Debates of Feb. 6th, 2003

Acadian People

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

moved:

That this House officially acknowledge the harm suffered by the Acadian people from 1755 to 1763.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today in the House to debate Motion M-238, which says, “That this House officially acknowledge the harm suffered by the Acadian people from 1755 to 1763.”

Unfortunately, this motion will only be debated for one hour since, against all expectations, it was not deemed votable by the Sub-Committee on Private Members' Business.

As you probably know, this motion is a follow-up to the initiative I took in October 1999 as a result of the second World Acadian Congress, which took place in Louisiana. This initiative had culminated in a debate followed by a vote on Motion M-241, asking the British Crown to make an official apology to the Acadian people for the wrongs done to them during the deportation.

Members will recall that that motion was voted down by the House of Commons following some vile maneuvering on the part of its most vocal opponents, just as was the amendment asking that the Crown be simply invited to acknowledge this tragic historical albeit undeniable event.

It should be noted that the amendment, which had the support of the then leaders of the four opposition parties, was rejected by a narrow majority.

During the heated debate on Motion M-241, I was wantonly accused of a number of things, including having somehow put the cart before the horse by going directly to the British Crown when the Canadian Parliament had not had the opportunity to first officially review the issue. Fine. I took note of these comments by some of my colleagues and I moved this motion. Today, they will have the opportunity to be consistent.

However, bad faith seems to have presided over the analysis and treatment of the sensitive issue of the wrongs done to the Acadian people during the deportation since, this time, the Sub-Committee on Private Members' Business has pre-empted any embarrassing mistep on the part of Liberal members by making the motion non-votable.

I am looking forward to hearing what they will have to say this time around to put down the initiative and its mover.

I must say that I was surprised at the negative, not to say hostile, reception this new motion received in some circles. Perhaps people thought that, satisfied with the sudden notoriety I received from the controversy over Motion M-241, I would drop this matter and go after a new cause that would also get me in the news. They did not know me.

Let it be known that I do not intend to give up until the horrific tragedy of the Acadian deportation has been duly and officially recognized. I feel hopeful that the British Crown will inevitably make the only noble, fair and fitting gesture in the circumstances, which is to acknowledge these historic and undeniable facts and, at the same time, apologize to the Acadian people.

The process to achieve this was endorsed and then assumed on their behalf by the Société Nationale de l'Acadie and its member associations and affiliates, which is now working to take this matter before Buckingham Palace. This process led to a animated debate within the Acadian community, a debate that the House of Commons, a representative and democratic institution, cannot ignore.

The debate on the horrors of the deportation is sometimes emotional and painful, because its perverse effects, despite the tenacity, dynamic nature, originality and creativity of the Acadians, continue today. This is a matter that people have often internalized and hidden deep inside, as if to avoid disturbing or re-opening old wounds that have never healed.

The issue of responsibility for these tragic events has never been resolved, so many Acadians even developed a latent sense of culpability. Their modest gains having been won at great cost, they thought it best to keep quiet so as not to endanger them.

As a result, detractors of this effort to get the wrongs of the Acadian deportation recognized had no opposition and had free rein, so to speak. However, the evidence cannot be denied forever.

That is why, beyond the Société nationale de l'Acadie and its member associations and affiliates, many individuals and organizations have joined the ranks of those who support the action taken by Louisiana lawyer, Warren Perrin, over ten years ago, on behalf of these unfortunate Acadians who, in the months after the deportation began, vainly sent a petition to the King asking him to come to their assistance.

The Association des municipalités francophones du Nouveau-Brunswick and the National Assembly of Quebec are supporting the initiative taken on by the Société nationale de l'Acadie. Even the leader of the official opposition in New Brunswick, Liberal Shawn Graham, sent a letter to Her Majesty on August 13, asking her, on the occasion of her Golden Jubilee, to officially acknowledge the harm caused to the Acadians during the deportation.

Whatever some colleagues in this House may say, it has been proven that this initiative is far from being a partisan manoeuvre.

During her recent visit to New Brunswick, Her Majesty did not see fit to respond to these repeated demands. Nevertheless, the Société nationale de l'Acadie remains hopeful that this historic gesture might coincide with the anniversary of other turning points in Acadian history; 2004 is the quadcentennial of Acadia and 2005 is the 250th anniversary of the beginning of the deportation.

To avoid taking this necessary dispassionate look at our past, many have tried, often awkwardly, to shift the burden of responsibility onto the shoulders of the victims instead of the tormentors.

