Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue No. 30 - Evidence - June 8, 2017
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 8, 2017
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill S-236, An Act to recognize Charlottetown as the birthplace of Confederation, met this day at 10:33 a.m. to give clause-by-clause consideration to the bill; and in camera, to study matters pertaining to delays in Canada's criminal justice system (consideration of a draft report).
Senator Bob Runciman (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning and welcome colleagues, invited guests and members of the general public who are following today's proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
Today, we begin our consideration of Bill S-236, An Act to recognize Charlottetown as the birthplace of Confederation.
To start things off, we have with us today the Honourable Senator Diane Griffin, who is the sponsor of the bill. Joining her at the table is Edward MacDonald, Professor, Department of History, University of Prince Edward Island.
Welcome, and thank you for being with us today. You both have up to five minutes for opening statements.
Hon. Diane F. Griffin, sponsor of the bill: I have the honour of sponsoring Bill S-236. I cannot claim to be the originator of the idea to have such a bill presented to the Parliament of Canada; I have to give that credit to others.
You will be interested to know that last November the Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island unanimously passed a motion calling upon the House of Commons to pass Bill C-253, which was called the recognition of Charlottetown as the birthplace of confederation act. It was a private member's bill sponsored by the Honourable Wayne Easter.
Mr. Easter has since agreed to sponsor bill, Bill S-236, instead when it is transmitted from the Senate to the House of Commons.
This bill, when enacted, will be an appropriate complement to a bill passed by the Legislative Assembly of P.E.I. in 2014, called the Birthplace of Confederation Act. It will also be a follow-up to the proclamation by the Right Honourable Jean Chrétien, Prime Minister of Canada, on September 1, 1996, recognizing the role of Charlottetown as the birthplace of Confederation and affirming this as an integral part of our Canadian heritage.
In P.E.I., we are really proud of having hosted the first meeting of the Fathers of Confederation and this pride is shown in so many ways. For instance, if you are travelling to P.E.I. your most likely point of arrival is from New Brunswick via the Confederation Bridge, so named by the Government of Canada in 1997. The licence plate on my little red Ford Mustang has the slogan, "Cradle of Confederation,'' and it's not a vanity plate. That's on all the Prince Edward Island licence plates that you don't want to pay extra money for.
I have two amendments that I want to propose today, along with those that are to be proposed by Senator McIntyre. Thank you for your consideration.
Edward MacDonald, Professor, Department of History, University of Prince Edward Island, as an individual: It's an honour to be asked to assist you in your deliberations on this bill. It is a first for me. I have circulated my briefing notes and I will speak to them briefly.
The case for the city as a birthplace of Confederation can be made under a pair of headings: one is actual historical events, and the other is how, over time, those events had been recognized.
First, it should be repeated that this act of union was a process, not a static event. It continues to be a relationship and not a static event, and I have argued the process began in Charlottetown in 1864. It was at that conference that a congruence of pressures, fear of the Americans, the colonial office wanting us to unite and the needs of Canadians came together in an agreement in principle to a confederation. This was a huge, watershed moment, and I use that term advisedly. All things flowed from that agreement in principle to a confederation, if terms could be arrived at.
Until that time, the idea was simply that: a debating club idea, a banquet speech idea. Now, it became a serious sort of prospect. All things flowed from that. The conference later that fall in Quebec was an extension of the conference in Charlottetown, and it took the basic agreement on the outlines of the federation and turned them into details. Of course, there was a conference then, again, in London, and then we had the BNA Act. But everything flowed from the conference in Charlottetown.
That point has become entrenched in the popular opinion and in their commemoration over the century and a half since, beginning 50 years after the event with a jubilee of the conference, which Ottawa agreed to fund. That was not an inconsiderable thing. But something happened called The Great War and we didn't get a chance to celebrate.
In 1939, we celebrated again and this time Ottawa provided money, recognition and leading officials, as did many of our provinces. Then, in 1964, the one-hundredth anniversary, Ottawa and the provinces jointly agreed to fund the construction of a memorial to the Fathers of Confederation in Charlottetown, because they felt it was the birthplace of Confederation. By that time, according to the research that I have done, Canadians, the provinces and Ottawa had widely recognized that this, in fact, was the birthplace of Confederation.
So I think the record of history has shown and the time since has affirmed that the city is the birthplace of Confederation, the watershed moment in the journey that we're still on.
The Chair: Well done. Thank you very much.
Senator Baker: Thank you to the witnesses, and to Professor MacDonald for the written submission that he gave to all of us in advance and his further explanatory remarks.
And our congratulations go to Senator Griffin. Most members of the committee have been approached by MP Wayne Easter encouraging us to support this legislation. He explained to us that if the Senate approves this, it goes to the top 30 private members' bills in the House of Commons, and thereafter to committee in which there is a mandatory 60 days to report, unlike a private member's bill from the House of Commons. So he feels this measure could be passed in this particular session of Parliament and most people agree, so I want to congratulate Senator Griffin.
I'll leave questions concerning the subject matter to other senators who are here. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I would like to thank our witnesses. My question is for Mr. MacDonald. When we talk to historians, the validation of nuances around certain facts is an issue that often comes up. Do you think the historical dimension of this bill could give rise to challenges? If so, what would they be? What impact would this recognition have on Charlottetown?
