Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 9 - Evidence for May 1, 2003
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 1, 2003
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill S-5, respecting a National Acadian Day, met this day at 11:10.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator George J. Furey (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, this morning we resume our consideration of Bill S-5, respecting a National Acadian Day, sponsored by Senator Comeau.
Our panel includes officials from the Department of Canadian Heritage, Mr. Moyer, Ms. Lemoine and Ms. Julien. As well, we will hear from Professor Basque, who has travelled from Moncton to help us today. There are no briefs supplied by the witnesses today. The Department of Canadian Heritage did provide a fact sheet regarding the options for designating a special day.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Basque, Professor, Centre d'études acadiennes, Université de Moncton: Honourable senators, thank you for your invitation to appear before the committee. I feel privileged to have this opportunity to talk about Acadian history. I have five minutes for my opening remarks, and I will be brief in covering four centuries of history. Next year, in the year 2004, Acadia...
[English]
Senator Joyal: On a point of order.
I would feel uncomfortable, honourable colleagues, if we limited a witness who has travelled all the way from Moncton to a five-minute presentation. With the concurrence of honourable senators, perhaps we could extend that time to 10 minutes.
The Chairman: I am sure we can give Professor Basque some leeway.
[Translation]
Mr. Basque: I have a feature on Radio-Canada every Wednesday morning, so I am used to condensed formats.
Next year, in 2004, Acadian society in particular will be celebrating four centuries of presence in the land that was later to become Canada. I believe other historians have come before the Committee to talk about special features of Acadian history.
I, too, would like to focus on the special features of that history and Acadia's attachment to the French language. In the Canada of today, the main centre of the French-speaking presence and of the history of the French in Canada is, of course, the province of Quebec. Acadia is the second centre, with a smaller critical mass, but which became established as early as 1604, following a particular path that would give rise, in the early 17th century, to what is now the Nova Scotia Peninsula, to a special identity.
This is one of the identities that originally came from Europe but was shaped through contact with various societies in the New World. Thus developed the special identity of Acadia: the Acadian identity.
Before the ``Grand dérangement'' or the exile of 1755, before what is known as the Deportation of the Acadians, there are already historical documents identifying these French-language settlers, who practised the Roman Catholic religion and lived in the Nova Scotia Peninsula in villages with names like Grandpré, Port-Royal, Cobequid and Pichiguid, as Acadians.
And that historical identity would be strengthened through years of disasters that rocked this special colonial society between 1755 and 1764. The Deportation which initially was intended to be a radical means of assimilating Acadians, by dispersing them in small groups across the British colonies, had extremely negative consequences for Acadians as a group, but one of its positive impacts was that it strengthened their identification with the group to such an extent that the descendants of the deportees saw themselves as forming a group.
Like any Western group having had contact with Europe or been part of European history in the 19th century, the leaders of this Acadian group, this first well-educated elite that had been trained in the ``collèges classiques,'' wanted to give Acadians some national symbols. The term ``national'' should be interpreted according to its meaning in the 19th century, that great century of nationalists that led to the creation of Germany, Italy, and less successful national experiences in the case of Poland, which saw the rise of a first nationalist movement. The same occurred in Canada with the creation of the Dominion.
So, in the 1880s, and particularly in 1881, Acadian leaders decided: ``Let us choose a national holiday like the Irish have with St. Patrick's Day, the Scottish, with St. Andrew's Day, the English, with St. George's Day, and the French- Canadians who, in the 20th century, had `la Saint-Jean-Baptiste', a national holiday for their own group.'' The idea was not to become more detached from Canada, but to make the specificity of Acadians, as a group, more real.
As early as 1881, a great promoter of a National Acadian Day, Monsignor Marcel-François Richard, made reference to a distinct people belonging to Canada.
I want to conclude by saying that the national holiday, Assumption Day, celebrated on August 15, was primarily a religious holiday throughout the 19th century and for much of the 20th century.
But starting in 1979, at the time of extensive celebrations for the 375th Anniversary of Acadia — this was an important year for Acadians, since it was the year when Ms. Antonine Maillet received the Prix Goncourt — people again began talking about a National Acadian Day. This time, however, it was seen as being a far more secular, civil holiday, reintroducing the idea of making a lot of noise to let other people know you exist.
Honourable senators, I invite you to come to Acadia, in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland or New Brunswick, one August 15 to witness an extremely vibrant holiday celebration, where you will see both Canadian and Acadian flags flying.
Never in the Acadian identity, except in very rare cases — even though they were not very well treated by various historical federal governments — Acadians have in fact been among those most attached to the Canadian federation, where they found a space to develop and flourish through bilingualism — for example, in New Brunswick, the only province to have declared itself bilingual.
Thus far, that dimension of the word ``national,'' from an historical perspective, had to be understood in the 19th century meaning, which was passed on to the 20th and 21st centuries, but not along the lines of certain definitions one might wish to associate with it today. It really is a positive term in Canadian society, and since 1841, that day has been known as a national holiday.
The younger generation talks a lot less about the national holiday. They talk about August 15 a little like the Americans talk about their July 4 holiday, and the French, the national holiday on July 14t It's a date that needs no explaining when young people get together to decide what they'll do on August 15 to celebrate National Acadian Day. It is a generous celebration that includes all the tourists and visitors to the Acadian communities, which can now be found from St. John's, Newfoundland to Victoria and Vancouver in British Columbia, where people go down in the streets and make a racket.
[English]
Mr. Norman Moyer, Assistant Deputy Minister, Public Affairs and Communications, Department of Canadian Heritage: I will start by talking about the options the government has in seeking to recognize a day of national importance. There are four ways in which the government has traditionally undertaken to recognize these days and I will go through them in increasing order of the formality of the declaration.
It is possible for a sponsoring minister to declare, on his or her own initiative, that a day, week or month will receive special recognition. In fact, we do recognize days under ministerial declarations as part of the Canadian calendar of celebration.
Second, it is possible for the Prime Minister to undertake to make a declaration on behalf of the government as the head of government. We have used that route as well from time to time.
Third, it is possible for the government to seek, through an Order in Council, a Royal Proclamation, which increases the prestige of the declaration, but it remains, in effect, a government action. However, in this case, it is formalized through the proclamation of the vice-regal office.
Finally, it is possible for Parliament, through legislation, to declare a day, a week or a month one of national significance to be recognized by Canadians.
Clearly, we are here today in the context of the fourth category, but I wanted you to be aware of the other three.
We circulated to you a list of examples of the ways in which some days, weeks or months have been recognized. I will not go through all of them but will cite a few so that you can see other ways in which we have done this.
