Debates of May 28th, 2001

Youth Criminal Justice Act

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part in this debate, although I had not intended to, and to say that in the opinion of all Quebecers there is absolutely no comparison between this bill and the act that now applies in Quebec.

The hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles said, and it was well put, that the current legislation in Quebec is designed to promote reintegration of young offenders into society. One can make all sorts of mistakes in life but in Quebec we believe in reintegration. We believe that the sometimes tragic mistakes of youth do happen, and I agree.

Recently in my riding five young people killed an 81 year old woman after breaking into her home. Obviously such a crime does not leave us indifferent in Quebec. It affects all of us. I am especially affected for it happened in my riding, in the beautiful city of Chambly that I have represented in this House since 1993. I admit it has affected the whole community. The crime was despicable if not downright heinous.

However society should not seek revenge. Society must manage our legal system, our criminal justice system, and ban terrible acts like the one I have mentioned. It is not there to seek revenge. The penalty for seeking revenge is very heavy.

Having a young person who made a mistake at age 14, 15 or 16 years of age dealt with by adult court and sentenced to 5, 8, 10 or 15 years in prison, under the rules applying to adults, to hardened criminals, is in fact, as the hon. member for Rivière-des-Milles-Îles was saying, sending that young person to a university for crime.

All young people are seeking to find themselves, whether they are young people who have made a mistake or students trying to choose a career. Sadly, in this quest for a future, for good and evil, some are doomed to failure. The social environment has a major impact. The famous Dr. Mailloux would speak of “maternal deprivation”, a concept that has been greatly overworked. For my part, I do not believe in it. In many cases, we are just dealing with a single mistake.

This is no reason to turn them into hardened criminals, to send them to adult prison where they will complete their education as criminals. We can bet a hundred to one that those young people who live through this situation, who are sentenced and treated like hardened criminals will, in 10, 12 or 15 years, at the end of their sentence, be a bit older, old enough to look for work, since we are asking for their reintegration into society.

In their resumes, they must indicate that they spent 10 years at Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines or 12 at Kingston or Port-Cartier. What employers would take such a risk? They do not know who they are dealing with. They will not hire these youths, even if they are deeply repentant and have chosen to live a respectable life on all accounts. If we do not want to give them a chance and to reintegrate them into society, what option have they got? Once again, they will turn to crime and we will have repeat offenders.

In Quebec, crime is not praised, crime is not forgiven indiscriminately. We try to guide youths, under close supervision, toward specific goals. Psychiatric evaluations are done. There are also tests similar to those applied to young students looking for a goal in life. We supervise and help young offenders. We say “You are good at this. You can complete your post-secondary education. Go for it, the state is behind you.” We are not out for revenge.

After a few years of training, the youth often gets a diploma, which does not mention where he learned and which is delivered by an authorized educational institution. The youth has then been reintegrated into society. The success rate is absolutely convincing. In Quebec, it is beyond all expectations.

All those involved in the fight against crime in Quebec, including the Quebec bar association, are unanimous in saying that the provincial law is in itself a success. The rehabilitation rate is well above what any legislator might have imagined, even in his wildest dreams.

Now the federal justice minister has come up with her infamous Bill C-7 to try to please western Canada and get the support that has eluded her so far and will continue to elude her. In the end, this bill is only an indication of the revenge some members in this House are looking for. Whatever it takes, whatever needs to be done, they are out for revenge. But it is not up to society or the government to meet these kinds of expectations and to seek revenge.

The role of the government is to build a good relationship between its citizens and to create sustainable peace within its borders. I know from personal experience that members of a political party do not always agree but we learn to cope and to accept our differences of opinions. The same thing goes for society.

With her infamous Bill C-7, the Minister of Justice is sending the following message “We no longer believe in social rehabilitation. Young offenders will be criminals their whole lives”. This is not true.

Whether we are young or not so young, we have all made our share of mistakes and blunders. A few years ago, we found out, shortly after an election that a respected member of this House, who had been elected in a riding in the heart of Montreal, had made a rather huge mistake when he was young. He had committed armed robbery when he was 18.