A colleague in this House, who I do not think was ill-intentioned, far from it, did this a few days ago in an English-language newspaper in New Brunswick. According to such people, the Acadians were, at best, very bad subjects whom it was as well not to trust, and at worse, staunch adversaries actively working to return Acadia to the French. The proof was in their stubborn refusal to pledge an oath of unconditional allegiance to the British Crown. These interpretations do not stand up to scrutiny.

I should specify that the Treaty of Utrecht made Acadians who wanted to remain in what would become Nova Scotia subjects of Her Majesty, benefiting from her protection. In fact, section 14 of the Treaty said, and I quote:

...those who are willing to remain here, and to be subject to the Kingdom of Great Britain, are to enjoy the free exercise of their religion, according to the usage of the church of Rome--

Queen Anne confirmed this status granted to Acadians in a letter she sent to Governor Nicholson on June 23, 1713, and I quote:

Extended further the terms of the treaty, granting to the Acadians who wished to remain subjects of Great Britain the privilege of retaining and enjoying their land and tenements without molestation.

Furthermore, between 1713 and 1755 the birth rate was such that at the time of the deportation, more than half of those who lived in Acadia had been born there. They were therefore British subjects and did not have to swear any oath of allegiance at all.

So Acadians were not some group of foreigners who were deported for military reasons or because of a conflict, particularly since the conflict had not yet erupted. The deportation began in the fall of 1755, and the Seven Year War did not begin until the spring of 1756.

The colonial authorities moved British citizens in what was a time of peace in the beginning. The situation bears a striking resemblance to what happened to the residents of the Chagos Archipelago, who, despite being British citizens, were deported in the 1960s and 1970s to allow for the construction of the Diego Garcia military base. In November 2000, Her Majesty's High Court of Justice in England ruled that the British Government had illegally deported the residents.

I must add that, in the years following the signing of the Treaty of Utrecht, the British governors made the best of things and were able to live with the oath of allegiance by the Acadians with the proviso that they not be forced to take up arms against the French, their former allies, compatriots and fellow Catholics or their Amerindian allies.

This tolerance in connection with the obligation to take up arms as the ultimate proof of allegiance seems to have some roots, or at least some precedent, in international law. The British colonial authorities repeated it, moreover, at the time of the United States War of Independence. The Anglo-Americans who had settled in Nova Scotia, on the lands of the deported Acadians, were exempted by the British colonial authorities from having to take up arms against their former compatriots, the New England rebels

I might also point out that the British authorities did however have the opportunity to test the loyalty of the Acadians and even expressed some degree of appreciation for it. Governor Mascarene wrote the following after two brief invasions of Nova Scotia by the French between 1744 and 1748:

To... our French Inhabitants refusing to take up arms against us, we owe our preservation.

Nevertheless, some have sought to prove the bad faith of the Acadians by citing the episode of the capture of Fort Beauséjour by the British in June 1755. Some 200 Acadians were inside the fort and apparently helped defend it.

How can anyone today be surprised to learn that there were Acadians within the fort, since France and England were at peace at that time. There is, however, no denying that this was a disputed area and, moreover, a commission had been struck by the two crowns to determine where the border between Nova Scotia and New France was.

There is, however, no denying that the Acadians had settled on both sides of this ill-defined border for some time and during peacetime dealings made no distinction between the two great powers, although this was not approved of by the British authorities.

It must also be acknowledged that the British, totally ignoring the agreement between the two crowns on the borders, chose to settle the matter by force during peacetime, thereby compelling those in the fort to defend themselves as best they could, not knowing the reason for this sudden attack or what its outcome would mean for them.

All those who were there were requisitioned in a panic and mobilized to defend the fort. In fact, after the fort was taken, Colonel Monckton, in clause 4 of the capitulation act, asked that the Acadians who were there be given amnesty. The clause in question said, and I quote:

The Acadians inasmuch as they have been forced to take arms under pain of death shall be pardoned for the part they have taken.

There is no doubt that the issue of the oath of allegiance was just a false pretext to set in motion an operation that had been carefully planned since 1746-47 by the former Governor of Massachussetts, William Shirley.

After a calm period that was not really favourable to the setting in motion of such a plan and on the eve of a resumption of hostilities between the two great colonial powers that were fighting for control over North America, the situation was much different. All that was missing was a pretext. The Acadians' refusal to take an unconditional oath of allegiance seemed to be the perfect one.

This is evidenced by the fact that, in early July 1755, Acadian representatives were asked to go to Halifax by Governor Charles Lawrence, who ordered them to take an unconditional oath of allegiance. They first refused, then changed their minds and decided to take it. Contrary to all expectations, Lawrence refused to let them do so, arguing that it was too late. We know now that the Acadian delegates had been tricked and that, no matter what they did, they had been condemned to be deported with their people.