In two particular cases noted on this list, legislation has been the route followed. Legislation is the way in which we recently chose to recognize Sir John A. McDonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier on their birthdays. It is also the route Parliament chose following the incidents at the polytechnique in Montreal. A National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence against Women was enacted by Parliament.
We have a series of examples under Royal Proclamation. National Aboriginal Day and Canadian Multiculturalism Day were both done by Royal Proclamation. They illustrate the evolution in nomenclature in the last few years, during which ``Canadian'' has become, to some extent, a preferred way of identifying days or weeks.
There is a longer series of examples in which the declaration route has been used. In the case of National Flag Day, it is a Prime Ministerial declaration, as it is in the case of Raoul Wallenberg Day. In the case of Asian Heritage Month, there was a resolution in the Senate of Canada, followed by a declaration.
With those examples, you can see the history of how we have done this.
I want to address briefly, as well, the issue that has arisen in your debates about whether the use of the word ``Canadian'' or the word ``national'' is the best way to designate this special day. I will take you through a few of what we see as the pros and cons to be considered in this debate. In doing that, we looked at two options other than the one chosen in your bill, both of them associating the modifier with the word ``day.''
[Translation]
The examples that we looked at were whether we should have a National Acadian Day or a Canadian Acadian Day. I would just like to take a moment to discuss some of the points you may want to consider as you debate the issue.
As for the word ``national,'' it does give an indication of importance. There is a relative importance attached to that word. ``National'' has a long history of being used in connection with days that Canadians have celebrated. And along the lines pointed out by Mr. Basque, the word ``national'' is used historically with respect to August 15 and the National Acadian Day. What militates against use of the word ``national'' is the fact that, taken alone, this word does not necessarily mean that all Canadians will be celebrating.
The word ``national'' is sometimes used for small groups, and sometimes for larger groups. There is a lack of clarity there. In terms of the historical use of the word in such expressions as ``National Canadian Flag Day'' or ``National Aboriginal Day'' or ``National Police and Peace Officers Memorial Day,'' the word ``national'' is used in only one sense in those declarations, and the idea there is to include all Canadians in the definition. We have never used the word ``national'' when designating a special day, month or week for any sub-group of Canadian society.
Now let us look at how the word ``Canadian'' is used. Again, I would like to discuss the option behind this. August 15 could be designated Canadian Acadian Day. The advantage of using the word ``Canadian'' is that the meaning is very clear. That means this is a holiday that is celebrated everywhere, by all Canadians. Particularly when it's used in association with the Acadians, it is a way of eliminating any ambiguity that could arise when the word ``Canadian'' or ``national'' is used in connection with the word ``holiday.''
The arguments against using the word ``Canadian'' are, first of all, that there is an important tradition in Acadia around August 15, which is considered the national holiday, even though the trend is increasingly to refer simply to the date. Part of the population still insists on using the expression ``national holiday,'' which refers back to a tradition. We are also concerned about using the word ``national'' in an Act of Parliament for the first time in a sense that most people would find ambiguous, because Acadians associate the word ``national'' with their holiday in reference to their family, and the reality of Acadian society. The word ``national'' has a limited meaning. In the phrase ``National Acadian Day'' it could be interpreted as meaning a holiday for all Canadians, but the problem is that it isn't clear.
In conclusion, I would just like to quote from a legal opinion prepared by our legal department.
In light of these precedents, we feel it would be preferable for recognition of the National Acadian holiday to be accomplished through Order in Council, rather than through legislation.
We have a slight preference for that option, but some examples point to another solution.
Also, we believe that the term ``national'' should only be used to designate the national character of the day, rather than the holiday.
We believe that the French expression ``journée nationale de la fête des Acadiens et des Acadiennes'' would better reflect the purpose of the Bill, which is that this day have special recognition all across Canada, but that the holiday itself be a holiday for Acadians, and not necessarily for all of Canada.
The English version of that would be ``National Acadian Day.''
Senator Comeau: Have you discussed with your Minister the recommendation that this Bill be rejected in favour of a royal proclamation by order in council?
Mr. Moyer: No, and that is not a formal recommendation from our Department. In terms of the precedents, that would seem to be the most common and most often used method.
Senator Comeau: So, that is your recommendation, not the Department's recommendation?
Mr. Moyer: It is less of a recommendation than simply an observation on our part that it would be more in keeping with normal practice to proceed in that manner. I am not saying that this is a recommendation.
Senator Comeau: Then, this is your personal observation?
Mr. Moyer: Yes, but that observation is based on our legal analysis.
Senator Comeau: And this is your legal analysis, and your observation. Are you yourself a lawyer?
Mr. Moyer: No, our legal service prepared that analysis. Ms. Marie-Lise Julien is available to answer your question.
Senator Comeau: And where are you from, Ms. Julien?
Ms. Marie-Lise Julien, Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Canadian Heritage: I'm from Joliette. The legal opinion was provided by our Director General, Mr. Michel Francoeur. We looked at federal legislation, orders in council and royal proclamations as part of our analysis of how the word ``national'' is generally used.
This is an analysis that reflects the current situation. We are not trying to change the way things are done. We simply want to present the facts. How can we promote or recognize nationally a special day of recognition in Canada?
Senator Comeau: Your comments will be seriously considered by the Committee. Have you discussed this with Acadians?
Ms. Julien: No, our comments have not been discussed with Acadians, but a group of lawyers from the Department of Justice with expertise in constitutional, administrative and language law looked at Mr. Francoeur's legal opinion and added their comments to it. Our goal was to present an accurate picture of the current situation in Canada as to how we now designate a special day.
Senator Comeau: You presented your comments to a group of lawyers. And you also passed them on to Mr. Moyer, saying that the legislative option should be rejected in favour of a ministerial declaration, and that we should remove the words ``Journée nationale des Acadiens et Acadiennes.'' You want to take away the word ``national'' in relation to a holiday that has been celebrated by Acadians since 1881. And you are making all these comments without having even discussed them with Acadians, in order to get an idea of what the impact of these changes would be. You have done this in isolation.
Mr. Moyer: I would just like to clarify our role in all of this. This is not a government bill. Thus we did not hold consultations, and I do not believe it would have been appropriate to do so.
I would just like to make a distinction between two points I made as part of my conclusion. We expressed a preference based on the traditions associated with the use of a declaration, but that is not a recommendation.
The place where the word ``national'' appears in the title has provoked more debate, and we believe we contributed something to that debate. It is not up to us to take a position on whether this should be done via legislation or via a declaration. As a general rule, this would normally have been accomplished through a declaration.
Senator Comeau: So, you are making observations, not recommendations. Have you discussed your observations with the Minister of Canadian Heritage?
