Debates of Nov. 22nd, 2001

Business of the House

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

Again, it is not I who wants to propose amendments. I am trying to do this for the benefit of opposition members and hopefully for the entire House.

[The Speaker]

Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Consultations took place between representatives of the various political parties, including House leaders.

In order to accommodate all members since, normally, private members' business would be at 5.30 p.m., and considering that some members may wish to take part in this important debate but did not have time to prepare adequately, and considering also the time now, I am seeking the unanimous consent of the House to have this order not be debated today, but be dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence and that the vote scheduled for Tuesday on that same order be postponed to an appropriate time, after the conclusion of the third hour of debate.

[The Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is not the intention of the government to call any other item this day. I understand that the item before the House collapsed shortly before question period. That being the case, I would propose that you see the clock as being at 5.30 p.m. and we proceed to private members' business.

[The Speaker]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker]

For all intents and purposes, 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 October 3 consideration of the motion.

The Acadians

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

Mr. Speaker, here we are in the last stretch of a passionate debate on Motion No. 241.

My colleague from Verchères—Les Patriotes explained that his own re-election, no more than that of other members of the Bloc Quebecois, does not depend on the adoption or the defeat of this motion in the House. Similarly, it must be recognized that the fate of this motion will have no bearing whatsoever on the fate of Quebec as a sovereign state. Need I remind members that the Bloc Quebecois ran no candidates in New Brunswick in the last federal election? So those who are looking for the motivation behind this motion by the member for Verchères—Les Patriotes should look elsewhere.

To eliminate any notion that this motion could be of a somewhat partisan nature, the member for Verchères—Les Patriotes indicated that he was prepared to accept that the name of the mover be changed. He even said that he was opened to the idea that the motion be amended by members from other parties so that it could become a multiparty motion. He even stated publicly that he wished the government would get involved in this initiative and that it could even lead it if it wished to do so. I can hardly imagine that, after all these concrete gestures showing the good faith of the member for Verchères—Les Patriotes, there are still people in this House who insist on saying that Motion No. 241 is of a partisan nature.

On September 26 of this year, Annie Racine, a reporter for La Voie Acadienne , said this about Motion No. 241: “I naively thought that the various parties worked together for the good of the nation. I believe there are some ideas that transcend political boundaries and that can be supported by all parties”. I think that we must work for the betterment and the development of all communities, regardless of language and political affiliation.

One other element has attracted the interest of parliamentarians: what did the people directly concerned by this motion think? We have since had the answer to this question, as the Société nationale de l'Acadie tabled the advisory committee report on Motion No. 241 on October 2. Many parliamentarians were waiting precisely for that before taking a position. They wisely wanted to know the position of the Acadians and some wanted a strong consensus if they were going to give it support.

This House will be pleased to learn that, according to the report, only 3 of the 140 opinions from all over Acadia, the maritimes, Quebec, Ontario, the U.S. and France, were not in favour of the motion , whereas 129, or 92%, supported it, while 8 could not be placed in either category. This is an undeniable and indisputable consensus in favour of the motion we have before us. Moreover, the advisory committee presented a recommendation to the Société nationale de l'Acadie that leaves absolutely no trace of doubt. It reads as follows:

—that the motion be sponsored by the entire Acadian deputation in the House of Commons, regardless of political affiliation.

As a result, the parliamentarians of this House will be able to make fully informed decisions. The opinion of the Acadians is clear, and their recommendation is unequivocal.

In supporting Motion No. 241, parliament will be showing the great nobility of spirit of one who acknowledges his errors. Calling upon the British crown to officially recognize the wrongs done to the Acadian people is an affirmation of the desire to strengthen and improve ties between two peoples, beyond the collective historical wrongs.

Recent history has provided several examples of official apologies or regrets acknowledging wrongs committed in the past. Among these, the Canadian government has, and deserves great praise for doing so, made an official apology to the Italian Canadian and Japanese Canadian communities. Great Britain has done the same to the Maori people, and the U.S. government to Americans of Japanese origin. Thus this honourable gesture would not be establishing a precedent in Canadian history, and still less in world history. Support for Motion No. 241 is a contribution to the development of our historical conscience.

