Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 2 - Evidence for November 20, 2002
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 20, 2002
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-10, to amend the Criminal code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, and Bill S-5, respecting a National Acadian Day, met this day at 4:50 p.m. to give consideration to the bills.
Senator George J. Furey (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we had referred to us this afternoon Bill C-10, to amend the Criminal Code with respect to firearms and cruelty to animals, also with an instruction from the chamber to split the bill. I propose that we proceed to hear from Minister Cauchon and his officials this afternoon. At tomorrow's meeting we will discuss the instruction that we have received from the chamber.
Welcome, minister. Thank you for taking the time to be with us today.
[Translation]
Mr. Martin Cauchon, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada: Mr. Chairman, I am always very pleased to meet with you. As Minister of Justice, this is the second time I have had the opportunity to appear before your Committee to discuss proposed legislation.
Today we will be discussing a bill with two parts to it that are important for both the Department and Canadian society. They deal with cruelty to animals and changes to firearms registration that are aimed at improving the system and procedures as a whole.
I am very pleased to have this opportunity to make some remarks regarding Bill C-10. To begin with, I would like to discuss the provisions of the bill that deal with cruelty to animals.
I will then move on to an analysis of the changes that relate to firearms. The first point to be made is that legislative amendments dealing with cruelty to animals, in one form or another, have been before Parliament for two and a half years now.
Since December 1999, associations that reflect the entire spectrum of opinion on this issue have come forward to present their views. There has been exhaustive debate of these changes. In that context, I have no doubt that discussions on the bill in your Committee will be both helpful and constructive.
As you probably know, the vast majority of Canadians are keenly interested in the provisions dealing with cruelty to animals, and support the changes proposed in Bill C-10, particularly as regards heavier penalties.
In that respect, there are two main issues I would like to address: first, the reasons why the government is amending the legislation on cruelty to animals now, and second — I have often been asked this question — what impact these amendments to the law will have on legitimate industrial uses of animals.
To start with, allow me to state that the fundamental purpose of these legislative changes is two-fold: first, to modernize and simplify the law, and second, to increase the maximum penalties for the offence of cruelty.
[English]
Mr. Chairman, the rationale for the amendments to the animal cruelty provisions in Bill C-10 is to update and modernize the law. This involves ridding the law of outdated concepts that add confusion rather than clarity. One example of an anachronism in the law is that distinctions are made between different types of animals. For example, one clause deals only with cattle while another deals with dogs, birds or animals kept for a lawful purpose. A third clause protects all animals from unnecessary pain, suffering or injury. The current organization of the animal cruelty offences reflects the piecemeal fashion in which the code has been amended over the years. Obviously it is time to modernize and clarify the animal cruelty offences.
Bill C-10 has greatly clarified the law by setting out intentional cruelty offences in one clause and cruelty involving criminal neglect in another. The different degrees of culpability for intentional cruelty and criminal neglect involve different maximum penalties. Unlike the current animal cruelty provisions in the Criminal Code, Bill C-10 does not contain offences that overlap each other.
By raising these points I do not mean to suggest there is no clarity in the current law. In fact, the leading case on animal cruelty in the 1970s clarified the test for the main offences of causing unnecessary pain, suffering or injury.
Provisions that overlap or are inconsistent compromise the clarity. In other words, in the current provisions, not all the pieces of the puzzle fit together. Bill C-10 addresses that shortcoming. Also, taking the offences out of Part 11 of the Criminal Code relating to property and creating a new part of the code reflect a more accurate characterization of the offences. We protect animals because they feel pain, not because they are and continue to be property. This change does not elevate the status of animals or add any legal rights.
A second rationale for these amendments is to increase the penalties available for intentional cruelty and criminal neglect. With the exception of offences against cattle, all of the animal cruelty offences are summary conviction offences and carry a maximum sentence of six months in jail or a $2,000 fine.
The way that society traditionally recognizes the seriousness of any particular prohibited conduct is through the penalty that is prescribed for that conduct. Canadians have made it very clear that the animal cruelty penalty provisions no longer reflect the way that society views these crimes. In addition, scientific research increasingly shows a link between animal cruelty and violence towards humans, particularly in the context of domestic violence.
For example, one of the conclusions of a study conducted in Calgary last year was that, in a number of areas, the results confirmed that when an animal is hurt the children in the home are likely to be impacted and that violence towards animals perpetuates the cycle of violence.
In some cases, a child's violence towards animals leads to violence towards people. In many cases, it indicates that someone else in the home is also being hurt. This study is consistent with the literature that suggests an association between a pattern of cruelty to animals in childhood or adolescence, and a pattern of dangerous and recurrent aggression against people at a later age.
[Translation]
Bill C-10 substantially increases the penalty for wilful cruelty by establishing a hybrid offence and increasing the maximum penalty to five years for an indictable offence, and to 18 months for an offence punishable on summary conviction. The broad flexibility this provides with respect to sentencing will allow the Crown to adjust the sentence depending on the circumstances of the offence, while making it clear to judges, prosecutors and the general public that acts of cruelty to animals are acts of violence.
A large majority of Canadians have expressed their views on this, and have made it clear that they want animal cruelty offences to be subject to more severe penalties.
In other words, the people of Canada are asking that we update current legislative provisions dealing with cruelty to animals and increase penalties for such offences. The degree of culpability that wilfully causing pain to an animal implies — such as when a animal is tortured — justifies the maximum sentence of five years in prison. The Criminal Code already provides that persons who kill, mutilate or harm cattle are subject to a maximum sentence of five years in prison.
[English]
In addition to increased maximum penalties, the amendments in Bill C-10 set out additional sentencing tools for the courts in animal cruelty cases. The maximum duration of an order prohibiting an offender from owning or having custody of an animal has been extended from two years to life. The courts are given a new power to order a convicted offender to repay to a person or to an organization the costs associated with caring for the animals in respect of which the offender was convicted.
[Translation]
Now let's look at the question I am frequently asked: what impact will these legislative changes have on legitimate industrial uses of animals?
First of all, I want to emphasize that industrial uses of animals and the provisions of the Criminal Code respecting cruelty to animals have coexisted since 1892. The amendments proposed in Bill C-10 modernize the law and provide for stiffer penalties, but in no way change the current test of liability as regards wilful cruelty and criminal negligence towards animals.
I want to stress that fact. The test for liability has not been changed. Practices that are now legal will not become illegal when Bill C-10 passes into law.
[English]
When the current tests for liability for causing unnecessary pain, suffering or injury were introduced in 1953, Parliament had a choice between two possible approaches for determining liability in circumstances where there are legitimate practices that may cause pain to animals. One approach was to prohibit the infliction of any and all pain but to provide defences where the purpose for inflicting the pain is lawful.
The other approach was to factor the reasonable use of animals for lawful purposes into the very definition of the offence itself. Parliament chose the second approach, which is maintained in the animal cruelty amendments in Bill C- 10. No offence is even committed unless unnecessary pain, suffering or injury is inflicted, or unless the standard of care was departed from in a very substantial way.
The test for unnecessary pain takes into account whether the purpose of inflicting the pain was lawful, and whether the means used to achieve the purpose were reasonable. The policy of the law is that we do not brand people who use animals in industry as criminals unless they go beyond what is reasonable.
Mr. Chairman, some industry groups maintain that if the defences of lawful justification, excuse and colour of right in subsection 429(2) of the Criminal Code are not available to them, they will lose what has been called ``up-front protection.''
When you look at this argument closely, you realize that it is based on a false assumption. These people are saying that they think that the defences in the Criminal Code currently operate to excuse any conduct, provided that it is done for a lawful purpose. This basically means that they think they are exempt from the law. This position is not supported by any case law. In fact, in Menard, the leading case on animal cruelty, they looked at both the lawful purpose and the means chosen to achieve the purpose in deciding what was unnecessary pain, suffering or injury.