Indeed, in a letter dated July 9, 1755, Lawrence wrote:

I will propose to them the Oath of Allegiance a last time. If they refuse, we will have in that refusal a pretext for the expulsion. If they accept, I will refuse them the Oath, by applying to them the decree which prohibits from taking the Oath all persons who have once refused to take it.

In the instructions he gave to Colonel Monckton in January 1755, Lawrence specified clearly that after the taking of Fort Beauséjour, he should not ask any Acadian to take the unconditional oath of allegiance, and Monckton did not.

I will also provide another historic fact to counter the argument that the Acadians' refusal to take the oath of allegiance justified their deportation, if there were ever a need to provide another. This is about a group of approximately 200 Acadians from the Saint John River who, in 1760, after the British had invaded their area, went to Quebec to take the oath of allegiance before a British judge.

When they got back to Saint John River, they were quickly taken prisoner and then deported in 1762.

The plan was clear, well defined and Charles Lawrence did not even bother to hide it. The motives, far from being military ones, were more economic ones. In a letter that appeared in the New York Gazette on August 25, 1755, he wrote, and I quote:

“We are now upon a great and noble scheme of sending the neutral French out of the Province ...If we can effect their expulsion it will be one of the greatest things that ever did the English in America for ...the part of the country which they occupy is one of the best soils in the world, and, in the event, we might place some good farmers on their homesteads—

What remains to be clarified is the issue of the British Crown's responsibility aabout which, to my mind, there can be no doubt.

If you will allow, I will come back to this when I rise on my right of reply.

[Carole-Marie Allard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes is living in the past, while we and all Acadians are looking to the future.

I wish to thank you for giving me this opportunity to take part in the debate on Motion M-238, which reads as follows:

That this House officially acknowledge the harm suffered by the Acadian people from 1755 to 1763.

Before going any further, I will say that this motion's biggest flaw is the fact that it was introduced by a member whose party advocates breaking up this country. Will the hon. member do the honourable thing and admit that the Bloc Quebecois' plan has had a devastating effect on Acadians and all French speaking Canadians? Will he apologize today to the Acadians for having tried to exclude them in such a way?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Who wrote your speech?

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

Acadians living in Louisiana are Acadians nonetheless. There is no connection here.

[Carole-Marie Allard, Liberal, Laval East, QC]

The history of Canada, like that of any other country, has its sad moments. These moments are made up of events sometimes centuries old. This is the case with the deportation of the Acadians.

Canada is recognized worldwide as a bilingual country, and it is often described as a model of democracy. Since the days when, two centuries ago, Great Britain took over New France and other French colonies, Canadian society has developed relatively harmoniously into a country which, in this 21st century, is made up of two major language groups, one French speaking, and the other English speaking. These two peoples continue to live together in relative harmony and prosperity.

This coexistence is not without conflicts however. Nowadays, two large and very different language groups being able to coexist democratically within a single state is the exception rather than the rule.

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

In Nova Scotia, there are vibrant Acadian communities in St. Mary's Bay, on the southwestern shore, on Madame Island and in the Chéticamp area, in Cape Breton.

In Prince Edward Island, the Acadians live in the Évangéline area.

In Newfoundland, they are concentrated near Cape St. George, in St. John's and in Labrador City.

Many also live on the Magdalen Islands, in Gaspé, in the Montreal area and in western Canada. All of these communities, some of them large and others not so large, illustrate the vitality of the Canadian and Acadian people and of its two official languages.

It takes incredible strength and courage to ensure the development of a minority community. The Acadians have founded schools, colleges and universities. They have created playhouses, newspapers and publishing houses. They have made exceptional breakthroughs in the areas of culture, such as theatre, movies, visual arts, music and literature. They have given the world writers, poets, artists, dancers, musicians and singers. They have set up an impressive network of businesses and have created jobs.

The Acadians take part in the success and prosperity of our country. The Government of Canada recognizes their vitality and their essential contribution to Canadian society. They are part of the seven million people in Canada who speak, sing, write, work and live in French. These francophones are evidence of the vitality and the extraordinary determination to move ahead and to flourish in a continent where the majority is anglophone.

The French and the English languages, and those who speak them, have shaped our country and helped define its identity. Canada's linguistic duality finds its origin in the very roots of our country. It is difficult to be interested in the Canada of today without recognizing the importance of both languages and both linguistic communities in Canadian society.

Let us go back to the motion. Two hundred and fifty years later, should the House of Commons of Canada recognize the wrong doings of a monarchy to which it is not even connected?