Mr. Moyer: I have not discussed this with the minister. She expressed the view that August 15 should be recognized and celebrated by all Canadians. She is in favour of this idea.
Senator Comeau: I have a letter from the minister expressing her full support for this bill. She does not seem to have any reservations about it. I have known the minister for a number of years. I believe she is well acquainted with the history of the Acadians and the implications of the word ``national,'' the use of which goes back to 1881.
Have you at least considered an expression or title that would say ``National Acadian Day,'' but would also answer your concerns regarding the use of the word ``national''?
Mr. Moyer: I do not believe so.
Senator Comeau: If you could remove yourself from your own environment for a few minutes and talk to Acadians, who are very much alive to the implications of your observations, you might gather different ideas or comments, other than those made by Mr. Moyer.
We are going well beyond the law here. You are making observations. But sometimes, we have to go beyond the advice of lawyers who work in isolation, and may not be familiar with the history of Acadia.
Senator Corbin: Mr. Moyer, you talked about the possibility of establishing a Day of Remembrance. What difference is there between a royal proclamation and a law proclaimed by the Governor General or one which has received the consent of the Governor General? Is there a distinction between the two?
Mr. Moyer: Yes, and it is an important one. Parliament is supreme in its ability to provide a framework for Canadians through laws and significant action. The power of a government to make recommendations to the Governor General is also important, although it does not have the prestige and the permanency of an Act of Parliament. In the space of a day, a government can change a royal declaration if it so recommends. In such a case, the change would be made automatically.
However, a law has a certain permanency until Parliament changes its mind. It is primarily in terms of prestige and permanency that those differences exist.
Senator Corbin: So, you are saying that a proclaimed law expressing the will of Parliament carries more weight and has more chance of enduring.
Mr. Moyer: Yes.
Senator Corbin: My next question is for Mr. Basque. Professor Basque is undoubtedly aware of a controversial initiative aimed at securing an apology from the Crown for the deportation of the Acadians in 1755. Given the comments that have just been made, do you believe a royal proclamation, rather than legislation, would have the effect of recognizing the dark side of the deportation of the Acadians and could also include an apology? When you recognize something, it is because you admit the existence of something else, confirmed or otherwise. Having said that, I favour the approach taken by Senator Comeau in his bill, for the reasons already mentioned. It will give this a certain permanency. Another Parliament could well be of a different view. Compared to all the options, legislation seems to provide the greatest permanency.
At the same time, there is still this feeling of frustration among many Acadians that the Crown has to take an additional step. Do you think a royal proclamation would satisfy that concern in many Acadians?
Mr. Basque: I want to give you my opinion as both an academic and a Canadian and Acadian citizen.
I am neither a legal nor a constitutional expert. For me, a royal proclamation is something issued by the Queen of Canada on behalf of the government — and not by the Queen of Great Britain. The distinction here is not always understood by everyone, but we are in fact a sovereign country. And when a process was put in place by the Société nationale de l'Acadie, in response to a suggestion by a Member of Parliament sitting in the House of Commons, I chaired the committee struck by the Société nationale de l'Acadie with a view to determining what Acadians wanted in that respect. The vast majority of letters and briefs sent to the committee that I chaired did not ask for an apology, but rather that the government recognize that a mistake had been made. More than 95 per cent of the respondents did not make any reference whatsoever to financial compensation. It was simply a question of dignity and honour. It was a matter of recognizing that an error had been made; nothing more.
I would like to add one qualification by adding that the process initiated by the Société nationale de l'Acadie, an association created in 1881 that represents the Acadian communities located across all four Atlantic provinces, has nothing to do with a Bill that is tabled every now and then in the House of Commons asking for an apology from the British Crown.
In this particular case, I have a personal opinion, which hinges on two specific points. The Canadian government would say what it has to say while at the same time giving recognition, once again, and greater visibility to Acadians, who represent one of the societies that make up the extended Canadian family. I want to point out that August 15 is not a holiday celebrated only in Canada. It is also celebrated in New England, in Louisiana, at Belle-île-en-mer and in Paris, where Acadians also celebrate August 15.
With the greatest of respect, I would say that the majority of Acadians are Canadian citizens, but within that Acadian family, August 15 goes beyond Canada's borders. It is certainly a Canadian holiday, but it is special among the various national Canadian holidays. As a Canadian citizen, I am particularly proud of its special quality and characteristics, which are at once our strength and what makes us not only different, but special as well.
[English]
Most Acadians in Atlantic Canada speak both official languages and strive to be exemplary Canadians. Although they live in both official languages out of necessity, they recognize and respect this Canadian tradition and fight for this pillar of Canadian identity — our two official languages.
August 15 is derived from a religious holiday in the 19th century and has become now, in the third millennium, more of a civic holiday.
[Translation]
I should also say that some municipalities, including Caraquet in New Brunswick, have designated August 15 a holiday. The University of Moncton also shuts down on that day to celebrate the national holiday. I want to emphasize the semantic differences between the definition of the word ``national'' that prevailed in the 18th century, compared to the meaning it has today.
Senator Comeau's proposal is an honourable one, and most Acadians would be proud, but there is also an important consideration here. If this August Chamber wants to make a positive gesture towards Acadians, I respectfully submit that the term used by those directly involved be retained in the wording, so that the effect is a favourable one, rather than there being the perception that they are being treated like children.
As adults, we do not like to hear about things that affect us personally without being consulted in advance, and for groups, it's the same.
I am very pleased to be here today, but I cannot speak for the four Acadian communities in the four Atlantic provinces. As a historian, I would just like to conclude with a very revealing anecdote about the debate we are having today: the Acadians landed in France after the exile, and when French royal officials made certain proposals to them, they answered saying: ``But we have to consult the nation's leaders before giving you our reply,'' to the great displeasure of the French royal officials, who, insulted, replied: ``But you are in France. There is only one nation in France.'' So you see, the Acadians were already operating as a nation in the 18th century, according to the meaning it had at the time.
That does not mean they were bellicose or confrontational, but their identity, without being completely closed, was already quite strong for them to react in that fashion. All that to say that this is a debate that we are still having in 2003, and which is not foreign to the Acadians's historical journey.
[English]
Senator Joyal: There is a technical problem I want to raise as a lawyer. My colleague, Senator Pearson, will understand that, although she sometimes has some puzzling reactions to lawyers' problems.
If we change the title, we cannot do so on the parliamentary ground, because the title belongs to the House. If we change the title, the bill dies. The title is the existence of the bill. We would have to reintroduce another bill. I wanted to mention that as a preliminary context.
That being said, my first question would be to come back to Professor Basque.
[Translation]
Is there anything in the Statutes of Canada, the Consolidated Regulations or the Consolidated Orders in Council giving recognition to June 24 as the national holiday of French Canadians?
