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.