This request to the Canada's parliament fits in with other legislative measures of a similar nature that have recently been passed elsewhere on this continent. The states of Maine and Louisiana did not hesitate to pass resolutions on this, and Democrat Senator John Breaux is reportedly preparing to bring this up in the U.S. congress. How then can the Canadian Parliament, a democratic body where Acadia is represented, refuse to recognize a historic fact and its consequences?

As Rosella Melanson wrote in the New Brunswick Telegraph Journal of June 19:

Those who would refuse an apology cannot help but be seen as apologists for the deportation decision, and for the likes of Charles Lawrence, who--shortly before he was appointed governor of Nova Scotia, wrote to London about the Acadians: “As they possess the best and largest tracts of land in this province, it cannot be settled with any effect while they remain in this situation...It would be much better...that they were away”...

Acadian society will want to go ahead with this motion and it will certainly have a bigger impact than expected.

In closing, I would like to quote the member for Verchères--Les-Patriotes who wrote:

In fact, only the Acadian people could come away more scarred if the motion is rejected, a situation that certain people would certainly consider a new snub and that would only serve to keep feelings of disillusion, distrust and bitterness alive.

At this point, I ampleased to table an amendment, supported by my colleague from Acadie--Bathurst. I move:

That the text of Motion No. 24 be amended by deleting the words “to present an official apology to the Acadian people for the wrongs done to them” and substituting therefor the words “to recognize officially the wrongs done to the Acadian people”.

The motion would therefore read:

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

This House has no more rational argument against Motion No. 241.

[The Deputy Speaker]

This motion being in order, debate will continue on the amendment.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am actually quite pleased with the way today has worked out. I have the opportunity to speak to the motion from my hon. colleague for the Bloc. As someone who has had the opportunity to have three private members' motions before the House and to actually have a couple that were votable, I am pleased to have the chance to speak to the motion and recognize that private members bring specific issues, motions and bills to the House that never come from the government unless it is real push to do so. Government members bring them in as well because they know that is the only way some issues will ever be addressed.

When I was growing up and attending school, and I did finish high school, I was an excellent history student because I loved learning about Canada and Britain. I have to tell members that most of the history I learned about was Britain and a little bit about the U.S. Our books contained very little Canadian history. We learned mostly about colonial governments.

Although some Canadian history came into play, I found that as an adult with children in school that the Canadian history I had been taught was not accurate. My children were receiving the accurate history on events such as the Northwest Rebellion and Louis Riel. I had never been taught that Louis Riel was an elected legislative representative that the Government of Canada just did not like.

Having talked to my colleague for Acadie—Bathurst, I now know that the Acadians had their land taken away from them in much the same way as the land was taken away from the people in the Red River Valley and in areas of Saskatchewan. The government wanted the properties because it wanted the best lands. I do not think there is any question that there was a degree of racial motivation. It was a different culture, the languages were different and the English-French thing was going on even then. However the bottom line was that the government wanted the land and whatever it wanted it took. It felt it could treat that group of citizens badly because it could do anything it wanted to do.

However we cannot change history no matter how much my hon. colleague from across the way would like to. The hon. member who brought forth the motion wants the government to recognize that Louis Riel was mistreated and unfairly tried and convicted of treason, and he wants Louis Riel exonerated.

I know we cannot change history but we can recognize that wrongs were done and officially recognize them as such so that the people who were affected have the opportunity to heal. When one family or a group of people are treated badly and severely hurt, as were the Acadians, it is passed down from generation to generation. Many Acadians died and many never saw their families again. We might not hear about it every day, every month or every week but it is passed down from generation to generation. It is never allowed any healing or forgiveness.

When the Government of Canada refuses to officially recognize that the Acadian people were wronged what does that say about us? My colleague from across the way knows that it is important that Louis Riel be exonerated. He knows that.

How can he not see that it is extremely important that the Acadian people be officially recognized as having been wronged? Can there be any doubt in anyone's mind?

We do not all in our lives have time to read everything, see everything on the Internet or study every subject. We try to learn as much as we can but always in our lives we can continue learning. In a matter of minutes today numerous bits of information were pulled off the Internet for additional background on the subject. I urge Canadians to make a point of going online and finding information on le grand dérangement, the Acadian expulsion and deportation.

