Benoît Sauvageau

[The Environment, September 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, last weekend, the Canadian Environmental Network held its general meeting. The organization consists of a number of ecological and environmental groups from Quebec and the other provinces and territories. The work they do in educating the public and in making governments and industry aware of the need to protect our environment is essential, although the government often fails to appreciate this fact.

At the meeting, a number of network representatives told us of their concern about possible cuts in grants by the Department of the Environment. The government must not abandon agencies that remind us daily that the environment concerns everyone and that recognizing our responsibility for our environment is the key to sustainable development.

[Canadian Radio-Television And Telecommunications Commission, September 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the CRTC has made public its decision on the new telecommunications regulatory framework. Despite what was promised in June 1992, basic monthly rates will rise by 50 per cent over three years in some regions. For the first time, basic telephone service, which is an essential service, is being undermined.

Why such a sudden and rapid increase? Consumers are the ones paying for the CRTC's decisions. A less drastic hike could have been agreed to for the sake of poor people hurt by the recession.

While Minister Manley plays with the idea of regulations allowing the convergence of cable and telephone networks, the CRTC announces that this sector will be almost completely deregulated and presents everyone with a fait accompli.

The right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. That is another appalling example of the inconsistency of the federal system.

[National Patriots' Day, June 20th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, right away, before giving my speech, I would like to inform you that we on this side of the House find it deplorable that Reformers and Liberals are trying so hard and so sincerely to change the nature of the debate. Rather than opposing the motion for the sake of opposing it, taking exception and arguing against the merits of the motion, they are trying not to talk about it, they are talking about other issues, and are beating about the bush.

I would also like to point out that we are not trying to establish a National Patriots' Day as we have in Quebec. Yes, we celebrate that in Quebec, but this is not what we are after here. We are asking the Canadian government to recognize the role of Patriotes and Reformers in Canada.

An NDP member proposed that hockey be recognized as the national sport of Canada, as well as lacrosse. What more does that involve? What national day is hockey day? That is not the issue. So we would appreciate it if people would oppose the motion, not just the winds around the motion.

That being said, I will begin my speech. The motion tabled, and I am talking about the motion that was tabled and not something else, is of very great significance for us in the Bloc Quebecois.

It is essential to recognize that Patriotes and Reformers played an important part in the birth of a true democracy in Canada. In fact, we must, this House must recognize the significant role that these people played in the history of Quebec and Canada and their undeniable contribution to our current political structure.

The motion tabled in this House by my hon. colleague from Verchères is, therefore, of prime importance. I repeat, we are not trying to set up a National Patriots' Day. They did it in Quebec, but there in Quebec they are ahead of their time, not you. The name of the Patriotes must be cleared so that they can take their rightful place in history.

It is also true, however, that the means they used to reach their ends may seem to us, to some of us, drastic, but a closer look at the situation shows that their demands were legitimate, not their actions.

I think it would be a good idea, and I feel this even more strongly now, having listened to the two previous debates, to present an historical overview of the circumstances surrounding the rebellions of 1837-38. It would be my pleasure to do so, perhaps people will learn something. We should say, quickly, that over a period of a little more than a hundred years, from 1760 to 1867, the constitutional status of British North America changed five times. There was the Royal Proclamation in 1760, the Quebec Act 14 years later, then there was the Constitutional Act of 1791, the Act of Union in 1840 and finally the British North America Act in 1867. Five changes in a little over 100 years. But for 125 years we have not dared to touch this sacrosanct piece of paper on which the Constitution is written, with the exception of the 1982 mistake.

We will deal specifically with three of these documents. The Quebec Act of 1774, when England-we must also point out that these rules are always imposed from outside, and it is always from the outside that rules are imposed on francophones. This is what is known as colonial status. This is what we want to leave behind.

With the Quebec Act, England realized that the assimilation of Francophones in Canada was, to all intents and purposes, futile.

In order to ensure that the province "of Quebec", as it was called then, did not move toward the hand held out by the future United States south of its borders, the Crown offered what might be called a gift to the province "of Quebec" that re-established some of their rights, abolished the oath of allegiance, and recognized a French lifestyle in this British territory in North America.

After the United States gained its independence, a number of people loyal to the crown, the Loyalists, came to find refuge in this part of the British colony that is today called Canada. They asked their motherland, England, to allow them to have rights and exercise them in a land of their own.

Granting their request, England imposed the Constitutional Act of 1791 that divided the area in two-Upper Canada for the majority of Loyalists, and Lower Canada, Quebec, for the French speaking majority.