Let us take a closer look. My colleagues and I are forward looking, just like Acadians and Canadians in general. We are committed to making Canada the best country of the world and we intend to do our utmost in this regard.

Let us look at how far the Acadian people have come. Traditionally, the three pillars of the Acadian economy have been fishing, farming and forestry. Acadia has become a leader in each of these areas.

The fishing industry continues to be dominant in Acadian coastal areas. In view of the problems plaguing the fisheries, Acadians have been looking for alternatives to traditional fisheries. They have invested in aquaculture, especially in salmon and mussel farms. They are engaged in fish and seafood processing programs, thus contributing to the sustainable development of ocean resources.

Hundreds of Acadians work in the forests of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Most forestry workers are employed in pulp and paper plants, sawmills, and furniture and wood processing plants.

In the farming sector, Acadians showed their creativity by reclaiming land from the sea. They built dykes and tide gates to drain swamps and lowlands in order to farm them. Farming is still done in Acadia, especially in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Potatoes remain the main export, but people are turning more and more to blueberries and cranberries, thanks to crop diversification.

However, the new Acadian economy goes beyond these traditional sectors. The economic renewal in Acadia is driven mainly by the cooperative movement and Acadians' entrepreneurial spirit. Fisheries cooperatives and credit unions were the foundation of a distinctly Acadian entrepreneurial culture.

For example, the credit union movement, which started in 1945 with the Fédération des caisses populaires, is made up of 200 000 members and various cooperatives and credit unions. It has assets of over $1 billion.

One of the finest examples of Acadian entrepreneurship success is Assumption Life. This major institution provides a wide variety of services in life insurance, group insurance and retirement savings plans. It also contributes, through loan, scholarship and donation programs, to education and health.

The cooperative movement has fostered the economic development of entrepreneurship in several Acadian regions. Business people have been forming networks, such as the Conseil économique du Nouveau-Brunswick et the Baie Acadienne Development Corporation, in Prince Edward Island, to create new businesses. In Acadia, small and medium businesses have become the main job creators.

Acadia has clearly distinguished itself in the education area. To do so, it has had to overcome problems related to its minority situation and to the dispersal of its people. Acadia has an impressive network of French language universities, community colleges, schools and school-community centres. The University of Moncton, in New Brunswick, and Sainte-Anne-Collège de l'Acadie, in Nova Scotia, provide full French language education and attract students from all over Canada and elsewhere.

Through its teaching and research activities, the University of Moncton has played a key role in the promotion of French language and culture in Acadia. Many Acadian leaders, including the former governor general, Roméo LeBlanc, the Supreme Court judge, Michel Bastarache, and the Premier of New Brunswick, Bernard Lord, went to the University of Moncton. It has more than 30,000 graduates who became leaders in Acadian society—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but her time is up.

[Peter Goldring, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Centre-East, AB]

Madam Speaker, as a member of Parliament representing the constituents of Edmonton Centre-East I am pleased to speak to Motion No. 238 concerning the Acadian people.

During the Queen's Jubilee visit to Canada between October 4 and October 15, 2002, many Canadians of Acadian descent listened to her words carefully, particularly when she was visiting New Brunswick. It was hoped that the Queen would acknowledge the Acadian expulsion between 1755 and 1762. It is important to note that an apology was not requested, but rather an acknowledgement that a wrong had occurred. Seemingly the issue relates more to a formal acknowledgement of an historical fact rather than a wrong.

Certain acts can be viewed as wrong in the absolute. Genocide is a prime example. Other acts, be they the conviction and hanging of Riel or the Acadian expulsion, must be viewed in context. That which may appear to be reprehensible today may be viewed as understandable behaviour when viewed in the context of time many years ago.

It must be remembered that the primary motivation for the expulsion of the Acadians was the refusal to swear allegiance to the British Crown. At the time the British Crown was not particularly welcoming to Catholicism and was regularly at war with France, then a bitter enemy and in competition with Britain for domination of North America.

For Acadians who had fought for or supported France a refusal to swear an oath to the British Crown was often a matter of military honour in addition to concerns as to loss of religion, language and culture. Acadians attempted to balance their refusal to swear allegiance to Britain with a promise of neutrality in any future conflict between Britain and France.

For the British a promise of neutrality at the time was suspected to be insincere. An oath of allegiance to the crown was a much more serious promise of fidelity, certainly much more than an oath of fidelity to the Crown of Canada made today by separatist politicians and even by some federal civil servants.