Ms. Julien: There is nothing in federal statutes recognizing the Saint-Jean-Baptiste holiday, the national holiday of Quebeckers, as one to be celebrated across Canada. Special recognition was given to Quebec through a parliamentary motion in 1995, following the referendum. By passing that motion, Prime Minister Chrétien wanted to recognize the specificity of Quebec — its language, culture and civil law tradition. At that time, it talked about the people of Quebec, but this was accomplished by means of a parliamentary motion, which is simply a declaration, rather than being an actual legal instrument that establishes rights. That is the only precedent in federal legislation or at the federal level which was intended to recognize Quebec's distinct society.
Senator Joyal: So there was no reference to June 24 in that motion?
Ms. Julien: That is correct.
Senator Joyal: That is the ``distinct society'' motion. So it doesn't say anything about the national holiday.
Ms. Julien: No, but I did want to point out that this is the only federal government vehicle where Quebec is referred to as a people, and that the national holiday is celebrated in Quebec by means of a provincial vehicle; but there is no measure or instrument at the federal level celebrating June 24 or the people of Quebec.
Mr. Moyer: I would just like to qualify that. As part of the 10 days of celebration in Canada, four days are recognized. We begin on June 21 with the National Aboriginal Day. Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day is recognized as one of the four days of celebration, but only under the name of Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. It is not a national holiday, it is simply Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, which is the name given to it at the federal level.
Senator Joyal: So, based on your presentation, there is no declaration by a minister, prime ministerial declaration, order in council or legislation at the federal level.
Mr. Moyer: The custom is to recognize it as part of a whole.
Senator Joyal: There is no parliamentary motion either. And a parliamentary motion only exists in law for the life of the Parliament by which it was passed. In practice, that motion has already lapsed because another Parliament could simply ignore it without someone being able to allege that this was a violation of an order of Parliament, because a resolution is an order of Parliament.
Ms. Julien: A parliamentary motion is passed by the majority of Members of Parliament in the House of Commons, and therefore by the federal government. It only reflects the position of Members of the House of Commons at that time. It has no legal effect on its own.
[English]
Senator Joyal: I want to be clear that nothing in the federal statutes, in the consolidation of regulations, in the consolidation of motions, or in the federal parliament recognizes in any way that June 24 is the national day for French Canadians to celebrate their cultural identity or historical roots.
[Translation]
Ms. Julien: Yes, you are absolutely right.
[English]
Senator Joyal: However, there is one at the provincial level in Quebec.
[Translation]
Ms. Julien: Yes, in Quebec. In Quebec, the term ``national'' is often used. They refer to the National Assembly, the National Library, and the National Capital Commission as well.
[English]
Senator Joyal: That is my other question.
My colleagues, of course, know my preoccupation in that regard. It is good that all of you are here this morning because I think it will help us come to a consensual position.
[Translation]
If you look at the definition of the word ``national'' in the dictionary, because that is probably the best source of information as to how people generally understand the term, it says:
Of, belonging to or representative of a nation.
The example given is the national anthem. O Canada is our national anthem.
[English]
That means that it belongs to Canada and is related to the Canadian nation. I believe strongly that there is a Canadian nation. That is why we have a passport. I think Canadians are a nation, and I want to state it here clearly. It is not as evident as my colleague, Ms. Julien, says.
The second meaning is this:
[Translation]
The second meaning is:
Affecting a nation as a whole; nationwide in scope.
We talk about a national hockey team.
[English]
Senator Joyal: In other words, I will explain the confusion, and I think Professor Basque has touched on it. There are two meanings that are associated with the word ``national,'' in French, at least. One is that it belongs to everybody — it is part of everybody's identity. The other is that it is something that is of interest to everybody. I think that the nuance has been very well explained by our witnesses this morning.
Of course, we have a political discussion, because the words are loaded, especially given the political context in Quebec. I think we can state that clearly here, because successive governments of Quebec since 1968 — and I am not making any attribution on this — have used the word ``national'' in a context that elevates the first and the second one in the same concept.
[Translation]
It all began with the National Assembly in 1968, when the Union nationale was in power there.
[English]
I do not want to give evidence this morning, but it came following the visit of General de Gaulle, who said that if you are a country, you have to have a national assembly. It was following that that then Premier Johnson changed the name ``Legislative Assembly'' to ``National Assembly.'' That trend has accelerated through the years and the last Quebec government decided to make Quebec City the national capital and to state continuously that Quebec people are a nation. We are no more a people; we are a nation in Quebec in the philosophy of the Parti Québécois.
This is a reality with which we must deal in reference to this proposed legislation. It is important to me that we respect the tradition of the Acadian people.
[Translation]
I think it's important to respect the way in which Acadians have traditionally perceived themselves since 1881, and therefore that we define in the legislation what is meant by the wording ``national.'' If we state in the actual Bill precisely what the term ``national'' means, namely ``affecting a nation as a whole, and therefore all Canadians,'' then the ambiguity here will have been addressed.
[English]
We will have addressed the ambiguity and it could not be used as a precedent for saying that they are ready to recognize Acadians as a nation, but they are not ready to recognize Quebecers as a nation. As a Quebecer, that is not what I want, as much as I want to recognize the way in which Acadians have historically recognized themselves.
Could we not properly address the genuine concern of Heritage Canada, while meeting the objective of Senator Comeau and others around this table, by recognizing the Acadians on August 15 with a national celebration throughout Canada?
Mr. Moyer: There is real potential in what you have presented. If you have a formulation, Ms. Julien and her colleagues would certainly look at it.
[Translation]
It seems to me that wording would be an adequate means of recognizing the authenticity of the Acadian's national holiday, and expresses exactly what it should.
Ms. Julien: For the Acadians, the term ``national'' relates back to the idea of celebrating the Acadian nation. From a territorial standpoint, Acadia is difficult to define. We understand the need to celebrate the Acadians, even though unfortunately, their territory has been divided over time.
The term ``national Acadian holiday'' is more restrictive, in my view, in the sense that it implies we are not necessarily inviting ``other'' Canadians to take part in that celebration. In the spirit of the Celebrate Canada days and in the view of the federal government, which must speak on behalf of all Canadians across the county, it is important to understand what is meant by the term ``nation.''
Your proposal is an interesting one, Senator Comeau. I am very much alive to your concern, historically speaking, about the need to correctly celebrate this holiday without renaming a custom that has been in existence for centuries. However, we are also a country and a nation, and nothing will diminish that fact by recognizing the Acadian holiday.
Mr. Basque: I agree with Ms. Julien in terms of the historical process. In the 19th century and the first part of the 20th century, August 15 was celebrated as a specific group holiday, as is the case for other ethnic groups, or ``nations,'' the meaning of this term having evolved over time.
