House of Commons Hansard #22 of the 37th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was pornography.

Topics

SupplyGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Liberal

Ovid Jackson Liberal Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON

Mr. Speaker, I vote for the motion.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Liberal

Murray Calder Liberal Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting in favour of this motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

SupplyGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare the motion lost.

The House resumed from February 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-18, an act respecting equalization and authorizing the Minister of Finance to make certain payments related to health, be read the third time and passed.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

The Speaker

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-18.

The hon. deputy leader of the government.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON

Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe you would find unanimous consent that members who have voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yes, except those who indicate otherwise.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

The Speaker

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Dale Johnston Canadian Alliance Wetaskiwin, AB

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives in the House tonight will vote yes on this motion, except for those who wish to vote otherwise.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois will vote against this motion.

I would ask the Chair to delete from the list the names of the hon. members for Rimouski--Neigette-et-la Mitis and Drummond, who had to leave.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP are voting yes to this motion.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

John Herron Progressive Conservative Fundy Royal, NB

Mr. Speaker, both members of the Progressive Conservative Party will be supporting this motion.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

Murray Calder Liberal Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting in favour of this motion.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Steckle Liberal Huron—Bruce, ON

Mr. Speaker, I want my vote recorded as voting yes on this motion.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

Ovid Jackson Liberal Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of the motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

The Speaker

The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from February 11 consideration of the motion.

The AcadiansPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond today to Motion No.382 by the hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes.

As we all know now, since this issue has been raised in the House a number of times, Motion No.382 asks, as part of the procedures set in motion by the Société nationale des Acadiens:

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

I am among those who thought this issue had been settled to the satisfaction of all parties directly affected. We now have, I am proud to say, a royal proclamation that recognizes the historical fact of the Deportation of 1755, as well as the hardships and suffering of the Acadians at that time.

The hon. member who is moving this motion was present with me on December 10, 2003, when the government of Canada announced the royal proclamation designating July 28 of each year, beginning in 2005, as a Day of Commemoration of the Great Upheaval. “All of Canada recognizes the birthplace of the Acadians”, said the Minister of Canadian Heritage at the time, the hon. member for Hamilton East. We must assume our responsibility with respect to all of our history, both the moments of glory and the tragedies. We will have an opportunity to reflect on this aspect once a year, on July 28.

At that ceremony on December 10, the President of the Société nationale de l'Acadie emphasized that the proclamation showed the level of maturity which Canadian society has reached in terms of respecting diversity. The president saw this as more than simply a sign of respect for the Acadians; he saw in it a recognition of the importance of cultural diversity in our country, as a cornerstone of its strength and prosperity.

“Acadians are proud of their culture and their identity”, added the president. They have learned that it is possible to live as a people within this great country of Canada, just as it is possible to be a part of Canada's francophonie and the big family of international Francophonie.

Everyone there was moved to tears by the testimony we heard last December 10. I am a history buff and every time I read about the Acadian deportation, I learn something new. This was a tragic event, whose memory is painful. What happened to the Acadians cannot, must not, be forgotten. Unfortunately, in the past, many Canadians may have forgotten about it.

Their history will not be transformed into a mere folktale, a story told by the elders; it will remain forever as a tragic part of their forefathers' reality. I hope that our history books, our classrooms and our museums, big and small, will teach young Canadians of today and tomorrow about the tragedy of the deportation, and particularly about the heroic rebirth of the Acadian people.

During last year's debates on this subject, some members said that telling our young people that it was a historic event was not enough, if we wanted them to have a proper grasp of its terrible reality. They felt we needed to consult the historical references in our history books to make sure that children are being given sufficient information to properly grasp the enormity of what the Acadians went through between 1755 and 1763, and for a number of years afterward as well.

We also need to examine whether these events are properly covered in our Canadian history books. Are other historical events also explained as clearly as they should be?

The deportation of the Acadians is a chapter in our history that must not be forgotten. We can all turn to that period and wish that this or that event had not taken place, or had turned out differently. But there is nothing at all that can be done about it. We cannot change the past, except in our dreams.

