate, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell presented a new objection to the motion. He opposed the wording of the motion where it says the Patriotes of Lower Canada and the Reformers of Upper Canada contributed to the establishment of responsible government in Canada and in Quebec. Using a geographical subterfuge, it was argued that we could not talk about Canada and Quebec since we were talking about Upper Canada and Lower Canada and that we should therefore talk about Ontario and Quebec.

I would simply like to say to the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell that, putting aside the matter of Ontario and Quebec, we must admit that the action of the Patriotes and the Reformers was such that we can now enjoy freedom everywhere in Canada and a democratic and responsible government. The action of the Patriotes and the Reformers cannot be limited to Ontario and Quebec.

The question I asked myself was this: Why then, if he really intended to support the motion-because I must recognize in all honesty that the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell agreed with the substance, the principle of the motion, though he was worried about its wording-why then did he not support the motion? He had the right to do so. Our colleague has just proposed an amendment which after all does not change the meaning of the motion.

We would have been very disappointed if our colleagues opposite had continued to oppose this motion only, it seems, because of its wording. We are happy to see that we may come to an agreement so that this House finally recommends that the government recognize, more than a hundred years later, the historical contribution of the Patriotes and the Reformers to the establishment of responsible government, of which we are so proud.

If they had continued to reject this motion only because of its wording, they would have disappointed many groups in Ontario and Quebec as well as elsewhere in Canada that have been supporting us in this process from the beginning.

If they had continued, for disgraceful and base partisan motives, to try to deflect a supposedly level-headed debate on the recognition that is more than due to the Patriotes, Liberals and especially Reformers would have shown how low they could go. But, fortunately, government members are much more open today.

Refusing to recognize the invaluable contribution of the Patriotes and the Reformers to the establishment of responsible government, something we are so proud of today, is an insult to the memory of great men like Louis-Joseph Papineau, George-Étienne Cartier, William Lyon Mackenzie, Robert Baldwin and Louis-Hyppolyte Lafontaine. Not all Patriotes took up arms but we owe it to all of them that we live today in a free and democratic society today.

I would invite hon. members, my Reform and Liberal colleagues, to reflect on this before voting on this important motion.

I would like to conclude very briefly by thanking members from all sides for taking part in this debate. I would also like to express my particular thanks to Mr. Onil Perrier, of the Patriotes du pays, provided food for thought, and research material throughout the process.

In closing, I would like to thank-and I am sure that you will agree with me-my assistant and colleague, Catherine Beaudry, who did most of the research. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you agree with my words of thanks to her.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Colleagues, since the right of reply closes the debate, I must put the question to the House.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.