What was done to that man was terrible. Twenty years after committing the offence, he was truly rehabilitated, as evidenced by the fact that he was elected to represent a large segment of the population. His political career was destroyed because of his past. Such things must never be allowed to happen again. We must be able to support our youth, guide them, accompany them, supervise them and make sure they stay on the right path.

That is what Bill C-7 introduced by the Minister of Justice does not do. I know, Mr. Speaker, that you are not allowed to take part in this debate, but if you could, I am sure you would agree with me.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

The recorded division on Motion No. 1 stands deferred.

The recorded division will also apply to Motion No. 3.

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

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-7, in Clause 125, be amended by replacing line 4 on page 129 with the following:

“services to young persons shall disclose to any”

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to the amendment which, given the length, breadth, width and complexity of the legislation, would classify as an improvement.

Without getting into a full debate on the merits of the bill itself, the amendment would in essence change but one word in the legislation. I know the Minister of Justice is very interested in the amendment and I know she would not want to miss my comments on how to improve her own bill. The amendment would change the word “may” to “shall”. It would make it obligatory for the justice system, mainly the courts, upon making a finding, to mandatorily inform the school boards, that is, to give them relevant information that could be used in a very productive and, in some instances, protective way to enhance the rehabilitation of a student and, perhaps equally if not more important, other students and those in the educational community.

The amendment has the important backing and blessing of those who are most affected, short of the students, which is the teachers themselves. The Canadian School Boards Association, the Canadian Teachers' Federation and the Canadian Association of School Administrators have all expressed their unanimous support and their desire for the amendment to take place in the current youth criminal justice act.

They, among a plethora of other representatives who wished to have input in the drafting of the bill, were denied the opportunity to appear before the committee. They were denied the opportunity to have input into Bill C-7 prior to it being introduced in the House, as they were on the previous bill, Bill C-68. They were not given the opportunity to speak to the specifics as to why the amendment was necessary. I am pleased to have the opportunity to give members the opportunity to put their thoughts on the record.

One of the justice minister's justifications for not permitting or for not endorsing changing of the word “may” to “shall” was that it would impinge upon a young person's privacy or confidentiality with respect to having been involved in the criminal justice system.

Without being too dismissive, I do not believe that is a relevant response. Teachers routinely and as a matter of course in their profession deal discreetly with sensitive information. As part of their own ethics, as a school teacher and as a person working within the system, they are required to positively enhance a young person's life. To say that this would somehow jeopardize the privacy and the sensitive information about a young person trivializes what an important role teachers play in the development of our youth. It is akin to not giving doctors all the relevant information they need to make a diagnosis.

Allowing the courts to transfer relevant information to teachers for a specific purpose would allow teachers to provide the necessary attention to young people in order to help enhance their rehabilitation and to ensure that when they go back into the school system their specific needs will be addressed. It would also recognize that if a young person had been involved in a violent act or if the act itself involved aggression toward other students, a teacher or property, it would allow the teacher to have all of the information when approaching that child. The teacher could take into consideration the child's education, the education of other students in the classroom and other students with whom the young person might come in contact.

The amendment is very straightforward. It should not require a great deal of consternation on the part of the department or the minister herself. It is one that has broad support among the teaching community and the education systems, the ones which would be most effected.

The youth in question are already protected by other sections of existing legislation, namely the Young Offenders Act, and by virtue of confidentiality sections that are contained in the current bill. It is still a criminal offence to disseminate or use information about a young person's conviction or the terms thereof for a non-specified purpose. This would specify that it would only be used for the purpose of informing schools, principals and teachers. Therefore, to suggest that it would perpetrate a stigmatization of a young person or cause a young person's privacy to be jeopardized or brought into question is simply incorrect.

I submit to the House that the amendment, if it is supported and passed, would enhance legislation that is drastically in need of improvement. It is a complex and cumbersome bill. Those who were allowed to appear before the justice committee indicated that it was unworkable and that it would be extremely costly and impossible to administer by those in the provinces who would have the task to do so.