Just for the sake of comparison, for years, St. Patrick's Day was restricted to the Irish. Today St. Patrick's Day is celebrated around the world and everyone becomes Irish on that day in March.
The Acadian holiday, without this in any way having the effect of diluting it, is also open to all Canadians and all visitors who are around when the celebrations are held on August 15.
The word ``national'' and ``nation'' have continued to be used by the Acadians since the 19th century. And yet it does not have the same connotation as the way it is sometimes used in Canada.
We hold state funerals in Canada, be they in Quebec or in Ottawa. The same applies to Caraquet, when a well- known Acadian leader dies. That open tradition is maintained in the case of Acadians.
I am sure you know that the Acadian identity precedes the Canadian identity established in 1867. This is a group that has been around for centuries, and so this debate is very relevant today. Whether or not the result is a recommendation, royal proclamation or legislation, we will continue to celebrate August 15, just as we have been doing since 1881, continually broadening that holiday to include others.
In New Brunswick, the August 15 celebration is now held in places that were previously hostile to the presence of francophones and Acadians.
Several years ago, St. John, Fredericton and Miramichi dishonoured the Acadian flag in the capital of the only bilingual province in Canada. Today, the mayor of Fredericton, provincial government representatives and the vast majority of anglophones in the provincial capital of New Brunswick will be present when they raise the Acadian flag in front of the Fredericton City Hall.
The anglophone majority increasingly recognizes the Acadian national character. We don't often hear the term ``national'' used in its proper sense. The vast majority of Acadians are Canadian citizens. Where the Acadian flag flies, so also does the Canadian flag.
In Acadia, there are practically never fights about flags. At the same time, there is an attachment and an interpretation of history that is not quite the same as that of our neighbours in the Laurentian valley, with whom we share so much. In some cases, and in certain ways, we continue to think differently. That is the great blessing of our Canadian democracy.
Senator Comeau: I want to come back to the question of definitions. My question is addressed to Professor Basque who, as a historian, has clearly described the difference between the term ``national'' when it has a negative connotation, and the positive connotation that it has and that we want to give it in relation to National Acadian Day.
Would it be possible to arrive at a definition of the word ``national'' for the purposes of Acadian Day?
Mr. Basque: I am not a linguist. As a historian, my view is that there is no negative connotation attached to the use of the word ``national'' in the 21st century. Groups have the democratic right to use that term, and Canada allows for a variety of scenarios. As a Canadian citizen, I see that as a strength, rather than a weakness. As a historian, I have observed that the term ``national'' is used less and less often. There is more of a tendency now to talk about the Acadian holiday or simply August 15. Historically, it has always been called the national day. Indeed, a number of English-language calendars refer to it as the ``National Holiday,'' ``National Acadian Day,'' or ``National Acadian Feast,'' without this giving rise to a constitutional debate, because it is simply a long standing practice. However, when you move it to another level, it becomes a lot trickier.
If we were not to use the word ``national,'' I must admit I would feel uncomfortable about that. And a public survey would still show that August 15 is the Acadian holiday. Remember, we're talking about Acadians here, because Acadia is not a legally recognized entity.
In terms of the French government's relationship with the Société nationale de l'Acadie, when the French Republic signs reports of findings, it does so with Acadians, and with Acadia.
There is a difference there that Acadians all recognize. As members of a group that want to demonstrate their identification with that group, Acadians celebrate their holiday. On July 1, in Acadian areas, the holiday proceeds normally, but there is no comparison with the kind of festivities that are organized on August 15 — and I mean that. On that day, whatever manna comes our way from certain federal government agencies, Acadians are the ones that organize their own festivities. There is a collective movement there that is not against the idea of Canada and certainly does not exclude the participation of others.
It is now a Canadian national holiday, in the sense that it is much more open to general participation by any person who wants to join in with Acadians on August 15 to celebrate four centuries of history — just as St. Patrick's Day is open to anyone who wants to celebrate the Irish holiday in different ways. We realize we are among the Irish, just as Japanese tourists realize that they are among Acadians. Access to that holiday is not restricted as it used to be. So it truly is a national holiday in the sense of including everyone in Canada in the 21st century.
Senator Comeau: My specific question was: would it be possible to define the term ``national'' in this bill?
Mr. Basque: I am neither a legal or a constitutional expert, nor a linguist. A number of historians have looked at the shifts in meaning of these definitions. If we specify what we mean by ``nation,'' then I think it would be entirely possible to arrive at a definition. However, the explanation could be quite lengthy, given the scope and impact of this term, as currently used in Canada.
Senator Comeau: I certainly understood your comments about wanting to designate August 15 the Acadian holiday. However, the proper name ``National Acadian Day'' is something that is very important to a great many Acadians. What do you think of Mr. Moyer's suggestion that it be known as the ``Journée canadienne de la fête des Acadiens et Acadiennes'' or Canadian Acadian Day? What kind of impact would such a suggestion have on Acadians?
I believe that Acadians would feel insulted if the government suggested changing ``National Acadian Day'' to ``Canadian Acadian Day''
Mr. Basque: Indeed, I believe such a change would give rise to quite a backlash. Acadian society reflects Canadian society nowadays. It has become more complex. It is also segmented. Some people talk about August 15, others refer to the ``National Day'' and still others talk about ``Acadian Day.''
Since there has been no debate among members of the group directly affected by this legislation, it is rather difficult to anticipate what their reaction would be. But if we consider outside interventions that have occurred in the past that affect a group, even when the impact is a positive one, in cases where there has been no consultation with that group, it is not surprising to see that the reaction is quite negative. People are surprised and respond in a negative way, because they believe that since they have not been consulted, they are being treated like children. We are talking about Acadians here. Acadians are not a monolithic block, or a piece of folklore; they are a reality in Canada nowadays, and Canada has allowed them to grow and develop with their own open culture and infrastructure.
This suggestion could have a negative impact and be greeted with some surprise, particularly coming as it would just before 2004, the year we will be celebrating the 400th anniversary of the arrival of the French in Acadia.
I do not think it would be ideal to come forward now with a new legal name, that would incorporated into Canadian legislation, and that would not be historically consistent with what Acadians have used as terminology, when there have been no close consultations with them.
Mr. Moyer: Just to clarify, we did not actually suggest any particular solution. We simply expressed a concern, saying that the government of Canada has to be careful about how it uses the term ``nation'' and ``national,'' because it is representing Canada as a nation. I am also trying to understand the solution put forward by Senator Joyal, which I believe has some potential — I will try to summarize what I understood him to be proposing. We would keep the same title as the one currently set out in the Bill.