Indeed, in the summer of 1755, during a major British offensive in North America against New France, the suspicions proved to be well founded. The Acadian settlements stood between the British and the French.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Some hon. members]

Oh, Oh.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Order, please. Out of respect for the member who is speaking at this time, I would appreciate it if there were no debate while he has the floor. This can be done outside the House of Commons. If this continues, I will have to name a member.

[Peter Goldring, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Centre-East, AB]

Madam Speaker, while the Acadians claimed that they were neutral, nearly 200 Acadians were found within the walls of the French battlement of Fort Beausejour when it fell to the British during the first battle of the offensive. With this discovery of deceit, the frustrated British gave the Acadians one last chance to truly swear loyalty to the Crown. Again, the Acadians refused.

The first Acadian expulsion began at Fort Beausejour. Britain then adopted an allegiance or expulsion position as a matter of strategic self-interest supported by the evidence of apparent duplicity in the Acadian pledge of neutrality. In the fall of 1755, an estimated 6,000 Acadians were expelled. Between 1755 and 1763 over 11,000 of the estimated Acadian population of 15,000 had been deported, mostly to Louisiana.

With modern value judgments and the conflict resolution techniques that most are familiar with today, it is easy to view the expulsions as an onerous, horrendous resolution to what was nonetheless at the time perceived to be a dangerous threat to social order. The Acadians would not demonstrate the degree of loyalty the British needed to be assured that social order would be maintained.

Had the Acadians of 1755 been promised freedom of language and religion in return for their oath of allegiance to the British Crown, it is very possible that most would have sworn their loyalty, expulsions would not have happened and a mass tragedy would have been averted.

The Quebec legislature has passed a motion asking the British monarchy to officially recognize the role of the British royalty in the expulsion, while Premier Bernard Landry, himself of Acadian descent, refers to the expulsions as a “crime against humanity”. Mr. Landry is trivializing the term “crime against humanity” in applying it to these facts.

While there is no disputing the historical fact that the expulsions took place, such actions at the time were both internationally acceptable and viewed as being relatively moderate. Far more grave actions could have been taken, from internment to the execution of persons viewed as traitors or disloyal to the governing authorities.

It should be noted that an appreciation of the negative consequences of the Acadian expulsions was an integral component to the royal deliberations that formed the Canada that we know today. Through the Treaty of Paris in 1763, signed by the Kings of England, France, Spain and Portugal, the religion and language of former French subjects in what is now Canada, was to be permitted. The first action taken by the new leadership established bicultural beginnings of Canada that have since grown to our wonderful multicultural country of today.

Then, in 1764, Acadians who wished to return were invited to do so if they were willing to pledge loyalty to England. An estimated 1,500 to 3,000 eventually returned and joined an estimated 3,000 who had hidden to avoid deportation. Francophones of Acadian descent now number approximately 250,000 in New Brunswick, 35,000 in Nova Scotia and 5,000 in Prince Edward Island.

Regret for the Acadian expulsions is already tacitly expressed by the terms of the Treaty of Paris of 1763, as well as by the subsequent invitations extended to Acadians to return. The Queen could do no more than acknowledge the well-known historical facts of the time, including the tacit expressions of regret. Rather than dwell on national apologies, we should celebrate Canada's true royal beginnings. Through the Treaty of Paris, European royalty's enlightened vision of a bicultural beginning to a new world nation became a reality and guided that nation to become the multicultural Canada of today, a nation of two official languages and hundreds of unofficial languages.

Let us celebrate our royal beginnings, our royal presence and relish in the knowledge that this will also be guiding our future. Let us not deny our past but let us not apologize for it either.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, I first want to congratulate the member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes for introducing Motion M-238 in the House. Knowing the courage of this member, I think that he deserves to be congratulated.

I do not intend to give a history lesson on what happened to the Acadians. Reading Hansard will do because the member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes did a good job, much better than the member for Laval East did.

The latter talked about how the Acadians learned to harvest potatoes, chop wood, get up at five a.m., and catch fish. We are smart, we Acadians. We got used to seasonal jobs. People work only ten weeks a year. There is nothing for those Acadians.

Yes, we learned many things. The federal government learned to come to our region to cut people's employment insurance benefits, enslave them and harm families.

I do not want to sidestep the issue of asking Parliament to recognize the harm done to the Acadians by talking about what the federal government did to the Acadians. I heard the member for Laval East praising Acadians and talking about the great Acadian singers we have. We Acadians are smart.

But the political games that are played in this Parliament are totally unacceptable. The member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes moved his motion because the Liberal members could not recognize that a person has the right to have feelings about Acadians, even if he wants sovereignty for their province.