Therefore, in 1791, England recognized the distinct status of the French fact in North America, which our neighbours today cannot understand.

The Constitution Act introduced two new principles into the Canadian political system: parliamentarism and the representa-

tive system. For the first time, the inhabitants of the area were able to elect their representatives who would meet in Parliament.

The birth of democracy was, however, very quickly marred by mistakes. The people suddenly realised that the legislative assembly elected by the people had no authority over the two councils appointed by London. The legislative council and the executive council were composed of a majority of merchants and professionals who lived in the territory and were appointed by the British crown, which thereby maintained control over decisions concerning the French-speaking population.

The Loyalists in Upper Canada, now known as Ontario, experienced the same anti-democratic stalemate as the francophones. And William Lyon Mackenzie and his party of Reformers also rebelled against this state of affairs-they were not, of course, the Reformers we have today, but the Reformers of the time.

In Lower Canada, the Patriotes and Papineau opposed this injustice. An important point to note here is that francophones were in the majority at that time throughout all of Upper and Lower Canada.

These two political movements attempted peacefully to denounce the constitutional impasse. The Patriotes presented a list of 92 resolutions-weaknesses to be corrected in the Canadian political system. The answer soon arrived-Lord Russell refused to agree to the demands made by Papineau and his party.

There were then only two roads open to the leader of the Patriotes: submission or revolt.

Since 1834, the economic, social and cultural context had been seething. Economically, difficult access to land made it more and more difficult to settle numerous families. Socially, the English-speaking elite controlled almost everything, and particularly jobs. In connection with culture, the Legislative Council refused to respond to the need for an education system as requested by Lower Canada, a little like the situation in Ontario today, in Kingston, for those who are not aware of the issue.

Political instability, economic instability, social and cultural instability were all perfect ingredients for the pot to boil over in Lower Canada and Upper Canada.

The Patriotes, then, wanted to exercise real power over the decisions affecting the future of the people living in Lower Canada. One of their principal demands was ministerial responsibility, which involved having an executive council comprised of members of the legislative assembly-elected officials who made decisions and were responsible to the public for their actions.

London's refusal had regrettable consequences-we must point that out-and they were called the Rebellion of 1838-38. I will willingly spare you the details of the Rebellion, as they were described earlier, and go on immediately to the situation analysis carried out by Lord Durham.

After studying the situation in Upper and Lower Canada, and noting that francophones were in the minority at that point, Lord Durham, no fool he, proposed the union of Upper and Lower Canada, that would then be called "United Canada", with an English-speaking majority. Remember that because of this union Lower Canada's debt increased by a factor of 16 to pay for Upper Canada's infrastructures.

After an eight-year adaptation period, in 1848, London recognized the second recommendation in the Durham report-ministerial responsibility. Remember that date: 1848-the birth of true democracy.

We can, without fear of contradiction, state that Mackenzie's Reformers and the Patriotes were the initiators of what is known today as responsible government.

These men, who were killed in combat, hanged or exiled, made it possible for us today to work in one of the most democratic political systems in the world, and they deserve recognition from the Canadian government for their enormous contribution to our political institutions.

Quebec has done this already by proclaiming November 22 as Patriot's Day. Pierre Elliott Trudeau himself did it. In 1970, on the sly in Australia, he inaugurated a monument to the Patriotes. It is now up to us to clear their name for the collective memory of Canadians.

[National Patriots' Day, June 20th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I think the hon. Liberal member is straying from the debate since he is not speaking to the motion for the creation of a national holiday.

[Canada Wildlife Act, June 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise again today on an environmental bill, C-24. This bill amends the 1973 Canada Wildlife Act. According to the minister, the purpose of this act is to permit the government to conduct wildlife research and, in co-operation with the provinces, to undertake various activities related to wildlife conservation and interpretation. The provinces are responsible for managing wildlife, except for most species of migratory birds, fish and mammals.

Like C-23, the bill updates an existing law. Basically, it modernizes the law and includes some new features. It is essential to watch out for environmental problems and to have the tools required to avoid them, especially those affecting biodiversity.

Chapter 6 of the Brundtland report says: "Conservation of living natural resources-plants, animals and micro-organisms, and the non-living elements of the environment on which they depend-is crucial for development. Today, the conservation of wild living resources is on the agenda of governments; nearly 4 per cent of the Earth's land area is managed explicitly to conserve species and ecosystems, and all but a small handful of countries have national parks. The challenge facing nations today is no longer deciding whether conservation is a good idea, but rather how it can be implemented in the national interest and within the means available in each country".

