Madam Speaker, to start with, I would like to congratulate my friend and colleague from Verchères—Les-Patriotes for giving us once again the opportunity to discuss this historic tragedy, but also for his hard and ongoing work on the issue of the deportation of the Acadians and the recognition of an historical fact.
Whether we agree or not with the motion, we can all agree that it is the exemplary result of the kind of work a member can do when he believes in an issue and works on it in a professional manner. I am convinced that if I were to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to recognize this fact, I would undoubtedly get it.
For over three years now, the member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes has proven that a member of the House of Commons can use his powers, capacities and responsibilities to put forward, debate and implement a bill or a motion that can make a difference in our society. It is to his credit, and I congratulate him.
To my friend and colleague from the Canadian Alliance who mentioned in his speech that he was opposed to asking for an apology, I say that I am in agreement with him, up to a point. However, this is not what the motion is about. He may have misread it. The member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes is in no way asking for an apology.
We are very surprised by the comments made by the Canadian Alliance member, since, last time, members of that party voted in favour of a similar motion. However, today on a motion that is not all that different, they are presenting opposite arguments. They might have the opportunity to explain why during the next hour of debate.
I am a lot less happy when I hear the member for Laval East using arguments, which I would call partisan and fallacious, to show her opposition to the motion. I find it sad. I believe that if there is one thing that must unite us all, wherever we sit in the House, it is private members' business.
When dealing with government bills, it is quite normal for government members to feel bound to support them,
We are dealing with private members' business, and some members are playing petty politics and saying we are separatists and they do not like us. It seems to me that, from time to time, we should rise above that.
I think that if we keep on foster the population's mistrust toward behaving this way, we will only enhance the population,s mistrust toward politicians. When we deal with a motion on a non-partisan subject like this, this kind of comment is inappropriate. Whether or not we agree with the Canadian Alliance, we have to admit that it took the high road, that its arguments made sense and were well reasoned.
When people who are criticial of politics and refuse to vote are asked why they take this stand, they answer by giving examples like the comments of the Liberal member for Laval East. We can and we should behave differently, all the more so since she told us in a previous speech that the three traditional pillars of the Acadian economy are fisheries, agriculture, and forestry.
The hon. member said that agriculture was still a way of life in Acadia and that people get up early to pick potatoes. This is an insult to a whole people and even to this Parliament.
The hon. member also said that she cannot support such a motion because Canada is a sovereign country. I beg to remind her that Canada's head of state is the Queen of England.
I will also remind her that we have a governor general as well as lieutenants-governor. Yes, we signed the Statute of Westminster in 1931, if I am not mistaken. And yes, we still have ties with Great Britain.
I will remind the member for Laval East that all our laws must receive royal assent. I hope I am not telling her anything that she does not know already, because she has been here for some time.
Some people made comments to my friend, the member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes, to the effect that apologizing means living in the past and that this is not right.
I will the backgroung to Motion No.382 to show how partisanship was set aside to respond to concerns expressed and to present a motion that would be acceptable to as many members as possible.
I will read to you the first of these motions, calling for the recognition of an historical fact that I believe is undeniable.
On March 27, 2001, more than two years ago, Motion No.241 read as follows:
That a humble Address be presented to Her Excellency praying that she will intercede with Her Majesty to cause the British Crown to present an official apology to the Acadian people for the wrongs done to them in its name between 1755 and 1763.
We have heard all sorts of arguments, mainly from the Liberals and the Alliance, saying “We do not agree to ask for apologies”. We said, “Fine, we will amend the motion. We will change it to try to satisfy you”. We have even tried to find a new mover so that the nasty separatist argument would no longer apply. We have taken out the words “ to present an official apology” and replaced them with “...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 ”.
We are not asking for money or for apologies. We do not want to find a culprit. We only want an official recognition of an historical fact. At the time, for reasons that do not seem very valid, the motion was defeated.
However, the member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes has two main qualities: tenacity and perseverance.
He came back on February 6, 2003, with Motion No. 238, which read as follows:
That this House officially acknowledge—
Because, at that time, it had been determined that it was not the responsibility of the Governor General to take action.
—the harm suffered by the Acadian people from 1755 to 1763.
We were not asking for apologies. We were not accusing anyone. We were just asking for an official acknowledgement. We were presented with the same arguments all over again; for example: one should not dwell on the past; one should look toward the future; this is being moved by separatists. So the motion was defeated.
The Société Nationale de l'Acadie then created an expert panel to review the issue.
The member for Laval East said that the member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes went around, implying that he stirred things up. I am sorry, but when a member of Parliament goes somewhere to consult and work and when his efforts lead a society to create an expert panel to study a motion, that member is not visiting as a tourist.
Such arguments are cheap shots. I am sure we would all agree that such a comment is rather nasty.
After the consultations, the last motion is now being brought forward. It reads as follows:
That a humble Address be presented to Her Excellency praying that, following the steps already taken by the Société Nationale de l'Acadie—
This does not come from separatists.
—she will intercede with He rMajesty to cause the British Crown to recognize officially the wrongs done to the Acadian people in its name between 1755 and 1763.
All members who spoke here in the House have reminded us of what happened during the deportation; that is why I did not do so; I believe we all know and recognize those events.
Should we live in the past? People say that it is not a good thing. But if a person or a group of individuals who fell victim to some injustice or tragedy want healing, if I may use that expression, if they want to rise above their pain and suffering, an official acknowledgement by those who caused that injustice will allow them to take action, turn the page and continue to grow, as the Acadian people have shown they are quite capable of doing.