[English]
Mr. MacDonald: Thank you for the question. As an historian, my expertise tends to be the past rather than what will happen, but I think because for decades now we have considered ourselves to be the birthplace, the consequences will be more in terms of an affirmation and an ability to build on the designation, and I can see it building in two different ways.
One will be in terms of education and being able to educate Islanders and Canadians about the story of Confederation, which is a big part of the story of our country in Canada and, of course, there is a tourism impact. Since the 1920s, visitors to the province have wanted to come and see the chamber where the meeting occurred that led to the formation of our Confederation. I think they're always amazed: Other nations were born at the tip of a sword. We were born at the point of a pen by discussion and negotiation. That may not be a dramatic story in some ways, but I think it's a happy story for Canada. I think the consequences of having the title affirmed in legislation will simply allow us to build on what we're already doing.
I say that not in the sense that I have any power or authority.
Senator Joyal: Thank you, Professor MacDonald and Senator Griffin, for your initiative.
I don't want to be the one who pours cold water on the red rocks, as my friend Senator Baker would say, but I think that your presentation missed some facts that are obvious to everyone — and I say that with greatest respect and no aggressivity and no other intention to change the wording of this bill, so let me be very clearly understood here. But, in fact, Prince Edward Island didn't join Confederation before 1873.
You were the seventh province joining Confederation, not the first one. You were not among the first four ones. As a matter of fact, Prince Edward Island doesn't appear on the medal of Confederation. Only four provinces appear: Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. You were not on the first flag of Confederation. I have it here; only the four provinces appear on the first flag. You appear only on the fourth flag of Confederation after Manitoba, B.C. and you, of course, joined the Confederation.
When I was reflecting on all this, I said, is it not strange that the province that claims to be the birthplace in fact was only the seventh one to join Confederation? And in fact, when I look into the historical notes on why P.E.I. joined Confederation, it was because the Government of Canada and the Colonial Office had the perception that P.E.I. would join the United States, not Canada. There were rumours that P.E.I. was considering joining the United States and that's what prompted the Canadian government to enter into discussions with the then P.E.I. to offer them some kind of attraction to join Canada. That's why I feel uneasy with the bill, giving the impression that P.E.I. has been there for the first one, was there to push, animate, convince and celebrate and whatnot, and this is not the historical case.
I'm not opposed to the bill. As you said, the process started there because the Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick had the first idea to have a meeting to unite only the Maritime provinces, not to form Canada. The idea was to form a union among the Maritime provinces and it's only when the delegates from Ontario and Quebec arrived that they said no, we will expand it. As I say, I'm not for historical vision. I prefer to see history with its facts and I'm not pleading here for any other part of Canada to be called the cradle of Confederation or the birthplace of Confederation. I have no quarrel at all with that, but if we are to adopt a bill with that substance, we should be well aware of what happened and not try just to be rosy about the history and we're so happy to be all together today.
I am totally sympathetic to the initiative taken by the Islanders in relation to their place in Canada but as I say, there are historical facts that need to be put on the table so we understand very well what this bill is all about. That's why I feel that your presentation is lacking some historical facts that are important to put on the record when we legislate in relation to the proposal that we have today to consider.
Mr. MacDonald: I thank you for your comments. Of course, I had five minutes to present a case.
May I comment on your remarks?
Senator Joyal: Of course.
Mr. MacDonald: How typically Canadian this story is, that the place which is the birthplace, the city that is the birthplace, does not immediately become a part of Confederation; typically Canadian story.
First of all, I should make a distinction between a colony, which chose not to join Confederation, and a city where there was a conference, which became the starting point for the process of Confederation. So there are two distinctions here. The bill does not create the province as the birthplace of Confederation. It looks at a place, a city.
The second point I would make is that Prince Edward Island was thinking it might be able to negotiate a free trade agreement with the United States. They were not actively considering any affiliation. Some of the ambitious Americans, who have echoes perhaps in the present day, were thinking it might be an interesting acquisition for the United States to have a province in the middle of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, to thwart the lines that led to the heart of the continent. But there were no negotiations from Prince Edward Island. Canada and the British, you are absolutely correct, were worried that the United States might decide to move in and as you will also know, in those times, the Prince Edward Island legislature did not have the power to negotiate any kind of treaty with the United States. That power was reserved for the Colonial Office. But it's an interesting point that actually reflects your knowledge of history that you should even bring it up, so I compliment you on that.
Opposition to Confederation in the region can be divided into two levels. There was opposition in principle — those people who felt it was just a bad idea — and opposition to the terms that were arrived at.
So the conference we're speaking about looked at the broad outlines of the country, that it would be a federal union not a legislative union. So there would be a local level of government and a central government, and a couple of houses in the central level of government. There would be an upper house that would be appointed and a lower house that would be elected according to the population.
Now, the delegates from Prince Edward Island and the rest of the region could agree to those terms. It was when they settled on what the powers would be at the conference at Quebec that some of the delegates fell out with that, and Islanders as a whole did what the rest of the colonies did. They considered the merits of the proposal as put on the table and considered it would not do the Island an advantage to become a part of the Confederation as then envisaged according to the powers that were then apportioned. By 1873, as you know, we had decided to build a railway, which we felt would be the key to the future in the same way the computer was thought to be the key to everything in the 1980s. That put us in a bit of a bind, but the terms we received in becoming a member of the Confederation were significantly better terms than those that were on the table in 1864 or 1866 when improved terms were offered, or later on when still other terms were offered.
