Debates of Oct. 3rd, 2001

Courts Administration Service Act

[Werner Schmidt, Canadian Alliance, Kelowna, BC]

Madam Speaker, the whole business of setting things up in such a way is to make sure that the judges who are appointed for each of the specific courts make the decisions that they ought to be making. When this does not happen, when the solicitor general loses the particular responsibility through the formation of a committee, that is not doing what was originally intended for the solicitor general. It is an illustration of what happens here.

I will support this piece of legislation because its intent is okay. I also want to caution that unless it is administered in such a way that the intent is realized, it will not meet the objective that was set for it in the first place.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for South Surrey--White Rock--Langley, Airline Industry; the hon. member for South Shore, Harbours; the hon. member for Acadie--Bathurst, Employment Insurance; the hon. member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, Shipbuilding.

Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada Act

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, for the Minister of Transport]

moved that Bill C-34, an act to establish the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[André Harvey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, it gives me pleasure to have the opportunity to speak about the establishment of the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada. We are going through a period characterized by great insecurity in the field of transportation and this affects not only the Department of Transport but almost all departments. Clearly there is no simple solution to a complex problem.

In this spirit, I wish to pay tribute to the excellent work done by our colleague, the Canadian Minister of Transport, who has played a very important role in co-ordinating the activities of various departments. From the very first day of the crisis, when terrorism invaded all the countries of the world, he showed great wisdom in implementing concrete measures, which will not be in place forever but which were very important in the short term.

I have frequently heard certain members of the opposition criticizing some of these measures. They would have liked to see a simple response to something as complex as terrorism. Nonetheless, the minister has moved forward, implementing measures which will help, in the very near future, we hope, to put the airline industry back on its fee, and which will have an impact on all economic activities and all aspects of our economic and social life.

It should be pointed out that in spite of the grievances of some opposition members, there are many who would find it a lonely place if they were members of other western parliaments. I think that Canada and the Canadian parliament have been models of consultation and information since the beginning of the crisis.

We have had tens of hours of debate, the Prime Minister has been present at almost every oral question period and the Minister of Transport has been present at all of them. He was also here throughout the emergency debate that we had on Monday evening to discuss the air transportation issue. I should also mention the availability of all the committee members. Not many parliaments in the western world have been so open to a largely public discussion on the enormous challenge that faces us in the area of security.

I am pleased to support Bill C-34, an act to establish the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada and to make consequential amendments to other acts. This bill is another illustration of the federal government's commitment to reform the legislation on national transportation and to improve safety and security in the national transportation system.

In order to have the safest possible transportation system, it is very important that Transport Canada officials have a broad set of effective powers to ensure compliance and enforce regulations.

When serious offences are committed, we rely on criminal proceedings and penalties. We will continue to deal with these types of offences through the use of enforcement powers and criminal penalties. However, because of certain acts governing transportation in Canada, the department has had to rely on criminal proceedings to deal with minor offences.

Criminal proceedings can be very costly and in some cases they can drag on for years. Moreover, the vast majority of offences under the various federal transportation laws are not of a criminal nature. There is a huge discrepancy between the offence and the criminal penalty that may be imposed. For these two reasons, there has been in recent years a marked tendency to decriminalize federal transportation laws and implement an administrative process instead of resorting to criminal proceedings, except for serious offences.

Administrative measures can take various forms: licences, certificates and permits may be suspended or revoked; compliance transactions may be concluded; pecuniary penalties may be imposed; and orders can be issued.

Current federal legislation on transport, as well as that proposed, contains examples of these administrative powers.

There is another point that is as important as the matter of administrative powers and that is the need for individuals and businesses that have been taken to court to have recourse to an independent entity able to review the way Transport Canada is using its powers.

As far as aviation is concerned, individuals and companies against which administrative measures have been applied under the Aeronautics Act have recourse to the civil aviation tribunal. There is no similar tribunal for the maritime or rail sector. In those sector, the examination processes, if there are any, take place typically within the department.

The purpose of Bill C-34 and of the creation of the transportation appeal tribunal of Canada is to enable the maritime and rail sectors to have the same effective right to recourse as the civil aviation sector does with the civil aviation tribunal with respect to administrative decisions by Transport Canada.

The civil aviation tribunal was created in 1986 to examine cases of infractions of the licensing or other regulations by companies or individuals under the Aeronautics Act. The tribunal is completely independent of Transport Canada.

For more than 15 years, the civil aviation tribunal has been providing admirable service to the aviation industry and the department. In the course of a typical year the CAT holds about 100 hearings as well as settling some 100 other cases without involving the entire hearing process.

The new transportation appeal tribunal of Canada would replace the civil aviation Ttibunal as well as encompassing the marine and rail modes. The three major circuits would therefore be integrated. Cases would be heard relating not only to the Aeronautics Act but also to the Canada Shipping Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Marine Transportation Safety Act and the Railway Safety Act. Thanks to the creation of a multimodal tribunal, the aviation, maritime and rail sectors would all have similar rights of recourse in connection with administrative decisions by Transport Canada.

The new tribunal would adopt many of the specific characteristics that have made the civil aviation tribunal so effective. Members of the transportation appeal tribunal should possess expertise in the specific transport field. For example, cases relating to the maritime shipping sector would be heard by tribunal members with knowledge of that sector, and the same for the rail sector.

Under this approach all the cases would be heard by people who have the necessary technical and operational background to understand the evidence, determine if all the regulations and security standards were complied wit, and identify the impact on security of failing to comply with regulations or of engaging in dangerous practices.

The process the tribunal would adopt would be informal, inexpensive and quick, because the tribunal would be an administrative body as opposed to a court of justice. It would not be subject to some of the costs, restrictions and other matters associated with criminal procedures.

Operators or individuals could represent themselves instead of hiring a lawyer, but the parties would be free to do so if they wish to.

The new tribunal would examine all the cases in two stages. First, a review hearing would be held by a single member of the tribunal. After having heard the two parties and taking into consideration all the evidence adduced, the member would make a determination. The individual against whom the measures would be taken could appeal to an appeal panel, which would usually consist of three of the members of the tribunal.

In some cases the department could also appeal the determination made by the member and the decision of the tribunal would be final. Moreover, the appeal could not be taken to the courts if it was based on the same facts as those examined by the tribunal.

The powers of the transportation appeal tribunal of Canada would depend on the nature of the cases it hears. Should the penalty be essentially punitive, the tribunal's decision would take precedence over that of the department. A good example would be the levying of a monetary penalty by the department based on the breach of a regulation.

After considering the evidence provided by the parties, the tribunal would be authorized to make a final, mandatory decision as to whether or not there actually was an offence committed and, if so, what the appropriate penalty should be.

Conversely, when measures are more concerned with qualifications for holding a licence, a certificate or other documents, and other matters of safety and security, the tribunal could, as a general rule, merely confirm the department's decision or refer it back to the department for review.

The purpose of the bill is not to water down the Department of Transport's basic responsibilities for safety and security under various statutes. As I have already said, the transportation appeal tribunal of Canada would operate in essentially the same manner as the civil aviation tribunal.

I am certain that the transportation appeal tribunal of Canada, as proposed in Bill C-34 would provide the department and the air, rail and marine sectors with a process for reviewing enforcement measures that is fair, rapid and cost effective. The tribunal would promote greater compliance with federal statutes governing transportation and would enhance safety and security in the national transportation system.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-34, the transportation appeal tribunal of Canada act, would create a transportation appeal tribunal that would replace and expand upon the civil aviation tribunal by extending its jurisdiction to cover rail and marine. It makes consequential amendments to various other transportation acts in order to make this possible.

It is certainly a good idea, but given the circumstances in which Canada finds itself one has to ask the question: Why now? Why are we dealing with this now? Given all the other issues that are at stake in the aviation and the transport industries in general, why are we dealing with this issue now?

The legislation was tabled on September 26, 15 days after the terrorist attack. On the transportation side, the government could have chosen to table any legislation it wanted to. It could have tabled literally anything. The members of all the opposition parties have said that they would be open to any legislation that advances the ball in terms of airport security, airline security and now, given the reality of Air Canada and Canada 3000, the concerns we have with the layoffs and so on. We would be willing to consider any legislation that deals with the health and financial stability of the airline industry as a whole.

Instead, what does the government table? It tables the transportation appeal tribunal of Canada act. Do not get me wrong, it is decent legislation. In fact, the official opposition will support the legislation. However we have to ask where are the priorities of the government.

The immediate impact on the airline sector of the September 11 attack has been a serious lack of consumer confidence. Bookings are way down. Air Canada reports that bookings are down anywhere between 30% and 35%. There is a serious loss in consumer confidence.

People still have very serious safety concerns. I raised the issue in the House that Transport Canada, through its own internal studies and tests, tried to smuggle mock knives, guns and bombs past airport security. Transport Canada knows statistically that over the past year one in five attempts to smuggle replica guns, knives and bombs past airport security has been a success, or a failure, I guess, as the average Canadian would look at it.