This case also made it clear that a determination of what is unnecessary pain is not a subjective test. It is not what a particular group or person thinks is unnecessary pain. It is an objective test that has been in the Criminal Code since 1953, and it is well understood by the courts. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, subsection 8(3) clarifies the application of common law defences, including legal justification, excuse or colour of right, to the offences of animal cruelty.
Bill C-10 does not change this test. Defences do not operate to exempt industry from the cruelty offences.
[Translation]
Perhaps I could briefly review the facts of the Ménard case to illustrate the comments I have made about the way that test applies to pain and suffering caused to animals in the industrial setting.
In the Ménard case, the accused was the operator of a stray animal extermination company. The court expressly recognized that animals may be used for various legitimate purposes, and that to achieve those purposes, it may be necessary to inflict pain. The court did in fact rule that Ménard killed animals to achieve a legitimate purpose.
However, the problem was that the method used by Ménard to kill the animals caused them pain, whereas another method which was easily accessible to him would have caused less pain. He was thus found guilty because the means he used to achieve a legitimate purpose caused pain that could have been avoided, and consequently the test for causing unnecessary pain or suffering was met.
Essentially, this ruling makes it clear that any person using animals must behave in a humane fashion. I believe the majority of Canadians do behave humanely. The law in this area has been clear for 50 years, and this bill changes nothing in that respect.
[English]
I know that many of these industries are subject to codes of practice and applicable guidelines. I wish to state clearly, for the record, that I am confident that in any case that comes before a court in respect of one of these industries, the court will take into account the applicable standards and guidelines. For example, the guidelines developed by the Canadian Council on Animal Care provide a crucial reference point in the context of animal research and teaching. Also, agricultural codes of practice are relevant in the farming context.
Let me assure you that the courts already have regard to such guidelines as the best evidence of what is reasonable and acceptable in a particular context. This is the current state of the law. It is certainly my intention that the law remain unchanged in this regard.
[Translation]
Some of those who have criticized Bill C-10 are concerned that farmers, researchers and trappers may be dragged before the courts by animal rights groups. They are basing that belief on the assumption that individuals can easily use the courts to engage in malicious prosecution against certain industries.
I believe that is absolutely incorrect. Recent changes to the Criminal Code provide solid protection against individuals who might be tempted to use the courts for non-judicial purposes. With these changes, all actions initiated by individuals will be screened by a designated judge or justice of the peace. Only once a hearing has been held would a potential accused possibly be forced to come before a court of law. Those protections complement others already set out in the Criminal Code.
[English]
Mr. Chairman, I suggest to honourable senators that the animal cruelty provisions in Bill C-10 achieve the goals of legislation without creating the risk that industry or anyone else would be subject to vexatious prosecutions.
I would like to use the remainder of my time to address the part of this bill that deals with the Firearms Act.
This bill proposes administrative amendments to the Canadian Firearms Program. Let me discuss these amendments in the context of public safety.
First, I am pleased to report that our practical approach to gun safety is already helping to cut down on firearms- related crimes in this country. It does this by keeping firearms from people who should not have them and encouraging legitimate owners to handle firearms safely and responsibly.
[Translation]
The licencing process was the first stage of the program, as we all know. Licencing was proven to be a tremendous success. The firearms data base now has some 2.1 millions registrants, which corresponds in our view to about 90 per cent of the estimated number of firearms owners.
Security checks were carried out for every firearms licence application. A licence holder check is also conducted to ensure that licence holders can continue to meet the requirements for possessing firearms.
[English]
The second phase of the program, registration of firearms, is also nearing completion. Firearms must be registered by the end of this year. I am pleased to report that Canadians are taking the initiative to register these firearms. A month before the deadline, we have already received applications from about 70 per cent of licensed firearms owners. This national investment in public safety is already paying off. Enhanced screening of firearms licence applicants and continuous eligibility screening of licensed holders are leading to safer homes and communities by keeping firearms from those who pose a risk to themselves or others.
Since December 1, 1998, over 7,000 licences have been refused or revoked by public safety authorities. The number of revocations is over 50 times higher than the total for five years under the previous program.
[Translation]
I would now like to move on to the second part of my opening remarks with respect to firearms: public support for the program.
Indeed, the people of Canada continue to strongly support the firearms program. Law enforcement organizations, particularly the Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, continue to support this program because of the essential tools it makes available to them for fighting crime.
Also, it should be mentioned that in cooperation with law enforcement organizations, we have established a National Firearms Act Enforcement Support Team. This is an elite unit composed of highly experienced professionals. This team is already providing support to local police services to combat the illegal trafficking and smuggling of firearms, as well as violent acts committed using firearms.
Members of the NFAEST have provided valuable support to police forces across the country.
[English]
Honourable senators, I will now move to the last theme of my remarks, which is simplified administration. In Bill C- 10, we are putting forward administrative changes that will continue to ensure a high level of service to clients. This in no way affects the government's clearly stated commitment to public safety. In fact, the bill will strengthen the program's contribution to public safety by allowing us to simplify processes and requirements for firearms owners and therefore encourage compliance.
[Translation]
These changes include simplifying the licence renewal process. Also, pre-processing the applications of visitors to Canada wanting to bring in firearms will make the border process more efficient.
We are enhancing efficiency by reducing costs. For example, by ensuring equal distribution of licence renewal applications, we will avoid having to process massive numbers of applications at the end of a five-year period, while at the same time balancing the workload. We want to give exclusive administrative authority to a Commissioner of Firearms who will report directly to the Minister of Justice.
[English]
Mr. Chairman, other amendments will allow us to both enhance and streamline border controls when it comes to the import and export of firearms. In Bill C-10, the government has also recognized the need to address dealer inventories of prohibited handguns, in particular dealers caught with inventories on February 14, 1995, when their prohibition was first announced. Grandfathering these inventories would allow businesses to sell prohibited handguns to individuals who are grandfathered to possess them and licensed to acquire them. This would help businesses and would not affect public safety, as only licensed, grandfathered individuals could acquire these handguns.
A related amendment would change a grandfathering date for prohibiting handguns from February 14, 1995 to December 1, 1998, so that properly licensed individuals who lawfully acquired and registered a handgun while it was still restricted can keep it.
[Translation]
If adopted, this measure will ensure public safety, since only people in possession of handguns on December 1, 1998, with the proper training and licences, would be authorized to keep them. Only a small number of persons with grandfathered rights would be authorized to possess prohibited handguns.
[English]
With these amendments and ongoing collaboration with our partners and stakeholders, we will continue to ensure a fair balance between the interests of responsible firearms owners and our shared objective of public safety.
[Translation]
I want to thank you for your careful study of this important legislative instrument. I am now available to answer your questions.
[English]
Senator Stratton: We were instructed by the chamber to split the bill. We have heard the minister now on both aspects of the bill. How are we to proceed? I thought that the cruelty to animals aspect was going to be set aside and we were supposed to be dealing only with the amendments related to guns. Could you please clarify this point?
The Chairman: Minister Cauchon's officials can be here tomorrow. If it is the wish of the committee, we can proceed with questions on the firearms aspect of the bill at this point.
Senator Cools: We cannot proceed that way. Maybe you should go ahead. We can proceed on one bill or the other, but we cannot proceed on everything in this way.
I believe the better course of action was for the committee to settle the question of how it was going to split the bill first, and then have the minister appear before us on the first part of the new bill.
The minister has been speaking to us on Bill C-10, but in fact, if we can get on with our business, we will have two bills before us. It seems to me that that will be enough of a serious challenge.
I tend to think that the minister's time would be better spent if he could direct his full attention to the particular bill that will be before us once we make a decision as to which one we should proceed with first.