To consider that the colony of Prince Edward Island was shrewd in holding out should not be seen as a judgment on their willingness, in the end, to be a part of Canada. But I agree with you; it is an ironic statement on history, and history abounds in ironies. A place that is the birthplace does not immediately join Confederation; I'm sorry for rambling.
The Chair: That's fine.
Senator Batters: That's exactly what I was going to ask about because as I thought about it this morning, I wanted a little bit of a Canadian history lesson. So now I have received it from Senator Joyal, which is perfect. I have to compliment you, Professor MacDonald, on your quote, born by the point of a pen; very poetic.
The Legislative Assembly of P.E.I. adopted a resolution declaring Charlottetown the birthplace of Confederation and I'm wondering from Senator Griffin, did you receive or seek the support of the members of the Legislative Assembly of P.E.I. for your particular bill?
Senator Griffin: What is interesting is that I was only appointed here in November. Shortly thereafter, I received this letter from the legislative assembly, as did all of the MPs and senators from Prince Edward Island, giving us a copy of the document and seeking our assistance in moving it through the Parliament of Canada, in other words, moving the Wayne Easter bill in the House of Commons and then through the Senate.
Prior to that, I had been aware that there had been private member bills in the past, but they always died on the Order Paper because the number was quite far down on the list. No, I didn't lobby. I see myself as a facilitator in this, not the originator. I can't claim credit in that way, but I was perfectly happy to facilitate.
Senator Batters: But, obviously, they support your bill because they were trying to get someone to do it, and they seemed to be more focusing on the House of Commons to initiate that process; is that right?
Senator Griffin: That's right. Because that's where the private member bill was at that time. It's still there. It won't be withdrawn until this one passes the Senate.
Senator Batters: Excellent. So you've done it in a more expedited way through the Senate of Canada. Congratulations.
Senator Omidvar: I can't think of a more beautiful place to think about right now than Charlottetown. I listened, professor, to your presentation, and you say, rightly so, that a confederation is not a static event. It's a series of relationships that will always ebb and flow and change. My question is about the sensitivity of these relationships with other provinces that are not mentioned in your preamble. None of the other provinces is mentioned in your preamble. If you read the preamble, it really does feel like everything started in Charlottetown. As we know, that was not the case.
My second question is: As we are moving, as a nation, toward finding pathways to reconciliation with Canada's indigenous people, have you had any consultation with them as to what their point of view would be on this?
Senator Griffin: Can I answer the first part of your question? Senator McIntyre, who is the critic for the bill, is going to propose one or two amendments that will address the issue that you have raised about acknowledging the other conferences.
Senator Omidvar: What about the second part of the question?
Senator Griffin: Could you repeat it?
Senator Omidvar: Reconciliation with Canada's indigenous people. They have their own notions of what the birthplace is, and here we are, again, making a decision about what the birthplace is of our nation.
Mr. MacDonald: Can I comment a little bit on that from a historical perspective? I did not write the preamble for the bill, so I'm speaking only as an historian. Confederation is not Canada, and it is not the story of Canada. It is one of the stories of Canada.
As we know, we can discuss what the birthplace of the country of Canada was. We can discuss, perhaps, a human history that goes back for tens of thousands of years. As you know, the Aboriginal inhabitants of the country were not part of the negotiations for Confederation, and, in interpreting the event, if you go to Province House — well, you can't go to Province House at the moment; it's a bit out of sorts, but — if you look at the video, which was released just last year about the story of Confederation, you will see due attention paid to the role or the non-role of native peoples in the negotiations. So, in the interpretation of a birthplace theme, there is now an acknowledgment in the video of the roles of native people and why they weren't at the table and should have been at the table, and that was a video worked out in extensive kind of committee work with the local inhabitants of the Mi'kmaq tribe. So they were consulted at that level. My sense is that, going into the future, that's part of the story of Confederation that will have to be addressed and is being addressed.
Senator Omidvar: A quick follow up on a different line of inquiry: What are the costs associated federally with approving this bill? What will it cost us to do this?
Senator Griffin: I can answer that. Other than the cost of paper associated with this and the time for all of us to be here, I really don't anticipate cost with this. It's more of a recognition. The Mayor of Charlottetown won't be here next week asking that the street leading to Province House be repaved if that's what you mean. He might, but it won't be related to this.
The second amendment that I'm proposing today is going to, partially at least, address your issue, and that will be that this is not a formal recognition under the Parks Canada agency. So this will not affect Parks Canada's budget, for instance, in Prince Edward Island. They have a lot of historic sites and the Prince Edward Island National Park. They are a major force in our province, but I don't see any impact on that as a result of what we're proposing right now.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you both for your presentations, and thank you to Senator Griffin for sponsoring this bill.
Senator Joyal made reference to a Lieutenant Governor for the Province of New Brunswick. In fact, in 1861, Arthur Hamilton Gordon becomes Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick, and, as I recall, in 1863, Gordon suggested a meeting in Fredericton for maritime union, but the meeting was eventually held in Charlottetown.
The very first line of Donald Creighton's 1964 book, The Road to Confederation, reads as follows: "It was the enthusiasm of Gordon of New Brunswick that gave the movement its real start.'' In other words, Gordon got the wheels in motion. My question is this: Since the Charlottetown Conference grew out of the proposal made by the Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick, is there merit to this claim, and what is your opinion of New Brunswick's claim to be the place to "Celebrate where it all began?''