In my opinion, it is time we moved on. We have read the page and must not forget it, but it is time we turned the page. We may need to refer back to it to refresh our memory, but it will always be there.

Today's values have roots in the experiences of our shared past. This experience and the lessons we learn from it are what shapes the identity of Canadians today, as people who are respected and respectful, open-minded, tolerant, dynamic. Acadians are a hard-working people. The entrepreneurial spirit of the Acadians is reflected in the strength of their institutions, their university, companies like Assumption Life and others, and many educational facilities.

They are part of what ensures Canada is successful and prosperous. The Canadian government recognizes their dynamic nature and vital contribution to life in Canada. Everyone in the House recognizes this, at least I hope so. They are among the seven million Canadians who, like me, speak, sing, write, work—I play music—and live in French. These francophones are proof of a formidable vitality and extraordinary determination to grow and spread across a mostly anglophone continent.

There are many urgent issues relating to the official languages that need to be resolved. I am the chair of the parliamentary committee considering these issues. Minority communities, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada and the Société nationale de l'Acadie, among many others, are categorical: they want job creation, health services in French, legal services in French, education and early childhood development, to name but a few.

We could also consider Bill S-4 by Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier, which will soon be introduced in this House. Apparently, I will have the honour of sponsoring this bill in this place to make Part VII of the Official Languages Act mandatory. These are tangible initiatives that need to be addressed now.

Naturally, the government is keenly interested in the future of the Acadian community. We all are. The Congrès mondial acadien will be held very soon on the occasion of the 400th anniversary of Samuel de Champlain's arrival. I intend to participate in it, as I did last time in Louisiana, or, as the locals say, in Louisian. I had the great pleasure of spending time with them.

However, I am not of the opinion that we should adopt this motion today. I think it is a bad idea for three reasons. I am not the only one to think so. First, we have approved the royal proclamation initiative.

Second, I think that the principle of demanding an apology through the head of State of another country brings us back, in a way, to colonial times. I do not partake in such activities. We are an independent and proud country. Francophones in this country are proud too. I think this is a bad idea.

Third, what kind of precedent would such an initiative set?

Where are we going with this? Will we make the same kind of demand with respect to the revocation of the Edict of Nantes?

We could talk about the loyalists in my riding. Are we going to ask the United States government to apologize for the way my loyalist constituents were treated?

I see a Bloc MP saying yes. He is free to think so, but that is not how I see it. I am asking my colleagues to vote against this motion. It is a matter of asserting our pride in being francophones today and when we vote on this motion, and not adopting this motion put before the House.

The AcadiansPrivate Members' Business

6:20 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Scott Reid Canadian Alliance Lanark—Carleton, ON

Madam Speaker, it is with regret that I will vote against Motion No.382. My reasons for doing so are twofold.

One, I feel that this motion is based on a faulty premise, namely that guilt can be collective and can be passed on from one generation to the next.

Two, despite the good intentions of those who drafted it, the motion seems to attribute ultimate responsibility 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 that 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 that followed, approximately three quarters of the total Acadian population, or 13,000 people, were deported. Some of these people were sent to New 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 1755 and 1763, it is much more difficult to pin down historic responsibility for them. One thing is certain and that is that 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.

Nonetheless, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 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, in December 2003, the Governor General signed a royal proclamation regarding this issue. Excerpts from the proclamation read as follows:

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—

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, beginning in 2005, 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, the motion before the House explicitly requests an apology for this historical wrong.

This is a very different concept based on the idea that guilt for a 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 of collective guilt which 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 assume 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 this House 20 years ago on Pierre Trudeau's last day as Prime Minister. He was asked by Brian Mulroney in oral question period to issue an apology for the wartime internment of Canadians of Japanese descent. Trudeau's response revealed a subtle grasp of the distinction that I am attempting to draw here today.

Mr. Trudeau 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 of 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 this reasoning. With regard to the great upheaval, the parties who suffered such discrimination died long ago, as did those responsible. The British Empire, in whose name these wrongs were perpetrated, no longer exists, and the mercantilism on which it was founded was firmly and totally rejected by the crown and the British state. However, the most important factor to be considered is perhaps that the British colonies in New England, in whose name the wrongs were committed, ceased to exist as political entities over 200 years ago, when the United States claimed its independence.