For your information, the member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes and I are distant relatives, if we trace his roots all the way back to the 1700s. His great, great, great grandmother married my great, great, great, grandfather, or my cousins' relatives.

To come here and say that this is petty politics because this was moved by a member of the Bloc Quebecois is unacceptable in the House of Commons, if we have any respect for people. This is what is known as a cheap shot by the Liberals.

We discussed a votable motion moved by the member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes. It was the anglophones in the House who voted to ask for an apology from the British Crown. And it was some people who claim to be of Acadian descent who fought to defeat the motion and protect the federal government.

I raise my hat to those Liberals who voted to ask for an apology. I raise my hat because I spoke with them. They told me that they had had their arms twisted to vote against the motion of the member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes.

The member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes came to the annual assembly of the Société nationale des Acadiens. He was received with great honour. When he met with the Société des Acadiens et des Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick, which represents Acadians from New Brunswick, he received their support.

When the member for Laval East says that she speaks for all Acadians, that Acadians do not want an apology, that is unacceptable and unfortunate. That is not what Acadians wanted. They wanted recognition, at least.

It is shameful. When the Queen came to Canada, she made a stop in New Brunswick and she was not even allowed speak to New Brunswickers. She was not even allowed to say hello to the Acadians at the Beauséjour Hotel in Moncton. When she arrived, she entered the Beauséjour Hotel and was escorted to a table. She ate and left. Her trip to Canada cost millions of dollars. A person famous around the world came to a province and was not even allowed to speak to the public. It is shameful.

It is the federal Liberal government that acted like this. The people who had been invited thought the Queen would address them; they thought that she might be coming for the last time. The only reason the government acted like this is because it did not want Her Majesty to address the Acadian people. Perhaps she would have had the courage to recognize, on behalf of the British Crown, the wrongs done to the Acadians, as she did with the Maori in New Zealand.

Why did she recognize those wrongs in 1980, and why was it acceptable in their case? The events took place in the 1700s. Why was it all right for them, but not for us, Acadians? We are only good potato growers; we are good strawberry and blueberry growers; we are good fishermen and lumberjacks.

That was some speech we heard from the member for Laval East. This is regrettable.

The government went rather far and let me say frankly that the way we were treated in the House of Commons is disgusting.

A good Acadian, Sandra Lecouter, who travelled to Vietnam, asked me for money to help pay for her trip. This good Acadian singer began singing at the age of 40. I met the Minister of Canadian Heritage to ask her for some money to help this lady pay for her trip to Vietnam, to represent the Acadians. The Minister of Canadian Heritage agreed to provide the $1,200 and there was no problem. Except that we never got the money. When I inquired into this, the minister told me “Go and ask the Bloc Quebecois. You wanted to support the Bloc Quebecois motion on the Acadians, so now you can go and ask them for the $1,200”. Can anyone claim that there are no politics involved in this? This is shameful.

I think the only reason the Liberal government defeated that motion was because it had been moved by a Bloc Quebecois member.

I raised my hat to the hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes, because he had the courage to present this motion, and because he did so by taking into consideration the human side of things. For as long as I have known the hon. member, he has always worn the Acadian pin. He came to Acadia, and he has always been welcomed. He is welcomed and he is respected. He is not like some members who rise in the House and who claim that they are Acadians, but say that there is no need to recognize the wrongs done to the Acadians.

The member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes was no longer asking the British Crown to acknowledge it, but at the very least, that the Canadian Parliament do so. What happened to the Acadians should at least be acknowledged here in Canada.

You know, in Acadia, we live with this reality. I am certain that in Laval East, they do not share the same experience as those who live in Acadia. I am a true Acadian, I hear it every day, it is part of my life. It would be an historic moment to have an acknowledgement of what happened in Acadia. But our country, our own government, is unable to acknowledge this.

We talk about the deportation, but today it exists only on an economic level. No one has a job back home. Jobs in small businesses pay $6.50 an hour. People have to go elsewhere for work. There is a deportation every day at home; people are leaving every day.

I do not see history the way the hon. member explained it. This is unacceptable.

That is why it is unfortunate that this motion is not a votable item. We have more support from anglophones in the House of Commons and from the Bloc Quebecois. The anglophones said it was time to turn the page and to recognize the harm done to the Acadians. Even when I do something wrong to one of my children in my role as a parent, I have never been afraid of admitting my mistake and apologizing.

It is another page of history that is being written tonight.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Madam Speaker, while the Progressive Conservative Party is supportive of the principle of the motion, we are also respectful of the right of the Acadian community to generate its own request for an apology based on the desires of its people. This is something that I think a lot of people have said.