The Chairman: I am in the hands of the committee on this one.
My understanding is that the instruction is to split the bill. That has to be done before we report back to the chamber. That can be done any time. I do not believe it is necessary to do it right now.
Senator Cools: We should make a decision as to how we should proceed.
The Chairman: That is why I am asking for information on this issue.
Senator Beaudoin: My impression is that the minister has already given a general review of the two parts of Bill C-10. He started with cruelty to animals and finished with the issue of gun control.
There is no doubt in my mind that we have a binding order from the Senate. Logically, my first reaction is to deal first with the question of firearms, because of the nature of the bill and the question of the limits for the year to come.
After that, we may deal with the animal cruelty issue, which is completely different from the other part of the bill. Perhaps we may hear the minister on this question and he can inform us of his choice.
It is the choice of the committee. We have an order of the house. However, we have the power to say what we will deal with. In my opinion, a preliminary debate should take place and we should start with the question of gun control.
Senator Sparrow: First of all, it was clear in the house this afternoon that the direction was to refer the bill to committee and that the committee split the bill. It did not give any time limit as to when it could be discussed. To me, it means that the bill is to be split forthwith. There was no direction given to the committee saying, ``You can discuss the gun portion or the cruelty to animals portion of the bill.'' There was no breakdown of that. The comment that we should discuss the gun-related part is irrelevant because we have no power to deal with the bill.
If further thought had been given to it, the subject matter could have been referred to the committee today, but that was not the case. The subject matter has not been referred. It is only the bill that is to be split, and it has to go back to the house. According to the explanation we received today, it had to go back to the house as an amendment. Then the bill would have to proceed to second reading on each portion. It seems to me that that is the only thing the committee can do.
A further question arises. Is the committee sending back to the house an amendment to the bill? I cannot answer that question in my own mind. If it is an amendment to the bill, then it must go back to the House of Commons as well. Therefore, there is no purpose in discussing the bill here now, unless you wish to go back to the house and say, ``Do you want to refer the subject matter to this committee?'' Then you can discuss the subject matter, but not the bill.
Senator Baker: I listened carefully to the motion passed in the Senate. It was the usual motion before the Senate that accompanies a bill that is referred to committee for consideration.
There were statements made in the chamber related to meetings that had taken place regarding the possible splitting of the bill. The motion accepted by the Senate was the normal motion. Therefore, I would submit that the entire bill is before this committee, and if the committee decides to split it, then that is its decision.
Senator Cools: No. It is a mandatory instruction; it is not permissive.
Senator Baker: I listened to the motion carefully before the house. There was an instruction from the house to the committee. That is for the committee to decide. It is for the committee to pass as a motion. The entire bill is before the committee, and it is up the committee, if it so decides, to split the bill.
Senator Bryden: It is unusual for me to say that everyone is right.
Senator Joyal: I have not spoken.
Senator Bryden: Maybe I am speaking too soon.
What occurred is legitimate.
What was referred to the committee was the bill. The bill that was read at second reading was referred to this committee. However, it was said that, with direction, the committee should split the bill.
Senator Cools: Yes.
Senator Bryden: We know that. We cannot deal with the bill as a whole. However, I believe that we are not violating that order by benefiting from the fact that the minister is available this afternoon to provide his input on the bill that was referred to us. That is what he has just done.
I do not know that it is correct to say that we can go through the bill and decide to split it three weeks from now. I do not think we are violating the order by listening to the minister's position, which happens to deal with the bill that was given to us.
I would suggest that the next thing that needs to be done is for us to go in camera and do what we were told and split the bill. How many times have those of us who have been around this table for a good number of years had to wait for the opportunity to have the minister present his case? He is here and he has done that. I would assume it is sufficiently important that if he needs to come back at some point, because there is something that only he can answer, then that is legitimate. However, at the moment, we have in front of us at least the initial presentation, and probably his officials can answer most of the technical questions with which we need to deal.
My view is that we have gone as far as we can. I do not think it is open to us now to direct questions to the minister on one aspect or the other. When we come to the point where we want to know what the minister's position is, we can return to the record. That is my view. What is more, that will work practically. In addition, we are ready to deal with the Acadian holiday as soon as we solve this problem and then deal with our problem tomorrow in camera, when hopefully, the officials from Justice Canada will be with us to assist.
Senator Cools: I believe that Senator Bryden is right. There is no violation whatsoever of any order in listening to the minister on the generalities of Bill C-10. The issue is that we have before us a reference of the bill to the committee. Yet, simultaneously, we also have an instruction to the committee. Instructions to committees are of two kinds: The first is permissive and the second is mandatory. This particular instruction is mandatory, which means that it is an order of the house to split the bill.
It is open to us to take these decisions in our wisdom and as we see fit. I have no doubt that the committee will exercise its wisest and most prudent judgment in these areas.
When I raised the issue of the minister's testimony before us, I was thinking of the minister putting his own time and staff to the best use. That is what I was attempting to say. Perhaps the better course of action is for committee members to direct their minds to the complex issues and questions that will be involved in splitting this bill. For example, what will the bill numbers be? Does one of them become a bill originating in the Senate? It is very complex. I would submit that some of these issues would preoccupy our minds and energy. I welcome the minister's remarks. However, it seems that the committee should decide on its course of action and then go to the minister.
The Chairman: At this time, I propose that we revert back to Bill S-5 and go in camera tomorrow morning to discuss the procedural wrangling on how we will deal with the division.
Minister, let me apologize for keeping you waiting since 3:30. Thank you very much for your time and your patience.
Honourable senators, our next witness is Dr. Neil Boucher, who is an historian. He has been asked to appear in response to a request that we made during Senator Comeau's appearance last week.
Senator Buchanan: Honourable senators, I just wish to mention that Dr. Boucher is associated with one of the very fine universities in Nova Scotia, the Université Sainte-Anne. Of my five honorary doctorates, the most important one is my doctorate of political science from the Université Sainte-Anne, and Dr. Boucher was present when I was presented with that honour.
Mr. Neil Boucher, Historian: Honourable senators, I wish to first thank Senator Comeau for inviting me here to present these few remarks on the Acadians. I hope there will be fewer procedural problems than in splitting a bill, but I will try to do my best.
I have a 10- or 15-minute overview of Acadian history, after which I will gladly answer questions that honourable senators may have.
What I propose to do in 12 or 15 minutes is to give honourable senators a 90-hour course. Therefore, you will be getting the Reader's Digest version, as well you can imagine. However, there will be no exam.
[Translation]
I would like to remind Committee members that the Acadians are descendants of French settlers who came to Nova Scotia during the first half of the 17th century. I would emphasize that they are the descendants of French settlers, because it is not Acadians who came to Acadia. The people who came to Acadia were from France, just as the British came to settle in various American colonies in the Southern United States.
The Acadian people are the product of an evolution which began with the French identity.
The historical evolution and socialization process of the Acadian people have been marked by facts associated with them and them alone, thereby producing a unique group that is different from other francophone groups in North America.
[English]
Mr. Chairman, I would like to present this brief overview by highlighting four or five points in the evolution of Acadian history that show how it is that the Acadians evolved as a distinct group in Nova Scotia, different from other francophone groups that have existed and still exist today in Canada.
[Translation]
The first unique factor in the development of the Acadian people would probably be the way in which the economic system distinguished them from others. First of all, the economic system of the Acadians was based on an agricultural practice that no other group in North America, either Francophones or anglophones, had adopted. It is recognized that they were behind the agricultural practice known as marshland reclamation, or dyke land farming.
