Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 11 - Evidence for May 28, 2003
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 28, 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 4:50 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator George J. Furey (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, the subject of today's meeting is again Bill S-5, respecting a National Acadian Day. We have heard testimony from the sponsor of the bill, Senator Comeau; from two eminent academics, Professors Boucher and Basque; and from the Department of Canadian Heritage.
As we appear to have heard the testimony necessary for an understanding of the issues, it is hoped that we will be able to complete our study of the bill today by giving it clause-by-clause consideration.
Is it agreed, honourable senators, that the committee move to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-5, respecting a National Acadian Day?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the preamble stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 1, the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 2 carry?
Senator Joyal: Senators, you will remember that I raised the issue of the use of the word ``national.'' According to the testimony we have heard, especially from the representatives of the Department of Canadian Heritage, the world ``national'' can have two meanings. One refers to the nation in terms of the identity of social community groups that share a common history and live in a common territory with a set of institutions. The other meaning, which is closer to the meaning of the word in this bill, relates to Canadians, in general, in their territory. That is what we mean by a ``national'' hockey team. Such a team relates to all Canadians and plays for Canada all over Canada and elsewhere. It has nothing to do with the word ``nation'' as such.
Due to the confusion that might arise with the use of that word, I have prepared an amendment that I have circulated to Senator Comeau, Senator Beaudoin, Senator Corbin and to the chairman.
I move:
That Bill S-5 be amended in clause 2, on page 1, by replacing line 20 with the following:
``2. In this Act, ``National'' means relating to all Canadians throughout Canada.
3. Throughout Canada, in each and every''.
[Translation]
That Bill S-5 be amended in clause 2, on page 1, by replacing line 20 with the following:
2. In this Act, ``National'' means relating to all Canadians throughout Canada.
3. Throughout Canada, in each and every''.
[English]
I am aware that Senator Comeau might want to fine-tune the English translation. I wrote the amendment in French and submitted the French version to our legal clerk. It is possible that, in the course of translation to English, the nuance may not have transferred well. Senator Comeau may like to comment at this time. I think that the way that the —
[Translation]
The word ``nationa,l'' as defined, is essentially in keeping with the testimony given by officials from the Department of Canadian Heritage. It corresponds to the definition of ``national'' found in the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, namely:
Of or pertaining to a nation, or the nation, especially as a whole, i.e. a national library.
Clearly, ``national'' in this case refers to something pertaining to Canada as a whole.
Senator Comeau may have something to say about the changes required to the English version in order for us to achieve a consensus on this issue.
Senator Beaudoin: In the French version of the motion, we have the word ``s'entend,'' followed by ``qui intéresse.'' Is there an element missing here?
Senator Joyal: The word ``s'entend'' means ``veut dire.'' It is Old French and means ``qui intéresse tous les citoyens.''
Senator Beaudoin: The sentence structure is undoubtedly somewhat confusing.
Senator Joyal: One could substitute the word ``signifie'' for ``s'entend.'' The French version would then read: ``Dans la présente loi, ``nationale'' signifie qui intéresse tous les citoyens du pays sur l'ensemble du territoire canadien.'' This wording respects the original meaning.
Senator Beaudoin: I am prepared to go along with the word ``s'entend.''
Senator Joyal: It means ``qui signifie.'' It comes from Old French and is used less frequently than ``veut dire'' or ``signifie.'' However, it is appropriate usage under the circumstances.
Senator Comeau: The French version is acceptable and addresses the concerns raised by Senator Joyal.
[English]
In English, I would propose: ``In this Act ``National'' means that it relates to all Canadians throughout Canada'' rather than ``relating.''
The Chairman: Senator Comeau, may I suggest that, rather that going through the cumbersome process of having amendments to amendments, we have Senator Joyal read the amendment with your suggested change?
[Translation]
Senator Joyal: I agree with Senator Comeau's proposal and believe he is indeed correct about the clarity of the definition.
[English]
The Chairman: The amendment to clause 2 proposed by Senator Joyal should read:
2. In this Act, ``National'' means that it relates to all Canadians throughout Canada.
There is no problem with the French, Senator Comeau?
Senator Comeau: No problem.
[Translation]
Senator Beaudoin: In French, ``s'entend'' and ``signifie'' have the same meaning. That is not the issue. I am concerned about the first part of the sentence. I suggest that you add a colon after ``s'entend: qui intéresse tous les citoyens.''
[English]
I do not know how you say that in English.