Canadians have serious concerns about that. We have serious concerns about a gentleman flying from Yellowknife to Vancouver who managed to smuggle two submachine guns and several boxes of ammunition onto an airplane and onto the ground. The gentleman was drunk. He threw two submachine guns and a few boxes of ammunition into a duffle bag. He was not attempting to smuggle. He was not a MacGyver in a unique attempt to get things past security. He just threw this stuff in a duffle bag and walked onto the plane drunk. Airport security is failing in the country and it is having a dramatic impact on consumer confidence in flying, but the government is not doing anything about it.

The official opposition has repeatedly called in the House for the institution of air marshals. The institution of air marshals would be a dramatic and positive step in terms of airport security. The United States has been doing it on international flights for over 30 years. Air marshals are plainclothes police who are specifically trained to deal with security concerns on planes while they are in flight. As a deterrent, they are put cyclically on different flights so terrorists do not know which flights they are on and which ones they are not on.

If the government were to institute that post-September 11 it would do two things. First, it would add another level of security in the air. That is important. It is important given the realities we are facing; as the Prime Minister, the president of the United States, NATO, article 5, and the House have said, we are facing a war against terrorism, against people who do horrendous things like hijack planes and fly them into buildings. Once they are on those planes they use them as missiles and guide them in a kamikaze mission to murder innocent people. There is no other way to stop them but in the air with armed air marshals. This would provide another important level of air security.

What this would also do, and this goes under the issue of consumer confidence, is boost consumer confidence in a dramatic way. The government has failed to do that.

There have been calls for financial support for the airline sector. Again the government has not really said or done anything. The transport minister yesterday announced $160 million for Canada's air carriers for the out of pocket costs they incurred on September 11, and again the official opposition supports that, but he announced it across the hall. He announced it in a press conference.

He did not show due respect to this place by announcing it here where we could have had an open debate to find out exactly how the $160 million was arrived at and how it was meted out to the different air carriers. Every party in the House has said that it will support the idea of paying for the out of pocket costs incurred by the air industry. If the minister had announced that in the House rather than at a press conference he would have had political parties supporting it; that would have been a vote of confidence for the airline industry that the government did not seize upon. The government is failing in that sense.

The United States congress has approved over $15 billion for the air industry. I am not calling for us to give $15 billion to the air industry or 10% thereof, but the U.S. has put concrete legislative proposals on the table, good or bad, in the long term interest or not, and we are dealing with the transportation appeal tribunal of Canada act.

Air Canada has asked for $3 billion to $4 billion in bailouts. The government has not ruled it out. The official opposition sure has. We could currently buy every single share of Air Canada stock in the stock market, I am told, for in the neighbourhood of $695 million to $711 million.

Air Canada has publicly said that it wants $3 billion to $4 billion but its net worth, if one were to purchase every single share of its stock, is in the neighbourhood of $700 million. Somehow that does not add up yet the government has not ruled that out as an option. In fact it has not put any numbers at all on the table for us to discuss and to deal with. It has not brought a single thing before the transport committee for us to deal with and sink our teeth into so that we can contribute to a positive alternative solution to the situation we are facing.

The transport minister needs to reassure the public that the government is doing something. Bill C-34 does not reassure the public that the government is doing something because of the September 11 attack. The fact that we are debating Bill C-34 right now is an indication that the government is totally out of step within the realities of the world post-September.

Since I have been the transport critic for the official opposition or since I have been a member of parliament, I have not had a single call to my office asking me when Bill C-34 would be tabled nor have I had people telling me that they are really curious about the transportation appeal tribunal act or that as I am their member of parliament they really want me to expand the civil aviation tribunal so could I please deal with that. That is a really important issue right now.

The terrorist attacks and the status of Air Canada with 9,000 to 12,000 people laid off can be put aside. We talk about a tribunal act. Nobody is calling for that. We have to wonder: To whom is the government listening? What leadership role is it fulfilling by doing this?

Again, the government needs to address safety concerns for a whole host of reasons, like boosting consumer confidence and providing more security for flying Canadians. It also needs to ensure long term competition in the air industry.

I noted that the transport minister in an interview yesterday said that we may need to have a thorough restructuring. He said this at the same press conference where he announced the $160 million for the airline industry. He said that we may have to restructure the entire airline industry again, not that the restructuring that was done 24 months ago was bad, but it may need to be restructured again. However, we should not ask him if the last one was a success or not, but we may have to restructure again.

Those are the sorts of things that we need to be dealing with, the restructuring of the airlines, airport security and airline security. The situation with Canada 3000 may be more volatile in the short term than that of Air Canada. The transport minister is just not showing leadership.

We should compare what Canada's transport minister, the finance minister and the Prime Minister are doing with what the United States is doing. In Chicago on Thursday of last week President Bush did three things. First, he called up the national guard and placed guardsmen at inspection stations in airports. They are still there. He said:

--we will work with the governors to provide security measures--visible security measures--so the traveling public will know that we are serious about airline safety in America.

The second thing he did was dramatically increase the number of air marshals on planes. He said:

When Americans fly, there need to be more highly-skilled and fully-equipped officers of law flying alongside them.

The third thing he did was give $500 million in new funding for aircraft security, the physical infrastructure of planes. He gave grants to airlines for enhanced cockpit protection. He will work with the pilots and airlines to fortify doors and provide stronger locks so pilots will always be in command of the airplane and no one can get into the cockpit.

Again this goes back to what I said before, about the transport minister announcing $160 million, but across the street. He announced that the government would be closing cockpit doors and that it would be mandated now on every flight. Fine. That is good and we support that. It is a solid step in the right direction. Good show. However, again he announced it outside the House.

I will applaud the minister when he announces an initiative, a bold initiative, any initiative, a meagre initiative, but that will be the day when he actually does it in the House. When he does he will earn our applause. However he has not done it yet and he is abdicating his responsibility to make parliament the decision maker in terms of the long term interest of our airline industry, in terms of security and in terms of competition. Parliament should decide it, not just the transport minister. The transport minister can propose it. That is the duty and obligation of the transport minister and of the executive of the government, but parliament as a whole should be deciding these issues.

Relative to what the United States has done, the government's response has been utterly and completely lacklustre. Air Canada, as I have said, has announced that it will lay off 5,000 people in addition to the 4,000 already announced. The numbers may be as high at 12,000 when all is said and done.

I have called on the transport minister, and I will do it again, to do four concrete things. I call on him to reconvene the transport committee, which happened on Monday, but to give us a set agenda to address the security and financial issues the air industry is facing.

I was happy to learn this afternoon that the transport minister announced he will be appearing before the transport committee tomorrow. I hope he comes with better answers and solutions than he came to the House with when we had our take note debate on the airline industry as a whole. He came to the House and said literally nothing. He said that everything was fine. He did not mention any specific numbers with regard to Air Canada. He did not share with the House the specific financial crunch that Air Canada is facing. He did not tell the House exactly what Air Canada has asked him for in private, which he could share with the House so that opposition members could consider those numbers and consider how we might approach these things. He did not say anything. I hope that when he comes before the committee tomorrow he actually has something concrete to contribute.

The second thing the transport minister should do is ask Robert Milton of Air Canada and the heads of all of Canada's national and regional air carriers to appear before the transport committee immediately, for the committee to hear arguments for and against any potential financial support.

The third thing he needs to do is institute air marshals today, as I said, to boost consumer confidence in the airline industry and to offer another layer of air travel security. We have to think of this not only in the context of boosting consumer confidence and within the context of giving another layer of security in the air but also to the extent that specifically, if there is ever a financial bailout beyond the $160 million, the lion's share of that money will go to Air Canada, principally because it has a dominant share of the domestic air travel in this country with the customers it flies. It will take the lion's share of that money.

Given that reality and the fact that Air Canada is the only real Canadian based competitor that competes internationally, Air Canada will be competing against American carriers that now have air marshals. In the United States as a whole there are over 12,000 people who are now being trained and assigned as air marshals. Air Canada will be competing on the international stage with Lufthansa, United, American Airlines, Continental and a host of other air carriers that will all have air marshals on planes.

In the future when people fly the questions they will ask will not simply be about what the in cabin amenities will be, how long the flight will be, how much leg room they will have, what movies will be shown and whether a hot or cold meal will be served. They will also be asking serious questions about the security of the airplanes. They will ask about cockpit doors. They will ask about air marshals.

In regard to the United States having air marshals, the transport minister said in the House that he is ruling out the idea of air marshals altogether as an extreme and radical proposition. He is just ruling it out right away. What he has done is cement himself into a position that will force Air Canada into a situation where it has a competitive disadvantage with other international carriers in trying to bring more people on board. That is a big mistake, not only in the security sense, not only in the sense of not boosting consumer confidence but in the sense that he is putting Canadian carriers at a competitive disadvantage by ruling out the idea of air marshals. That is a big mistake.

The fourth thing I would ask the transport minister to do is ask all of Canada's air carriers to submit a full list of their direct out of pocket expenses incurred during the days that Canada's airports were shut down so that consideration can be given to compensation for those costs. We are told that the transport minister has those numbers and therefore acted to give $160 million. We support the giving of the out of pocket costs, but it is very difficult to say whether or not we support the precise figure of $160 million when the transport minister has not tabled the exact figures before the House.

The out of pocket costs incurred by the airline industry on September 11 are legitimate costs. The skies were closed, not because of any market forces but because of a government mandate. Therefore it is entirely reasonable for the government to compensate the airlines for the closing of the skies.