Like the leaders of other countries that signed the Brundtland report, we in this House are all convinced, I am sure, of the importance of protecting endangered species. The issue is finding ways to achieve our goals. The old law essentially protected wild animals, plants and other organisms. Replacing the French word "faune" by "espèces sauvages" considerably broadens the scope of the new law. We think that it is essential to extend the law in this way in order to protect the natural habitats of the wildlife that we want to protect. This amendment to the law fills a gaping legal hole in the 1973 act.

Furthermore, the amendments to be made to the Act will create protected marine areas within any fishing zone prescribed in the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act. It will be possible to conduct research on marine wildlife and to undertake various activities related to wildlife conservation and interpretation. This very useful addition to the act will enhance the protection of a larger number of marine wildlife species.

From now on, wildlife officers will have the powers of peace officers. This means they will be able to apply the provisions of the Criminal Code. In an emergency, they will also be authorized to carry out inspections and searches without a warrant. These special powers will make it easier for wildlife officers to operate in an isolated forest areas, for instance.

Although, we in the Bloc Quebecois would have liked to see some guarantee of federal co-operation with the provinces, but it would have been difficult to obtain such guarantees in committee. In the act, it says that provincial government employees appointed by the minister require the agreement and consent of the province to perform their duties in the province. The act also says that the Minister of the Environment may, in exceptional circumstances, give these officers special powers. We said yes, the minister may give them special powers, but since they were appointed with the agreement of the province,

we felt that this was an amendment that would be hard to sell, although it would reinforce the legislation.

Officers will be able to inspect any premises or vehicle for the presence of wildlife. Everyone agrees that without this provision, effective application of the act would be in jeopardy. However, the bill observes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms with a provision to project the public against inspection without just cause. That is a very important point.

As in Bill C-23, the legislation includes a provision to recover any costs arising from the offence from the violators. It is very important that such costs not be borne by the taxpayers. Finally, a substantial increase in fines for violations of the act will surely enhance the deterrent effect of this legislation. I hope that the maximum fine of $250,000 will have that effect and that the government will not hesitate to revise this amount if it appears insufficient to achieve the aims of this legislation.

Furthermore, the bill allows the court to order offenders to remedy any harm they may have caused to the environment. The inclusion of this provision surely increases the legislation's desired deterrent effect.

In conclusion, the efforts made to achieve the goals of environmental protection and sustainable development must be followed up by the stringent enforcement of the act. Concrete, ongoing action must be taken in the environmental field to achieve sustainable development, the mark of a healthy economy and a healthy, flourishing society.

Quebecers and Canadians have given us a clear mandate to deal with environmental issues and we must do everything in our power to fulfil the terms of our mandate. We must atone for past mistakes and see that we do not repeat them. We can never say it enough: the environment knows no borders or party affiliation.

[Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, June 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, just like my colleague from Frontenac, I too am pleased, as a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, to speak on Bill C-23 today.

This bill replaces the Migratory Birds Convention Act which dates back to 1917. Needless to say that many things have changed since 1917. That is why I consider essential that this act which has remained basically unchanged over all those years be reviewed.

To fully grasp the meaning of the federal legislation on the subject, some background information is required concerning the origins of this act. The act was passed in 1917 after an international convention was entered into by Canada and the United States in 1916. The purpose of the Migratory Bird Convention was to protect migratory birds from the slaughter they were facing at the time and save their population from often senseless human action.

The 1917 enactment regulated the hunting of migratory birds and prohibited trafficking and commercialization of them. The goals of the act remain relevant today, but over the years the means by which they were to be achieved have become outdated.

Lawmakers could certainly not be expected to foresee in 1917 the sharp scientific and technological expansion that lay ahead, over the course of the 20th century. As we know, phenomenal advances were made in science. Protection of embryos and tissue cultures as well as the protection of endangered species and prohibition of trafficking are the main considerations the new legislation must be based on.

This new legislation, that is to say Bill C-23, is indeed essential to protect migratory birds. Recent reports in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix and La Presse indicated that 1,000 out of 9,600 bird species, or 10 per cent of our bird population, threaten to become extinct in the short term. This is quite obviously a matter of urgency.

Also, one of the reasons stated by the American magazine World Watch for the decline in the number of birds world-wide and in Canada was as follows, and I quote: ``Most bird species are in decline because the natural balance is upset by the global expansion of mankind. We are entirely to blame for the problem and must find ways to resolve it.''