[English]
Dike land farming is what characterized Acadian economic development once they established themselves in the fertile lands of the Annapolis Valley. Using that system, they literally converted marsh into arable farmland. Honourable senators may be familiar with the national historic site that today commemorates the Acadian deportation, at Grand-Pré, where, as Senator Buchanan and Senator Comeau would undoubtedly attest, there is a vast expanse of land that stretches out to the base of the mountain. All that was under water when the Acadians arrived. Through dike land farming, they transformed that marshland, sea-infested land, into good arable farmland.
[Translation]
The Acadians were successful in producing more than what the domestic market required or more than what was needed to meet their specific needs. They became commercial producers very early on in their history, thereby distinguishing themselves from a number of other groups.
The second characteristic that is unique to Acadians, in terms of their evolution, is that they were not always well taken care of by the mother country. We know that in North America, France had two main colonies: Acadia and New France. France had focussed its aspirations on building an empire in North America in the heart of the Continent — in other words, in New France. However, compared to the way France looked after its central colony of New France, one could say that the Acadians were often left to their own devices. They had no seigniorial system per se in Acadia, unlike New France.
In terms of their economic development, the Acadians were not subject to same rigourous monitoring as settlers or inhabitants of New France. To a certain extent, they were left on their own, which led to the development of a rather special character among Acadians. As a result of France's negligence, the Acadians found themselves forced to develop trading relations that were prohibited; they bartered with Anglo-Americans living just to the south of them, which was illegal at the time, since the colonies to the south were British colonies.
[English]
French colonists were not supposed to trade with British colonists. We could say that Acadians were the nation's first cross-border shoppers.
The Chairman: They have had problems, recently.
[Translation]
The third point to be made in terms of distinguishing the evolution of the Acadian people from that of other groups, has to do with the conflict between France and England for domination of the North American continent. At the time that France was settling certain parts of North America, England was also colonizing North America, and the European rivalry between France and England did not remain on the European continent. It was soon imported to North America.
Often French and English colonies were at war. Acadia and the Acadians, who were living right there, were often the target of multiple attacks from the English colonies as a result of this struggle to dominate the North American continent.
[English]
France and England steadily competed for domination of the North American continent. The Acadians often found themselves caught between the two in that conflict. Very often, the Acadian colony was attacked by British colonists coming principally out of Boston. Throughout their history, Acadians were often forced to live under British occupation. Especially during wartime, the British would descend upon Acadia, easily overrun the capital and occupy the colony for the duration of the war. Very often, at the end of a particular war, Acadia was again returned to France until the declaration of another war, when another expedition would re-conquer and occupy it until a peace treaty was signed. It was sort of a political football game between France and England, the football being Acadia and the Acadians. That back and forth situation occurred seven times during the existence of the colony. This is unique to the Acadians.
[Translation]
Unfortunately, the Acadian people found themselves caught in the middle of this dispute between England and France for supremacy across the North American continent. After 1713, the British occupation became permanent. Acadia was therefore never again to be under French occupation. As well — again after 1713, but in peace time — the Acadians were asked to swear allegiance to the British Crown, which posed a fundamental problem for them since swearing unconditional allegiance to the British Crown would obviously mean that in the event of a war, Acadians who bore arms in the name of Great Britain would do so against France and against French subjects living primarily in New France, but also on Cape Breton Island, in Louisbourg.
The refusal of the Acadians to submit unconditionally to the domination of the British meant that in 1755, just as war was about to break out, the Acadians found themselves between a rock and a hard place. Indeed, the British wanted the Acadians to be loyal to them, to ensure that France would never again reconquer Acadia, while the French, for their part, wanted the Acadian people to be loyal to them, so that France could use the Acadians to win back lost ground. The result was their deportation.
[English]
Between 1755 and 1763, 10,000 to 12,000 Acadians were forcibly removed from Nova Scotia, principally, but not exclusively, destined for the 13 British colonies that stretched from Massachusetts to Georgia. Some were deported to France; some were deported to England; some were never deported at all, being imprisoned in Nova Scotia for the duration of hostilities. Some were neither imprisoned nor deported; they simply lived in the woods alongside the native population.
However, 1763 marks a turning point in the history of North America.
[Translation]
It is at that time, with the end of the Seven Years War and the Treaty of Paris of 1763 that England's supremacy across the North American continent was confirmed. In 1755, the Acadians were deported. The year 1758 marked the second and final destruction of Louisbourg. Then, in 1759 came the British victory on the Plains of Abraham. In 1760 was the fall of Montreal, confirmed in 1763 by the Treaty of Paris. The British flag flew from Florida in the south to Hudson Bay in the north; from the Mississippi in the west, to Newfoundland in the east. In the context of this complete conquest of North America, the Acadians were given permission to return to their former lands.
[English]
As I said, 10,000 to 12,000 were deported. Approximately 1,200 returned to Nova Scotia. The Acadian deportation of 1755 and following years disseminated approximately 90 per cent of the population.
[Translation]
When the Acadians returned to Nova Scotia, they returned to an environment that was not necessarily conducive to their development. Deemed both Catholic and French-speaking, they were seen as marginal and found themselves, as Catholics, forced to abide by strict laws that nowadays would be deemed discriminatory. Acadians were subject to the English Penal Code, that stipulated that Acadians did not have the right to vote, to sit as members of the legislative assembly, to found schools, to be involved in legal transactions, and so on.
So, their fate was quite different from that of Quebecers following the 1763 conquest. Indeed, Quebecers continued to be subject to the French Civil Code, still had access to the seigniorial system and to their Catholic churches.
[English]
After the return to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick under these conditions, it is not surprising that the Acadians sort of withdrew. They evolved apart from mainstream society, in part due to certain discriminatory laws, and in part due to their own wishes. The French author Antonine Maillet, of whom you have probably all heard, best summarized it in the title of her book Cent ans dans les bois, as that is figuratively what the Acadians did; they retired into the woods for approximately 100 years. However, after 100 years of resettlement, a new feeling emerged.
[Translation]
It was thanks to the founding of institutions of higher learning in the second half of the 19th century and the arrival of the press that a professional elite finally developed in Acadia. Le Collège Saint-Joseph was founded in Memramcook in 1864, followed by le Collège Ste-Anne in Pointe-de-l'Église, Nova Scotia in 1891. These two institutions would produce a professional elite intent on inciting the people of Acadia to rise up — in a figurative sense, of course — and take their rightful place in their society, as it was then. We call this the Acadian nationalist movement or Acadian renaissance. It is important to point out that Acadians were anxious to take their rightful place in society within existing socio-political structures.
[English]
The Acadian nationalist movement at the end of the 19th century was a rise in collective consciousness and an attempt by Acadians to find their just and equal place within Maritime society, not by overturning or challenging the existing socio-political institutions, but rather by working within those very structures.
There were huge Acadian conventions.
[Translation]
Large rallies took place; the first of these was in 1881. We call them the Acadian national conventions, since Acadians adopted symbols to reflect their identity. The first symbol was created at the first Acadian national convention in Memramcook, New Brunswick in 1881, and it is a national holiday — in other words, a day on the calendar reserved for the people of Acadia. The date chosen for this holiday was August 15, a date taken from the Catholic liturgical calendar — since Acadians were devout practising Catholics — known as the Assumption of the Virgin Mary. It is interesting to note that at this first national convention, there was quite a heated debate between supporters of a unique Acadian national holiday and those that were in favour of an Acadian national holiday that would be linked to June 24, Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day.
However, it was the group that supported a unique national holiday for Acadians that won out. Joining French Canadians to celebrate the same national holiday would have given tremendous weight to Acadian society, which was certainly not at the same level as Quebec society from a demographic standpoint, but the fundamental point here is that the majority of Acadians did not consider themselves Quebecers. However, we acknowledge that Quebecers have an absolutely legitimate right to their own national holiday, which is on June 24. Acadians want their holiday to be celebrated on August 15.