I assume those airlines gave the transport minister an itemized list of what all their expenses were but he has not shared them with the House. That is irresponsible. Given the fact that we have not had a budget in 18 months and we may not have a budget for another 18 months as we have not had a firm commitment on that front, the House needs to send a signal by voting on specific measures. I would be proud to vote in favour of giving $160 million to the airline industry, given that the appropriate accounting has been done for those expenses. That would be a signal from the House that we will support the airline industry for the tough times it experienced on September 11.

Specifically on Bill C-34, the transportation appeal tribunal act, on the face of it the idea of a transportation tribunal is a good one. It is clear that some bright person looked at the civil aviation tribunal which so efficiently deals with the suspension of a pilot's licence and with airworthiness certificates, and said "I bet this would work in shipping and I bet this would work in rail as well". It has been expanded and we support that.

It is a good idea. Anything that lets minor disputes be settled outside the court system, specifically when the decisions are made by people with some expertise in the area in question, is a positive step. To have some injection of some common sense into disputes makes a lot of sense and we support it.

However, the transport committee really needs to be brought into a broader discussion, as I have said before, not only on this legislation but on other pieces of legislation. Canadians think that the transport committee should be plugged in so that we can make travel safer on airplanes, highways, rail and in seaway navigation. They want us to encourage competition, service to communities and affordable prices. Right now Canadians want airline competition among healthy airlines. They want safer skies, better airport security, stronger cockpit doors and air marshals. They want the same standards the United States has.

Let us have a level playing field. We always talk about a level playing field in terms of trade and in a lot of areas. Let us talk about a level playing field in terms of aviation as well.

The transport committee needs to deal with a lot of things and it is not. We have some extraordinarily experienced parliamentarians on the committee. I think of the member for South Surrey--White Rock--Langley who used to be the transport critic for the official opposition. I think of the NDP member for Churchill, an outstanding member of parliament who has done a lot of hard work on committee. I think of the member for Toronto--Danforth and the member for Winnipeg South. There are a lot of very good, highly competent, very experienced people in the transport committee who are really ready and anxious to do a lot of good work, to help contribute.

The transport minister has not plugged in the committee. He has not given us any guidance or pushed us forward. He has not tabled any meaningful legislation. What on earth are we doing talking about Bill C-34, a tribunal act, when at this very moment we could be talking about airport security and the question of whether or not we should re-nationalize airport security?

We could be talking about the guiding principles of a possible bailout for the airline industry and whether or not it is appropriate. We could be talking about air marshals. We could be talking about mandating that older planes still in service have reinforced cockpit doors with the newest technology such as the Kevlar coming out of Boeing.

That is the sort of legislation we could be dealing with, but we are not being shown that leadership. We are being shown legislation, well meaning, decent legislation that would cut down on bureaucracy and would increase efficiency and inject some common sense into things, but on the radar screen of Canadians in terms of the legislation they want to see and the priorities they have for the transport committee, the transport minister and the transport industry of the country, the legislation is way wide of the mark. Canadians deserve better. They deserve better leadership.

I have one piece of advice for the transport minister. I have told him this in private and I have told him that I will say it publicly. I will do so now. The best thing parliament can do on a cross-party basis for the airline industry as a whole in this time of crisis is to stand shoulder to shoulder with the U.S. and announce the kinds of things that President Bush did in Chicago on Thursday of last week.

President Bush went to Chicago and stood on a podium in front of 1,200 airline employees, the people who check the bags, the in-cabin flight crews, pilots, security guards, everyone. He stood in front of 1,200 of them with the transportation secretary at one shoulder, with the governor of Illinois at the other shoulder, with a couple of senators on his flank and members of congress and the state assembly on the other flank. He stood on that big stage with a big American flag and he said his government would put air marshals on planes, mandate the reinforcement and renovation of cockpit doors, beef up security on the ground with the latest technologies and retrain everyone on the ground. "Fly the friendly skies" he said. He said there was no reason why Americans should not fly in their country. He said America will not be afraid, Americans will not allow the terrorists to alter their way of life, they will soldier forward.

President Bush did it. He made a big public statement. However the transport minister said in the debate on Monday night that he does not want to make big public statements. I know that he is not a shy man. He is a good guy, but he needs to make big public pronouncements. That is precisely what is called for. He says he does not want to make big public pronouncements because he does not want to send some kind of signal. Most people I talk to do not understand the signal he is trying to avoid.

The transport minister says he wants to make little announcements such as the announcement that he made across the street in a press conference. He wants to make announcements in scrums. He wants to make announcements as he is running down the hall and avoiding reporters. He does not want to stand up and make big public announcements, but that is exactly what is called for, a big public announcement, a big vote of confidence and a big boost to the airline industry, to say to Canadians that we are taking action, that we will not let the terrorists alter our way of life. That announcement would say to people that they are safe in the skies, the government is behind them, the airlines are safe and the Government of Canada will not fail them.

If the minister did that and put in the measures we are talking about, the kinds of measures I have outlined in my talk, if he put those things on the table, the official opposition would be proud to stand behind him if he initiated those things, because that is progress and growth and a step in the right direction. I am sure the other opposition members would be as well. We reconvened the transport committee on Monday and had a meeting yesterday. Right off the top, across all party lines, we all said that the big thing we want to talk about when the transport minister comes to committee tomorrow is the issue of airline security. We are all concerned about this, just as all Canadians are concerned about it.

Rather than substantive legislation and a substantive signal from the transport minister that he will get behind this, encourage, push and mandate new security measures, what do we get? We get Bill C-34, the transportation appeal tribunal of Canada act.

This is an abdication of leadership. This is an abdication of responsibility on the part of the transport minister. We need to be showing leadership, putting real solutions forward and seizing the moment, carpe diem, so we can encourage more people to fly and have a better transportation industry. Bill C-34 does not accomplish that.

It is a real disappointment to have to say as a Canadian, not even as a parliamentarian, that the government is sleepwalking through what may be the largest crisis in our transportation industry with the layoffs at Air Canada and sagging consumer confidence. The government is sleepwalking through this entire episode and abdicating its responsibility to show leadership and put substantive reforms on the table that will make our industry better.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-34. I should note that the parliamentary secretary, who in his introduction deemed it appropriate to congratulate the minister for his availability and his quick reaction, seemed uncomfortable with the fact that the first debate we have on transportation is on a bill to establish the transportation appeal tribunal of Canada.

This bill has nothing to do with the great debates of the last few weeks. Since the events of September 11, transportation has been in the forefront of all our discussions in the House. Take note debates were held, special committees were created and the first piece of legislation dealing with transportation to be tabled in the House is aimed at establishing an appeal tribunal.

As I said, the parliamentary secretary seemed uncomfortable, and I will take this opportunity to respond to some of the comments he made. He talked about the availability of the Minister of Transport. The parliamentary secretary said that the Prime Minister was always available, as well as the Minister of Transport. I should certainly hope so. The least we can expect from the Minister of Transport is for him to be here in the House to answer our questions and the least we can expect from the Prime Minister is for him to do whatever he can to be with members of all parties as often as possible to deal with such a serious situation as the terrorist attacks of September 11 against the United States.

The Minister of Transport was indeed available Monday when we had the emergency debate. All day that day, the propaganda machine of the Liberal government was hard at work on the radio and on television, delivering the message that there would be a great debate that night on the situation facing airlines in Canada following the sad events of September 11.

Everybody was looking forward to the minister's statement. True, he was here, but he did not have to be here to make the statement he made. We learned nothing new about what the government intends to do, what the airlines were asking or what the government's financial capability is to deal with the terrible events of September 11 and all the consequences.

This is worth mentioning. Monday night, 13,602 jobs were lost throughout Canada. I said in this House that we did not want to be doomsayers, we just wanted to prevent further job losses, but Boeing has since, just two days ago, announced more layoffs in Canada and the United States. Messier-Dowty, the landing gear specialist supplying Boeing and other airliners, has now put on hold the $70 million capital investment project previously announced as part of its expansion plan.

The situation is undeniably getting worse. Granted, the minister and the Prime Minister are availabl, but I wonder if they are also available when it comes to addressing these problems. They are available to discuss the issues, to use the propaganda machine, to be on television and on the radio to reassure everyone that they are dealing with the issues, but they should also be available to address the problems. I must say that is not what we have seen so far.

I am trying to stay calm, because the situation is getting worse and it will get even worse. It is unfortunate, but it is having a domino effect. It is the same thing all over the world, not only in Canada. We have to stop reacting.

The problem with the Minister of Transport and the Liberal government is that they are always reacting. These are difficult times, when action is really required, not reaction. That is what they did. The government intervened quickly in reaction to terrible situations. However, when the events are examined and security assessed, clearly the message was already there in the Ressam case. The United States gave Canada strong warning, saying “Look at the problem of terrorism in Canada. You should tighten your borders and your security”. Nothing was done.

I was surprised to hear employees of all the airlines, who came to meet me as transport critic, mention the Ressam case; they told me the airlines had not been asked to take any additional security measures. I assume that no additional measures were required of the others involved in security.