Mr. MacDonald: I will have to be careful in answering that because I'm giving a talk in Hampton, New Brunswick, on Saturday, about Confederation.
There are many parts to the story, and New Brunswick can lay claim to being a part of the story. In fact, the fathers went to New Brunswick after the conference in Charlottetown, and they toured around as part of a tour of the Maritimes. The Governor of New Brunswick was following general instructions from the Colonial Office to encourage some kind of a union to cut down on the cost of administering the colonies and cut down on the cost of defence. So he, having an ego the size of the colony he ruled, had it in his head that he would be the architect of a maritime union and that he would end up being the governor of the larger entity. So, indeed, he did try to organize a conference, which he envisaged as a conference involving the governors and the premiers only, so a small meeting of six people, where he would be able to dictate to the premiers that there should be a maritime union and they would obediently go back to the legislatures of their colonies and pass the necessary act.
Well, the wheels came off of his plan almost immediately because the premiers did not simply agree to attend a conference with the governors. They insisted on delegations that would include both the people from the government and the other side of the house, and so, almost immediately, the conference got out of the control of Gordon. The Canadians asking to attend as observers were a wild card that completely transformed what was to be a perfunctory meeting of the colonies, who were meeting only because they knew the Colonial Office wanted them to talk about maritime union but who had no interest in maritime union, except for Halifax, which thought it might be the capital of such a place. So New Brunswick has a role to play in the story, and they should get credit for that role. But I do not think they are the birthplace. I don't think that action was the birthplace of Confederation.
Senator McIntyre: Professor MacDonald, as we know, there were three conferences, the Charlottetown Conference, which was held on September 1, 1864; the Quebec Conference, which was held in October 1864; and, finally, the London Conference, which was held between December 1866 and March 1867. As a matter of fact, the bill received Royal Proclamation from the British on March 29, 1867, if I'm not mistaken.
That said, some commentators would argue that Confederation can be described as a process rather than a singular event. If so, then could Confederation not be described as having taken place in a number of places and over a number of years, bearing in mind the three conferences that were held: Charlottetown, Quebec and London?
Mr. MacDonald: I agree. In fact, in my remarks I talked about this as a process, this being a process, as well as a relationship. The conferences are important, and we should recognize that each of the conferences brought the journey closer to the destination if the destination is the BNA Act.
However, in terms of having a birthplace, the conference we're talking about, the Charlottetown Conference, is the watershed moment. It is where what had been an idle idea, for the most part, became a prospect, a serious sort of prospect. Not just the idea of a confederation but an actual vision of what it would look like in general terms. That's why I have argued with respect to the rest of the conferences that this is the key moment, the genesis of the process. It is a process, but this is the watershed moment. That's basically where I'm coming from in the point of view that I have taken.
Senator Duffy: Congratulations, Senator Griffin, on moving this project forward.
Professor MacDonald, there seems to be some concern here that somehow we — we Islanders — are trying to hog the show a little bit. Could you explain to the committee, one, Province House, the funding it gets from the federal government and has gotten for years, the major restoration that is under way, and the broad-ranging historical presentation that is available there when the building is open, which covers many of the points that have been raised here? In other words, the story as it is presented when people come to visit is not narrowly focused.
Mr. MacDonald: I would agree with that remark. Province House has been promoted by the province as a singular kind of historic site, a shrine to Confederation since World War I, particularly since the 1920s. I'm actually writing a book on tourism on Prince Edward Island. I was looking at the files of the premier. In 1966 they charged a bit of admission to get into the building of Province House because it was in trouble in the fiscal sense. The letters poured in to the premier's office from Canadians coming to visit Prince Edward Island saying, "Why do we have to pay admission to see the birthplace of our country? This is outrageous.'' The premier would say, "Well, if we were a national historic site, maybe we wouldn't have to charge admission, but it's the burden of the province.'' Within 12 months we were a national historic site. Since then, Ottawa has poured in millions of dollars into both the restoration of the building but also interpreting the story of Confederation.
I've been part of the video of that was made and released the other year but have also seen all the other videos. There is a sincere and major effort made to interpret the larger story and all of the players. I don't think we're trying to hog all of the glory, but we are the little sister of Confederation, and the youngest member or the smallest member of a family often needs recognition when they have done something important. So if we at times seem to be claiming all of the credit, it's perhaps overstated to get the big people to pay attention. But in actual interpretation, we do a good job of telling the larger story.
Senator Duffy: Finally, professor, in an era in which history doesn't seem to be taught as much or as rigorously in our school system, how critical do you think this is to ensuring that Canada's story continues to be told in its entirety?
Mr. MacDonald: I have said before that a society without a past is a society without a conscience, and not just because I'm professor. History is critically important for a society to understand how they got to the place they are at and to understand the issues that confront them.
There are declining enrolments in history across the country at the university level. That means that we're losing an essential way of understanding ourselves and our identity and our issues. So this act, in its modest way, gives an opportunity, both in these hearings, in the debates which may happen in the House of Commons if the Senate sees fit to pass this act, in the coverage in the media, to bring the story of Canada to a larger audience. Part of the challenge is for us to use it to interpret the good and the bad, the myths and the realities of our past. It's an enormously useful thing and can be a platform to help educate all Canadians.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: I looked up the definitions of the words "berceau'' and "birthplace'' in the dictionary. Are the two terms consistent? Both refer to something's place of origin. Obviously, the meaning of "berceau'' that corresponds to the English word "cradle'' refers to something very specific: a baby's bed. Some tools even have cradles. But as far as human history is concerned, we can all agree that the French terms "berceau'' and "origine'' and the English terms "birthplace'' and "motherland'' are somewhat vague concepts.