The idea would be to recognize National Acadian Day but include a clause in the legislation stating that in this legislation, the term ``national'' is used to mean that this is a holiday open to all Canadians, so that things would be clear. Is that the suggestion?
[English]
The Chairman: May I interject for a moment? Having heard the concerns expressed by Senator Joyal, I do not want to be at cross-purposes with my colleague. There are some concerns. The use of a definition of ``national'' to help alleviate those concerns is certainly one avenue. Would the use of a special purpose clause achieve the same result?
Mr. Moyer: I have to ask what you have in mind.
The Chairman: A special purpose clause, something to the effect that it recognizes the event as a national collective celebration of Acadian society. I cannot give you the wording off the top of my head, but it would have a very distinct purpose in the act, without utilizing a definition. I think Senator Comeau understands what I am trying to say. I do not know if it would achieve the same result or not.
Mr. Moyer: I think either vehicle could be useful. As I said before, if there is an interest in working back and forth with our colleagues in the legal office, we would be glad to look at different formulations with you to get there.
[Translation]
Senator Corbin: The difference between National Acadian Day and St. Patrick's Day is that St. Patrick's Day is part of the religious calendar. That is an important distinction. After that, the holiday was popularized.
Senator Joyal: It is the oldest holiday of any Canadian group, including Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day.
Senator Corbin: Is there such a thing in your shop, the Department of Justice or the federal government in general as a codification of the different ways of designating special holidays?
Mr. Moyer: The paper we prepared for your discussions today is probably the best summary available of the different ways of designating a special day, week or month.
Senator Corbin: I want to go even further. We are grateful for that classification. But is there a relatively restrictive code to be followed in terms of designating national days or special holidays?
There is a difference between National Maple Sugar Day and National Aboriginal Day. What I want to know is whether you or the federal government has established an order of precedence or a specific protocol in this regard? I asked that same question in the Senate the other day, because one of our colleagues would like September 11 to be designated America Day in Canada, something that I object to. Out of the blue, people are coming forward with all kinds of proposals of this type. And I am not saying that to diminish the importance of Senator Comeau's initiative. I support it.
But my feeling is that we are getting a little bit off track in that regard at the federal level. If there is a code, an order of precedence or a protocol to be followed, I would like to have an opportunity to look at it and read it.
Mr. Moyer: No, there is no codification or a policy that says that a specific type of day should take precedence over another. As is often the case in our system, we rely on precedents. At different times, and for different reasons, we have designated special days. Now, our approach is based on past precedents.
Is it time to debate the basic principles that should guide the government in this regard?
Senator Corbin: The answer to that is yes.
Mr. Moyer: Perhaps, but even if such a framework had been in place before the events that took place at the École polytechnique, I am sure that would not have prevented us from expressing fairly directly our profound distress in the same way.
Senator Corbin: I do not want to denigrate any initiative of any kind, because everyone has a right to make suggestions. But I believe important historic events should have priority. Just compare what's happening in Canada with what our American friends are doing, because they also abuse this to a certain extent. For them, history is sacred, and events such as the Deportation of the Acadians are fundamental to the history of Canada. We have waited all this time for this initiative we are considering to come forward. When I talk about a code, a protocol or an order of precedence, it is with that in mind. This is not something where we should be primarily guided by our emotions; we should base such decisions on whether the events were important events in the history or the life of our nation. If the federal government does not have such a policy, it is high time it developed one.
Since we are dissecting the terms used in the Bill, I would like to read you the definition of the word ``nation'' that appears in the Grand Larousse du XXe siècle, the seven volume edition.
Nation: groupement d'hommes [...]
Unfortunately, Larousse has not feminized its dictionary, but the word ``homme'' [man] also includes ``woman.''
Ms. Julien: Is that a reliable definition?
Senator Corbin: Absolutely. The definition reads as follows:
[TRANSLATION] A group of people with common historical, linguistic or religious traditions, that share a sense of solidarity and aspire to maintain or develop a community. Examples: ``A nation is, first and foremost, a soul. To kill a nation or a human being, one must tear out their soul.» (Vercors)
Professor Basque, would you say that definition applies to Acadians?
Mr. Basque: Senator, within the academic community, as you probably know, there is a great deal of debate about the word ``nation,'' and that debate goes beyond Canada's borders. It is a western or even global debate. A number of colleagues — and I include myself in that group — have considerable reservations about the use of the word ``nation'' in the 21st century, since we now have other paradigms to explain our way of living together as a country, society, or community.
We have arrived at that conclusion based on historical examples — and you mentioned some — which show us in a way that nationalism, nations and nationalities are valuable as a means for people who share a past and a present, and are trying to build a future, to come together, but there have also been many cases where it turned into something else and led to extremism. The century that has just come to an end is unprecedented in history. In light of that, we have problems with it.
I basically agree with the idea that a nation is a group whose members traditionally share a language and a religion. But those are definitions that especially hold true for the 19th century, where there was in fact an attempt to build something, as in Italy and Germany, where it was relatively successful. I say ``relatively'' because in both Italy and Germany, there were other languages and religions in the 19th century. But those were the definitions used at the time. Today, however, it looks like there is more than one language and more than one religion. The religious dimension is becoming much more of a private matter.
Other colleagues might say exactly the opposite. I am trying to present my views as both a historian and citizen in terms of defining the larger group. There is no doubt that in the 19th century, in 1881, the definition of an Acadian was someone who spoke French, who was Catholic, and whose family had been there since 1755. Nowadays, thank heavens, we have a more inclusive definition, which means that there are Acadians with names like Belkoga, Vovan and Kerry, who originally belonged to other groups, but joined the Acadians, and through them, the extended Canadian family. So, I have considerable reservations, Senator, about the definition you are suggesting, because it is essentially based on the traditions of the 19th century, where such notions as nation, nationalism and nationality were very important and were in the process of being forged. Now, however, it seems to me that here in Canada, we are trying to be more critical and to develop more generous, more inclusive paradigms to live together in harmony, but without setting aside the stories, experiences and journey of our compatriots.
In my view, Canada may not be a success in every way, but it is a highly exportable model of people with different historical backgrounds being able to live together, so that I, for example, can celebrate the First Nations, the Acadians, and Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, as the Quebec holiday, and even celebrate the Métis in Manitoba, while at the same time remaining a Canadian. It is a model that really offers a wealth of possibilities that is rarely found around the globe.
Senator Corbin: The current wording of the Bill is that in each and every year, the 15th day of August shall be known under the name of:
National Acadian Day.
Is that acceptable or not?