Therefore, despite what it knew, the government continued to follow its economic policy and announced a budget. It was mentioned earlier that there had not been a budget in 18 months. There was an economic update. The government tightened the belt, it is true. Canadians were asked to tighten their belts. Belts had to be tightened, but Canadians and Quebecers still had to be given the security they expected.

Belts were tightened, but the government did not invest in security. It is no longer involved in it. Security has been handed over to private companies according to the lowest bidder. We can see what that means. Security measures have been relaxed over the past 10 years.

In airports we get our boarding cards from electronic machines. There are no more personnel. Security experts all tell us that the first intervention in security matters is the instinct of the people who have worked in the field for years. I mean the employees behind the counter in airports who, instinctively and because of their training, are able to recognize security problems first.

Employees, human beings have been replaced by machines. Since September 11, there have been days when these machines were not used and other days when they were put back in use.

There is always a reaction somewhere. This is what must stop. The government, the Liberal Party, must stop thinking that it has all the solutions. It is true that things are going well for the Liberals. They are doing well in the polls, but at some point the political propaganda must stop and the government must give the public what it expects. Right now, people want to make sure that what occurred on September 11 never happens again.

Of course, we cannot ever guarantee anything in our societies, because they are liberal societies. The challenge for us consists in protecting liberalism in our societies while imposing as few constraints as possible, but we must have the required personnel at the borders, at airports and everywhere. We must be able to provide adequate training, but all this costs money.

The government must stop saying that it acts quickly when a catastrophe occurs. Sure, the Minister of Transport acted very quickly after the catastroph, but today we are asking him to be proactive and to invest so that such catastrophes do not happen again.

The old adage says that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Since September 11, the Minister of Transport has been trying to find a cure. The grim reality is that he never focused on prevention. The Liberal government decided to win the election by saving as much money as possible, but it did so in areas where it should not have, despite repeated warnings.

After the Ressam case in 2000, Canada was told to tighten security. It continued to save money, to make use of the private sector and, above all, to give contracts to the lowest bidder. It is not anybody's fault. No one can blame the employees who are there and who have not received the proper training. The only reason is that the government is trying to save money. It chose not to invest in our security. That is why we are faced with this grim reality today.

I understand why the parliamentary secretary is uncomfortable with Bill C-34, which establishes the transportation appeal tribunal of Canada. The current situation does not call for the establishment of appeal tribunals. It is a serious situation that must be dealt with in terms of security and in terms of economic intervention.

We certainly hope to see the kind of quick reaction that the member was talking about on the part of the government. So far the government's reaction has been purely political. Every week it has made a small announcement, but not in the House, not in front of members who were elected by their fellow citizens to discuss these things. The government does not make these announcements in front of parliamentarians.

Every week, in what will probably be an orchestrated performance with a good communication plan, the government will try to lull the good people of Quebec and Canada into thinking that it is looking after their affairs.

If the government had actually done this we would not be looking at the situations we are today. If the government were to take rapid action, if it were to step in quickly, it could try to prevent the domino effect in the airline and aviation industries and in international tourism. That is what is required and it must be done soon.

Right now all it will do is stand by while everything falls apart. It will let everything fall apart and will then take stock of the damage and slowly but surely decide to put up a few million dollars every week to show the public that it is looking after them and that it is capable of sorting out their problems.

That is not what is needed. What is needed is a real solution. What is needed is a real plan and it is time that the government told us what that plan is. It is not the time for the government to come to this House with a bill like Bill C-34, on which we are agreed. I say this up front. There will not be any long debates about Bill C-34 and the creation of the appeal tribunal, which should have been set up years ago.

For years now the Bloc Quebecois has been calling for the integration of these four tribunals that were subject to the Aeronautics Act, the Shipping Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Railways Safety Act. This is what this bill is all about and we are happy about it. However, it should have been done during the last parliament, and even a year ago.

At this time last year the government once again called an early election, which took all Canadians and opposition parties by surprise. It rushed the election. The government's goal was, of course, to win the election and as we can see it managed to do so.

Right now, however, Canadians and Quebecers are not feeling totally safe with a Liberal government at the helm. More and more, they approach the opposition parties to speak for them. The workers who lose their jobs come to the opposition parties to have their voices heard in this House.

This is exactly what we are trying to do and what we have been trying to do since September 11. We are trying to speak on behalf of those families who are going through some rough times because of their employment situation, but again, nobody in the House is listening to us. With legislation such as Bill C-34 the government is saying “See how we are trying to deal with the transportation issues”.

We are having serious discussions with various unions about the proposed changes to the Employment Insurance Act and the way to deal with all those job losses. Why is it always the little people and not the managers who are affected by the layoffs? Why is it always the young workers, those who have less seniority, who lose their jobs?

Why not arrange with the companies for major early retirement programs, which are expensive but are a one time thing? The money is paid out only once. It would be possible in the airline industry, with the help of the unions, to use attrition in the industry as a whole to benefit the young people who are the last to arriv, but the first hit by any draconian cuts, such as those that result from major events like those of September 11. The employees did not ask for this but they are being hit with it.

Once again, employees who have lost their jobs may find it all very well for the minister to say on Monday “Look, security has finally been improved since September 11, flight decks will be better protected”. There are 13,600 of them who have lost their jobs. Some will lose their jobs with Boeing in Canada. Some will lose a job or not get the one they were in line for at Messier-Dowty. This will happen with other companies too. All these people are entitled to say to the Minister of Transport “Why did you not think of this before”?

Why did the Minister of Transport not think before of tightening flight deck security? That is today's harsh reality. The government reacted. It was quick, yes indeed. It found the solution, but why did it not think of it before? There are other airlines around the world with flight deck security measures.

This is a question we all must ask ourselves. We will have the opportunity to do so in the transport committee. My colleague in the Canadian Alliance said this earlier. This committee began deliberations this week. Believe it or not, air transportation was not even on the agenda of the government representatives sitting on the transport committee. Air transportation problems were not on the agenda. It was the agenda from the committee's previous deliberations, as if September 11 had never occurred. That was the harsh reality. That is the harsh reality. Why is this so? Because government members on this committee think their excellent minister is available, acts quickly, and will react swiftly if there is a problem.

I will repeat that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We should try to involve all those concerned, in all parties. In a crisis such as this one there is no room for politics or propaganda, but this is all the Liberal Party has been doing since September 11. Once more the public is being lulled by announcements.

Monday night's debate is a good example. It was announced on all radio and television networks that there was going to be a great debate that evening on the future of the airline industry in Canada. What did the minister have to say? He was very glad he had successfully addressed the issue of cockpit safety. He enumerated all the things he had done since day one of the crisis, but strictly nothing has been done concerning a financial assistance plan for the airline industry.

The day after the debate the Minister of Transport announced the investment of $160 million. That was just to cover the losses of September 11 to 16, when all of the airlines were grounded because of these tragic events. They experienced losses because their employees were stranded and so on.

The Minister helped out with those losses and must be thanked for that, but since then, since the airspace shutdown from September 11 to 16, 13,602 jobs have been lost. There will be even more job losses at Boeing. Messier-Dowty will not be able to carry out its $70 million capital investment plan announced last June. There will be other repercussions.

The same goes for international tourism, which has experienced huge losses in Quebec City and no doubt in most of Canada's tourist centres. What the Liberal government is doing with its propaganda policy is to watch and wait until everything comes tumbling down, then take note of the damage and see what it will be capable of investing.

Today the Minister of Finance said that the estimated surplus is not as great as expected; we are heading for an economic recession. He would not dare to use that term, of course. We will have a third or fourth quarter that may not be as good as forecast.

Obviously that is the way to get out of the situation without spending money and avoiding a deficit above all. No opposition party in the House, the Bloc Quebecois included, has called for the government to aim for a deficit. It is estimated, as we speak, that there will be a $13 billion surplus this year and that is with the worst case scenarios for the third and fourth quarters. That is reality.

Why do the Minister of Transport and all Liberal members of the House not decide to demand the true picture of Canada's economic situation from the Minister of Finance so they can pass it on to the public?

Finally, the government should meet with representatives of the airline, aviation and international tourism industries and those involved in tourism in general who are having such a terrible time. It should sit down with them and say “We are going to help you out”.

This is not what we feel. I realize that the parliamentary secretary was not comfortable when he presented Bill C-34, because the message really is that the government, the minister and the Prime Minister are available and quick to take action but only once the damage has been assessed. This is what is hard to accept for opposition members. The government will once again wait until the airline, aviation and international tourism industries collapse; it will wait until the house of cards comes tumbling down and then look at the whole situation and take quick action.

Naturally, this is hard to accept. As we speak, workers, both men and women, have lost their jobs. There will be others, particularly in Quebec, where the aviation and aerospace industries are concentrated, but also across Canada, because Boeing has investments right across the country. Large numbers of jobs are disappearing in this sector.

As for international tourism, it is not just Quebec that is affected. Our province attracts a significant proportion of international tourists, but there are cities in all regions of Canada that are centres for tourism and these cities are definitely feeling the effects of the September 11 events.

If government members in this House think that things are going well for international tourism, they should visit the tourist attractions in their ridings. They will realize that we are going through a serious crisis that will have major consequences.