It was recorded in one of the newspapers of the time that:

We are now upon a great and noble scheme of sending the neutral French out of the Province who have always been secret enemies and have encouraged our savages to cut our throats. If we effect their expulsion it will be one of the greatest things that ever did the English in America.

The article went on to say “for by all accounts that part of the country they possess is as good a land as any in the world. We could get some for good English farmers”.

Is there no shame on the other side of the House that a whole group of citizens of Canada were treated badly? Do those members have no shame at all? What they should do is officially recognize that they were wrong.

I will touch on comments that have been made in the last week or so by ministers from the government. People have seen the comments as indicating that maybe the church was responsible or did not do much and should have done more. They suggest that if families really wanted to maintain their Acadian culture they should have been responsible for doing so.

I represent a riding with 32 first nations and have been to all those communities. No one knows more than I do, except for the people themselves, the suffering aboriginal people have gone through because of their treatment by the Government of Canada.

I refer specifically to the Dene people. The government decided, my gosh, not in 1745 but in 1955, to move a whole group of people and leave them to live off a garbage dump in Churchill, Manitoba. Is there any shame from the government about it? There is not a chance. Those people are struggling today to find their way.

The government has a history of doing things wrong. We cannot change history but we can acknowledge the mistakes and apologize for them. We must recognize officially that the way the Acadian people were treated was wrong. It was wrong to treat the Dene people like that. It was wrong to treat aboriginal people the way they have been treated over the years.

This is private member's business. It is not government legislation that would put the government under should it happen to pass. I encourage members in the House to take a stand and say that this needs to be acknowledged. It is absolutely unacceptable that the government would put pressure on members in the House to vote against this simply because the government has something against Quebec and the Bloc. This is not a Bloc issue. It is an issue of justice for a group of citizens within Canada. It is totally unacceptable to make it an issue between the Bloc and the Liberals. I hope members in the House do not fall into that trap.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I represent the riding of Beauséjour--Petitcodiac, and those two words are fraught with significance in the history of Acadia.

Beauséjour is the name of the fort where many Acadians were detained during the expulsion. Also in my riding is the village of Memramcook, where my father was born and where, last century, began what was called the Acadian Renaissance, when Acadians started going to Saint-Joseph College and building the modern Acadia I am proud to be part of.

I am proud to be an Acadian, proud of the courage shown by my ancestors, but most of all proud to be part of this new Acadia which, instead of brooding about the past, puts its faith in the future, a future made of sharing, dynamism and openness to the world.

Motion No. 241 would force us to change this attitude. It would bring us back to the 18th century and back on the warpath. The colonial wars issue would be raised again and old wounds would be re-opened.

We would ask the Queen to apologize for an action which she certainly did not sanction herself. Besides, we now know that the expulsion was mainly organized in North America.

In that sense, should we also ask for an apology from the American government, since the troops and the ships came from Boston and were chartered by William Shirley, then governor of Massachusetts?

Should we ask the government of Nova Scotia to apologize since Justice Belcher from that province was the one who signed the document approving the expulsion?

Should we ask the French government to apologize for not having provided the guns the Acadians asked the marquis de Vaudreuil for in 1758, when he was governor of New France in Quebec City?

It would be a nonsense to deny the fact that the expulsion was the most tragic event in Acadian history. But we overcame it. We all know that it is not possible to rewrite history. However, we can draw great lessons from it. The lesson we can draw today is one of generosity, sharing and cohabitation with our former enemies, who have become our compatriots.

Vengeance only breeds vengeance.

Acadians harbour no bitterness about our past, rather a serene determination to take our place in the ranks of Canadians who want to build an open, generous and bilingual country. Canada has given us that chance.

No one believed more in the rights of francophone minorities in Canada than the late Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Few people did more on the national stage to advance the interests of Acadians than did Mr. Trudeau. The late Prime Minister was right when he said in the House on June 29, 1984:

I do not think 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...

I am proud of our artists such as Herménégilde Chiasson, who won the Governor General's Award two years ago. I am proud of our thinkers, our professionals, entrepreneurs, teachers, athletes, and workers who affirm their commitment to this future on a daily basis and who let Canada and the world know that we survived 1755 and that we do not want to return to the past.