Three years later, at a second convention in Miscou, Prince Edward Island, other symbols of the Acadian identity would be added, such as the flag. The French tricoloured flag with the Stella Maris star in the blue section of the flag was chosen in 1884, as well as the Acadian national anthem, the Ave Maris Stella.
Today, Acadians live primarily in three maritime provinces: New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. In terms of the demographics, there are about 250,000 of them with their own schools, hospitals, financial institutions and national associations, such as the Société nationale de l'Acadie, for example, which represents Acadians not only in the three maritime provinces, but across all four Atlantic provinces. That national association is the primary lobby group that is both recognized and funded by the Canadian government — in this case, the Department of Canadian Heritage.
That was the short version of one of the courses I teach at university that normally takes 90 hours. I would now be pleased to answer any question you may have in the language of your choice.
Senator Beaudoin: The history of the Acadian people is very different from that of French Canadians living in Quebec. And yet the French language and the Catholic religion were also what united the people of Acadia. It was the same thing for the people of Newfoundland. That was so much the case that in 1774, Lord North, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, reintroduced French civil laws to Quebec. I am not referring here to the Civil Code, but rather to laws enforced prior to that, such as the practice of the Catholic religion, for example.
I understand why Acadians feel different from Quebecers. There are a number of reasons for that. With the Civil Code in 1866, Sir Georges-Etienne Cartier, taking his inspiration from the Napoleonic Code, once again put the French language — albeit, indirectly — on a solid footing.
The Acadian people always were and always will be different. But if that applies to Nova Scotia or Acadia, does it not also apply to Catholic francophones in other provinces? In Quebec, that is something that is taken for granted, because it was New France. There was Lower Canada and there was Quebec; then came the people of Ontario, Manitoba and the other provinces. Do we not all have the same roots? Acadia fought for the French language and to preserve its institutions, just as Quebec did. But in Quebec, it was different, because there were more of us; at the same time, the major factors were the laws and the language. I fully accept the notion that the Acadian people are different. You defend your cause well, and you are absolutely right. However, I really wonder why that is the case. How did we come to that? The fact is we are becoming more divided, rather than more united. That is what I find a little worrisome.
In 1982, when Calixa Lavallée wrote O Canada, it was for all francophones. So, this bothers me a little from a purely historical standpoint, because our roots are the same. We are talking about a group of francophones who lived in a part of the country other than Quebec. And yet, there are other francophones in other parts of Canada. Will they want to go the same route as Acadia?
Mr. Boucher: It is very difficult for me to comment on the intentions of other francophone groups outside of Acadia. I agree with you about the fact that our roots are the same, in the same way that someone living in New York and another person living in Piccadilly Square in London have the same roots. However, I am sure you will agree that there is a big difference between the two.
Actually, you answered your own question: although our roots are the same, there are discernable differences between us because of the way in which the two groups have evolved historically from the early period until the present. In their collective unconscious, Acadians believe that people living in Quebec cannot really understand their circumstances, and the reverse is also true. That is simply a fact. What does it mean to live as a minority! That is the fundamental difference between these two groups of francophones.
Senator Beaudoin: But there are a great many federalist Quebecers, and their country is also Canada.
Mr. Boucher: Yes, but in Quebec, it is possible to be conceived, born, grow up, be educated, get married, work, and die in French. All of these things are not possible either in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick or Manitoba. That reality simply makes people feel differently.
Allow me to make two other points. Over the course of their history — and I am not referring here only to what happened at the time of colonization, but rather, over the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries — their particular evolution and the events they experienced as Canadians and Quebecers changed them in ways that make them different from each other.
I also want to go back to your previous point, to confirm that there are certainly other groups of francophones living elsewhere in the country — for example, francophones living in Sudbury, Ottawa, Hearst and Saint-Boniface. The fact is that in the case of each of these groups, their roots are all in Quebec, if we go way back in Canadian history. Which is another distinctive characteristic of Canadian society.
The umbrella organization that represents all Francophones living in Canada outside Quebec recognized that reality in selecting its name. It is called the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada.
Senator Beaudoin: What unites us is our language, our culture and our laws. Your argument is based partly on territory — the Atlantic territory, so to speak.
Mr. Boucher: No. Acadians can exist and continue to be Acadian outside of the Atlantic provinces.
Senator Beaudoin: As I see it, there is an Acadian people and a Quebec people. There is also a French Canadian people here in Canada. But other than the area where we live, what really distinguishes us one from the other? There are a majority of us in Quebec, and that is the only place where we do form a majority. However, we are a minority in Canada as a whole.
As I said to my colleague, Senator Comeau, this bill is very interesting, but the matter of territory and history is a source of irritation to me. Did we decide back in 1881 that Quebecers and Acadians would each do their own thing?
Mr. Boucher: I do not think it was as categorical as that, but there was a desire to make it clear that Acadians were different. Acadians were not necessarily acting in opposition.
Senator Beaudoin, I firmly believe that it is possible for a people to have a ``societal'' vision or national vision outside the context of the nation state. It is not essential to be a nation state in order to have a ``societal'' vision.
[English]
Senator Joyal: With all deference to my colleague, Senator Corbin, I would have liked to have him question our witness, but since my very point is on the last element of the question raised by Senator Beaudoin, I can, Mr. Boucher, always defer to my colleague.
[Translation]
I would like to come back to the point raised by Senator Beaudoin because it is a critical point in terms of the consistency of what we are being asked to do here. You are asking us to pass a federal piece of legislation, a bill respecting a National Acadian Day. In my opinion, the word ``national'' is not one that can be used indiscriminately just to please people. It is a term that has a precise legal meaning.
I looked in a number of federal statutes where the word ``national'' was used for holidays. What surprised me was that when the Dominion Day Act was passed in 1879, the word ``national'' was not used. It is not called the National Day Act.
[English]
It is not the national Canada Day act or national Dominion Day Act.
[Translation]
In another federal statute dealing with Canada Day, neither the word ``nation'' nor the words ``national holiday'' are used in relation to Canada Day. I also looked elsewhere to see where the term ``national'' might have been used, and I noted that pursuant to statutory powers, June 21 had been declared National Aboriginal Day in 1996.
I realized that by using the term ``national'' in that proclamation, what was meant was that that day would be Aboriginal people's national holiday across the country. It did not mean the Aboriginal people were deemed to be nations, but rather that this was a national holiday for all Aboriginal people across the country.
I then found another statutory decision that seemed to confirm my opinion.
[English]
Throughout Canada every year, a full week of April shall be known by the name of ``National Organ Donor Week.'' It is quite clear that an organ is not a nation, so it means that the celebration is across Canada. Then I met with Senator Pearson this morning. I asked her where she was heading, and she told me, the National Child Day celebration. I went into the act adopted in 1993, and found, ``This act may be cited as the Child Day Act.'' It is not a national day, but I was surprised today because people who were celebrating that were wearing a badge.
Senator Pearson: The act talks about it as a national celebration.
Senator Joyal: Yes, but that is in the ``whereas.'' It is not a section of the act. Legally, when you look into the act, the word ``national'' is neither in the title nor in the section that creates a day for the child. I noticed the word ``national'' on your badge today and I wanted to check if it was in the act — for the purpose of our debate, I was trying to understand the word ``national.''
[Translation]
So, I now also know that Quebec has a National Holiday Act.
[English]
The National Holiday Act — and, of course, it is June 24.
[Translation]
It is important to understand one critical point, which is that when Quebec makes a decision such as that, it is making that decision for the citizens of Quebec, for francophones. But the Act does not state that this is a holiday primarily for citizens who speak French. It basically says that it is aimed at people who reside in Quebec. In the Quebec statute creating the Quebec National Holiday, there is no reference to the use of the French language or francophone domination in Quebec.