I hope that the parliamentary secretary will tell his minister “Dear Minister, your availability and your quickness to react would be more useful before everything collapses, as opposed to after”. This is the message that the Bloc Quebecois wants to give to the House, and this is the view that it will promote in the coming weeks.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from March 27 consideration of the motion.

The Acadians

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure and pride that I rise today in this House to speak to Motion No. 241 brought forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Verchères--Les-Patriotes, which reads as follows:

That a humble Address be presented to Her Excellency praying that she will intercede with Her Majesty to cause the British Crown to present an official apology to the Acadian people for the wrongs done to them in its name between 1755 and 1763.

A lot has happened since we first started the debate on this issue, on March 27, 2001. After dispelling doubts about his Acadian origins, the hon. member for Verchères--Les-Patriotes travelled to Acadia on three occasions to submit his proposal to the Acadian people.

His first visit, in May, took him to New Brunswick. His second, in June, took him to Prince Edward Island for the annual general meeting of the Société nationale des Acadiens. His latest one, in August, coincided with the celebration of national Acadian day.

During these visits, my colleague made some important contacts and broadened the support for his proposal within the Acadian community.

One of the first to support Motion No. 241 brought forward by my hon. colleague was a lawyer from Louisiana, Warren Perrin, who has been fighting for more than 10 years to have the wrongs done to the Acadian people during the deportation between 1755 and 1763 recognized.

A descendant of exiled Acadians, Warren Perrin has become an unswerving defender of the rights of the francophones known today as the Cajun and of the Acadian culture in Louisiana. Since 1990, Mr. Perrin has tirelessly organized a petition to cause the British crown to apologize for the deportation of the Acadians.

Besides the support of hundreds of individuals and associations as well as history and international law experts, he has received the support of the legislatures of Maine and Louisiana. Democrat Senator John Breaux even intends to raise the issue before the American congress.

I find it bizarre that the Parliament of Canada, to which our Acadian fellow countrymen elect representatives, is choosing to sit on the sidelines, legislatively speaking, on this issue.

On June 2, 2001, the Société nationale des Acadiens held a general assembly where it reconsidered its initial position and unanimously supported Motion No. 241. The Société nationale des Acadiens has great influence, credibility and a whole network of contacts in the maritimes and throughout the world and it represents the Acadian community of Atlantic Canada and elsewhere.

In the opinion of the members of the Société nationale des Acadiens, this motion gives the Acadian people the opportunity to have the wrongs done to their ancestors, as well as the concrete impacts that are still felt today, officially recognized.

To its credit, the Société nationale des Acadiens wanted to take this issue outside of the parliamentary framework. To legitimize its position, on August 16, 2001, it set up an advisory committee led by Maurice Basque, an historian and the director of the Centre d'études acadiennes of the Université de Moncton. The main purpose of the committee was to consider the historical, legislative and social issues surrounding Motion No. 241.

As indicated in its report, the committee heard from about 140 individuals, associations, municipalities and Acadian organizations from Canada, the United States and France. After analyzing all the proposals, the advisory committee came out with a number of recommendations, including the two following:

That the Société nationale des Acadiens pursue its representations to cause the British crown to officially recognize the historical wrongs done during the deportation of the Acadians.

That the motion be sponsored by all Acadian members of the House of Commons, regardless of political stripe.

The third recommendation concerns the mustering of Acadian forces to consolidate their promotional and developmental efforts in order to catch up economically, socially and culturally. The final opinion is that the Société nationale des Acadiens should continue to support the Government of Canada in its efforts to promote cultural diversity and the struggle against intolerance and in discrimination.

In an article in the September 26, 2001 issue of La Voix Acadienne , journalist Annie Racine lists some of the organizations supporting the action by the member for Verchères--Les-Patriotes:

--Motion M-241 has the support of the Société des Acadiennes et des Acadiens du Nouveau-Brunswick, of the Société nationale des Acadiens, of the Association des juristes francophones and of the Association francophone des municipalités du Nouveau-Brunswick.

I should mention that this last association represents 40 municipalities in the province of New Brunswick and nearly 100,000 Acadians.

There seems to be a growing consensus around the motion in the Acadian population, as Hector J. Cormier, an editorial writer, indicated in Le Moniteur Acadien on September 27, 2001, and I quote:

--Acadians are justified in demanding apologies for the wrongs done to their people in the deportation. It would put an end to unconscionable treatment, to centuries-long suffering and to a collective fear it will take long to dispel.

Wrongs done by a group of individuals can have repercussions over a lifetime, lasting decades. At some point someone has to recognize the errors made and wounds must be healed to enable people to live in the present, work for the future and stop feeling obliged to look back to the pain of the past.

According to Philippe Ricard's article in L'Acadie Nouvelle on September 20, 2001, “--Liberal members have to stop being afraid of the “machinations” of the Bloc members. Because, if the motion were defeated, Acadia and Acadians would slip further behind”. The wound would remain unhealed.

The former member for West Nova, Conservative Mark Muise, said in a speech in the House on November 30, 1999:

It took several centuries for Acadians to recover from this tragedy. Some would argue that we are still suffering. Historians do not all agree about this deportation. Was it a war against the Acadians or an ethnic cleansing operation? This, I guess, depends on the viewpoint of the historian. Nevertheless, no one can deny that this tragedy happened and that the measures taken by Great Britain had serious consequences.

The motion itself does not call for compensation and does not invite descendants of those who were deported to return to occupy their land. It is simply aimed at obtaining an apology for the pain and suffering inflicted upon the Acadian people.

The member for Verchères--Les-Patriotes is saying to anyone who is willing to listen that if necessary he will have his motion sponsored by a member of another political party in the House and he is even willing to accept amendments to his motion, in keeping with the proposals contained in the report from the Societé nationale des Acadiens.

Above all, this is not the motion of one member or one political party but of the Acadian people. This initiative by the member for Verchères--Les-Patriotes goes beyond the partisan considerations that usually prevail in this House. It is part of the preparation for the 3rd Congrès mondial acadien and the celebration of the 400th anniversary of the founding of Acadia, which will take place in 2004.

Above all, however, we think that the 250th anniversary of the deportation of Acadians, which will be commemorated all over the world in 2005 by the Acadian diaspora, among others, would be a most appropriate time for such an apology.

The parliamentary process is such that it will be a long time before the House can vote on this motion. Let us use this time to ensure that this issue is not affected by partisan considerations. Nobody would gain anything should this motion be defeated. However, many people would lose a lot, and they are not necessarily the ones that the opponents of this motion want to punish by voting against it.

What message would we be sending to the world should that happen? That the Canadian parliamentary system is unable to disregard the origin of an initiative when making a decision.

Most importantly, what message would we be sending to the Acadian people? That the deportation is an event that is not worth recognizing here in parliament? That this issue is not important enough for the elected representatives of the people to show some openness and maturity in dealing with it? That parliamentarians could not reach the type of consensus that we witnessed with regard to many other often less significant issues? In any case, everybody comes out a loser.

[Scott Reid, Canadian Alliance, Lanark—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with regret that I will be voting against Motion No. 241. My reasons for doing so are twofold.

First, I feel that this motion is based on a faulty premise, that being that guilt can be collective and can be passed on from one generation to the next.

Second, despite the good intentions of those who drafted it, the motion seems to attribute ultimate responsibility for the expulsion of the Acadians to the crown, which is not an accurate reading of the events of 1755. A more historically accurate reading would lay blame with the colonial governors of New England and the pioneers they represented.

I will begin with the historical argument and come back later to the philosophical one.

Many of the facts surrounding the deportation of the Acadians are unchallenged. In 1755, the colonial authorities began a process of uprooting and deporting that part of the Acadian population which had settled on British lands, beginning with the centre of the Acadian colony along the east shore of the Bay of Fundy.

Nova Scotia's Governor Lawrence, and Governor Shirley, commander in chief of the British forces in New England, began by seizing colonists' firearms to prevent them from using force to resist. Then they took a large number of adult males hostage in order to guarantee the docility of their families at the time of deportation.

In the years that followed, approximately three-quarters of the total Acadian population, or 13,000 people, were deported. Some of these people were sent to New England, others to Louisian, and still others were returned to France.

Although we know with certainty the degree of suffering caused by the deportations between 1755 and 1763, it is much more difficult to pin down historical responsibility for them. One thing is certain and that is that governors Lawrence and Shirley were at the heart of the decision making and must bear ultimate responsibility, but nothing proves that they acted with the approval of the parliament of Westminster.

According to the most commonly accepted version of events, Lawrence acted with the authorization of the local council in Nova Scotia, and parliament and King George did not take part in the planning of the deportations.

More recently, Roger Paradis, a professor of history at the University of Maine, has uncovered documentary evidence suggesting that the authorities in London were involved. He cites a bill, sent to London in 1758 by Governor Lawrence, listing the expenditures incurred for the deportation. He has also revealed the existence of a circular sent by Lawrence to governors of the New England colonies, which presumes that these governors were, at the very least, aware of the events taking place in Acadia.