For example, the problems caused by deforestation due to urban spread or farmland expansion and exponential population growth contribute to the degradation of wildlife habitat. Industrial and domestic pollution are also among the new concerns that must guide us in drafting legislation respecting the protection of migratory birds and environmental protection in general.

Let us now take a closer look at the proposals contained in Bill C-23 to update the former act which dated back to 1917. Clause 2, the interpretation clause, was changed to broaden the scope of the act. For example, the definition of the word conveyance will now include any contrivance used to hunt birds.

Moreover, the definition of "migratory bird" is amended so as to include the sperm, eggs, embryo and tissue cultures. As I said earlier, this change is essential for the survival of species in this era of technological revolution.

Another important change, which consists in distinguishing between to "be in possession" and to "buy or sell", will allow the courts to treat the illegal marketing and trade of birds as a more serious offence than mere possession.

Several technical changes reaffirm the power of game officers to inspect and search. However, a provision is added to protect people against abusive searches, in compliance with the charter of rights and freedoms.

Moreover, regulations can be made under clause 12.(1) (f ) to ensure better control over the issuance of permits. Indeed, problems can often be solved at the root. It is more than desirable that the government makes such regulations soon, as authorized by this legislation.

A major change which, in our opinion, will be welcome if it is used properly, is the considerable increase regarding fines imposed to offenders. Since the applicable provisions of the 1917 legislation have never been amended, the current act only provides for fines of $10 to $300. This will no way deter a modern-day offender.

The proposed amendments provide for fines of $50,000 to $250,000, depending on the type of offence. In the case of a repeat offender, the amounts can be doubled. This is a big improvement. I do hope that the legislator will not wait another 77 years to update these amounts, and that in the future parliamentarians will closely and regularly review this legislation.

I want to conclude by reminding you of the importance of protecting and preserving migratory birds in Canada. Think of the loon on our dollar. Think of the snowy owl and other birds which are symbols in our country. This is a good example of the international scope of environmental problems. Indeed, migratory birds, like pollution, cross borders, making it all the more important to conclude international agreements, instead of just passing national laws.

If Canada wants to ensure sustainable development, not only will it have to pass effective legislation, but it will also have to sign good international conventions, so as to adequately protect itself from transborder environmental problems.

It might also be wise to reflect on the opportunity of having a chart promoting the environment and sustainable development. This would be a comprehensive and practical document, such as the charter of rights and freedoms, which would ensure individuals that, like them, the environment is well protected.

Our future and especially our children's future depends on what we do today to leave them with a country in which resources will still be available. We must play an active role and face current challenges.

[Environment, June 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on Environment and Sustainable development, I think it is essential and very appropriate to make a comprehensive review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Our future depends on the measures taken today. This is why it is vital to review the effectiveness of the act and, consequently, the effectiveness of the departments concerned by this legislation.

The location of my beautiful riding of Terrebonne, which is bordered by the Prairies River, the Mille-Îles River and the majestic St. Lawrence River, and which is close to the island of Montreal, leads me to give particular attention to the management of our environment.

My constituents are directly affected by the environmental decisions and policies implemented here. It is therefore essential for them, and for me, that we take a close look at how the act has evolved and how it has been managed. As I said earlier, given its location, my riding would be an appropriate place for the establishment of institutions dedicated to the environment and environmental technologies. This would make of one of the most populated ridings in the country a leader in the field of environment.

Environmental protection depends on the sound management of allocated budgets. The idea is not to pass a law and then vote a budget to ensure its efficiency. Rather, we must closely monitor the implementation of the act, as well as the activities of the various organizations, and the departmental policies. Since the environment and health departments are the two responsible for the implementation of the act, it is essential that they both send experts to testify before the committee. This will enable us to better check and monitor how the act is being implemented.

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act provides the necessary tools to protect the environment. It includes both preventive and corrective measures. We, members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, must see to what extent these tools are being used. It should be remembered that the Department of the Environment has a budget of close to three quarters of a billion dollars. With that kind of money, some great things can surely be achieved.

Our review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act will certainly give us an opportunity to determine whether these goals and objectives have been achieved after five years of implementation. This act was sanctioned on June 28, 1988. Its ultimate goal was to help Canadians enjoy a healthy environment. It replaced and broadened the Environmental Contaminants Act. The new act has led to uniform guidelines, standards and regulations across the country.

I should explain some of its provisions to help people better understand what the Environmental Protection Act stands for.

When it came into effect five years ago, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act was aimed chiefly at regulating toxic products. It listed the products that were considered to be harmful to the environment, as well as the implementing regulations and standards designed to ensure that these products are used wisely.