By passing this bill, is the intent to recognize the Acadian people as a nation in a federal statute, even though in current federal statutes, there is no national holiday for French Canadians? That would mean we would be providing for a national holiday for Acadians, but not for all French Canadians.
I take exception to your saying that in 1881, Acadians rightly stated that they were not French Canadian. The word ``Quebecers'' did not exist at that time, so when we use the word ``Quebecker'' — which is a recent term as regards the public discourse on this, since it is barely 30 years old — to describe French Canadians prior to 1976, I have a problem with that.
Before the creation of the Parti Québécois, Quebecers did not define themselves as Quebecers, but rather as French Canadians, and Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day has always been the national holiday of all French Canadians. At one point, there was an attempt in Quebec to restrict that, for the political reasons we are all aware of.
In this bill, we will be recognizing the Acadian people and I have no problem with the idea — I want this to be perfectly clear — of there being a national holiday for Acadians all across Canada, although as you yourself pointed out, they are primarily concentrated in the Atlantic provinces, with some also scattered across Quebec. You did not mention this in your presentation — and I am certainly not here to contradict you — but many Acadian descendants settled in Quebec.
Senator Comeau: Yes, more than a million of them.
Mr. Boucher: More Acadians went back to Quebec upon their return from exile than went back to the Maritimes.
Senator Joyal: Yes, exactly, and I wanted to hear you say that because it is a very important aspect of the objective behind this bill. We are not being asked to make a proclamation; the purpose of this bill is to create a national holiday for Acadians. However, there is no federal statute establishing Canada's ``national holiday.'' The word ``nation'' does not appear anywhere in the name ``Canada Day.'' Nor is there any national holiday for French-Canadians.
Once again, I have no objection to passing this bill, but I do think that as the Parliament of Canada, when we pass such a bill, we should know exactly what we are doing and how we are using the words we employ. Because behind those words are political concepts that are introduced into legislation, especially in the context of the debate you are all aware of.
I have the utmost admiration and respect for the Acadian people — to the point where if it were possible for me to show you some of the objects I have in my office, on the other side of this hallway, I would do so. I have the ciborium given by Louis XIV to Father Chaussé, who was one of the first missionaries to come here to maintain religious services in Acadia. This piece was forgotten about when the Acadian people were deported, at the same time as the chalice which is now in the Moncton Museum and which was sold on the market in 1960s, and which I bought back and is now also in my office.
I have the greatest respect for the ongoing struggle of the Acadian people; however, it is important for you to understand that when I am asked to play the role of federal legislator, I need to be absolutely sure of what I am doing, because if we state that the objective is to preserve the Acadian identity, celebrate, appreciate and share that identity with other Canadians, we have to do that in a manner that is consistent with the other components of our sociological and political reality in Canada.
[English]
For me, this is at the heart of everything we are being asked to do with this proposed legislation.
[Translation]
Mr. Boucher: First of all, I have to admit I have no legal training or expertise. I have the greatest respect for the legal interpretations you are arguing.
However, I find it difficult to image that in the Acadian collective psyche, the term ``national'' in reference to the ``National Acadian Day'' would not have the same connotation that a legal expert would give it. Don't get me wrong: I am not criticizing that interpretation. I am simply explaining how Acadians would see it.
National Acadian Day has always been so designated in Acadian society. When there were massive Acadian conventions in the late 19th century or early 20th century, to discuss Acadian society and its advances, those huge rallies were always known as the Acadian national conventions.
In 1881, when the first of these national conventions took place, it created its first building block, a network of associations — in other words, a lobby group called the Société nationale de l'Assomption. In 1976 or 1978, when the government of New Brunswick passed a provincial statute officially recognizing the status of the Société nationale de l'Acadie, there was never any desire at that level to equate the term ``national'' with a specific geographical area.
Nor has it ever been the desire of Acadians as a whole that their national ``societal'' vision be considered a plan to acquire the status of nation state. It seems appropriate to consider a quote from a paper written by Sylvie Arend and Christiane Robier, which is often used in political science courses, and which provides an academic definition of ``nation'':
One or more of the following elements are generally considered to be distinctive features of a nation: language, culture, a common past, religion, territory ...
But it is one or more of the above-mentioned components that allow it to claim that status.
Having been President of the Société nationale de l'Acadie — and I can assure that I am a very strong federalist — I can tell you that it is the definition of nation that focusses on such things as language, culture, a common past, religion, a common history, and so on — rather than territory — that is of greater concern to Acadians.
I imagine that one could draw certain parallels between the Metis Nation in Canada, for example, and the Acadian people. I recognize and accept your legal arguments, given the current context. I read the Debates of the Senate where this was discussed. I believe that matter was raised — that the Acadians have tried in the past to include a territorial component in their national definition. However, I believe that attempt only proves my point, given what a dismal failure it was.
Senator Corbin: I want to commend you on your very succinct presentation of the long history of Acadia, a presentation that I very much appreciated. I have a number of comments to make, but I am going to try and limit myself. First of all, I want to respond to the comment made by Senator Beaudoin with respect to supposedly common roots. I do not believe that what we are attempting to do celebrate or draw attention to in this bill is our common roots. Instead, we want to raise awareness of the broken land and of the descendants of that broken land called Acadia, which was always quite distinct from New France, and was isolated from New France for a very long time; indeed, it had practically no relationship whatsoever with New France and which was the reason for the particular character of people who still call themselves Acadians. We can come back to this; I may want to present my views on this when the bill is sent back to the Senate.
However, I would like to reminds Senator Beaudoin that some people in the province of Quebec tried for years to diminish French-Canadians who were not residents of Quebec by referring to them as French speakers from outside Quebec. Quebecers often tried to define us on the basis of Quebec. And yet Acadians have never defined themselves in relation to Quebec, for the very purpose of becoming their own entity. Even now, we hear this kind of comment from both well-meaning and malicious people. But for Acadians, that is insulting. Franco-Ontarians and Franco- Manitobans will have their own views to express on that. But even now, when we hear newscasters on Radio-Canada talk about francophones outside Quebec, we see that as a slap in the face. So, don't talk to me about common roots. That simply does not apply to Acadians. I can assure you of that and I will probably want to talk about it further.
Of course, Senator Joyal raises a political and possibly legal problem — and we could spend a lot of time debating that — but what this bill is attempting to do, as I understand it and interpret it, is simply to ask the rest of Canada to recognize that Acadians have a national holiday. We are not attempting to impose anything on the rest of Canada. We are simply asking the rest of Canada to applaud the existence of the Acadia of yesteryear, today, and tomorrow. This is not an attempt to make national claims of a political or other nature. It is simply recognition of a reality that goes back to the 1800s, as you yourself have said.
I will stop there. I do want to check certain statements. I prefer not to walk the tightrope tonight. It is always a good idea, where history is concerned, to check the facts, and that is what I am going to do. I very much enjoyed your presentation, Mr. Boucher.
[English]
Senator Pearson: I appreciate enormously the quick history lesson you have given us. You have conveyed that identity is not only language and religion; it is a combination of many things. It is obvious that those 1,200 people living in the woods formed a very special identity, in family settings, I presume. The size of the current population indicates that it was a very successful development. You have certainly demonstrated that you have a very special identity.
Senator Joyal always makes one think. As he said, there are several ways of looking at nationality. To compare the bill with National Child Day, the title means that the entire country is recognizing and celebrating children, or should be, and not that there is a republic of childhood, although that is a nice idea. The other definition is one of identity, which has equal legitimacy. Therefore, I do not have a problem with this, but I am always intrigued by the answers to questions that Senator Joyal raises.
Senator Bryden: I have some concerns about the words ``National Acadian Day.'' I speak as a unilingual anglophone who was born and raised on the edge of Acadian country, almost within walking distance of the Pays de la Sagouine. When we did not have a teacher at the little school down the road, I went to Shemogue near Cap-Pelé.