However, what strikes me is that even in this revisionist interpretation of history, the colonial authorities in Acadia and New England take on the primary responsibility for the acts committed while the crown only has a secondary responsibility. Moreover, it is obvious that the first ones to benefit from the military security that was increased as a result of ethnic cleansing in Acadia were the New England pioneers and specifically those living in the portion of the colony of Massachusetts then known as the “District of Maine”.

I emphasize that I will not support the notion of a collective or hereditary guilt, but even if I did support it, I think that the first collective excuses that should be conveyed to the Acadian people should come from the government of Maine.

It is therefore interesting to know that on April 13, 1994, the Maine legislative assembly passed a resolution regarding the deportation of the Acadians. It was carefully drafted in such a way that the blame is laid exclusively on the British, and it never hints at the fact that Maine, a sovereign state, or its predecessor, the English colony of Massachusetts Bay, could have been involved in any way. I think that the best we can say about this statement is that it comes from a serious misinterpretation of history.

Unfortunately, the motion before us today is based on the same mistake. The motion calls on the crown to “present an official apology to the Acadian people for the wrongs done to them in its name”. However, the fact that the deportation was ordered in the name of the British crown does not mean that the crown itself was the primary culprit, even in 1755.

Similarly, history is full of outrageous acts committed in the name of various religions or in the name of the people of one territory or another, while the authority named had very little to do, if anything, with the harm that was done in its name. A more historically accurate motion could demand official apologies from the legislative assemblies of each of the New England states for the harm done in their interests and with their complicity.

I should be clear about the fact that I would oppose this too. I would do so because I do not accept the notion that an institution can maintain a heritage of collective guilt which is imposed upon successive generations of those who become members of that institution or who fall under its protection.

It seems to me that some participants in the debate over this motion and in similar debates that have occurred in the past have contemplated two quite different concepts. The first concept is the expectation, which I regard as legitimate, that all participants in the public life of a civilized society should adopt a moral attitude toward the past. A moral attitude involves recognizing and embracing those past actions that are regarded as good and just and rejecting those that are regarded as unjust or monstrous.

The second concept is the idea that guilt for a past injustice can be passed on, institutionally and collectively, in precisely the same way that the residual effects of that wrong continue to have some impact on the descendants of those who suffered the initial wrong. This is simply untrue.

The adoption of a moral attitude by an actor in political life allows us, as potential voters or as potential political allies, to assess how that individual might act in the future should he or she be a decision maker in some similar future circumstance. Such a calculation is necessary in a system of representative democracy because it is always conceivable that one can win an election in a time of peace and then find that his or her mandate extends into a period of unexpected turmoil or war. After the events of September 11, I think we can see the utility of such expectations.

By contrast, an attitude of collective guilt or responsibility, or worse yet, of expecting others to assume a mantle of guilt or responsibility for acts in which they themselves did not take part, strikes me as being of no utility at all.

A debate similar to the one taking place today took place in this House 17 years ago on Pierre Trudeau's last day as prime minister. He was asked by Brian Mulroney in question period to issue an apology for the wartime internment of Canadians of Japanese descent. Trudeau's response reveals a subtle grasp to the distinction that I am attempting of draw here today.

He said:

I do not see how I can apologize for some historic event to which we...were not a party. We can regret that it happened. But why...say that an apology is much better than an expression of regret?

I do not think that it is the purpose of a government to right the past. It cannot re-write history. It is our purpose to be just in our time--

This does not excuse us from a responsibility to adopt a moral attitude of condemnation toward this great wrong any more than we can adopt an attitude of moral neutrality toward the monstrous evils of more recent times. As moral actors, we need to recognize the existence of these past wrongs, to identify them to our fellow citizens and to do all that we can to ensure that no modern version of this wrong can occur.

Therefore, let us vote against this motion in its present form, but let us vote for it if it is reintroduced in the House in a form that allows us to express, without apology, our sorrow over this past wrong and if it allows us, without condemning others, to indicate our determination that no such wrong will ever in the future be tolerated on Canadian soil.

[Andy Savoy, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in speaking today to Motion No. 241 by the member for Verchères--Les-Patriotes.

Our Bloc Quebecois colleague would like the British crown to offer apologies for the deportation of the Acadians in 1755, which in Acadia is still called the “Grand Dérangement”.

The Acadian people suffered terribly in this period of our history. The government tried to get rid of the Acadians by deporting them and dividing them to better assimilate them.

The Acadian people are still here, ever more vibrant thanks to their artists, writers, actors and even politicians.

We all recognize that our country's history includes some darker and more painful events. Unfortunately, the “Grand Dérangement” is one such event.

However, we sincerely believe that we cannot live in the past, but must continue to build this country, as have past generations of Acadians.

I have said that we should not live in the past, but I do not think we should forget our history either. We have to draw from its strengths and from its weaknesses. I have also said that we must keep on building this country, building our Canada. We here in the House all know that it is not a goal that is shared by the member for Verchères--Les-Patriotes or the other members of his party.

The member for Verchères--Les-Patriotes considers himself to be the advocate for the Acadian people; at least that is what he wants us to believe by bringing this motion forward in the House. When he spoke in the House on March 27, my colleague, the member for Madawaska--Restigouche, referred to the logic of the Bloc Quebecois, explaining that the member for Verchères--Les-Patriotes' sudden interest for the fate of Acadians and of francophones outside of Quebec was surprising.

This is the main thing. It is this logic that we have to question. In fact, the real question is quite simple. We have to ask ourselves why. Why this sudden interest from the Bloc for the Acadians? What motivates this interest?

We all know the main goal that the party of the member for Verchères--Les-Patriotes is pursuing. He and his colleagues in the Bloc have but one goal, the destruction of this country. Unlike the other members of this House, they are not here to work toward making Canada a better and safer place to live.

Why is the Bloc Quebecois suddenly so interested in the plight of Acadians and francophones outside Quebec? We all know that according to the Bloc Quebecois logic there are those who are saved, who live in Quebec, and those who are lost, who live outside the promised land.

My colleague from Madawaska--Restigouche already said that Acadians helped build this country. They worked hard to protect their culture and their identity. They do not need the help of the Bloc Quebecois.

Acadians founded schools, colleges, universities, theatres, newspapers and publishing houses. They achieved extraordinary cultural success in areas such as theatre, cinema, visual arts, music and literature. They gave the world writers, poets, artists, musicians and singers. They developed an impressive network of businesses and created jobs.

They helped make Canada what it is today. They did not wait to be taken by the hand and have decisions made for them. Instead of doing what is being proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, I think we should focus on celebrating and recognizing the enormous contribution of the Acadian people to this great country that is Canada.

Motion No. 241 proposed by the member for Verchères--Les-Patriotes hides the true intentions of its sponsor and his party. For that reason, we cannot support it.

I will conclude with a quote that truly reflects the position of the Bloc Quebecois. Here is what the Bloc member for Rimouski--Neigette-et-la Mitis said on September 30, 1997:

I have no objection to there being a French Canadian people. But I am no longer part of that group. When I was growing up, I was taught in school that I was a French Canadian. Later on, I was told that I was a Quebecer and I like that better. But I will not be faulted for preferring to be a Quebecer to being a French Canadian. As a French Canadian, I am a second class citizen. As a Quebecer, I am a first class citizen. That is the difference.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great privilege to rise in the House to debate Motion No. 241 on behalf of the Acadian residents of West Chezzetcook and Grand Desert in Nova Scotia.

It is a sin and a shame that the member for Tobique--Mactaquac whom I respect very much would play politics with this serious and compassionate motion. The member for Lanark--Carleton is trying to rewrite history.

I would suspect that probably not one person from his caucus has ever gone to Grand Pré and read the 300 names on the stone in the church in Grand Pré which is in Wolfville, Nova Scotia.

It is one of the most beautiful sites in all of Canada. It is a place of remembrance. It is a sort of Holy Grail for all Acadians to visit when they come to Nova Scotia. They come from around the world to Grand Pré to worship and pray for those people who were expelled in 1755. It is a sin that these people would play politics on a motion of this regard.

All we are asking is that the House of Commons send a message to the Queen through parliament to request an apology. It does not say when. Nor does it have to be tomorrow. We are only asking that it be given careful consideration.

The Queen is making a visit to Canada in 2002. The Acadian festival is happening in Nova Scotia in 2004 and there is another festival in 2005. The Queen has a lot of time in which to decide. We owe it to the crown to allow it time to mull this over and give it careful consideration. We should not play politics with the motion. It is a sin that we get caught up in this. It is no wonder that many minorities in the country, including Acadians, give up on parliament so easily.

Every Acadian association supports the motion. It is really misleading for the minister responsible for official languages, for whom I have great respect, to say there is no support coming from the Acadian group. It is simply not true, as every association supports the motion.

All that Acadians are asking for is the correction of an historic wrong. The Pope apologized to the Jewish nation for the expulsion of Jews during the war. Canadian churches apologized for the residential schools. Mr. Mulroney, a former prime minister, stood in the House and apologized for Japanese internments during the war.

In an era of compassion and forgiveness we should be able to apologize on behalf of the Queen, when she comes to Canada or through other means that she may decide, for the expulsion of Acadians in 1755.

For anyone to assume that the king at the time was unaware of the actions in the colonies is simply nonsense. That kind of talk originates from the south end of a northbound cow. It is simply unacceptable.