Another part of the act banned other toxic products that were not listed so that any product entering or made in Canada had to undergo a review to determine whether it should be included in the list of toxic products.

The act emphasizes what we call toxic products. One of the deficiencies we will have to address is that the act does not contain any reference to the concept of sustainable development.

The people who introduced the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in 1988 were certainly full of good intentions, but the concept of sustainable development was not yet in force. In reviewing the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development will surely give the principle of sustainable development all the importance it deserves.

In explaining this to you, I will avoid explaining the whole Act, and I will conclude right away, because we have a little agreement with my friends opposite so that they too can conclude on this. That is why I would like to say that it is rather strange that under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the minister is supposed to make an annual report on how it was applied and on the state of the environment.

This was probably the favourite argument trotted out by Liberal members of the environment committee when we talked about the environment commissioner. The Liberals then put

forward their argument that an environment commissioner would issue an annual report on the environment, which is already being done.

But we will surely be able to discuss it when the Act is reviewed. I now want to particularly emphasize the importance of working non-stop for the environment. A report published a few days ago by Statistics Canada, on Human Activities and the Environment, 1994, which we had a chance to read this week, leaves me and, I am sure, other hon. members uncertain as to whether the money invested in the environment is well spent.

It says that Canada is among the top seven producers of waste per capita. With nearly $2 billion spent on the environment by all federal departments, Canada should do better in this regard.

In the review of the Act which the committee is about to undertake, we absolutely must consider the many international conventions signed by Canada. A reform is already required to avoid overlapping among the various agencies of the Department of the Environment. These overlaps often cost taxpayers too much.

To conclude, as I said before, this review must absolutely not overlook the concept of sustainable development adopted by Canada since the Canadian Environmental Protection Act took effect. This law is the key to environmental protection and it is essential that it achieve the objectives set by Quebecers and Canadians.

[Normrock Industries, June 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to praise the work of a company in my riding by the name of Normrock Industries.

This company specializes in environmental restoration projects. Recently, it finally received the go ahead for its Amphibex excavator project.

The unique feature of this piece of equipment is that it eliminates the need to use dynamite to clear ice debris, thereby safeguarding wildlife, aquatic and riparian habitats.

The Amphibex uses technological innovations that have been internationally tested to recover contaminated materials from an aquatic environment.

This new technology is environmentally friendly and geared to sustainable development.

What more can we say about this initiative other than bravo!

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

I would like to thank the hon. member for his question, as is the tradition here in this House. First of all, I want to say that, before their independence, the Americans promoted a philosophy which resulted in the fact that their Senate, although quite effective, is not representative. It is representation by population. We often heard about Loyalists demanding rep by pop and the United States having rep by pop. Of course, it is all right to have two senators per state, but then you do not have rep by pop. However, this is not the place to review the U.S. Senate, so I will try to give a more direct answer to the hon. member.

About the triple E Senate, we believe that an elected House can undoubtedly make responsible decisions, because we support ministerial responsibility. An elected House could and should be able to make decisions concerning some legislation. Two elected Houses, if the Senate were to be a triple E Senate, could create confusion about which House must make the decision. The ten Canadian provinces, which do not have two, but only one House, show us how one House can make decisions, and very sensible decisions at that.

For example, the province of Quebec, with a population of about 7 million, got rid of the legislative council in 1968, that is nearly 30 years ago. No one in Quebec has any regrets about that decision. Other provinces also got rid of their legislative councils and I do not think they have any regrets about it. So, in Canada, an elected House where hon. members would abide by the principle of ministerial responsibility could give proper consideration to the decisions they are about to make.

And if Quebec were to become sovereign, I hope Canada will respect the democratic principles it has been advocating since 1867.

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, a public report released by the Auditor General refers to Senator Cochrane, not to mention any names, who, on top of her $60,000 salary, as I was saying earlier, and her expense allowance of $9,000, cost Canadian taxpayers $35,000 in travelling expenses and $49,000 in office-related costs. Canada does have its own museum of horrors and its own villains in that museum.

In the minute I have left, I want to point out how absurd it is, in a democratic system, to have a house of non-elected members with decision-making power. Canadian dignitaries who are so proud of their democracy have no lesson to teach to other countries. When will they abolish that House which costs Quebecers and Canadians $43 million every year, even though it is ineffective and non-democratic?

We are in the midst of an economic crisis and our debt increases by thousands of dollars every minute. The federal government cannot continue to waste public money on a useless institution.