Evidence of meeting #5 for Canadian Heritage in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was event.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Don't worry, I have so many that you couldn't possibly answer them all.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
When the current government came into power in 2006, did your mandate change? Were your minister's expectations different from those of the previous Liberal ministers?
Were you asked to be more visible, more involved in the community?
3:55 p.m.
Chair, National Battlefields Commission
Could you repeat the start of your question?
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
I was talking about when the Conservatives came to power.
3:55 p.m.
Chair, National Battlefields Commission
There were no changes. In fact, ministers change so often that the commission, as is probably the case with other organizations, never has the chance to meet with them. We therefore operate according to the program.
I have held this position for the past 13 years and have worked under seven Canadian Heritage ministers during that time. We follow the program. There were no instructions for or against that. We are continuing to do our work as before.
You spoke about extraordinary visibility. I would like to quote the words of Pierre Boucher in Le Devoir, who stated that this was a subliminal visibility.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Maybe you can get that through in the next round. I have to move on now.
Mr. Mulcair.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I also wish to welcome Mr. Juneau, a former citizen of Cap-Rouge, and it is with pleasure that I do so.
I meant to ask him questions that are somewhat in line with those of Ms. Lavallée. I find this all concerning.
Cancelling the event was the right decision, but I think it was made for the wrong reason. It had to be cancelled because celebrating the conquest was a very bad idea from the outset.
I had the opportunity to speak about this issue on a number of television shows in English Canada. I remember when I was with Tom Clark from CTV, who introduced the issue as follows:
“When Wolfe defeated Montcalm”, “The victory of Wolfe over Montcalm”.
Immediately after, he interviewed Mr. De Waele, a professor from Laval University, who said:
“That was the conquest.”
He then turned to me and said: "What do you think?" I replied: "You have your answer." For some it was "the victory"; for others, it was "the conquest".
When I was a student I did some research into how the Battle of the Plains of Abraham was depicted in the school books of anglophone and francophone high schools in Quebec. It was no surprise to see that the versions were somewhat different. I specifically looked at how the books described the English scaling the cliffs. In the English version, they were often described as being cunning. It was often the Scots, who were familiar with French, who had succeeded in tricking the sentries. The French version referred rather—and this is one of my favourite versions—to a traitor, probably a Swiss, who had sold out, and so on. It all depends on the point of view.
The 250th anniversary of this event could have been calmly discussed in a university setting. I do not want to attack you personally, you are a person of experience, but quite seriously, I do not understand that choice.
I'll remind you of another ridiculous government decision a few years ago. You are probably familiar with Grosse-Île, which is just downstream from Quebec City, after the Île d'Orléans. This was a very important place for the Irish community in Quebec and Quebec City. During the famines, several families lost their kin on that island. Families were prevented from going there because of the significant losses due to health reasons. The federal gnomes decided to make a theme park rather than something a little more sober and respectful. This caused an outcry within the Irish community. Sometimes all you need to do is speak to a few Quebeckers from the outside in order to understand that some of the decisions that are made here are completely disconnected from the people in those communities.
You come from Quebec City, more specifically Cap-Rouge, which is today part of Quebec City.
4 p.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
I don't understand. Do you realize today that it was a mistake to plan this type of event? Do you still think that a conquest should be celebrated?
4 p.m.
Chair, National Battlefields Commission
No, that should not be celebrated. I am in absolute agreement with you. Furthermore, no one ever said that it was going to be celebrated. That is the source of the problem, the word "fêter". At a certain point in time, to provoke some debate—and this was rather clever—reporters said that we were going to celebrate the conquest. Yet it was never our intention to celebrate the conquest. The historians with us, including Mr. De Waele—
4 p.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
With all due respect, Mr. Juneau, I think that is the problem: there is a disconnect. We won't even talk about the masked ball. Let's stick to the event itself. It's festive. It attracts people from everywhere. It is mostly Americans who would have recreated the event. It is partly a celebration.
However, this is the battle that branded, if I dare say, the people who were there, that is the French, who now number 7 million in North America, where there are 350 million anglophones. They managed to preserve their civil rights and their customs, and their language, with a good degree of effort. This has been an ongoing battle for 250 years because of that defeat, that conquest.
Do you not think that your group was rather insensitive about that?
4 p.m.
Chair, National Battlefields Commission
I think that on the substance we understand each other. I agree with you. We thought about everything you have just said, Mr. Mulcair. There is only one point on which we differ. We know that others come after, because this was part of the Seven Years' War. In fact, those were the last two battles of the Seven Year's War in America. I am also a francophone, and one of my ancestors died during that battle. I am therefore directly affected by that.
After 250 years, perhaps we could be teaching it—
4 p.m.
Chair, National Battlefields Commission
All right. But today, we can look back on the situation with some hindsight because, as a society, we have our institutions and we are able to speak to each other in French, etc. We have noted the sensitivity of the people who have written us beautiful letters. As I said earlier, this was part of the reason why we decided to back down. There was also the issue of security.
We didn't think that this was forgotten, but rather something that happened quite a long time ago.
4 p.m.
NDP
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
We have to move on. We'll move on to our next questioner.
Mr. Del Mastro, please.
February 25th, 2009 / 4 p.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Juneau, I'm going to speak to you in English, but feel free to respond en français . I'm more comfortable in English, so I'll speak in English.
First of all, thank you for accepting our invitation to appear before committee today. I appreciate your coming forward.
You indicated that the National Battlefields Commission has been in existence since 2008. It exists as an independent body, independent of political interference, and you've indicated that there's been no change in your mandate since our government came to power. You also indicated that there is a seat allotted to the Government of Quebec.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Mr. Chair, 2008 or 1908, it's only 100 years. It's semantics.
I'm just kidding. Thank you.
Sir, you've been the chair since 1995, and during that time there have been formal re-enactments to mark that date.
What we're talking about is a commemoration, and I think this is where both the Bloc and Mr. Mulcair are really lost. This is a commemoration; we're marking a date. There were formal re-enactments in 1999, and I understand there was another one in 2004.
Now, it's been reported that the plan to mark the 250th anniversary had been discussed for a decade. This has been in planning, or has certainly been talked about, for some time.
Am I correct in asserting that this historic commemoration would have gone ahead if extremist groups, supported by the Bloc and the PQ, hadn't threatened public safety? Is that a correct statement?
4:05 p.m.
Chair, National Battlefields Commission
We decided to cancel it for two reasons, the first reason being security. As for the second reason, we did understand the sensitivity of people, we understood what they were telling us. The other re-enactments did not create any debate. We had not thought that, in this case, it would go so far. We did expect some reaction, but we were prepared to listen to people and to modify the re-enactment in order to give it more character, more respect.
We are talking about the re-enactment because a decision was made on this issue. You would be surprised to see the list of suggestions that we received from everyone, including historians, in order to remember this battle. One of my mistakes—and I am not perfect, I know—is to have been a bit carried away by the ideas suggested by the historians over the past five or six years. Here I'm referring to all kinds of endeavours such as, for example, organizing the ball or having a ship that could have gone up the St. Lawrence to remind us that it had destroyed all the towns in its path. About 15 of the events that had been submitted to the Quebec access to Information Board were cancelled. We retained the idea for the two battles because this type of thing is done throughout the world and we thought that we could do it.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Thank you, sir.
I don't have a lot of time, and I did have a couple of questions I wanted to get through.
In 1999, when that re-enactment took place, you did indicate there was a seat for the Quebec government. What party was in power in Quebec in 1999? Was that the PQ at that time? Is that correct?