The Government of Canada provides extraordinary support to the Acadian community. We know that there is no other solution than building a dynamic francophone community outside of Quebec that is proud of its origins. That is exactly what we are doing in Acadia today.

I agree with the member for Laval Centre that the debate on this must not be a partisan one. There are people who support this motion because of their personal convictions and I respect them, but I do not share their conclusions. Instead, I agree with my Acadian colleagues and the Conservative premier of New Brunswick who think we must look to the future instead of trying to revisit the past.

In 1955, during the 200th anniversary of the deportation, all the Acadian leaders and the Société nationale l'Assomption—now known as the Société nationale de l'Acadie—focused on the future in commemorating this tragic event from their past.

In an important speech on this very issue, Claude Bourque, a well-known reporter and writer concluded that, in 1955, the SNA ensured healing for all Acadians by forgiving those who organized the deportation.

At the time, the chief organizer of the festivities, Archbishop Adélard Savoie, who would later become the rector of the Université de Moncton, said, and I quote:

Evoking this period should elicit the profound joy of resurrection rather than the overwhelming sorrow of annihilation. Acadians should feel no resentment or bitterness at such a time. This is the generous offer of Christian forgiveness and the expression of a firm desire to continue our forefathers' work on this beloved Earth and carry out to their fullest the designs of Providence.

The words spoken by Adélard Savoie in 1955 are still relevant today, in 2001.

We do not need apologies to carry out the work that needs to be done. We do not need apologies to understand that Acadians are now mature enough to decide what they want to fight for and to live with the choices they make.

We do not need apologies. What we need are people respectful enough to understand that we no longer need to constantly relive our past.

Acadia's history is 400 years old. Our fight has been long and neverending. Only those who have lived under such circumstances can understand that our dignity is not based on apologies. It is based on the voice, the courage and the determination of all those who stayed behind and who fought and are still fighting for Acadia to continue to live not in the past, but in the present and, most importantly, in a future that holds so much promise

Long live Acadia and long live Canada.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate my colleague from Beauséjour—Petitcodiac for his excellent speech. I would also like to express my sympathy for the Acadians.

A grave injustice was committed to the Acadian population in this country from 1755 to 1763. Some 13,000 Acadians were removed to places as far away as Georgia and Massachusetts for reasons that were only known at the time. The motion calls for redress. It calls for an apology by the British government for those actions that took place some 250 years ago.

I stand corrected. The motion has been amended and it calls for a statement of what took place at that time. The original motion asked for an apology. I would like to deal with that issue.

We have no problem whatsoever in expressing our deepest and gravest sympathy for what took place in those dark days some 250 years ago. We disapprove of it and deplore it. We will ensure with every bone in our body that it will never happen again on our soil. As the member for Beauséjour--Petitcodiac mentioned, our sympathies go out to the Acadian population for what happened.

Acadians deserve our admiration for the manner in which they conducted themselves over the last 250 years. The Acadian population, with its rich culture and language, is some of the best of what this country has to offer. Acadians represent part of the great mosaic of Canada and represent an extremely important part of our nation.

Those who are separatists in the province of Quebec would do well to learn from the lessons of Acadian strength and dignity within Canada. Acadians are integral, essential, valued and honoured members of Canadian society. They are a group that has taught us much and continues to enrich Canada and Canadians from coast to coast. I say that as somebody from British Columbia.

The best way to redress past injustices is to invest in the future. It serves no purpose to look back hundreds of years in an effort to redress those injustices. However, it does justice to those who had atrocities committed against them. Today's society should learn from those injustices and act to ensure that they never ever happen again.

With our limited resources a wise and productive investment would be to use those resources to fight prejudice and discrimination and to ensure that past wrongs are neither repeated today nor in the future.

As was mentioned by the NDP member, I also want to bring to the attention of the House the plight of aboriginal people. Aboriginal people suffer grave injustices today within our communities. Rather than trying to redress past injustices, would it not be wiser to use the limited resources we have to upgrade, uplift and aid aboriginal people who occupy the lowest socioeconomic rungs in our society today? That would be a good use of our effort and our moneys, and a good way to build bridges between individuals.