The amendment would have a profound effect by changing one word. It would make it mandatory for the youth court system to share information about a young person with teachers and school boards. It would significantly enhance the ability of the schools to do their work in conjunction with the criminal justice system. Sharing of information for a specific purpose has its merit. It is something that those who have worked in the justice system or those who have been teachers will be quick to embrace.

I look forward to hearing what other members have to say about the amendment. It is one I urge them to support.

Surely it is repetitive to say that if we can make a positive change or a positive impact on the bill, we should be very quick to do so. The law enforcement community is supportive of the legislation as well.

We know that teachers are much like police in the sense that they are on the frontlines. They are dealing most directly and in a most concentrated way with young persons. It therefore stands to reason that they should be given the information, the support and the backup to carry out their very important duties.

Once again I will put on record the words of Marie Pierce, executive director of the Canadian School Boards Association. She said that inconsistencies in the way information is relayed to school boards could pose a serious threat.

Her comments specifically suggested that lack of information could in some cases cause a serious problem. I illustrated by an earlier example that if a young person has a propensity for violence and has been convicted of a violent offence, it is common sense to suggest that the school board, the teacher and in some instances the principal of the school should know about it so they can act accordingly.

Marilies Rettig, president of the Canadian Teachers' Federation, said justice officials were misguided if they were concerned about the confidentiality of a student's past. She said:

There is no reason to deny us access to information we need to work effectively with justice officials in helping offenders while fulfilling our commitment to all students.

It is about the greater good. It is about ensuring that the community is protected but that the efforts of teachers do not in any way infringe upon privacy concerns. It is specifically aimed at helping students and ensuring that a person in their class does not interfere with the education of others or put others at risk in terms of safety.

The amendment addresses just that. It addresses safety concerns in the classroom. It specifically touches upon the sharing of information in a specific and protected way to give teachers a better ability to know the student, to know the background of the person who is in part the focus of their daily existence. The teacher is in many cases trying to focus on what is wrong in the young person's life outside what takes place in the classroom.

This type of information sharing in specific instances would be addressed effectively and specifically by support for the amendment, the changing of one word. I hope that in their wisdom members of the House, and particularly those on the government side, will also support the amendment.

[Chuck Cadman, Canadian Alliance, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion as it is identical to a motion I submitted. It has been put forward because of evidence presented to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

The Canadian School Boards Association, the Saskatchewan School Trustees Association and others have presented an argument to the effect that subclause 125(6) of the bill be changed to mandatory language from its permissive nature. What I mean is that the subclause uses the word may and the motion changes the word to shall. Instead of saying that maybe we should be getting schools involved with the youth justice process, we would be saying that we shall get schools involved.

Schools are an important partner in the youth justice process. Our schools, by law, must be accessible to young offenders. Our schools are obliged to facilitate attendance and educational success. Like any employer, our schools have a statutory obligation to ensure the physical safety of their employees, to say nothing of their obligation to protect the safety of their students. These are all noteworthy objectives.

However, as with most noteworthy objectives, there is often a but or an exception. In this case it is this: To properly participate in the rehabilitation and reformation of young offenders, schools must be informed when young offenders enrol within the school environment.

As I have stated, our schools have a number of obligations to the various participants in the system. The interests of employees, students, the community and the school system must be considered along with the interests of the young offender.

The present wording of Bill C-7 states that the provincial director, youth worker, attorney general, peace officer, et cetera, may disclose to those engaged in the supervision or care of a young person, including schools and other educational institutions, information contained in a youth record if such disclosure is necessary to ensure compliance with an order of the court, to ensure safety of staff or students or other persons, or to facilitate the rehabilitation of the young person.

All the motion is saying is that if it is necessary to ensure compliance with a court order, to ensure safety of a school population or to assist in the rehabilitation of a young offender, the necessary information from the youth records shall be disclosed.