Consequently, there is no one or no organization that can honestly recognize its guilt or suffer the justified 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 that we can to ensure that no modern version of this wrong can occur. In this respect, I would like to applaud the sincere efforts of the hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes, whose aim is to perpetuate the memory of this tragic episode in our history.

Nevertheless, I believe that the recent royal proclamation, which recognizes the issue without making an official apology, is sufficient to express our sorrow over this past wrong and allows us, without condemning others, to indicate our determination that no such wrong will ever in the future be tolerated on Canadian soil.

Consequently, I must vote against this motion and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

The AcadiansPrivate Members' Business

6:30 p.m.

NDP

Lorne Nystrom NDP Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK

Madam Speaker, I want to indicate at the outset that I certainly support the motion before the House today, and I want to say that people should read the motion very carefully. It does not ask for an apology. Indeed, it asks that the Queen recognize officially the wrongs that were done to the Acadian people between 1755 and 1763, and that the Queen, when she is there in 2005, recognize that a great wrong, a great injustice, was done to the Acadian people.

That is what this motion is asking. I do not find that a great problem. The motion is well drafted. It is a very polite motion asking that our Governor General convey to the Queen that Parliament wishes that she recognize, when she is speaking to the Acadian people, that there was a great wrong done in 1755 to 1763.

I really appeal to the House to support this motion as overwhelmingly as we possibly can. It is not a partisan motion. It is a motion to recognize that a wrong was committed. Historically it is one of the great wrongs of our history. People were deported from their homes to Louisiana, to the southern part of the United States. Families were separated and people were uprooted. They lost their properties, they lost their friendships and they lost their communities.

It was a sad day in Canadian history. A lot of sad things happened in our past that affected many people, whether they were Japanese Canadians, native Canadians, or our First Nations. Many injustices were carried out by our predecessors.

The Acadian people are among those who were very unfairly treated by the government of that time, a colonial government, not the Government of Canada. It was that colonial government that deported the Acadian people to the United States.

This was a great injustice. Communities were torn apart. People were deported. They were sent out of the country. All of this was done by the colonial government. I do not think we should be so timid and so afraid. It is not an insult to the Queen to make this kind of request that she say that something terribly wrong was done many years ago.

I want to state very clearly that this motion, proposed by the member for Verchères--Les-Patriotes and seconded by the member for Acadie--Bathurst from the New Democratic Party, is a motion that we all should be supporting.

Some people ask why we would do this. I was in the House in 1984 when Pierre Trudeau was prime minister for the last day, and Brian Mulroney, the leader of the opposition, the former leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, got up and asked that very question. The member of the Conservative Party from the Ottawa area read former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau's response. I did not agree with that response. I think it is very important for the well-being of the whole of our country that we do recognize when wrongs are committed and that we do try to apologize--and this motion does not even say apologize--for those great wrongs and injustices that were committed many years ago.

It is rather sad to reflect upon the history of humans. Human beings have often been very inhumane in the way we have treated each other historically. We have had genocides in the world. We have had mass expulsions in the world. We human beings have executed thousands and thousands of people around the world. We are hopefully becoming a little more civilized. One way of being more civilized is to say to the Acadian people that what happened many years ago was wrong. It was an historical wrong. It was morally wrong, and it should not have happened.

We cannot do anything about it now in a substantive sense, but we can say officially, as the Parliament of Canada, that what happened was wrong, and ask that when the Queen, the sovereign, is speaking to the Acadian people, she also say that it was the wrong thing, that it was something that was regrettable and should not have happened. I think that would go a long way toward saying to the Acadian people that we respect them, that they are equal partners in this great country of ours, and that what happened was very wrong. The very least we can do is have the sovereign say this in 2005 when she speaks to the Acadian population.