You look at things through a historian's lens. I completely agree that the role and responsibility of historians is to focus on the past, as opposed to what may happen in the future. When I heard the outcry in the Senate when the bill was introduced, I thought to myself that something had happened between the Charlottetown Conference in 1864 and today. The idea that Charlottetown was the place of origin or birthplace of Confederation certainly defied consensus.
Is there consensus among historians that Charlottetown is indeed the "berceau'' or birthplace of Confederation?
[English]
Mr. MacDonald: I'm fascinated by your comments about language and the power of language, and I thank you for those. We speak in metaphors and deal in analogies, and "cradle'' has had currency on Prince Edward Island because it's alliterative and works in a tourism sense. It's interesting to delve into the meanings of words. Words are symbols, and we do speak in terms of metaphors with "birthplace.''
In terms of the Confederation story, if you look at the literature, first of all one must recognize that if you're a professional historian you are prone to argue with your colleagues. But really the political history of this act of union, the Confederation, was largely written in the 1960s when it was at the front of everyone's mind. History has tended to move into other kinds of history and genres, and political history in this sense has become less important. Currently there is not a lot of debate about things such as: Is this place the birthplace of Confederation?
I think that if you went back and read Maurice Careless, P. B. Waite, Creighton, whom we've already heard referenced, I think you would see an agreed-upon storyline, Charlottetown playing a key role in that storyline. Christopher Moore, when he wrote his book in the 1990s, after the failure of the Charlottetown Accord, trying to figure out how the fathers made a deal when we couldn't, he also, I think, would fall into line.
I was at a session at the Canadian Historical Association last year on Confederation. The current argument is that it was all about the modes of taxation, an argument that I didn't buy.
So there is no debate for me to report on the consensus. I can only report my sense of what I've read in my research over the years, and being old enough to have lived through the 1960s and to be part of that story.
Senator Pate: My father would be very happy with this and support it, because in 1967 — I related this to Senator Griffin — I had to call in for my first radio appearance — I was age 7 — to answer the question: What was the birthplace of Confederation? My dad had drilled it into me that that was Charlottetown, P.E.I.
I want to return to the question that Senator Omidvar asked. What will be the role of the Mi'kmaq people of P.E.I.? Has there been consultation with them about their view on this particular issue?
Senator Griffin: That's something I don't really know. I have had some personal consultation with people as individuals but not with organizations, so I can't personally answer that. There are no Mi'kmaq members in the legislative assembly. The resolution or motion that came to us was unanimous but, again, there are no First Nations representatives in the provincial house.
So I am not aware that there has been any consultation. There could have been; I am just personally not involved in it. I'm a facilitator in this further into the process. Possibly Dr. MacDonald may know if there has been any, but I'm not aware.
Mr. MacDonald: I do not personally know whether or not that has happened. I do know that there was no public outcry, comment or complaint from the Mi'kmaq people when the act was adopted, and they have been quick to speak out when they feel the province has a duty to consult and did not consult.
So I don't want to interpret that lack of remarking as approval or a consultation. All I can say is that, as part of the process of producing the kind of interpretation in the video at Province House, they were fully members of the project and fully onside with the product that came out the other end. That is not the same thing as a formal level of speaking and consulting on this bill, and I simply can't comment on it. But I applaud you for getting the right answer in the radio contest.
Senator Pate: Not if you had to hear me sing the song forever after.
Senator Pratte: I have always been a very poor student, so I guess this will show again.
In the preamble it says that September 1, 2014 marked the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the Charlottetown Conference and the birth of Confederation.
So what is 2017? Because we're marking the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of Canada, but in my mind, 2017 marks the birth of Canada as a Confederation, doesn't it? So are there two one hundred and fiftieth anniversaries: one in 2014, one in 2017?
Mr. MacDonald: We celebrated in 2014 the role of the Island as the birthplace of the process of Confederation. We are about to celebrate the anniversary of the BNA Act, which is the legal kind of instrument to create the Dominion of Canada. The fact that this act is coming forward now may simply be a comment on the labyrinthine sorts of ways that an act becomes a deed, or a thought becomes a deed, in terms of legislation.
There are two events. In fact, in the 1950s, the Conservative government of the day began planning for the one- hundredth anniversary of Confederation, and they actually stated that the event would begin in 1964. They adopted that as their approach to Confederation and the centennial, that it begins in 1964 and culminates in 1967.
Senator Duffy: The Confederation Centre got Diefenbaker approval.
Mr. MacDonald: That's right. The Confederation Centre, which is the shrine to the Fathers of Confederation, was originally approved by the Prime Minister; and Diefenbaker committed one half of the funds if the provinces would ante up the other half of the funds. It was during the context of planning for the centennial, and he was thinking of it in terms of the centennial of Canada.
Senator Pratte: I agree with the legislation, so I'm approaching this with the same spirit as Senator Joyal. If I'm a student and there is an exam and the question is "What is the date of the birth of Confederation?'' there are two possible answers.