I am an anglophone who was very closely involved for most of my life with the Acadian community, and the anglophone community as it interacted with the Acadian community. There was a time in our recent history when members of the Parti Acadien in New Brunswick were referred to as Acadian nationalists, just as anglophones throughout Canada referred to certain Quebecers as nationalists and, unfortunately, tended to relate them to the FLQ and so on.
Having listened to certain discussions, I absolutely support the position taken by Senator Corbin that Acadians do not consider themselves as Quebecers and would not be comfortable in Quebec. When Quebec nationalists were deciding to separate or to make Quebec absolutely French, I heard it said that those who want to be French in North America should come to Quebec, that is, Quebec is French North America. Those outside of Quebec who are serious about being French in North America, including the Acadians, should be in Quebec because that is where they wanted to create the French fact, the French culture and the French nation.
Among some Acadians of a certain age in New Brunswick, that is, among those who were supposed to be radicals when they were in university, et cetera, there were dreams of establishing an Acadian province just north of where I was born. I refer to Westmorland County, Kent County and up through Gloucester, Restigouche and Campbellton, and not so much to where Senator Corbin is from in Madawaska, because there was another group there.
We have come a hell of a long way in the province of New Brunswick since I was a boy. Where I lived, the one thing that we poor anglophones had to be proud of was that we were not French. That is because at least when we drove to Moncton, we could drive through the Acadian areas, which were much poorer than us. We used to have tarpaper on our outside walls, and they often did not. Even over the course of my life, there has been a dramatic change in the confidence of the Acadians I know in New Brunswick and, I believe, from those whom I have met, in Nova Scotia and P.E.I. In New Brunswick there is no longer a threat. They feel very comfortable within their own skin and culture. You made reference earlier to the fact that you have your own institutions, such as universities, hospitals and schools in New Brunswick. That was the result of the hard work of a lot of people and some governments, in particular, those of Louis Robichaud and Richard Hatfield. It was a wonderful time for all of New Brunswick when we had the Acadian Day celebration and the reunion of Acadians. Acadians and descendants of Acadians came from all over the world to New Brunswick. The headquarters was in Moncton. They were absolutely impressed.
My authority for all this is Fernand Landry who, unfortunately, has died. It had a fantastic effect, not only on the visitors, but on Acadians in New Brunswick, because there was hardly a visitor who was anything but totally amazed at the autonomy, the culture and the independent growth that had occurred in a relatively short period of time.
The fact that we have a large Acadian population adds spice to New Brunswick. In going through this, we have also generated a backlash. The backlash resulted in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in the Province of New Brunswick being, at one time, the Confederation of Regions Party, whose sole purpose was to do away with bilingualism in the province. If you asked one of them about it, they would say that if the Acadians cannot speak our language and go to our schools, they would not pay for another culture in our province. It was a very serious threat to what a lot of people had worked hard for. Thank God that we managed to take them totally out of the political scene. They did what some other parties tend to do, that is, they formed firing squads. They shot all their leaders, one right after the other.
The reason I am sensitive about this is that I lived through those days. I know the heart-wrenching decisions that were made by cabinets, premiers, governments and many individuals.
We ran a couple of parallel election campaigns, working with Acadians in New Brunswick, in an attempt to have one unified government of which everyone felt a part. I do not want to jeopardize that.
That is why I am concerned about the use of the word ``national.'' It has a political connotation. For example, what if somebody just picks that up and writes a letter to the editor saying, ``Why not, then, a national Loyalist day?''
Senator Comeau: I cannot believe that an individual who has lived beside Acadians all his life is bringing up the argument he is bringing up now.
Senator Bryden: I am not bringing up an argument. What I am saying is, we do not want to revisit what we have already gone through.
Senator Comeau: I cannot believe you are saying that.
Senator Bryden: I might want to respond to that, because I know you said previously that if I were going to raise that, then you would just throw the bill in the trashcan. That is not what we are talking about. We are having a discussion.
Mr. Boucher: Senator Bryden, can I comment on one part of your speech? You said the people who, in the 1970s, formed this Acadian party and who had territorial aims, were called Acadian nationalists.
Senator Bryden: That is right.
Mr. Boucher: I was born and raised in an Acadian environment. I was fortunate enough to have an education. I carried that through to the Ph.D. level. All my university years were spent studying the Acadians. I have taught Acadian history, although I no longer do for I am now an administrator, at the university level for 26 years. I am proud of my Acadian history. I think I know my history, although I am discovering new things every day. I go to grade 3, 4 and 5 classes on Acadian days to talk to the children about Acadians. I give part of my summer afternoons, at least six times throughout the summer, to people who come for elder hostel or cultural vacations to talk to them about the Acadians. I take a few days off work to come to talk about Acadians to such an illustrious group of people. I am an Acadian nationalist, and a very proud Canadian. That is the difference I see.
Senator Comeau: I would like to add a comment, if I could.
Senator Bryden brings up the question of a number of people who, in the early 1970s, I believe, tried to extend a movement in order to further their aims in New Brunswick, and they called it the ``Parti Acadien.'' As far as I know, the maximum success that they ever achieved was somewhere in the vicinity of eight per cent of the vote in those areas that they were trying to represent. It was a dismal failure.
I was a student in New Brunswick at the time. I have two university degrees from New Brunswick, so I know about some of the thinking that was going on in those days. The only place I could get a full university degree back in those days was in New Brunswick. I have a sense of what went on.
Senator Bryden brings up the point that because some individuals tried to advance their movement by forming a party, that somehow Acadians are sovereignists. By extension, that is the conclusion of the logic that Senator Bryden would have us believe. If I were to use the same logic that Senator Bryden is proposing, I could say the Confederation of Regions Party of New Brunswick, which in fact became the official opposition sometime in the 1980s, with eight seats and 21 per cent of the vote, was a resounding success, but I would not. I would not extend that to say that therefore the anglophones of New Brunswick are anti-French. I would not for a second make that extension.
Just as I would hope that you would not for a second, because of a certain number of individuals in New Brunswick having tried to form a political movement, conclude that the Acadians are sovereignists. If we were to accept that kind of logic, we would have to accept the logic that New Brunswick anglophones are anti-French, which I know they are not. Therefore, we should be careful with the kind of logic that we use to argue our points.
Senator Bryden: I am not saying that what was happening was logical. I am saying that we cannot go through the discussion and say how wonderful it is and not at least make some allusion to the fact that there was some sweat, tears and a lot of effort on the part of Acadians and anglophones, loyalists, or whatever they were, in order to arrive at the place we are with our institutions in New Brunswick.
Senator Comeau: Senator Bryden is talking to an individual who has devoted his life to trying to do exactly what he is suggesting, working within the institutions and structures that are a part of our federation. Like our good professor here, I am an examples of those who were able to work within the institutions. I represented a riding that was over 75 per cent anglophone when I was a member of the Parliament of Canada. I was one of the examples to show young Acadians that you could be Acadian and be mindful of your French.
[Translation]
I was proud of my French language. I wasn't afraid to say that I was francophone and Acadian in a region where 75 per cent of the population was anglophone. As an Acadian, I was able to work within the institutional framework — indeed, I even became a senator. In the current federal government, we now have an Acadian Minister who is very proud of his language and culture. That shows that the system has worked for Acadians, and people like us have provided concrete proof of that.
[English]
We were there to show Acadians that we could work within the structures that were there to serve us — all Canadians and all federalists. We do not need to worry that we are going back to the days of a few hotheads trying to create a movement. That will just not happen.
Senator Bryden: I accept all of that. I am expressing some concern that I would prefer not to wake up the 20 per cent that you said do not necessarily believe, as I and most people in New Brunswick believe, that the good guys won; that is, that in working together, we have made a wonderful place. The question is not what I think or what you think, but how does the use of the words ``Nation Acadian Day'' impact that?