Mr. Basque: For most Acadians living in the Atlantic provinces, Senator, I would say that wording was not a problem. My feeling is that people will say: Well, that is interesting; the Senate is celebrating our holiday. We are already well aware of it. However, I would also say that in the Laurentian valley, for example, and probably in the Outaouais region or elsewhere in Canada, people will have legitimate questions, such as: ``Why `national' in this context?'' So, the answer is yes, for the Acadians, but I think this will raise a lot of questions in other regions of the country.
Senator Corbin: And what is your preferred wording?
Mr. Basque: That is a tall order, senator.
Senator Corbin: But we have to clarify this.
Mr. Basque: The ideal wording would be ``National Acadian Day'' with possibly some explanation that when the holiday was established in 1881, this was how the wording ``national'' was understood. But that is an ideal scenario, and we do not live in an ideal world. We live in a highly political world, particularly in Canada, in terms of the use of certain words that are part of our vocabulary. In Acadia, that wording will go unnoticed, because this is the name already given to that day. I hope that in other areas as well, that name will be adopted. Once again, ``National Acadian Day'' would be my preference, with a short explanation.
I just would like to add that if we were to call it ``Canadian Acadian Day,'' to my ears, or shall we say, my initial reaction would be to think that this holiday was limited to Canada. I know that is not what is intended with this wording, but that was my first reaction when I heard it. It is possible we could get used to it, but that, as I say, was my initial reaction. I want to come back to the fact that ``National Acadian Day'' is the name used by Acadians; so, you would be abiding by the historical tradition established back in 1881 if you were to use that name, along with a possible definition explaining what is meant. But particularly in this case, whatever definitions are retained will not suit everyone, which is why a debate on this is so critical; but this is a term that has so many meanings, given the way it is currently used, that, as you well know, it opens up a real can of worms.
Senator Joyal: Thank you for those important comments.
[English]
I want to come back to the question that the chair raised regarding the proposal to include a special purpose clause to circumscribe the concept of ``national,'' as Professor Basque has just mentioned. I am not in a position to say today whether I would favour such a clause in the bill or another clause giving a definition.
As my colleagues will recognize, the two are very different legally. A definition is used in the courts to determine the nature of the concepts that are at stake. A purpose clause is at the level of the intent of the proposed legislation.
As you will remember, we had a long discussion yesterday, in a different forum and on another bill, about intent. Once a bill is out of the hands of Parliament, the courts go their own way in defining the intent of a bill. Therefore, a purpose clause would help the court to circumscribe the definition of a bill. A definition goes to the heart of each and every clause of the bill.
I see that we have very able people helping us from the Library of Parliament. Perhaps we could ask our research assistant to describe for us the different impacts of a purpose clause versus a definition clause of a bill, in order that when we address that issue, we will have specifically what we need.
[Translation]
Having said that, Mr. Basque, you discussed in your testimony your interest in and particular focus on the study and assessment of the impact of the Deportation. You yourself made reference to the various initiatives considered by the Société nationale des Acadiens and determined what the Société should look to in order to recognize this event. I must say, Professor Basque, that this question is raised in the Senate by our Acadian colleagues, in particular, whenever there is discussion of the vitality of Acadian society. My view — and here I am speaking as both a Canadian and Quebecker — is that people are not really aware of the attitudes that prevailed in the courts of some European countries that had colonies back in the 17th and 18th centuries, and defended them on the various continents against the people living in those colonies. An example would be — and I will cite the example I have in mind — the attitude that prevailed at the Court of the King of France with respect to the way in which the royal responsibility should be defined in relation to the colonies. I would like to quote from the instructions Louis XIV gave to Frontenac, on June 7, 1689, when Frontenac returned to Quebec as Governor of New France to begin a second mandate. Frontenac was sent back to New France as Governor to deal with the threats of a British invasion. In May — the month prior — England had just declared war on France and its colonies.
I would like to quote from the instructions given Frontenac by King Louis XIV:
As regards all other foreigners, men, women, and children, His Majesty feels it would be appropriate that they be removed from the colony and sent back to New England, Pennsylvania and other places he deems appropriate, by sea, by land, together or separately, according to whether he believes it safer to disperse them and prevent them, through their assembly, from providing an opportunity to enemies to take action against this colony.
In other words, what Louis XIV was saying to Frontenac was that he should carry out raids on New England and the colonies, capture the inhabitants and disperse them either in a group or separately.
As for Dutch, Portuguese or even Spanish colonial history, we have a pretty good general idea of what happened in South America: people were literally shot at. For a very long time, they wondered whether the Aboriginal people had a soul. Throughout the 17th century, there was some discussion about this among European philosophers. They questioned whether Aboriginal people were actually human beings.
It is important to understand that at the time, we were all subjects of His Majesty, rather than citizens. A citizen was someone who controlled part of the country's national sovereignty. In the 17th and 18th centuries, we were all subjects. We had no share in that sovereignty. The late 18th and early 19th centuries saw a conquest of parliaments.
For a better understanding of our history, it would be helpful for historians like yourself, because you are someone whose primary task is to get us to think about the past in order to understand it better and better shape the present, and that is what we are trying to do with this bill; thus we rely on your knowledge to help people understand such phenomena as the dispersal of populations and colonies in the 17th and 18th centuries. That would help us better appreciate the nature of these events and to recognize them. They are fundamental events, to a certain extent. The dispersal in 1755 had a positive effect. That dispersal was what gave rise to this sense of belonging, this cohesion. Think back to the Durham report in 1837, which said that French Canadians had no history and no sense of public affairs, so that they were doing them a service by assimilating them. Durham's philosophy gave rise to a closer knit French Canadian community and stimulated French Canadian historians who gave us our French Canadian society.
The event that occurred in 1755 was a very significant event. It is important that we understand it in the context of the colonial policies and people's status at the time. If we assess that event in relation to today's Human Rights Charter, or international conventions for the protection of civil, political and cultural rights, we would certainly consider it and others an absolute abomination. But these events must be seen in the context of the time during which they occurred. That does not excuse them based on what we believe now, but at least we would understand what we were talking about. Canadian, and particularly Acadian, historians have an important responsibility to help us understand these events.
Mr. Basque: History is first and foremost an question of context — in other words, understanding the different elements that shaped an event or a society, at a given time. Overall, the Acadian tradition with respect to the exile is not something that has been forgotten, but at the same time, it is not cultivated in a spirit of revenge.
It is the only province in Canada where Her Majesty did not even speak to her subjects and Canadian citizens. At the time of her visit, she was not booed in Acadian areas, even though the government she was the head of refused to take steps to make an apology. So, among Acadians, there really is not this desire to cultivate feelings of revenge; quite the contrary, but at the same time, there is recognition of an historical wrong. Acadians are not the only ones in this position, but from time to time, it is annoying when you read that Stalin deported the Tatars. No one is denying that, but an historical event that is constantly diminished ends up being diluted, and no longer has any legitimacy.