I have studied the history of our country. In the last 300 years, the French-speaking Acadian people have made a truly great contribution to our nation. There are still many Acadians in Canada, and the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst is among those who have greatly contributed to our country. I would like to commend the Bloc member for Verchères—Les Patriotes for his motion, and I hope members of all parties will vote in favour of this motion.

The AcadiansPrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

Bloc

Roger Gaudet Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC

Madam Speaker, it is with great pride that I speak today to Motion No.382 put forward by my colleague from Verchères—Les-Patriotes, which was amended and now 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, she will intercede with Her Majesty to cause the British Crown to recognize officially the wrongs done to the Acadian people in its name between 1755 and 1763.

First, let us recall the historical event of 1755. In the 19th century, American writer William Faulkner said, “The past is not dead. In fact, it's not even past”. Henri Lacordaire, a member of the Académie française said, “History is the memory of immortalized centuries... A man without history is in his grave; a people that has not written its history has not yet been born”.

What a past. If the Acadian people had not yet been born, they certainly were during the painful exodus when children, women and men obeyed the official order of Lawrence, who forced them to leave their land, homes and belongings for an unknown and foreign destination.

We can just hear John Winslow reading the deportation edict in a small church in the village of Grand-Pré, on September 5, 1755:

I have received from His Excellency, Governor Lawrence, the instructions of the King. It is by these orders that you are assembled in order to hear the final resolution of His Majesty concerning the French inhabitants of this province of Nova Scotia... It is ordered that your lands and tenements, cattle of all kinds and livestock of all sorts, be forfeited to the British Crown, along with all other effects, saving your money and household goods and you, yourselves, be removed from this Province. The peremptory orders of His Majesty are that all the inhabitants of this district be deported.

Even though the British Crown did not intend to physically eliminate these people, it must be kept in mind that entire families disappeared from the surface of the earth.

With Antoine Bernard, a professor at the University of Montreal, a question remains. The author says that:

At the heart of this tragedy there will always remain a dark area, a dark area that the most perceptive lens cannot definitively explore: the area of responsibility. Must we accuse only Lawrence of this wrongdoing? Or must we see behind him “the instructions of His Majesty”, which Winslow referred to in his proclamation in September 1755? Did Winslow, Murray and Lawrence, who were guiding them, lie by using the name of old George II to commit their vile attack?

Moreover, we may ask whether the historian Robert Rumilly is accurately reporting the events in his book entitled Histoire des Acadiens , when he says this about Lawrence:

The enforcer of the deportation of the Acadians is thus officially approved, commended and promoted. The British government is endorsing, if it did not formally order, the action taken by its top officials in America.

In the newspaper Le Devoir , we can read how outraged François Baby, a professor at Laval University, is when he writes that:

—As a soldier in Acadia and the Quebec region, Monckton indeed committed some unacceptable and extremely cruel acts that undoubtedly equate with crimes of genocide, crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity as we define them today.

The tragedy of the Acadians has, for two centuries, provided poets with a source of inspiration, while also being studied closely by historians. Who does not remember the immortal Evangeline by Longfellow, a 19th century American author? It is a very beautiful poem whose heroine, Evangeline, searches all her life for her fiancé, Gabriel, and finally finds him just as he is about to depart this life. This poem is a concrete illustration of what the Acadians lived through: the separation of families, illness, death, absence, exile, uncertainty of all kinds, a very minimal well-being.

Some would call the poem romantic while others see an undeniable honesty of the heart. As Yves Cazaux writes in L'Acadie, histoire des Acadiens :

The 1844 poem screams out the truth of the most painful history ever, without weakness, without convention or invention, only reality.

Today, on the eve of the 250th anniversary of that fateful day of September 5, 1755, is there a glimmer of hope in this dark sky? With the royal proclamation of December 10, 2003, which makes July 28 the Day of Commemoration of the Great Upheaval, as of September 5, 2004, we might believe there is.

After more than 240 years, it has finally been officially recognized in the history of Canada that an unspeakable tragedy truly did take place, and that it is not an invention or the imaginings of a people seeking attention, as the text of the proclamation confirms:

—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 from disease, in shipwrecks, in their places of refuge and in prison camps in Nova Scotia and England as well as in the British colonies in America—

It is a step forward, we must admit, and it is a good beginning, but there is still a long road ahead before all Acadians feel placated about the wrongs done to their ancestors between 1755 and 1763.