We cannot live in the past. Some would seek to do that. Some groups find it attractive to dwell on past injustices as a way to build bridges within a group of individuals to hold them together. Is dwelling on past injustices not a shallow way of building bridges between people and holding a group together? Is it not nobler and more productive to look into the future and ask how we can build a better, safer future for all?

How can we build bridges of tolerance and understanding? How can we ensure that our culture and language thrive? I submit to the people who would seek to separate from Canada that the greatest strength the francophone population has today is to stay within Canada. The greatest protection for the French language and the francophone culture today is to stay within Canada.

To separate from our nation is probably the greatest threat to the French language and North American French culture today. Those who choose to split parts of Canada, particularly Quebec, away from the country would do well to heed that lesson.

My other point is about history. There is no consistency in the manner in which history is taught in our country today. It is often factually flawed. It is not taught enough in our schools. Jack Granatstein who was the curator of the Canadian War Museum has spoken eloquently time and time again of the importance of history in Canada and the flawed manner in which it is being taught across the nation.

We would do well to work with provincial ministers of education to develop a core curriculum of history that is consistent, based on facts and taught from coast to coast. How can we move forward or live today without knowing where we came from? We do a grave injustice to the students of our country and indeed all Canadians if we do not give them a firm grounding in our history.

Every year we say never again as we quite appropriately commemorate the genocide and injustices that took place during the Holocaust in Europe against Jews and other minorities. Yet we have not learned our lesson. As we speak, the same atrocities that took place in Europe during the Holocaust and against the Acadian population from 1755 to 1762 are taking place today.

Genocide is taking place. People are being taken off their lands and murdered, be it in Zimbabwe, Liberia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Burundi or Rwanda. This is happening time and time again as we speak. We wring our hands impotently and ask ourselves why we do not do something when blood is being shed. We have learned nothing from history.

There is one central point I will make in this speech. We must look at history. We must learn the lessons of history and we must act. Merely apologizing for what took place 50 or 250 years ago is not good enough. We do an injustice to those individuals if we do not learn from their tragedies, their plights and the atrocities committed against them. We must learn lessons, build solutions and act if we are to ensure such atrocities, brutality, human rights abuses and mass deportations do not occur again.

It is happening as we speak. We cannot allow it to continue to happen. I ask the government to work with the international community to redress past injustices. I ask the government to look into the future and build solutions in a multilateral way to prevent such injustices from occurring now and in the future.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my dear friend and colleague as well as the other members who have taken part in this debate.

The motion moved by my colleague from Verchères--Les-Patriotes is an important one which encapsulates a great deal of emotion for the people of Acadia.

The motion with the amendment would not infringe on the government, the British crown or the monarchy. It simply puts forward a very reasonable request to recognize the harm and the horror suffered by the Acadian people.

It is with pleasure that I rise in the House this afternoon to support the motion brought forward by my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois, the member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes.

Some people may be surprised to see an anglophone from Nova Scotia speak in favour of this motion. After all, some people may have been tempted to see it as an insult to the British crown, the federal government or even English Canada.

However, in this third hour of debate on this motion, it is clear that it is simply not the case. This motion does not target the federal government and is not an insult to the crown. After all, the crown did apologize to certain people for similar acts committed in its name.

I support this motion. It is an official policy, a gesture we should give to the Acadian people for the wrongdoings done to them between 1755 and 1763. It is a statement of recognition of something that happened that is inextricably linked sadly to their history, and a proud history it is. It is simply an act that recognizes what was a horrific attempt at ethnic cleansing. A tragedy of this scale happening today would be horrifying and hard to comprehend.

I believe the mover of the motion recognizes this is not to set a precedent. This is not lending itself toward financial compensation or return of lands. Obviously this could potentially displace more people and cause further harm. However, we do recognize and feel that an apology is in order.

We feel that it is time to recognize this date that lives in infamy, of 1755 when the expulsion of the Acadians, le grand dérangement, occurred. Simply, it is time. It is time that we recognized this event which displaced somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 individuals from their homes, separating families. Their homes, as everyone may or may not be aware, were burned. The dikes that they built that were a tribute to the backbreaking labour that was done by hand still stand today in the Bay of Fundy area near Grande Pré, Nova Scotia.