I had a prepared address, but having listened to the debate tonight I would like to take a slightly different tack.

It is amazing to hear four groups of Canadians speak on this issue. We heard extremely varied views. I believe the member representing the governing party shocked all of us with her address.

Perhaps the member is wondering why a number of Quebeckers what to leave Canada.

She said this resolution was introduced by a party that simply wanted to leave Canada. I ask why, and I wonder has anybody ever really asked why?

Any group, regardless of race, religion or colour, that feels part of the total unit, part of the family, and that is treated as part of the family, seldom wants to leave.

In my own province of Newfoundland right now there is a royal commission studying our place in Confederation. As the hearings went around the province many people who came before that commission expressed concerns about how Newfoundland is being treated. When I look at some of the letters and e-mails I get from our own people, they are asking the same question, “Why should we be part of Canada if we are going to be treated the way we are presently being treated?” That is a very serious question.

As somebody who believes in Canada as a unit, perhaps not the Canada we have but the Canada we could have, if people were treated the same way, if people were recognized for what they are with their strengths, their weaknesses and their diversities, if they were properly recognized, as the former government tried to do back in the early 1990s, which our party strongly supported, we could have healed a tremendous amount of rifts in the country.

The member from the Alliance talked about the history of the Acadians, the French coming to Canada, and going back to the days of Champlain or even before to Jacques Cartier, who by the way wintered his boats in a little community called Renews in Newfoundland. We were probably the first people visited by the French. Champlain followed and set up the community in Port Royal. Then we had the expulsion.

One might say that is the way they did things in those days. Whether they did or not, there are two things we should consider. First, was it right? Second, the history that we read today is somebody's interpretation of what happened, whether it is right or whether it is wrong.

I have often read two history books about the same situation, the same event in history, that present entirely different views. I think of the old song Johnny Horton brought out, Battle of New Orleans . The first time he brought it out he sang about the British scaring away the Americans. Somebody said that was not the way to do it, so he redid the song and the good guys were the Americans. It depends strictly on the interpretation.

When we read about the history of the French in Canada, the expulsion, the return and the contribution they have made to this great country of ours, we can look back and say that, yes, perhaps atrocities were committed and, yes, it did happen. However, it is over; it is done with; those things happened.

My own background is Irish on both sides. Our people received similar treatment in Ireland. They did not leave Ireland to come to Newfoundland for the climate. They lived on potatoes in Ireland mainly because that was all the land could produce. When the potato crop failed large groups of them in the mid-1800s came to Canada, many of them to Newfoundland, where they have a job growing potatoes still.

They have managed to survive and flourish not because of the climate or because the land is better to grow potatoes or any other agricultural products. It was because they had freedom and they were accepted for what they were. They were treated the same as everybody else, perhaps not originally, but certainly as they fit into society.

When we look at the diversity that makes up this great country of ours, we are all alike in one respect, but we are so different in other respects. If we treated each other for what we really are and if we were treated by our governments in a fair manner, we would not have half the problems in the country that we do.

In 1949 Canada joined Newfoundland, as I like to say. Newfoundland brought into this country tremendous resources. These resources have been developed but not for our province. They have been developed for the overall good of the country and for other countries. Our fish have been raped over the years. Our minerals have been carried off and have provided jobs in other parts of the country. Our hydro power has provided a lot of money to friends of ours. We have not benefited from the development of our resources. That was our reward for joining the country.

Newfoundland is a have not province of a half a million people with more resources than anybody in the country. Why should we be happy?

I look at the motion before us. Whether or not it was the thing to do in those days, in wars the strong won and the weak were pushed out, whether it was good or bad, what is wrong with recognizing the fact that it should not have been done? That is the principle involved here. What is wrong with saying that we made mistakes? We must not just recognize the mistakes of the past. We must make sure that we are much more conscious of what is happening today and that we do not do it again.

If we continue to operate the way the government operates, we might be expelling a lot of other French from the country and in an entirely different way. If we do what we should do and treat everybody the same and recognize them for what they are, we can have a strong unified country with all of us co-operating.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, this has been a very interesting debate. It has been interesting to look back. I was thinking of my own family members before they came to Canada, way back just after the revolution in Russia. Our families were chased off their land by people with guns. They ran at night and hid by day until they got out of that country. They came to Canada.

I suppose what we should now do is go back there and say, “We want our land back. We want our houses back. We want compensation. We want apologies”. I guess there would not be anything wrong with that, but I really wish that all Canadians, whatever their background, would start looking forward more. Let us leave those things behind.