The main problem with this royal proclamation, is that only the Acadians of Canada are formally addressed by this solemn gesture, because, unfortunately, it is not the British Crown that recognizes the wrongs of the Great Upheaval in this royal proclamation, but only the Crown of Canada. And so what does that mean for the Acadians who were deported all through the Americas and to Europe, and who live in those places now? Are they not entitled to recognition, too?

I also want to state that, in my opinion, it is quite strange for the Canadian government to recognize injustices for which it bears no responsibility. That responsibility, morally anyway, belongs to the authority in whose name those injustices were committed and which, incidentally, still exists today. I am referring to the British crown.

The matter, therefore, remains unresolved. When can the Acadian people hope to see the real wrongdoer, the British crown, officially recognize the harm done by the deportation?

Will the British crown restore, two centuries later, our pride in our origins? Will it attempt to bandage the wound carved into our collective Acadian history? Will the British heed the example of the many other countries that have recognized their past mistakes?

In this day and age, the world is experiencing a vast movement to rehabilitate the historic memory of those peoples who have suffered. We need only think of the Maori, Japanese-Canadians, the victims of apartheid, the children of Duplessis or the Vatican's apologies to the Jewish people, in particular.

Since we are living in an age of reconciliation among peoples and apologies for the wrongs done over the course of history, can we hope that the British crown, and not just the Canadian crown, will do as much with regard to the Acadian people?

The royal proclamation of last December 10 raises another issue and University of Ottawa professor Joseph-Yvon Thériault commented on this in an article in the Le Devoir of January 15 as follows:

Where does Canadian recognition of the Acadian deportation fit in as a memorial process? There is no doubt, as Donald J. Savoie has said, that the deportation of the Acadians is an example of the phenomenon we today call “ethnic cleansing”, and its integration into Canadian hearts and minds can serve to prevent such things from happening again. The way this recognition is being achieved, however, is making it into a commonplace event.

It would be a dangerous thing to trivialize a tragedy like the deportation of the Acadian nation between 1755 and 1763, by trying to rush things, as was done with the royal proclamation, concocted hurriedly and secretively by a few members of the previous cabinet who felt they were walking a tightrope and wanted to leave this testimonial of openness for posterity, after having fought it tooth and claw until then. The goal: to try to convince the Acadians that they had finally obtained justice and consequently that all's well that ends well, when that is definitely not the case.

The British Crown is duty bound to recognize officially the wrongs done to the Acadian people in its name. This is why we hope that Her Majesty will graciously accept the invitation extended to her by the Canadian government to come and read the proclamation. We believe that the ideal time for an event of such import would be either the 250th anniversary of the deportation of the Acadians, in 2005, or the 400th anniversary of the founding of Acadia in 2004.

Great Britain cannot continue to refuse to acknowledge this terrible tragedy as still more centuries pass, when this event left such a wound in the flesh of a community of peace-loving and hard-working people, a wound inflicted on it by those who had authority over it at the time.

Will Her Majesty dare to acknowledge the flagrant wrongs done to the Acadian people from 1755 on? Parliamentarians here have the power to ensure that the wishes of the Acadians can at last be fulfilled. This unique opportunity must not be let slip. We must vote in favour of the motion by my colleague from Verchères—Les-Patriotes.

Like Bona Arsenault, we believe:

Their past was a tragedy, and its acknowledgement today is the consolation they have been waiting for for nigh on 250 years. Is that enough?

All aboard for Acadia in 2005.

The AcadiansPrivate Members' Business

6:45 p.m.

Bloc

Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques to whom I owe this opportunity to debate Motion No.382 today. This is surely the last speech that will be given in this House during this session on the deportation of the Acadians, since everything points to the dissolution of Parliament very shortly.

