Mr. Speaker, the member for Lanark—Carleton could not be present today, so he has asked me to deliver the speech that he has researched and written. On behalf of the member for Lanark—Carleton, I begin.
Mr. Speaker, it is with regret that I will be voting against Motion No. 382. My reasons for doing so are twofold. First, I feel that this motion is based on a faulty premise, that being that guilt can be collective and can be passed on from one generation to the next.
Second, despite the good intentions of those who drafted it, the motion seems to attribute alternate responsibilities for the expulsion of the Acadians to the crown which is not an accurate reading of the events of 1755. A more historically accurate reading would lay blame with the colonial governors of New England and the pioneers they represented.
I will begin with the historical argument and come back later to the philosophical one. Many of the facts surrounding the deportation of the Acadians are unchallenged. In 1755 the colonial authorities began a process of uprooting and deporting the part of the Acadian population which had settled on British lands beginning with the centre of the Acadian colony along the east shore of the Bay of Fundy.
Nova Scotia's Governor Lawrence and Governor Shirley, commander in chief of the British forces in New England, began by seizing colonists' firearms to prevent them from using force to resist. Then they took a large number of adult males hostage in order to guarantee the docility of their families at the time of deportation.
In the years which followed, approximately three-quarters of the total Acadian population, or 13,000 people, were deported. Some of these people were sent to England, others to Louisiana and still others were returned to France. Although we know with certainty the degree of suffering caused by the deportations between the years 1755 and 1763, it is much more difficult to pin down historic responsibility for them.
One thing is certain and that is the governors Lawrence and Shirley were at the heart of the decision making and must bear ultimate responsibility. But nothing proves that they acted with the approval of the Parliament of Westminster. According to the most commonly accepted version of events, Lawrence acted with the authorization of the local council in Nova Scotia and parliament and King George did not take part in the planning of the deportations.
As I will discuss momentarily, I emphasize that I will not support the notion of a collective or hereditary guilt, but even if I did support it, I think that the first collective excuses that should be conveyed to the Acadian people should come from the government of Maine.
Nonetheless, the Queen recently chose to address this issue, deferring a decision on any apology to the Canadian cabinet. As we are all aware, cabinet recently dealt with this issue and this past December, the Governor General signed a royal proclamation regarding this issue. Excerpts from the proclamation read as follows:
Whereas on July 28, 1755, the Crown, in the course of administering the affairs of the British colony of Nova Scotia, made the decision to deport the Acadians;
Whereas the deportation of the Acadian people, commonly known as the Great Upheaval, continued until 1763 and had tragic consequences, including the deaths of many thousands of Acadians;
Whereas the Crown acknowledges these historical facts and the trials and suffering experienced by the Acadian people during the Great Upheaval;
Therefore, Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, directs that a Proclamation do issue designating July 28 of every year as “A Day of Commemoration of the Great Upheaval”.
I commend the decision of the government to issue this proclamation, one which seems entirely appropriate to me.
I believe there is a legitimate expectation that all participants in the public life of a civilized society should adopt a moral attitude toward the past. A moral attitude involves recognizing and embracing those past actions which are regarded as good and just and rejecting those which are regarded as unjust or monstrous.
The acknowledgement of the trials and suffering experienced by the Acadian people and the designation of an annual day to commemorate this unfortunate chapter in our history is an appropriate way to address this unfortunate episode.
In contrast to the proclamation issued by the Crown, however, the motion before the House explicitly requests an apology for this historical wrong. This is quite a different concept. It rests on the idea that actual guilt for past injustice can be passed on institutionally and collectively in precisely the same way that the residual effects of that wrong continue to have some impact on the descendants of those who suffered the initial wrong. This is simply untrue.
I do not accept the notion that an institution can maintain a heritage or a collective guilt that is imposed upon successive generations of those who become members of that institution or who fall under its protection.
An attitude of collective guilt or responsibility, or worse yet, of expecting others to accept a mantle of guilt, or responsibility for acts in which they themselves did not take part strikes me as being of no utility at all.
A debate similar to the one taking place today took place in the House 20 years ago on Pierre Trudeau's last day as prime minister. He was asked by Brian Mulroney in question period to issue an apology for the war time internment of Canadians of Japanese descent. Trudeau's response reveals a subtle grasp to the distinction that I am attempting to draw here today. He said:
I do not see how I can apologize for some historic event to which we... were not a party. We can regret that it happened. But why...say that an apology is much better than an expression or regret?
I do not think that it is the purpose of a Government to right the past. It cannot re-write history. It is our purpose to be just in our time...
I agree with the reasoning of this statement. In the case of the great upheaval, the wronged parties are long dead. Those who committed the wrong are long dead. The British Empire, by whose power the wrongs were perpetrated, no longer exists and the principle of mercantilism on which it was founded has been firmly and absolutely rejected by the present British Crown and state.
Most important of all, perhaps, the British colonies of New England, in whose interest the wrongs were committed, ceased to exist as political entities over two centuries ago, with the coming of American independence.
So no individual is left, nor even any corporate entity, which can truthfully and honestly accept guilt in its own name, or serve as the justified target of the indignation of others.
This does not excuse us from a responsibility to adopt a moral attitude of condemnation toward this great wrong any more than we can adopt an attitude of moral neutrality toward the monstrous evils of more recent times.
As moral actors, we need to recognize the existence of these past wrongs, to identify them to our fellow citizens and to do all we can to ensure that no modern version of this wrong can occur.
As such, I would like to applaud the sincere efforts of the hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes to ensure that this episode in our history is not forgotten.
Nonetheless, I believe that the recent proclamation, which acknowledges this issue without extending an official apology, is sufficient to express our sorrow for this past wrong. It allows us, without condemning others, to indicate our determination that no such future wrong will ever be tolerated on Canadian soil.
Hence, I disagree on both historical and philosophical grounds with the fundamental assumption on which Motion No. 382 rests, that the Crown bears a further responsibility.
First, I take issue with the historical claim that the British Crown, past or present, bears the ultimate responsibility for the great upheaval.
Second, I disagree with the philosophical claim that we can inherit a collective guilt which places on us a responsibility to apologize for events which took place over two centuries ago.
Therefore, I must vote against this motion and encourage others to do so as well.