Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 14 - Evidence, October 2, 2003
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 2, 2003
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill S-9, to honour Louis Riel and the Metis People, met this day at 11:05 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator George J. Furey (Chairman) in the Chair.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, as you know from the e-mail circulated yesterday, we are unable to proceed as planned with clause-by-clause on proposed Bill C-35, because we were unable to obtain letters from the appropriate ministers. The ministers of justice and defence have asked that they have some time to review, and hopefully they will be back to us by next week.
Instead, we will proceed directly to the consideration of the proposed bill, an act to honour Louis Riel and the Metis people. We welcome our colleague, Honourable Senator Chalifoux, the sponsor of the bill.
Hon. Thelma J. Chalifoux, Senator: Honourable senators, I am honoured to be here to speak to the proposed legislation to honour Louis Riel and the Metis people. I must apologize; I do not have a written presentation but I have a whole lot of history and proof as to why this proposed bill should be passed.
With this bill we are recognizing Canadian history; Canadian history that is as vibrant as anything in the United States, and we must have Canadian heroes for our children.
Senator Stratton challenged me, stating that the report that I made in the Senate did not address the proposed bill. I am sorry that he is not here today to listen to the reasons for the importance of this bill to Canada, to the Metis people and to our future generations regarding Canadian history.
I have with me the Metis law summary from 1849 to 2002, to which I will refer.
Let us look at the preamble of the bill.
WHEREAS Louis Riel was a Metis and a great leader whose role and accomplishments have fired the imagination of successive generations of Metis...
That is so true. The Metis are a western nation of Aboriginal peoples. The latest decision of the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that there has to be an identified Metis community, and that is Western Canada. No discussion of Metis identity can avoid a special focus on the story of Riel's people.
The one Canadian national historic figure most likely to raise emotions today is Louis Riel, the political leader of the Metis nation of Western Canada. That is why it is so important for us to consider and pass this proposed legislation.
Louis Riel played a significant leadership role in the political process. In 1849, the first Metis rights case was the trial of Guillaume Sayer in Rupert's Land, in present-day Manitoba.
The Sayer case is famous because it was the first time the Metis nation took a stand to protect the livelihood rights of its citizens. They argued for a right to economic self-sufficiency without undue interference, perhaps one of the earliest cries for free trade in Canada.
History tells us that Louis Riel Senior and several Metis hunters surrounded the courthouse where the trial was taking place. Sayer was found guilty, but no sentence was imposed and the Metis considered it a victory. They then began to exercise the free trade of their furs. The Sayer trial effectively destroyed the Hudson's Bay monopoly, and the cry of ``Les commerce est libre'' was the song of the day, thanks to Pierre Falcon.
In 1850, the Metis in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, fought for inclusion in the Robinson-Huron treaty. They were denied participation as a collective, but William Robinson, the treaty commissioner, guaranteed their lands.
In 1869, Louis Riel formed a provisional government to negotiate the terms of Manitoba's entry into Canada. The events at Red River led to the inclusion of the Metis in the Manitoba Act. This event, which should have heralded a new relationship with the Metis, in fact led to a tragically flawed system of land grants and a scrip process implemented in the Aboriginal recognition of the land rights claimed by the Metis. The Dominion Lands Act continued this system to at least 1921. The system led to the forced dislocation of the Metis.
My grandfather was involved; he was vice-president of the Metis in Western Canada in 1895. He was involved in the fight and the struggle that our dislocated families faced at that time. This is Canadian history. It is so important that our children learn about the struggle that some Canadians have faced all throughout their existence.
In 1875, the Metis of Rainy Lake and Rainy River, Ontario, signed a memorandum of agreement by which they adhered to treaty 3. This adhesion guaranteed them lands and harvesting rights. Duck Lake, Batoche and Fish Creek, are names that evoke memories of old Metis battles. These battles were a result of the Metis attempt to protect their lands and their existence as a people. The results of these battles are well known. Bounties were placed on the heads of Metis warriors.
I remember, when I was a little girl, that, if more than three Metis met, it was considered to be a public act and they were jailed. My father, my relations and other members of the Metis had to go underground in order to survive and to look at what was happening with our nation. Metis who participated in the battles were found guilty of treason and sentenced to terms of imprisonment. Riel himself was tried and convicted of high treason; he was hanged in Regina, November 16, 1885. He was hanged because the government in power at the time needed the Metis lands for the new railroad to go through, and for the new immigrants coming through on it. We had good land. This is real history that Canadians should learn. We must make our children understand the struggles that the Metis have gone through.
From 1875 to 1916, approximately a dozen cases were heard in the courts arrive concerning trade and half-breed lands. Most of these cases originated in Manitoba, while a couple of these cases document individual Metis attempting to reclaim their lost scrip. Most of the cases were about the purchasers trying to realize on the scrip that they acquired from half-breeds.
My grandfather had scrip in St. Albert, Alberta. The story goes, from my father down to me and to my children, that when the French came out they got my grandfather drunk and he sold it to them for a bottle of whiskey. The agents took and stole the lands. Really, it was tragic. At this point in time, I am busy preparing a case to regain the scrip land of my great uncle Cyril Boucher from Alberta Beach. This is another reason why it is so important that the proposed bill be seriously considered.