I must say how proud we all were in Nova Scotia when the Governor General of Canada, Roméo LeBlanc, a very proud and distinguished gentleman, became the first Acadian to reach the highest post in our land. I am also very proud to see his son sitting in parliament today.

The New Democratic Party also had a first. In 1997 the first two Acadians ever elected to the House of Commons under the New Democratic banner were the hon. member for Acadie--Bathurst, our party whip, and a previous member who jumped ship, Angela Vautour. They were two Acadians who were very proud to run in New Brunswick under the Acadian banner.

We are very proud to have had them in our caucus. We are very proud of our whip for the job that he does. He brings the passion and the caring of the Acadian community to our caucus and to the House of Commons on a daily basis. It is a voice that I am sure the House of Commons will hear for many years to come.

It is also remarkable that the Minister of State for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, who is from West Nova, does not support the motion. When one goes through West Nova one can see the pride and the outstanding ability of the Acadian people. Their flag, language and culture are everywhere.

In the two communities I represent, West Chezzetcook and Grand Desert, the people are very proud to be Acadian and very proud to be part of Nova Scotia and part of the greater country of Canada.

It is remarkable that the minister for ACOA would not want to support this motion when ACOA just gave $4 million to the Grand Pré site. The government gave $4 million in tax dollars in order to build up the site, to make it better, to improve the historical aspect of Grand Pré. On the one hand he gives the money to support them and on the other hand, in a hypocritical sense, he turns around and will not support the motion. It is absolutely incredible.

Here is what I recommend to everyone in the House. If members really want a taste and a feel of what Acadian culture is all about they should visit Grand Pré, Nova Scotia. They will not be disappointed. Then members can take a trip to the Acadian villages throughout all of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, parts of P.E.I. and to everywhere else Acadians reside.

What happened to the Acadians from 1755 to 1763 was a sin. Thousands of people were ejected from their land. These were hard working people who wanted nothing to do with war. All they wanted to do was farm their land, look after their children and live in peace. They were not allowed to because they refused to swear an oath to the king. Because of that they were told either they were with us or against us. At that time they were kicked out.

Members can imagine that happening. All those families suffered greatly from it. Families were separated. I know of one family, that of Joe Jacquard of Wedgeport, Nova Scotia. He told me the story of his great-great-grandfather hiding in the woods at that time to get away from the English.

Many of the Acadians there have the oral histories of what happened to their families. The names of those original families are in the church in Grand Pré. I recommend that everyone have a look at it, especially the member for Lanark--Carleton. His was a disgraceful display. I respect the man having his opinion in the House of Commons, but to try to rewrite history and say that we do not have any responsibility in today's society for something that happened is simply nonsense. I stand in the House and I refute the hon. member's speech because it is simply wrong.

Many things have happened because of this event. My wife is from Longueuil, Quebec and my daughter is in full French immersion, and what the Acadian people have brought to my family is absolutely fabulous. I know I am not very good at the English language, let alone the French language, but I cannot thank the Acadian population of my province enough for what they have done, not only for our communities but for our way of life and the diversity of our culture.

Lately we have been talking about the diversity of cultures in Canada with our Arab and Muslim people. We should not forget that the Acadians themselves gave us a diversity of culture that was fabulous, that was fantastic. We are indebted to those people. Every single one of them through their associations is asking for this motion to be passed. I again encourage the House to carefully reflect upon the motion, damn well keep politics out of it and just reflect on what we should do to make an historic wrong right.

All the Acadians are asking for is the ability to have an apology from the Queen and to allow the Queen to do it herself. Allow the House to be mature enough to have the debate, move it in a positive sense and allow Her Majesty to make that decision. We should not do it, and there should be no sleazy politics about it.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot thank you enough for the opportunity to speak to this today on behalf of all the Acadians of West Chezzetcook and Grand Desert and anywhere in my riding, and especially on behalf of my colleague, the MLA Kevin Deveaux, himself an Acadian and an elected official to the assembly in the Province House in Nova Scotia, and many others.

We stand in the House to support Motion No. 241 and also to support our great colleague from Acadie--Bathurst. I cannot say his name, but he is our whip as well.

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure I rise this evening to speak to the motion of our colleague, the member for Verchères--Les-Patriotes.

Motion No. 241 got people talking and it still has people talking. Some groups and some members are not comfortable with the idea of this motion and they are both right and wrong, depending on the perspective.

The coalition has a tradition of free votes in the case of private members' bills. Right now it is interesting to hear what members of the Bloc, of the New Democratic Party and of all other parties have to say.

Another important point is the fact that things were properly done; frankly, that increases the credibility of the whole process. The Société nationale des Acadiens asked that the historical context be taken into consideration and in my opinion that was well done.

We will remember that in the beginning we were afraid of the nasty separatists. Even in the coalition, which did not exist then, we thought these people were nasty separatists and therefore they certainly had a hidden agenda. Maybe the member for Verchères--Les-Patriotes does have a hidden agenda. It could be, but that is his problem. Nevertheless we must take the motion as it is and raise our hats to the Bloc member who went to Acadia to meet the people.

If I had doubts about the motion's intellectual honesty, not the member's intellectual honesty, but the motion's intellectual honesty, I think the Acadian people have done remarkable work. This relieves me of a certain weight of justification.

One must examine the motion as it stands. We can twist our history a little bit to determine who was responsible. It could be that responsible government as we know it today did not exist then, but I will remind the member of the Canadian Alliance who has just spoken that the empire's responsibility was everywhere.

When one says that we are not attacking anyone, the motion is not attacking anyone. We are not asking the Queen, the crown. Here again, it was done properly. We are not talking about an individual. We are talking about an historical event and the consequences of the deportation of the Acadians. The consequences did not last only a few years. They are still felt today.

Let us imagine 10,000, 12,000 or 14,000 Acadians, men, women and children, living in a territory that is now part of Canada. Things have changed over the last 10 or 15 years, but we know what francophones could do as to the number of children in a family. At that time, families had a lot of children. That would have changed everything and there would have been more francophones in the Atlantic provinces.

Having said that, let me say that the Acadian people have met incredible challenges; all they were a minority that faced the deportation and experienced serious problems afterwards, both with the British crown and the Canadian government, and had to struggle for decades. Hats off to them.

I have learned a lot. I even read a bit about the history of the deportation to get to know the context a little better. For my part, I will support the motion. I will ask for an admission and I will say “I am sorry, this does not mean that you are a bad person today”. We can acknowledge historic events.

It is particularly important to amend this motion because some see it as being negative with regard to the monarchy. It is not that at all. This could be done in the context of celebrations, for example during the third congrès mondial acadien, or the 250th anniversary or the 400th anniversary of the arrival of Acadians in America. We could do that. It could be positive.

The governor general could, as part of the celebrations, read a nice speech and say “We recognize our faults. Having said that, we will work together and we will see to it that the Acadian people keep on developing and prospering in this country”. That is all. The motion involves no money.

In this regard, I praise the work done by the member for Verchères--Les-Patriotes. More than that, I would say that he is open to changes, or rather to improvements. However, those across the way are slamming the door shut.

I would like to say to my colleagues opposite “Do not send the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to Acadia too often, because it is the whole federal government that will lose its credibility”. Because the motion comes from a Bloc member, it is not good? Because a motion comes from an Alliance member, a NDP member or a coalition member, it is not good? We must take the time, we are adults, to look at what the motion is all about.

That said, it is not because one is a nasty separatist that people should denigrate everything one does. On the contrary. I believe that in the last decade we have learned a lot about respect for parliamentary traditions thanks to members of the Bloc Quebecois and other parties, especially the Bloc.

The crown has apologized on several occasions. A number of people mentioned the Boer War in South Africa and the Maori in New Zealand. These situations did not result in a collective uprising. It is an apology. One recognizes an historical fact and says “I apologize”.

In recognizing this historical fact, one moves toward a much more positive action. No one is being asked to kneel down and apologize for what was done. It is simply an historical fact and life goes on. We know there was even a request not long after the deportation of the Acadians, in 1763, made to the crown. With everything that had just happened, this was fresh in their memory. Members will understand that the timing was perhaps not very good, but there were still some efforts made.

In 1988, some efforts were also made from the other side of the border, by an American. This even went all the way to the office of the then prime minister, Mrs. Thatcher, but nothing came of it. But considering what is coming, this could be done.

I am not at all uncomfortable with this. Supporting this motion does not make me an anti-monarchist, nor am I pointing a finger at anyone. I would especially like the government members who are Acadian to give this matter some thought.

Let us recall that there were two ridings that were Conservative ridings and will certainly become Conservative ridings again after the next election, namely Tobique--Mactaquac and West Nova. I am quite disappointed that the two Acadian members representing these ridings do not support the motion. We know that in September 2000, prior to the last election campaign, West Nova MP Mark Muise was in favour of the motion. I am sure that Gilles Bernier, the former member for Tobique--Mactaquac, would also have supported the motion.

We must stand up and be counted. This is not an attack against any group or person or against the crown, but quite simply an acknowledgment. Even my former colleague, Angela Vautour, would have supported this motion.