The Acadian population at its peak in 1749 was close to 12,000. Between the dates of 1749 and 1753, tensions between French and British people increased and a couple of thousand Acadians were caught in the middle. Fearing the worst, many of them left and fled to French territory, currently places such as Ile St. Jean in Prince Edward Island, Ile Royal in Cape Breton and other parts of Quebec.

The Seven Years War was about to begin and the British people did not want the possibility of French living in the territories to undermine these colonial wars. The fact is that the Acadian people did not want to support either side. They simply wanted to live their lives. They wanted to farm. They wanted to live a peaceful existence, which is exactly what they were doing. There were numerous requests made over the years but Acadians consistently and principally refused to sign an allegiance to either government. They only wanted to farm their lands.

Acadians had been in North America for such a time that they had ceased to even view themselves as French colonists. They developed their own language, their own culture. They were their own people, les Acadiens, a very proud people. They had virtually no ties to either government and would not be forced to take sides.

Yet in 1755, under British Governor Lawrence, the deportation occurred. People were rounded up. Families were separated. They were herded like cattle onto ships and taken away. Much of this is chronicled in the famous book published by Longfellow that speaks of this horrific act. A statue still stands in Grand Pré, Nova Scotia, a statue that is in tribute to the Acadian people.

It is through these acts when they were deported; their homes as I mentioned were burned and it is thought that between 3,000 and 4,000 Acadians did not flee or did not get deported until 1755. However, many died of illness and many spent years roaming the land of North America searching for their lost loved ones. Most of the Acadians made their way out of the province. Many simply hid and were forced to again embark on this heartbreaking venture of trying to locate their families.

The deportation occurred along the eastern coast of North America. They were transported to Massachusetts, Georgia, many to Louisiana, Quebec and other parts of North America. They arrived unannounced, as Governor Lawrence did not inform the other colonies of their arrival. They faced many prejudices upon their arrival in their new places of existence. The English colonies did not want them. They felt they were too expensive to deal with. Thus Acadians were often at sea for long periods of time and endured immense suffering and hardship.

Some managed to evade the English and some made their way back to the French territories in Ile Royal and Ile St. Jean. Many came back to Nova Scotia. There are communities in Tracadie, Pomquet, Havre Boucher. There are certainly communities on the south shore of Nova Scotia where many Acadians still live today.

The hardship of Acadians, their sorrow, their struggle to return home, as I said, is chronicled in Longfellow's epic poem Evangeline .

The Acadians who were fortunate enough to complete the trek back to Nova Scotia could not return directly to the lands that they had once possessed. They were now being possessed by anglophones.

Even after years of war and even after the conflicts between the British and French had finally come to an end, the Acadians were abandoned. They were left to fend for themselves.

The lands that they were dispossessed of were occupied . Even though they were not rich lands, they were lands that their forefathers had worked. They were lands to which they felt emotionally attached. Their forefathers had shed their blood, sweat and tears on these lands, building these remarkable dikes that still exist to this today and stand as a tribute to their hard work and efforts. The land grants that were given to Acadians were generally located at the extremities of the province.

It is time that we deal with this historical event that occurred and address it. The particular motion, brought forward in very good faith and in a very comprehensive way gives us an opportunity to do that. It is a motion on which we will permit our members to vote freely. It is a motion of conscience. Certainly it is one that I would encourage all members, particularly the proud members of the House who share Acadian ancestry and many who have spoken to the bill, to support. It is a good motion.

Again, I congratulate my friend for his original motion. It is extraordinary. It is exceptional.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like you to seek unanimous consent to allow two more members to speak to this motion, namely the member for Repentigny and myself.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the member for Ottawa—Vanier have the unanimous consent of the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there have been further consultations among the political parties in trying to extend the time available to produce the report stage amendments. I move:

That notwithstanding any standing order, the time limit to give notice of report stage amendments be extended until Saturday 6 p.m.

This will add an extra four hours to what we had before.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the minister have the consent of the House to propose the motion?