Some will argue that this type of mandatory disclosure will abuse the privacy rights of the offender. First, I have difficulty swallowing that argument when the legislation already permits disclosure in some circumstances. The clause says that information may be disclosed. Where is the privacy protection there?

Second and far more important are the security rights of staff and other students at the school. The institution must know the background of the student to provide proper safeguards for all to work and learn in its surroundings. Surely this is an example when the rights of the many should come ahead of the rights of the few, especially when the many are innocent and law abiding and the few have voluntarily decided to break the laws of society.

Other critics talk about the fear that education professionals will not respect the confidentiality of the information. That is also bogus and it is a red herring. Bill C-7 already permits the disclosure of this type of information. It is just not mandatory. There seems to be little concern for breach of confidentiality in these few cases.

As well educational people are professionals. They deal with confidential material every day whether it has to do with child welfare involvement, police investigation or even student disclosure in confidence. There is little, if any, concern about abuse of confidentiality by school board personnel.

Lastly there is the argument of civil liability. I can readily foresee, especially with the way society has been rapidly moving toward holding others civilly liable for damage and harm, that we may be placing the taxpayer at risk by failing to provide this type of information to school board officials. I can imagine a day when a violent young person is released from custody and placed in one of our high schools without anyone knowing the background of the youth.

Should that youth commit another violent crime such as a sexual assault and it becomes known that there was a previous record of violent behaviour, I cannot help but think that the victim and/or her parents would have a case to pursue to obtain compensation for damages and suffering.

After all, we have the state permitting a young person to surreptitiously enter the community and the school, yet we are not providing any notice whatsoever to prepare unsuspecting school employees and students. It is like putting a time bomb in a school and not telling anyone. Surely our courts will hold someone accountable when this occurs.

The government's feeble response to the cries of our citizens to replace the despised Young Offenders Act is most disappointing. For the past number of years I have been actively involved in the review of Bill C-7 and its predecessors, Bill C-3 and Bill C-68. The minister and the government have been quite clear that there is to be no deviation from or improvement on the government's idea of what is best for Canadians when it comes to youth justice.

I am not holding my breath for the government to accept this motion. However it is my job as a critic to present changes such as this motion after hearing from various groups and witnesses from many parts of the country. Nonetheless I urge members of this place to have a serious look at what is a relatively simple proposal. I also urge members to consider whether they want to be responsible for failing to support school boards and institutions across the land.

I will conclude by reading a paragraph from a letter I received from the British Columbia School Trustees Association. It reads:

As school boards, we have the responsibility to ensure the safety of our staff and students, and to provide the best educational opportunities for every student in our care. We also work through our school communities to prevent crime. Young offenders are often students in our care. In order to provide a safe school environment and also facilitate the education (and rehabilitation) of a young offender, it is vital that we have access to information about the young offender.

I urge all members to support the motion.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this bill. On the substantive issue, the Bloc Quebecois rejects this bill. We are now discussing the amendment moved by the Progressive Conservative Party.

It is an amendment to a bill that basically seeks to impose a tougher and much more punitive approach to young offenders. It is important that we do not consider this amendment only in the context in which they have tried to present it, that is as something that would minimize reality, that would not constitute an indepth change.

It is also an amendment that adheres to the broader reality of this whole bill, which seeks to make the management, the approach and the policy that will be adopted regarding young offenders, much more punitive and, in the end, to send them directly to the penitentiaries, to what can be called a school for crime.

Particularly in Quebec, however, we have developed over several years a rehabilitation and reintegration approach, one that is very demanding for young poeple. This is something that should never be forgotten. It is an approach that requires youths, while in an institution, to meet daily with social workers, with people who try to make them aware of their responsibility, because this is the root of the problem.

The bill introduced by the government provides for punitive solutions to acts committed by a young poeple. These solutions send them the following message “You have committed an unacceptable act; we are giving you a very severe penalty. But we are not making any effort to let you know that we would like you to understand that you cannot do that again; we would like you to know that your act had a negative impact; we would like you to understand that your whole future might be affected if you do that again”.