In 2005, we will be commemorating the 250th anniversary of the exile. There is a movement in contemporary Acadia to set a date in 2005 to celebrate the exile. The date will probably be set in the fall, to reflect what occurred in the fall of 1755. It will not be a date to focus on acrimony or revenge, but a date of commemoration, like November 11. On that date, I like to remember my grandfather, who served in the First World War, but I feel no resentment towards the Germans he fought against. It is important to take a few minutes to reflect. And that also applies to the year 1755, which marked a very significant step.
Senator Corbin is right when he says that if we were Americans, that date would be recorded on the calendar, because it is really important. That date had considerable impact, not only in the Maritimes, but over the entire area that subsequently became Quebec, and particularly those areas of Quebec that received Acadian refugees, who enriched Quebec society and became French Canadians, and are now Quebecers.
Dates are not a detail, particularly for a group that has considered itself to be distinct, as a nation, since the 18th century. Acadians are one of the specificities of Canada, since they do not have their own province or state; they simply were absorbed by the extended Canadian family. And Acadians have never denied their Canadian experience. Even though a majority of Acadians voted against the federation in 1866, they later became fervent supporters of the idea we now have of Canada.
Senator Joyal: In your opinion, Mr. Basque, who is the figure head of the founders of Acadia in 1604?
Mr. Basque: I guess it would really be the men who were there in 1604. This was an expedition led by Sir DeMont in the company of Samuel Champlain, who was to become much more famous, particularly after his death. Later, he would be referred to as Samuel de Champlain, towards the end of his life. Sir DeMont was, of course, a Calvinist. You can imagine the horror felt by these good Catholic priests in the 19th century writing the history of the French in Canada. Could a Protestant really be the Father of Acadia and New France? Unfortunately, although DeMont was a very prominent figure, he left few writings and had no children. He eventually disappeared from the collective memory of Francophones in Canada.
He is primarily honoured by Americans, who saw him as a sign of harmony between Catholics and Protestants. We can certainly celebrate people like DeMont, Champlain and Lescarbeault, but we should not be making them larger than life.
Thank heavens that in Canada, we are more measured in our approach. We do not rush to canonize the likes of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who are made out to be super human. We recognize people for their strength, and also for their weaknesses, as human beings who did exceptional things, but we don't put them up on a pedestal. I hope we will do the same in 2004: give young Canadians in the schools an opportunity to learn about Champlain, with all his strengths and his hesitations; with his European view of North American Indians, and as a visionary, but a human one.
Teaching history in Canada allows us to engage in that kind of critical thinking, with a focus on the federation and living together, rather than saying: ``My hero is stronger or better than yours.'' I like the way we question our heroes and expect answers.
In conclusion, I hope that Champlain will be a prominent feature of the many celebrations that will take place between now and 2008. At seminars sometimes, people forget where Champlain was. He landed in Tadoussac in 1603, went to sleep and woke up at the foot of Cape Diamond in 1608. As Acadians, it is important to us that a significant part of his life be recognized — that part of his life, which was not always the happiest, he spent between Île-Sainte- Croix and Port-Royal.
[English]
Senator Joyal: I will just conclude by saying that the wife of Champlain was originally a Calvinist protestant. There was a group of people who did not exactly meet the standards of the French court.
Senator Comeau: I wish to ensure that I understand the reservations and observations, as a result of which we have been here all morning, on the word ``national.'' I want to understand the observation from Mr. Moyer as relayed through the Department of Justice. What exactly is the problem that would result from this?
Mr. Moyer: We believe that the word ``nation,'' when used by the Parliament of Canada in passing laws for Canadians, should be reserved for all the people of Canada. Thus, if the Parliament of Canada passes a law using the word ``nation'' or ``national,'' it should be in a way that is inclusive of all of the people of Canada. There is a concern that there is a possible double interpretation in the case of the proposed legislation.
On the one hand, you could say — and many Acadians would feel that it is the original sense that applies — we are only referring in the law to the Acadian nation. The other interpretation is that because we are using the same title as originally used, and because it is the Parliament of Canada that is acting, it is expanding the meaning of the word ``nation.'' We want to clarify that, if we can. We would hope that you, in your work, could clarify that, so that the Parliament of Canada would continue to only use the word ``nation'' when it refers to all Canadians.
Senator Comeau: What you are proposing is that the word ``nation'' or ``national'' be reserved for things that are only Canadian in the context that we know it, in regard to Canada. The word ``national'' would not be included in any other legislation, like, for example, this bill. It would not be acceptable legally to you that it be used in a bill.
Mr. Moyer: I do not think that it is a question of acceptable. We are raising a concern that you would be using, as the Parliament of Canada, the word ``national'' in a new way. We want to be sure that if Parliament decides to do that, you have the best advice that you can get on what you may be doing. Clearly, you have the right to pass the laws.
Senator Comeau: My first question was: What would be the problem?
Mr. Moyer: We have had a discussion of that here today. It might be then that other groups in Canada feel that they have a distinct national existence. People have spoken about the existence of Quebec. We have not spoken much about Canada's First Nations, but as you know, they also believe they have the right to have the terms ``nation'' and ``national'' applied to them. The consequence could be that other Canadians with the same interest in seeing their tradition expressed would seek, from the Parliament of Canada, a similar sort of recognition.
Senator Comeau: For example, the National Aboriginal Day, which is a Royal Proclamation, is not the same?
Mr. Moyer: No, it is very clearly ``national'' in the sense of something that incorporates all Canadians.
Senator Comeau: It says ``National Aboriginal Day.''
Mr. Moyer: Yes, that is correct.
Senator Comeau: Is there a definition that it is a different context?
Mr. Moyer: No.
Senator Comeau: What is the difference between National Aboriginal Day and National Acadian Day?
Mr. Moyer: We do not have a problem with ``National Acadian Day,'' we have a problem with the French version.
Senator Comeau: The English version says ``An Act respecting a National Acadian Day,'' and you have no problem with that.
Mr. Moyer: The English is fine.
Senator Comeau: Your problem is with the French version. Your problem is with the French ``national'' and not the English ``national''; is that correct?
Mr. Moyer: Yes.
Senator Comeau: I am really confused.
Senator Joyal: I am not. We will have another kick at the can.
Senator Comeau: I guess you have to be a Quebecer to understand.
The Chairman: We will have another chance.
[Translation]
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for being with us today.
[English]
I wish to thank you, especially, Professor Basque, for coming all the way from Moncton. To all the panellists, for your learned and erudite comments and interaction, thank you very much. You have been very helpful.
The committee adjourned.