Mr. MacDonald: Yes, and if you came up and complained about your grade afterwards, I would have to amend it, because you would be able to make this argument.
Senator Pratte: I suggest 1864 is the beginning of labour rather than the birth, isn't it?
Mr. MacDonald: I used to joke that this is where we conceived of Confederation, which was probably more fun than the labour; however, I don't think that should be enshrined in legislation. Again, we're speaking in terms of metaphors and analogy. The conception place of Confederation I thought was a non-starter.
Senator Joyal: Thank you, professor, for your comments. As you stated, the teaching of history is essential for a mature country to understand where it comes from and also where it wants to go, because it's a living process; we never totally arrive at the illustration being the role of the Aboriginal people that we now recognize. We know that the majority of people don't want to celebrate the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary, for reasons that we all know.
Taking into account the necessity of being accurate, especially with legislation in Parliament, would it not be better to rewrite some of the preamble paragraphs of this bill? As I say, when you read it, for somebody who doesn't know the intricacies of history — as you do know, professionally — it would give the impression that everything started and flourished, everybody was happy, and so forth.
The second paragraph of the preamble reads: "Whereas the ambitions and ideals that flourished at, and grew out of, the Charlottetown Conference . . .''
In fact, if we are a federal structure in terms of government ± it came from Quebec, as you know, because George- Étienne Cartier could not accept a legislative union. There would have been no deal if that was the original idea that was promoted. And then the protection of minority rights, for which we claim Canada now is a beacon of light and promotion and so on, didn't happen at all in Charlottetown. As a matter of fact, as you know, it was part of the negotiation of the Québec Conference, and finally in London, because there was protection for the English-speaking minorities in Quebec that were arrived at only at the London Conference.
So it seems to me that if we want to be accurate, we should, in fact, be more precise and factual in the preamble of this bill, because it will be used in P.E.I., I hope, as something important that the Parliament of Canada has adopted this year. I would be remiss to vote for something that would not be accurate, and I don't think it is accurate in that context.
My colleague Senator McIntyre — I think just the recital of the various conferences that took place that year, for instance, is not even mentioned in the preamble of the bill. It started as a process. That's essentially what it is. It's not reflected at all in the preamble of the bill. So to interpret the substantive section of the bill, clause 2 — you can't understand clause 2 of the bill by reading the preamble. Should we not be more precise and historically accurate in the recital of the preamble?
Mr. MacDonald: I hesitate to speak out of turn as I am not the architect of the bill. I do understand there will be amendments. I presume they may address those reasonable concerns.
The Chair: Senator McIntyre has an amendment that he will put forward that does address that issue.
Senator Joyal: There is another element that I think we have not mentioned that is part of all those discussions that took place in 1864 and 1867. Confederation was not something that was enthusiastically endorsed. Proof is the next year after the British North America Act was adopted in Britain, Nova Scotia wanted to withdraw. There was an election on it. How one of the Fathers of Confederation was on the stage on that very idea that Nova Scotia wanted to withdraw from Confederation. So to create the impression that this was an easy process is inaccurate. It was not easy. There were only two provinces that wanted to withdraw. The last one was Newfoundland. There was a province that wanted to withdraw from Confederation at least two times. So the deal of Confederation is something that is evolving.
I think that the preamble should be very reflective of this idea, and certainly with your contribution and comments could be helpful to ensure that this is part of the recital of this bill.
Senator McIntyre: One of the senators raised the issue of competing narratives. There is no question that in reading various articles on this issue, there appear to be competing narratives as to how Confederation came about. The first narrative is that Charlottetown is the birthplace of Confederation, for the same reasons you have given, historical events and the historical recognition of those events.
In focusing on the other competing narratives, some commentators will argue that Prince Edward Island did not join Confederation until 1873, Manitoba joined in 1870 and British Columbia in 1871. So then the colony of Prince Edward Island was not a party to the discussions leading up to Confederation. They decided to remain a British colony. That said, commentators will argue how can Charlottetown claim to be the birthplace of Confederation if its province initially rejected it?
Mr. MacDonald: Thank you. The students of history on the committee are keeping me on my toes. Again I would make a distinction between a commemoration of a city because of the conference that happened there and the decisions of a colony which decided, for reasons of its own, not immediately to join Confederation.
Senator Joyal is talking about the lack of enthusiasm for Confederation. It's true, New Brunswick initially was very much against it. It took a Fenian scare, Canadian money, pressure and conniving from the colonial office to change them to supporters.
Senator Joyal: And subsidies.
Mr. MacDonald: Subsidies. The Nova Scotians tried to get out almost immediately. Quebec and Ontario were supportive of Confederation because they wanted a divorce from one another. George Brown had as an agenda either a big Confederation or there will be a dissolution of our union. So, the fact that Prince Edward Island was not as enthusiastic as we would like is actually of a piece with the storyline and the rest of the colonies. All of them had ambivalence towards something which in retrospect we are very supportive of and positive about.
One of the advantages of having this enshrined by the Parliament of Canada is that it gives you an opportunity to address each of these points, in education, lectures and debates. I applaud putting on the table a recognition of this ambivalence. But again, Charlottetown as the birthplace of Confederation isn't a paradox when you look at the colony staying out at least initially. I don't see that as a contradiction. We are commemorating a conference in a city that led to Confederation.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: You said historians enjoy arguing with one another. I think lawyers have that in common with historians. Nevertheless, I think it speaks to the fact that their respective visions of history are often at odds.