However we could send them a different message. We could tell them that if they came under the current act as it is now implemented in Quebec, they would have to give some thought to these questions and find out how they can get back on track”.

It works and it works very well. Crime rates are going down. The rehabilitation rate for young people is also very high. In the end, it makes it possible to correct situations and, in a practical way, it ensures that individuals who made mistakes will not have to bear this burden for the rest of their life. They have the opportunity and the good fortune to have access to the resources necessary to correct the situation.

The bill before us today will have as a result that within six months, one year or two, there will be an increase in the demand for resources to build new prisons, and to support a punitive system, when we could have continued to make available the resources necessary to support rehabilitation and reintegration.

In such a context, the Bloc Quebecois does not believe that the amendment put forward today would correct the situation. What would correct the situation would be for the government to decide that in the end Quebec would be allowed to keep on implementing the act as it is doing currently.

If other provinces in Canada want to have a more punitive approach under which a young person is not viewed as being responsible for his actions, but which takes into account the action itself and which punishes him hoping that he will be able to return to society after spending some time in an institution where he will not learn—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member but we must now proceed to statements by members.

Danuta Bartoszek

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate a constituent of mine, Ms. Danuta Bartoszek, who won the women's National Capital Marathon in Ottawa on May 13.

Danuta won the women's division of the 42 kilometre race in 2 hours, 37.58 minutes. It is her first national marathon title and it places her second in the national marathon qualifying standings for the world championships.

Danuta, born in Poland, immigrated to Canada in 1989 and became a Canadian citizen in 1992. She has participated in many prestigious marathons since 1991, including Canadian and world championships and the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games.

On behalf of my constituents in Mississauga West, I commend and congratulate Danuta and wish her many more first place finishes.

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth Ii

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, a man charged with diplomacy, has recently been anything but diplomatic. He has made offensive remarks about Canada's head of state. I refer to his recent remark that “the Queen does not represent Canada; she represents Great Britain”. That is wrong. Queen Elizabeth is the Queen of Canada and as a minister of her crown he ought to know that.

The monarchy is a fundamental aspect of our distinctiveness as a nation. The crown defines a distinct Canadian identity contrary to that of the republic to the south. An elected president, and perhaps that is what the minister aspires to be, would owe his or her election to a political faction.

The minister seems to prefer republican partisanship over our longstanding historic institutions. Perhaps he ought to listen to the Prime Minister who said “The monarchy is not a problem in Canada. It is not an issue at all”.

It is insulting for the minister to suggest that the Queen cannot truly represent us. Fifty years of public service given freely sets a standard of service that all Canadians should attempt to emulate and not attack.

Canadian Polish Congress

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to recognize the Canadian Polish Congress that is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year.

On May 27 Kitchener's Polish community hosted a parade and festival to mark the occasion. It is unknown when the Polish community first established itself in Kitchener. However by the turn of the 20th century there were 250 families registered at the Catholic parish. Immigration to the Waterloo region increased in the 1920s following Poland's independence and has continued ever since.

Leading the parade was a banner that read “Our roots are in Poland—Our fruits are in Canada—Proud to be part of the Canadian mosaic”.

Multiculturalism works in Kitchener. Polish Canadians have added their rich heritage to Kitchener. The Kitchener district of the Canadian Polish Congress preserves traditions and language to enable the Polish culture to enjoy a strong presence in our community.

I ask the House to join with me today in congratulating the Canadian Polish Congress on 50 years with a presence in Kitchener.

Human Rights

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the world is in great hands. On Friday, May 25, I was delighted to host some 160 students and members of the community of Burlington at a human rights forum.

Our speakers, Senator Landon Pearson, Ms. Jaene Castrillon of Save the Children Canada and Mr. Martin Connell of Calmeadow Inc., ensured debate was lively and topic varied: war affected children, work against the sexual exploitation of children at home and abroad, micro credit and poverty alleviation, international labour and trade laws, and the environment.

The high school students were engaged, informed and curious. Their energy and dedication in making choices to work for change in their world were refreshing and encouraging.