Senator Pearson: ``Colon.''
Senator Beaudoin: I will remember that.
Senator Joyal: I am in total agreement. I did make that suggestion.
Senator Beaudoin: The rest is perfect.
The Chairman: In the French translation —
[Translation]
The motion calls for adding a colon in the French version, so that it reads: ``Dans la présente loi, ``nationale'' s'entend:.''
[English]
It is moved by Senator Joyal that Bill S-5 be amended in clause 2, on page 1, by replacing line 20 with the English text just read into the record and also the French text just read into the record.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 2, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 1, the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the preamble carry?
Senator Joyal: In order to give the word ``national'' its simple understanding, I propose to add a ``whereas'' in the context that Acadians live throughout Canada and that it is in the interest of Canadians to share in the common heritage of Acadians. For that reason, I move:
That Bill S-5 be amended in the Preamble, on page 1,
(a) by replacing line 1 with the following:
``WHEREAS Acadians, in view of their origin, history and development, constitute one of the first communities from France to settle in Canada, and now reside in most of the provinces and territories of Canada;
WHEREAS the Acadian people have''; and.
(b) by adding after line 10 the following:
``WHEREAS it is in the interest of all Canadians to be able to share in the rich historical and cultural heritage of Acadians and to become more familiar with all its aspects, both traditional and contemporary;.''
[Translation]
The following is proposed in the French version:
Que le projet de loi S-5 soit modifié, dans le préambule, à la page 1:
a) par substitution, à la ligne 2, de ce qui suit:
``que les Acadiens, de par leur origine, leur histoire et leur développement, constituent l'une des premières communautés d'origine française à s'être enracinées au Canada, et se retrouvent maintenant dans la grande majorité des provinces et territoires canadiens:
Que le peuple acadien a contribué depuis'';
b) par adjonction, après la ligne 10, de ce qui suit:
``qu'il est de l'intérêt de tous les Canadiens de pouvoir partager le riche patrimoine historique et culturel des Acadiens et d'en mieux connaître toutes les manifestations aussi bien anciennes que contemporaines;''
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, before we debate the existing proposed amendment by Senator Joyal, may we revert for a moment to the previous amendment, and perhaps someone with a little more experience can assist me here. Do the numbers automatically change or do we require a motion to renumber the clauses?
Senator Joyal: They are renumbered automatically.
The Chairman: The existing clause 2 will become clause 3.
Senator Buchanan: I have no problem with this bill. I think it is a great bill. However, I have a little problem with this amendment because it puts a lie to something I have been saying for 30 years when I go to other areas in Canada and the United States, that being that the first permanent settlement in North America was at Port Royal in 1604. Therefore, not only was it the first permanent settlement in North America — which was not in Florida, by the way, and I can prove that — but also it was definitely the first settlement of Acadians in Canada from France. I do not know why the words ``constitute one of the first communities'' are there.
Senator Joyal: I did not want to exclude the other settlement that occurred very soon after the Acadians settled.
Senator Buchanan: You used the right word — ``after.''
Senator Joyal: Yes, there is no doubt they came after. Quebec was founded in 1608, four years after the first settlement.
Senator Buchanan: Ours was 1604.
Senator Joyal: I totally agree with that and no one would ever dispute that historical fact. However, since the others came very soon after, I have no problem saying ``la première,'' because it is factually and historically correct.
I did not want to exclude the other permanent French-speaking settlements which were established very soon after that. However, I would not dispute the historical accuracy of what you say. Moreover, next year Canadians celebrate the four hundredth anniversary of the first French settlement in North America, which was, of course, of Acadians. It is confirmed by the celebration we will have next year. I have absolutely no dispute with that at all. If Senator Comeau and others want to say ``constituent la première communauté d'origine française,'' I would certainly agree to that.
Senator Beaudoin: I am not too sure of that, because Jacques Cartier came to Gaspé in 1534. It is a long time ago. That was not a foundation, of course, but he did arrive then.
[Translation]
In fact, he erected a cross bearing the inscription ``Vive le Roi de France,'' that is ``Long Live the King of France.''
[English]
This was in Gaspé in 1534. I would prefer ``l'une.'' Everyone would agree that the settlement in Port Royal was before the settlement in Quebec, but we can never be too prudent, so ``l'une des premières communautés'' would be appropriate.