Senator Comeau: The 21 per cent anti-French.
Senator Bryden: Having said that, it is probably worth doing. I am not saying that it is not worth doing. It may well be. It may be that people will not care about another holiday, but to the Acadians it is extremely important. I hope that some people will not react adversely to it, because it will be a small victory if we can all enjoy it.
Senator Buchanan: I thought that I knew just about everything about the history of Acadians in the Maritimes. I realize now I did not. Over my 24 years in the legislature and 13 as premier, as Senator Comeau knows, I took a tremendous interest in what was going on in Nova Scotia vis-à-vis the Acadians. Quite frankly, having grown up in industrial Cape Breton, I really was not aware of the significance of the Acadians in Nova Scotia. We do have areas in Cape Breton, such as Chéticamp, Grand-Étang, Havre Boucher, Arichat, Isle Madame, where there are Acadians, but when you grow up in an area where there are few — most of us were Scottish, Irish, a melting pot of others — you do not really appreciate what is going on in the rest of the province. That is, until you get involved in politics, as I did in 1966, 1967, and then I started to understand and I came to an appreciation.
I suppose you could say the evolution of Acadians in Nova Scotia has not stopped. As a premier of a province, over the years you are tested on many things. I would say 95 per cent of the people of Nova Scotia, maybe 100 per cent, who follow these things understand and appreciate the uniqueness of the culture and the language of the Acadians. They appreciate the position of the Acadians historically in Nova Scotia, and I understand why it is important to recognize that in the kind of bill that Senator Comeau has introduced in the Senate.
It took me a long time to appreciate all of this, but I will never forget the day, about three months after we formed the Government of Nova Scotia and we had a cabinet meeting at Université Sainte-Anne, when I was asked to go and speak to the students at the high school in Meteghan River.
Not having had the benefit of learning French, I had colleagues there to make sure that I did not make a fool of myself. I will be blunt with you as I tell this story. Being a politician, I was hoping to make an impact of some kind, because we did not hold the seats. I will never forget the day when I got up and addressed the student body. I first realized that although I did not know French, they understood what I was saying when I spoke English. I concluded my remarks and said, ``Are there any questions?'' The question put to me was, ``Mr. Premier, why can we not have bilingual signs all over our shore, from the Argyll area all the way to Digby?'' I stood there and thought about it for maybe 10 seconds and said, ``Why not?'' This kid said, ``Does that mean yes?'' I said, ``Oui.''
It is incredible to think that we had not done that in those areas, even though it is a unique area, different from the rest of the province, except for parts of Cape Breton. The language and the culture of the Acadian area are so important to the whole fabric of Nova Scotia. That is why my response was to say, ``Why not?'' Therefore, we ensured that all the signs in that area then became, and still are, bilingual. Therefore, I cannot see going back to the way it was before.
I am not naive enough to think that there was never an anglophone/francophone situation in Nova Scotia. There was, but it is gone and it is not coming back. It is not coming back because we understand the evolution of events and we understand history. The Acadians were there before we were. Acadie in 1600-1700 included the areas of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, P.E.I., part of the State of Maine and part of Gaspé.
I will tell you a funny story. It was not funny at the time. The Governor of Maine invited me to Augusta to attend a Canada-U.S. seminar on relationships. I started off my comments by saying, ``You people of Maine are so fortunate, because at one time part of the State of Maine was in what was then called ``Acadie,'' and now is called Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, P.E.I., part of Maine and part of Gaspé. However, back in those years, Nova Scotians were sent to civilize the people in those other areas. Therefore, when you were well educated we let you go on your own, and you formed the State of Maine.'' I thought I was going to get a laugh; however, I did not. There were people who were insulted by what I said. I thought it was funny. The governor said to me later, ``What were you trying to do when you told that story?'' I said, ``It is a fact.'' He said, ``It might be a historical fact, but why would you say the words `came to civilize the people of Maine'?'' That is a story that I will never repeat in Maine again, that is for sure.
The Chairman: Senator Buchanan, I am going to have to put the clock on you, because we have two more questioners.
Senator Buchanan: I want to tell you about another interesting piece of history, about the Acadian flag, because I recall the 100th anniversary of that flag. That is one thing I will never forget. Prime Minister Trudeau was there, as was Senator Comeau. We had a huge gathering at l'Habitation de Port-Royal. It was a tremendous day. It was a day for all Nova Scotians to celebrate the Acadian flag. We returned to Halifax. The next week we hoisted the Acadian flag at Province House. It was hoisted by the Acadian wife of the Lieutenant Governor. I assisted her, and we put the flag upside down. It went up to the top of the flagpole, and I looked up and noticed it was upside down. It came down pretty fast.
Senator Joyal: Following on from what Senator Pearson mentioned, in the Child Day Act, it says, in the ``whereas'' section:
AND WHEREAS it is desirable to promote in Canada an awareness of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child;
An improvement could be made to the whereas section of the bill, as mentioned. It is desirable to promote in Canada an awareness of what has been achieved. When I read your ``whereas,'' it was centred on the Acadian people. I agree with that part of the whereas section; however, there is not the sense of the country of Canada as a whole that I believe you are trying to promote. I share the concern of Senator Bryden, Senator Buchanan and all of you.
New Brunswick would not have become officially bilingual if Premier Hatfield had not accepted it on behalf of the majority of the province. Therefore, if we do not have the partnership that the Fathers of Confederation envisaged between francophones and anglophones, whereby the majority understands the kind of balance of recognition there has to be between the two groups, we will be fighting forever. That is not what we want to do. We want to build something together on the basis of our distinct identity, historical origin and so forth. I believe that should be reflected in the bill to ensure that people have no misconceptions. We do not know the future. We will want to use the bill. As a legislator, I have to try to make sure that the bill says what it means.
Senator Comeau: If it is agreeable, I will be sitting down to prepare the right amendment. I will be sitting down with Senator Corbin, who made a good suggestion last week that we expand more on the 400 years.
Senator Beaudoin: I listened carefully. It is a deeply historical issue. I believe that there are one or two expressions in the bill that we may need to amend. I am of the same opinion as Senator Joyal on that point. The important thing is our objective.
The second point is to have the current words in the statute, because everything is there.
I listened carefully to everything that was said. Obviously, I was surprised by one or two interventions. I did not intervene at all, but we must be careful in the Legal Committee. The purpose of our committee is to draft something that is well done. We may always improve legislation. One of the most difficult arts is that of drafting legislation. Especially when one considers the problems that we have had, problems that are deeply enshrined in our history. Both Quebec and the Maritimes are interesting, as are all parts of the country. We are all different. We must keep that in mind when we draft legislation. We should not be too moved by emotion; that is not the best way. We have objectives. We must be fair. We should try to avoid discussions that are too emotional. The idea and the objective are good, but perhaps we may further refine them.
The Chairman: I wish to thank Senator Comeau and Professor Boucher for being with us and for your erudite comments.
Do committee members still need to hear from representatives of Heritage Canada? We have approached them and they have not said anything definitive.
Senator Joyal: We must be coherent. There are a certain number of celebrations, and I mentioned some of them today. If we are to accept this bill, and I hope that we will, we must understand what we are doing in terms of the implications for other initiatives that might come to us in the future. We must have some understanding of when Parliament decides to make national days or proclamations. We must know the status of each and the implications of the federal government including these dates in the calendar. These dates would be reflected in the national calendar.
The Chairman: We will insist on having somebody from Heritage Canada.
Senator Beaudoin: That is a point that has not been sufficiently discussed.
The Chairman: We will go in camera tomorrow to discuss the splitting of bills.
The committee adjourned.