Canada has an important role in world issues. Citizens have an opportunity to get involved to help ensure our nation continues to be the best place in the world in which to live. The dialogue the young people of Burlington engaged in gives me great hope that we will continue to care, to renew and to innovate, and that human rights will be respected and indeed improved internationally and domestically.

I congratulate my parliamentary intern, Ms. Jackie Steele, for organizing the whole event.

Backcountry Safety Day

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's first national Backcountry Safety Day will be held this fall on September 8 as designated by the Kokanee glacier alpine campaign.

The Government of Canada supports this important effort to promote backcountry injury prevention and backcountry safety. The Kokanee glacier alpine campaign is a national campaign in memory of Michel Trudeau and other Canadians who have lost their lives in pursuit of their passion for the backcountry.

We applaud the organizers of this campaign for their hard work and dedication to help raise national awareness of this important safety issue. I invite everyone to join me on Grouse Mountain in North Vancouver on September 8 for the celebration of Canada's first national Backcountry Safety Day.

National Capital

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians look to their nation's capital as a source of pride. National pride is about to be replaced with a national shame as the Prime Minister pushes for his dubious legacy, aided by his heiress apparent, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, to gut downtown Ottawa in favour of a plan to build monuments to make up for a sketchy political record.

This billion dollar scheme will no doubt be paid for by the GST, the true heritage of the party that campaigned on its elimination.

The Prime Minister's obvious favouritism to promote one sad replacement candidate for his job over another by spending hundreds of millions of dollars on his ego at a time when there is no money for our farming community or for our health care system will be the true legacy of the government.

One is reminded of the Roman Empire during the time of Nero with one exception: the other place has too many docile appointees to overturn the emperor.

Multiple Sclerosis Carnation Month

[Stan Dromisky, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Atikokan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House and all Canadians that the month of May has been designated Multiple Sclerosis Carnation Month by the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada.

Multiple sclerosis or MS is the most common neurological disease affecting young adults in Canada. It is characterized by loss of balance, impaired speech, extreme fatigue, double vision and paralysis.

Founded in 1948, the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada has invested nearly $64 million to find the cause, prevention, treatment and a cure for MS. This past year, thanks to donors across the country, the MS Society directed an additional $3 million to MS research over the next three years for 13 potentially groundbreaking research projects and more than 30 research scholarships.

I ask the House to join me in congratulating the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada on its efforts and in wishing it a successful Multiple Sclerosis Carnation Month.

Amnesty International

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for 40 years Amnesty International has been defending prisoners of conscience, people whose only crime has been to express their convictions.

These men and women are imprisoned in the name of freedom, condemned to death, and often tortured to death. Without Amnesty International, they would have been totally forgotten.

Amnesty International can count on the Bloc Quebecois to carry its battles to the federal parliament. We have done so for the past eight years, most recently in the case of Mr. M'Barek, who was expelled from Canada last January, according to the assessment by the Canadian government, at no risk if returned to his country.

After an unfair trial, Mr. M'Barek was found guilty, jailed and tortured. Thanks to pressure by the Bloc Quebecois, Amnesty International and other human rights organizations, Mr. M'Barek was finally released on May 26.

The Bloc Quebecois will continue to support Amnesty International in the name of our fundamental rights: freedom and democracy.

Old Wendake

[Jean Guy Carignan, Liberal, Québec East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to bring to the attention of this House the designation of Old Wendake as a national historic site.

This village, created in 1697 after the dispersal of the Huron nation, is a witness to the harmonious cohabitation between the Huron and French nations in Canada.

This community was able to reconcile the model of European habitation with the lifestyle and traditional values of the Huron-Wendat community, without putting the latter at risk.

In addition to representing an example of successful cohabitation between francophones and aboriginal people, Old Wendake symbolizes the history, culture and values of the Huron-Wendat nation.

For all these reasons, I wish to draw attention to the Canadian government's initiative to recognize the significant contribution Old Wendake has made to Canada's heritage.