As for language and metaphors, I would point out that it is the courts who interpret the preambles of enactments. In an effort to understand the short sentence, which, in theory, seems innocuous, corresponding to the title of the bill in clauses 1 and 2, the courts will have to have discussions like the one we are having today, because the choice was made to include a preamble in the bill.
I find fascinating the distinction you made between the city of Charlottetown, which hosted the conference, and the colony, because the city did not adhere to a legal and political framework. It was a colony. Does that not, however, pose a problem with respect to the bill? If I understand correctly, the purpose of the bill is to recognize the fact that the city of Charlottetown hosted the first conference that led to the development of what is now known as Canada.
In that sense, then, in terms of the birthplace of Confederation, we now know Canada is not even a confederation. We talked about educating people and setting the record straight in terms of facts, but I think the third paragraph of the preamble gets it absolutely right. I don't think anyone would object to the recognition of Province House, the building where the discussions took place, as a national historic site.
I think it's reasonable to expect the language of a bill to be sufficiently clear and uncontested, so that the courts who will have to interpret its concepts can do so.
[English]
The Chair: All right. We have concluded the discussion? Professor, thank you very much.
Mr. MacDonald: Thank you for the discussion.
The Chair: It was very helpful. Senator Griffin is remaining as a member of the committee. At this point, members, I would like to move to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.
Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-236, An Act to recognize Charlottetown as the birthplace of Confederation?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall the preamble stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Senator Baker: Postponed.
The Chair: Postponed, yes.
Shall the short title in clause 1 stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall clause 2 carry?
Senator Griffin?
Senator Griffin: I'm going to move the following motion. I know I'm not normally a member of the committee, I am subbing for Senator Sinclair today. So in clause 2, on page 2, I move:
That Bill S-236 be amended in clause 2, on page 2, in the French-language version by replacing line 4 with the following:
And I need someone to help me here. Senator Pratte, can you help me?
[Translation]
Senator Pratte: Yes. The phrase reads as follows:
"est reconnue et déclarée comme étant le berceau de la Confé-''.
[English]
The Chair: Senator Griffin, do you want to expand on that?
Senator Griffin: There was an error in the draft, so we see this as an opportunity to make that correction, so I really don't have much more to say about it than that.
Senator Pratte: The word "declared'' was translated in the original version as "designé'' and is now translated as "déclaré.''
Senator Griffin: We do not see this as a designation. It's a recognition.
Senator Joyal: The way I understand it, the choice of wording is not to make any confusion with the language that is used in Parks Canada whereby the Canadian government designated some sites as being national historical sites. In other words, if we designate Charlottetown, which is the city as Senator Omidvar said earlier on, if we designate the whole city as a historic site it means the Canadian government will be responsible for all expenses of the maintenance of the city, the lamp posts and benches on the street and everything. I think it stems from that, to avoid confusion with the language used in Parks Canada legislation. That's the way I understand the legal reasoning behind the proposed changes brought to us today.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: I'd like a clarification. Why was the wording "est reconnue et déclarée'' chosen?
[English]
Senator Griffin: I'm going on advice that was given to me that there was an error in the French version. This is not a question that I can really answer all that well.
Senator Dupuis: Just to clarify, I'm asking the question about the English version as well. Why would we say, "is recognized as and declared''? What's the purpose of these two terms?
Senator Griffin: We were in consultation with the staff of Parks Canada about the wording of the bill, because, of course, it's very important to us, when this bill goes to the House of Commons, that people are generally in favour of it before it gets there, so we're accommodating their concerns, so that's where the wording has originated.
The Chair: Any further discussion surrounding the amendment?
Senator Joyal: I don't dare express a definite opinion on this because I would need to reread the sections of the Parks Canada Agency Act, and the national historical monuments section of the act, that use very specific language in relation to the recognition of national historical sites.
The two words, one is an identification of the place, and the other one is a status that is recognized for purposes other than Parks Canada's aims and that's why I see in the other amendments that will be brought forward today that there will be a clause 3 that specifically mentions that this is not a designation for the purposes of Parks Canada.
I think the language has been used to avoid confusion with Parks Canada legislation whereby there are different levels of designations. You can be recognized as a site and then you can be designated. If you are recognized, it's like "bienheureux'' and "saint.''
In Parks Canada, there are different ways of "recognizing'' a site. If you recognize it there is no financial obligation that ensues. If you designate it then initiatives to maintain the building, the sites, are part of that second level of importance.
So in other words, it determines the responsibility of Parks Canada in relation to a place, a site, a building. I could give examples for instance on buildings. Normally, when there is a building that doesn't belong to Parks Canada, but Parks Canada comes to the conclusion that it is important, they will recognize it. If they feel this is so important that they have to engage with responsibility for the maintenance in its integrity of the site, building or whatever is the object of consideration, then they would use the word "designate.''
I think it's linked to show the importance of the site but not engage the financial responsibility of the government even though there is a moral responsibility that when an act of Parliament of Canada recognizes and declares that Charlottetown is an important place you have a good argument to plead for additional amounts of financial support. But it's not an obligation. While under Parks Canada, it becomes an obligation.
Senator Dupuis: Thank you, chair. That's exactly my point. We're not Parks Canada. Okay, good.
We want to have the city of Charlottetown declared the birthplace of Confederation. We don't want there to be any confusion by adding, "is recognized as and declared.'' Is that what we want to do here?