There is nothing wrong with saying that we are sorry that it happened. Most of us were not there when it happened. We did not do it. It was somebody else. On their behalf we can apologize and say we are sorry it happened. I would like us to move forward.

We have a great and vibrant country with so much potential. Let us utilize it to the fullest. Let us stop looking in the rear view mirror. Let us look at the big expanse out the windshield in front of us and see where we are going and head in that direction. I throw that in for whatever it is worth.

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

Madam Speaker, first I want to tell my colleague from Elk Island that this is not about asking for an apology; it is simply about asking for acknowledgement. I agree with him that such a request should have been made to the Crown, but it was not possible thanks to our friends opposite. Let us hope that it will be possible some day.

I am not at all surprised by the speech by the member for Laval East, especially since it resembled previous speeches by certain colleagues. However, we were able to see the depth of the member's convictions, that same member who, my colleagues will recall, flirted with the Conservative Party and the Canadian Alliance before joining the Liberal Party. That just shows the depth of her convictions, and I am not at all bothered by anything she may have said in this House.

That being said, I invite the member from the Canadian Alliance to read my speech tomorrow because history contradicts some of the arguments that he put forward regarding the fact that the Acadians were supposedly given a last chance to take the oath of allegiance. It was never intended that they be given the chance to take that oath. Their fate was sealed and they were to be deported.

Let us go back now to the issue of the Crowns' responsibility in this matter, because there have been attempts to minimize or trivialize it. The deportation order read by Winslow to the men gathered in the church in Grand-Pré clearly stated that he was acting on the orders of His Majesty. How could it have been otherwise since the Board of Trade and the Massachussetts government simply did not have the means to implement a plan of this magnitude.

As a matter of fact, in 1754, the British Parliament voted subsidies of about one million pound sterling to the American colonies. In May 1755, Monckton arrived in Nova Scotia with 2,000 men, while Admiral Boscawen and his fleet sailed into Halifax harbour in July of the same year. Everything was in place for the operation to start.

In spite of Prime Minister William Pitt's symbolic imprecations, London allowed the deportation to continue until the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1763. Both Charles Lawrence and Robert Monckton were respectively promoted to the positions of Governor and Lieutenant-governor of Nova Scotia in 1756, positions they held for several more years.

How can one seriously maintain that, for nearly eight years, London was unaware of what was happening in its American colonies, especially since this was a large-scale operation, which not limited to Nova Scotia but which also affected the people of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island—or Île Saint Jean, as it was called at the time—and Cape Breton Island—then Isle Royale—and the many colonies to which these destitute and downtrodden people were deported.

I know that I am running out of time. I will therefore conclude by saying that there is nothing wrong with recognizing the facts for what they are. Far from reopening old wounds, which would inflame relations between Canada's two language communities, this recognition would lay the foundations for true reconciliation between the two main language communities of this country.

I would like to express my appreciation in closing to a number of people who have supported me in this entire undertaking since 1999, and have helped me keep the debate going. These include my assistants, both past and present: Patrick Frigon, Mireille Beaudin, Luc Malo and Jean-François Bisaillon. Then there are Euclide Chiasson, Denis Laplante of the la Société nationale de l'Acadie. Then there are Jean-Guy Rioux, Robert Thibault of the SANB, Jean-Guy Nadeau, the MLAs on both sides of the New Brunswick Legislative Assembly, Bernard Richard in particular. I am grateful as well to the Mayor of Caraquet, Antoine Landry, University of Maine professor Roger Paradis, David Le Gallant, chairman of the Musée acadien de l'Île du Prince-Édouard, Maurice Basque and Kenneth Breau of the Centre d'études acadiennes, and Warren Perrin, the Louisiana lawyer who started the ball rolling. Then, of course, there is my colleague for Acadie—Bathurst, without whom I would never have been able to progress as far as I have.

I commend him for his courage in standing up to be counted and, unlike the members across the floor there, supporting a member who supposedly did not have the right to deal with this issue because he is supposedly a separatist.

Yes, I am a Quebecker, but if I am one today it is because of a historic event, a turning point, which had a great impact on my family history and as a result of I live in Quebec today. Otherwise I would likely be living in a little village by the name of Sainte-Anne's Point on the Saint John River, known today as Fredericton.

I wish to particularly thank Fidèle Théraiult, historian and president of the Société d'histoire de la rivière Saint-Jean.

In closing, I seek unanimous consent to have this motion made votable.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House for this motion to be made votable?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. As the motion has not been designated as a votable item, the order is dropped from the Order Paper.

It being 7 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7 p.m.)