That said, it is very likely that this will not be the last time we have an opportunity to debate this subject here, because I am determined to be re-elected and, who knows, to raise this matter again, in order to at last gain recognition by the British Crown of the wrongs done to the Acadian people.

It would, however, be a disservice to me to claim, as some have done without any hesitation, that this debate arises solely out of my stubbornness, and that this time it is a new effort on my part following on the royal proclamation of last December.

The parliamentary process being theoretically independent of the decisions of the governor in council, Motion No.382 could not be dropped from the Order Paper of the House of Commons merely because of the royal proclamation. If we now find ourselves having to debate Motion No.382, and then to vote on it, this is essentially the result of the carelessness of the authors of this proclamation who, in their desire to keep me out of the loop at all costs, foolishly neglected to think about what would become of this motion.

At this point, the fate of the motion, which was merely returned to the order of business, no longer depends merely on the wishes of the member who is behind it, but on that of the entire House. It could not, therefore, have been withdrawn from the Order Paper except with the unanimous consent of the House. That, incidentally, could still happen today. I am not therefore prepared to accept others maliciously trying to lay the blame at my feet for a situation which seems to really be bothering my Liberal colleagues, as we embark on this special year which marks the 400th anniversary of the founding of Acadia and also, and most particularly, as we are on the verge of an election call.

It is most unfortunate that today we are having to force a vote on Motion No.382, something I have tried my utmost to avoid.

I had wanted to discuss the issue with my Liberal Acadian colleagues, but no such luck. At the last minute, the Minister of Labour unexpectedly cancelled the meeting scheduled for this purpose. She was the one who kept saying during the debate on Motion No.241 that I should have taken the time to talk to her.

Yet all I wanted was either to have Motion No.382 simply withdrawn or to have the House of Commons fully back the government's fine initiative—following the informal steps announced by the former heritage minister—to have a formal invitation sent to Her Majesty asking her to come and read the text of the royal proclamation.

I was looking forward to the conclusion of this debate. Not only had the government decided to make the royal proclamation public, but the new Prime Minister, who had been in favour of my initiative last summer, said he wanted to establish a new climate of cooperation with Parliament, particularly with the opposition parties.

With the royal proclamation in the picture, I realized that Motion No.382, as initially worded, seemed somewhat outdated. I was prepared to change it. My hopes were cruelly dashed.

Those Liberal colleagues who have thus far spoken on the issue have shown a narrowly partisan, dogmatic and overly simplified attitude, not wanting to appear to be negotiating anything with a common separatist such as myself, at the risk of seeing Motion No.382 defeated. They trotted out the same tired old arguments, delivered the same extreme, fractious speeches that have nothing to do with the heart of the issue.

They seem to have put the interests of the Liberal Party of Canada ahead of the interests of the Acadian people. Obviously, these colleagues are having a hard time letting go of the culture of confrontation that the former prime minister seemed to encourage. Their uncompromising and even hostile attitude toward separatists, which underlies their fundamental position toward any step I might take on this issue, does not send a message of unity, but rather tends to reinforce the notion that sovereignists do not have, or no longer have, a place in Canada.

Some day, they will have to face the fact that almost half of all Quebeckers have at some time supported the idea that Quebec should become a sovereign state. Either they deal with half the people of Quebec or they continue to avoid millions of Quebeckers like the plague, maintaining in place a process that is getting us nowhere but is slowly but surely ruining Canada.

The position taken by some of our Conservative colleagues is no better. After showing great openness in massively supporting the amendment to Motion No.241, they are now raising issues that have nothing to do with the terms of Motion No.382, which is word for word identical to the proposed amendment.

Let us be very clear once and for all. The current motion is not asking today's generation to carry the responsibility for the wrongs done 250 years ago. In fact, responsibility is not even mentioned in the motion. The motion only asks the British Crown to officially acknowledge the wrongs done to the Acadian people in its name.

It is not asking for history to be rewritten or revisited. It is only asking to acknowledge the obvious.

I do hope my hon. colleagues will vote in favour of this motion.

The AcadiansPrivate Members' Business

6:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Hinton)

Is the House ready for the question?

The AcadiansPrivate Members' Business

6:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.