Senator Baker: Yes, Senator Dupuis is absolutely correct in her question. But to keep in mind that we're doing an amendment which will come after, which says for greater certainty, we will not be recognizing a designation within the meaning of the Parks Canada Agency Act, so that will cover off that possibility later on. That is why there is another amendment to deal with your question. But you're absolutely right on your question.
The Chair: Anything further on this?
Shall the motion in amendment carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 2, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Senator Griffin: Yes, clause 3, page 2, I now have a new clause. It is clause 3, so I move:
That Bill S-236 be amended, on page 2, by adding after line 4 the following:
"3 For greater certainty, nothing in this Act constitutes a designation within the jurisdiction of the Minister responsible for the Parks Canada Agency under the Parks Canada Agency Act.''.
The Chair: Questions? Comments?
[Translation]
Senator Joyal: Senator Pratte, would you mind reading the French version into the record?
Senator Pratte: Gladly. It reads as follows:
"3 Il est entendu que rien dans la présente loi ne constitue une désignation relevant de la compétence du ministre responsable de l'Agence Parcs Canada aux termes de la Loi sur l'Agence Parcs Canada.''
[English]
The Chair: Shall the motion in amendment carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall the preamble carry?
Senator McIntyre.
Senator McIntyre: I draw your attention, colleagues, to the preamble, page 1, and I move:
That Bill S-236 be amended in the preamble, on page 1, by replacing line 9 with the following:
"and grew out of the Charlottetown Conference form part of''.
[Translation]
In French:
Que le projet de loi S-236 soit modifié, au préambule, à la page 1, par substitution, aux lignes 11 et 12, de ce qui suit:
"Conférence de Charlottetown constituent un des fondements de la nation canadienne;''.
[English]
I can give an explanation, chair.
Senator Baker: This addresses Senator Dupuis' original observation as to the wording of lines 9 and 10 in the preamble. This will insert the words "form part of.''
Senator Dupuis, that was your original observation, that you needed that limitation therein, and that's what this amendment will do.
Senator McIntyre: As an explanation, there is consensus that the ideals were developed during all the conferences: the Charlottetown Conference, the Quebec Conference and the London Conference. Confederation was a result of conferences held throughout the years until the project was referred to the British Parliament.
In this respect, the ideas brought forward in Charlottetown are not, on their own, the basis for Canada as a country. This nation was built on the ideas addressed at all of the conferences which represent the pillars of our country and culminated in the birth of the Confederation on July 1, 1867.
Because Confederation was the result of approximately three years of discussions and conferences, guidelines were put in place progressively as the Fathers of Confederation held meetings. No one can believe that in Charlottetown, the project of Confederation was perfect from the beginning without the benefit of changes, additions, corrections, et cetera, made in the following years.
If that had been the case, there would have been no conferences after Charlottetown and Confederation would have been in place right away, which did not happen. It took a few years. That is why the Charlottetown Conference is one of the pillars of our Canadian nation.
That's my argument.
The Chair: Any further discussion on this? Seeing none, shall the motion in amendment carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Second proposed amendment, Senator McIntyre.
Senator McIntyre: Colleagues, I draw your attention to the preamble, page 1, again. I move:
That Bill S-236 be amended in the preamble, on page 1, by replacing lines 23 and 24 with the following:
"anniversary of the Charlottetown Conference, which, along with the Quebec Conference of 1864 and the London Conference of 1866-1867, led to the promulgation of the Constitution Act, 1867;''.
[Translation]
In French:
Que le projet de loi S-236 soit modifié, au préambule, à la page 1, par substitution, aux lignes 26 et 27, de ce qui suit:
"saire de la Conférence de Charlottetown, qui, avec la Conférence de Québec de 1864 et la Conférence de Londres de 1866-1867, mena à la promulgation de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867,''.
[English]
Here is the argument: In its preamble, the bill states that September 1, 2014, marked the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the Charlottetown Conference and the Birth of Confederation. We must put things in perspective and not ignore the other conferences: Quebec, and London.
The Charlottetown Conference was the trigger of Confederation. Confederation came into being in 1867, three years after other conferences, when the British Empire adopted the act. I mentioned earlier March 29, 1867. The Charlottetown meeting in 1864 was, in fact, the trigger for a confederation project but not the very birth of Confederation.
The legal birth of Canada did not take place in Charlottetown in 1864, as there were other conferences that eventually led to Confederation in 1867: Quebec in October 1864, and London in 1866 to 1867.
The Charlottetown Conference could have ended at that time and not been followed by other conferences, but that was not the case. This is why I propose this amendment.
The Chair: Questions, comments?
[Translation]
Senator Pratte: I would just like to thank Senator McIntyre for the seven proposed amendments and the previous amendment because I think they resolve the issues around historical accuracy in relation to the preamble, not to detract in any way from the bill's merit, of course. I repeat, they resolve significant problems of historical accuracy. Thank you, Senator McIntyre, for these very shrewd and well-done amendments.
[English]
The Chair: Anything else? No one else.
Shall the motion in amendment carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report? No.
Is it agreed that I report this bill, as amended, to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Thank you, and congratulations, senator.
We will suspend for only a minute or two, and then we're going to go in camera to deal with Senator Boisvenu's recommendation with respect to an amendment to our court delays study.
(The committee continued in camera.)