I am asking the members opposite to keep an open mind. The party line is one thing, but for Acadian members, what they feel in their hearts may be more important at this stage. The reason Acadians managed to survive and prosper in the face of all difficulties is that they had their hearts in the right place. I hope our Acadian colleagues in this House will be guided by the same sentiments.

We are not trying to rewrite history, obviously. This is not about pointing a finger, nor is it about asking for money in reparation. This is not at all the case. Governments since 1867 have also made mistakes and it is well for apologies to be forthcoming. There have been a great many wrongs since 1867 toward the Ffrst nations of Canada. These need to be acknowledged and apologies made. The Acadian people experienced something was absolutely horrible and managed to survive despite everything. Recognizing this fact by supporting this motion is a positive step.

I would once again like to congratulate the member for Verchères--Les-Patriotes on the tremendous work he has done. Clearly he has a reputation such that people are wary of everything he does. In this case, he has recognized an historic event suffered by a people and he come up with a positive gesture for the future.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Bras D'Or—Cape Breton, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to respond to the member for Verchères--Les-Patriotes and to his motion asking the Governor General to intercede with Her Majesty, the Queen of England, to present an official apology to the Acadian people for wrongs done in its name between 1755 and 1763.

Canada's history, like that of all countries, has skeletons in its closet of which we are not proud. These are events that took place sometimes hundreds of years ago, such as in the case of the Acadian deportation. History can sometimes be cruel, however, Canada's history does not include only injustices. It is a history which for the most part is one of progress and growth. Today we must look to the future.

Canada's Acadian community is not one but many communities spread throughout the Atlantic provinces. In New Brunswick, Acadians are concentrated in the southeast, the northeast and the northwest, with groups in Fredericton and Saint John.

In Nova Scotia there are dynamic communities in Baie-Sainte-Marie on the southwestern coast and in my own constituency of Bras d'Or--Cape Breton. Both Île-Madame and the Chéticamp region are beautiful communities, proud and progressive.

In Prince Edward Island Acadians are in the region of Évangéline. In Newfoundland they are found near Cape St. Georges and in Saint-Jean and in Labrador City. They are also situated at Îles-de-la-Madeleine in the Gaspé, in the Montreal region and in western Canada. All these communities, no matter how big or small, are testament to the vitality of Canada's people and our two official languages.

It takes extraordinary courage and strength to develop a community which lives in a minority situation. The members of the Acadian communities have founded schools, colleges and universities. They have established theatres, newspapers and publishing houses. They have made outstanding strides in culture, theatre, cinema, visual arts and music as well as in literature. They have blessed the world with writers, poets, artists, dancers, musicians and singers. They have established an impressive network of businesses and created jobs.

The Acadians of Canada are part of what makes Canada able to be successful and prosper. The Government of Canada recognizes this dynamic and vital contribution to Canadian society. They count among the seven million people in Canada who speak, sing, write, work and live in French. These francophones are proof of the vitality and extraordinary determination to grow and expand on a continent with an anglophone majority.

The English and French languages and the people who speak them have shaped Canada and helped define its identity. Canada's linguistic duality has its origins in the very nature of our country. It is hard to look at Canada today without seeing the importance of these two languages and their communities within Canadian society.

The official languages support programs of the Department of Canadian Heritage are designed to provide opportunities for Canadians to fully appreciate and profit from our rich linguistic heritage. The Government of Canada believes that the great majority of Canadians share these goals.

Few would doubt the importance of education to any community. Through the support for minority language education, the Department of Canadian Heritage works toward the full participation of both language groups in all aspects of Canadian life.

These programs not only further the vital cultural contribution of the English and French speaking minority communities, but also promote access to the economic mainstream. For instance, progress in the area of French language minority education has had a prominent role in lowering illiteracy and school dropout rates and increasing post-secondary attendance.

Thirty years ago the quality and availability of French language minority education was not only a national disgrace but also a significant barrier to the development and survival of francophone communities throughout Canada. We set out to change this. In the process, schools were built where none had existed. Community centres were built where none had existed. Colleges were built where none had existed.

We have worked with the provinces and with francophone and Acadian parents from one end of the country to the other. The economic value of quality public education in their language for the 1.6 million Canadians who are part of official language minority communities cannot be underestimated.

All Canadians have a stake in minority language education programs. In their absence, as the bilingualism and bicultural commission pointed out, these Canadians would not be able to make their potential contribution to society. The Department of Canadian Heritage, in particular the official languages support programs branch, has concluded a series of agreements which greatly benefit the Acadian and francophone populations of Canada.

Collaboration between both levels of government within the framework of the official languages and education program allows more than 150,000 young people from official minority language communities to study in their language in 700 elementary and secondary schools in all regions of the country, and 18.5% of these schools are situated in the Atlantic provinces.

The official languages and education program contributes to the financing of a network of 19 francophone colleges and universities outside Quebec, many of which are located in the Atlantic provinces and which serve the Acadian population. It is also through these programs that 2.7 million young Canadians are learning a second official language, including more than 318,000 in immersion classes, thus greatly increasing the number of Canadians with an appreciation for the French language and culture.

While I will not go into details about all the good work that is being done, I would like to outline some of the noteworthy accomplishments which have been achieved in minority education and which have directly benefited the Acadian communities over the past few years.

In Nova Scotia, major roles in French education are played by Collège de l'Acadie, to which I will speak in more detail, and Université Sainte-Anne, which has been funded for many years by the federal government.

Created in 1988, Collège de l'Acadie is now a key institution within the francophone and Acadian communities. Having two in my own constituency, I certainly can speak to the role they play.

The considerable distances that separate the different Acadian regions of the province could have posed problems with respect to the service delivery but, undiscouraged, the Acadians adjusted and established training centres attached to Collège de l'Acadie throughout the territory. There are now seven and there is no doubt that these training centres contribute directly to the economic expansion and development of the Acadian communities.

The college and its training centres have state of the art technological tools such as video conferencing and teleconferencing, offering superior distance education programs. On the eve of a new focus on knowledge and communications, a French language distance education capacity is certainly a sign of prosperity for francophones and Acadians in Canada.

Also in Nova Scotia, federal funds have supported the construction and expansion of the Carrefour du Grand Havre school and community centre in Dartmouth. The opening of the Étoile school and community centre in my neighbouring constituency of Sydney--Victoria was equally an occasion to celebrate a victory for the francophone population in the greater Sydney area. Along with offering quality education in French, it is a centre where the Acadian community can gather together as well as a place to promote the Acadian culture.

In New Brunswick, the federal government also has widely and consistently supported the development of well established institutions, such as the University of Moncton. It, like any other educational institution, plays an important role as an engine of social, economic and cultural development for the Acadian communities.

Created in 1963, the University of Moncton is the second largest university in New Brunswick and the biggest French language Canadian university outside of Quebec. It has three campuses: Moncton in the southeast, Edmundston in the northwest, and Shippagan in the northeast. There is no question that the University of Moncton contributes directly to the vitality and dynamism of the francophone and Acadian communities of Canada.

Also in New Brunswick, federal funds have helped in the construction of three school community centres at Fredericton, Miramichi and Saint John, as well as funding for four community colleges. In Prince Edward Island another community centre has been established. Newfoundland's Acadians can soon be celebrating the signing of an agreement with the federal government for francophone school management.

The federal government also supports the Acadian associations that bring Acadian institutions and organizations together.

These associations work hard for the Acadian cause and have over the years brought about many positive changes. There is no doubt the Acadian deportation is an event that ranks among the great tragedies of history in Canada.

That fact and the effects of it should never be forgotten or diminished in our memories. Historic and commemorative venues, such as Grand Pré, have been established so that Canadians will always remember this part of our history.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The hon. member for Laval Centre. I would point out that she only has three minutes left.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, knowing how wise the hon. members are, I wish to seek unanimous consent to use the 10 minutes provided to speak to motion No. 241.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, now, at the beginning of October, I have just lost another illusion of mine, but not to worry, I will keep on smiling.

I am pleased to take part today in the passionate debate on Motion No. 241 tabled by my hon. colleague, the member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes.

I am even more pleased to speak to this issue because a lot of people have taken the time to express their views on this motion, which has become very significant because of the importance it has for many of our citizens.

There are two points I want to make here. Because of the great number of comments that have been made, I cannot guess as to the political stripe of all the people who made them. But given the law of averages, I would find it very surprising and even unthinkable that all these people share my political opinions.

However, each and every one of them supported this motion unconditionally, as if it were the most natural thing to do in the world.

The people watching this may ask why I am making these two points. It seems that this issue has become the focus of the debate on the motion, although it should not even be addressed during our discussions.

Moreover, there was an unfortunate misunderstanding during the weeks following the tabling of this motion. Some people have suggested that my hon. colleague from Verchères—Les-Patriotes was playing petty politics by putting forward Motion No. 241, while others showed more respect and simply stated that they would wait to find out the position of the Acadian community on this issue.

Now that this misunderstanding is behind us, the situation has cleared up. The hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes has publicly demonstrated that there was absolutely no partisanship behind his tabling of Motion No. 241.

Moreover, the consultation process in which Acadians took part ended yesterday with the tabling of the report of the advisory committee set up by the Société nationale des Acadiens.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that this issue will unfold in the next hour of debate. You can count on my being here.