Senator Comeau: This is causing me concern because, in the initial bill, there was no reference to being first, second, third or fourth. Now we are saying it may not be the first but is ``one of the.'' That leaves a dispute as to who was first. Senator Beaudoin just made the point that Jacques Cartier may have established some communities in the Gaspé much earlier. I dispute that, but that is another issue.
We could remove the entire reference to ``one of the first communities,'' but I am not sure how to do it.
The Chairman: Why not say ``one of the communities''?
Senator Corbin: With respect to Jacques Cartier, he never made a base on land. He lived off his boat, starved on his boat and suffered scurvy on his boat.
Senator Joyal: There is no dispute that Jacques Cartier landed in Gaspé on July 25, 1534 and planted a cross. Following that, he returned to France and came back the next year. It is then that he and his crew tried to settle, spending the winter at the St. Charles River by Quebec City. However, they were decimated by scurvy and they left. Until 1604, there was no European settlement in what was known as Kanata at that time.
In other words, there was really no settlement before the Acadians. Four years later, there was another settlement in Quebec City, which will be celebrated in 2008. There is no doubt that the first settlement was in 1604.
The Chairman: We are all trying to find the right words, although we all agree that this amendment is fine. We just want to remove the ambiguity. Could we say ``one of the earliest communities,'' or do you want to use the word ``first?''
Senator Comeau: I do not necessarily want to use the word ``first.''
Senator Andreychuk: Senator Buchanan does.
Senator Comeau: I did not raise this matter when dealing with the original bill.
I believe that the first permanent European settlement in Canada was established at Port Royal. The Government of Canada sign at Port Royal specifies that it was the first permanent settlement. If we were to put into a bill that we are now ``one of the first,'' I do not think I would be able to drive by Port Royal, as I currently do twice a week, without a few snow balls being thrown my way.
Senator Buchanan: Why not say ``the first permanent settlement'' as it says on the sign. It has always been referred to in that way. I would even go further than that and say it was the first permanent settlement in North America, although Floridians always disagree with that.
Senator Comeau: I am not insisting that it be called ``the first permanent settlement,'' but let us not use the phrase, ``one of the.''
Senator Joyal: I have no objection to recognizing what is already recognized by the Canadian government, through Heritage Canada, about Port Royal.
Senator Buchanan: It was the first permanent settlement in Canada. As well, the Lord of the Good Time was the first social club in North America.
The Chairman: Senator Buchanan, I think we have a solution and I do not want you to talk us out of it.
Senator Joyal, will you read that?
Senator Joyal: It would read:
``WHEREAS Acadians, in view of their origin, history and development, constitute the first permanent settlement from France in Canada, and now reside in most of the provinces and territories of Canada;''
Senator Beaudoin: I have some hesitation. I want to be sure that a historian would agree with that. If there is a first- class historian who says it is the case, it is the case, and that is the end of it.
Senator Corbin: I am not a first-class historian, but I have read many of the old maps and old texts as well as the writings of Champlain and Jacques Cartier. The language has changed over the years. What we now refer to as ``community'' was in those days called, in French, ``habitation,'' which would be the equivalent of the English ``human establishment.'' That is the phrase of the day. I find the word ``establishment'' to be more in conformity with the traditional historical nomenclature than ``community,'' which is a modern-day concept.
Senator Beaudoin: With that I would agree.
The Chairman: I believe the words Senator Joyal used were ``permanent settlement.''
Honourable senators, it was moved by Senator Joyal that Bill S-5 be amended in the preamble, on page 1, by replacing line 1 with the text he has just read. Shall the motion carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Beaudoin: You do not use the word ``community''?
Senator Joyal: The first permanent settlement from France in Canada.
Senator Beaudoin: If an expert in history confirms that, then I will agree. I will not even discuss it, but we should hear that from an expert.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we must do a little housekeeping. The clerk informs me that we must address clause 2 again. Under Beauchesne's citation 701 a committee has the power to divide a clause or to decide that the first part of the clause shall be considered as an entire clause, but a motion to divide a clause must be taken before the clause is adopted. We will have to revert and have a motion to divide the clause. We can adopt that and the numbering will then fall into place automatically.
Senator Jaffer: I move that we divide the clause.
The Chairman: Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: That is adopted.
Honourable senators, is clause 2, as amended, agreed to?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Is clause 3, as amended, agreed to?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, is it agreed that this bill be adopted with amendments?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Does the committee wish to append observations to the report?
Hon. Senators: No.
The Chairman: Is it agreed that this bill be reported as amended?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you, honourable senators.
The committee adjourned.