Yes, Louis Riel is a very controversial figure, but he is one of Canada's greatest heroes who fought for the rights of the Metis and the half-breed. In the Manitoba Act, he made sure that the French language was recognized. He fought for the rights of the Metis, the Indian, and the French. That story has never been properly told. He was hanged for political reasons. Sir Wilfrid Laurier fought to try to keep him out of the courts, to try to defend him, but was unsuccessful. It is important than we learn this history.
Let us look at the proposed bill. This bill may be cited as the Louis Riel Act. The purpose of the act is to commemorate Riel and the Metis people by formally recognizing and commemorating Louis Riel's unique and historic role in the advancement and development of Confederation.
Before the Manitoba Act was enacted, the United States was wooing Riel and the provisional government to join the United States. Louis Riel had a vision that we were Canadians first and foremost and that our rights and languages must be protected. He fought against the United States and they did not win. Western Canada became part of Canada when Riel negotiated the Metis rights into the Manitoba Act. That action must be recognized.
The historic role of Louis Riel as a Metis patriot and his present role as a Canadian hero are both acknowledged.
If it were blood quantum that defined the Metis, Louis Riel would never have made it. We looked at that subject years ago when we were looking at the Metis settlements in Alberta. At that time, the government of the day said that a person had to be at least 25 per cent blood quantum for qualify as Aboriginal. Louis Riel was about one-eighth but he was 100 per cent Metis; he was 100 per cent Canadian.
We not look at blood quantum when we identify nations. The United Nations has defined the term ``nation.'' We have our land; our land is Rupert's Land. That was the provisional governments ruling on Rupert's Land when the Hudson's Bay relinquished its control over it. We have a language; our language is Michif. I read an article a few years ago that said that the linguists of this country had missed a wonderful opportunity. It usually takes over a thousand years to develop a language, but the Michif language was developed in less that 200 years. Although there are verbs in French and nouns in other Aboriginal languages, it has been determined that it is a separate language because of the difference between the vowels and the verbs. I am not a linguist and I cannot explain it properly, but that is what the article said. I was amazed that the Metis developed their own language. That language is now being revived. I have two Michif dictionaries. I do not speak the language, but we have old people who speak do. We are developing our own Michif language books in Alberta.
Part of our criteria is to govern ourselves. The Metis have always governed themselves. This must be told to our historians, our children and taught in Canadian studies. We have always governed ourselves through the provisional government, through the laws of St. Laurent, and through the Buffalo hunts.
When you look at our dances and you look at what we do, you find that we have taken from the Irish, the French, and the Scots and developed our own unique way of doing our culture. It truly is a Canadian culture because it combines all the immigrants. It is a wonderful culture.
On May 12, 1870 the Manitoba Act was enacted, and on that historic day Western Canada became part of the Dominion of Canada. If this proposed legislation comes into force, May 12 will be the set aside for the recognition of Louis Riel and the Metis nation.
It is important that this committee recognizes Louis Riel, and the Metis people. This committee should honour the Metis role in the development of this proud multicultural country. It was the Metis that began it all.
Senator Beaudoin: I agree that Riel is a controversial figure. He was not a bandit; he was a rebel. When you look at the history of all nations, all the revolutionaries had the same destiny as Louis Riel.
I understand that at the time of his trial the Minister of Justice intervened. Our court today would throw the case out because of its violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Furthermore, we no longer have the death penalty, which, of course, was in effect at the time of Louis Riel.
Do you think that we should hear what our historians have to say concerning Riel? I know that Desmond Morton, one of our fine Quebec historians is strongly against Riel. I also know that the ``silver tongued'' Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in one of his many famous speeches, spoke favourably of Riel.
I think it might be a good idea to hear from a few historians. We did the same for the Acadians and Comeau; we heard from one or two historians in order to get their academic views on the subject.
I did not like the debate in the Senate because it was a bit too political. I do not wish to criticize but I think that hearing from the experts might be a wise decision to make for the subject of Louis Riel.
Even the grandfather of William Lyon Mackenzie King was a rebel, and there is no doubt, that he is a part of history. There is a difference between a bandit and a rebel. In that sense, Riel was certainly a hero.
Do you think we should hear one or two historians?
Senator Chalifoux: I agree and to that end I have given the clerk several names of Metis historians: Harry Daniels, Clem Chartier, and Yvon Dumont.
Senator Cools: Do you know if he Mr. Dumont is related to Dumont from the time of Riel?
Senator Chalifoux: Yes. I am not sure of the connection, but he is related. Of course, everyone with the name Dumont says they are related to Gabriel Dumont.
Senator Beaudoin: There is another aspect to Louis Riel. I have read the story of his trial, and he seems to have had some mental problems. His sentence in today's world would be different for many reasons. However, I am only concerned with Riel the historical figure and whether we should consider him as a great historical figure. That is my problem. I suggest that we hear one or two historians.
Senator Chalifoux: It is interesting to note that when Riel was thrown out of Canada, and he went down to the Montana and became a teacher. He became an American citizen. It is an interesting yet little-known fact that Canada hanged an American citizen.
It was during that period of time that Gabriel Dumont visited him there and asked Riel to help him at Batoche.
Senator Beaudoin: We have to judge whether Riel is a hero or not.
Senator Cools: I would like to join the debate by thanking Senator Chalifoux for bringing forth this initiative, but I would also hasten to say that the bill as written has a number of flaws. I agree that the subject matter deserves attention and has been in need of it for quite some time.
I would like to move beyond what Senator Beaudoin has said and suggest that we hear more than one or two witnesses. I do not know if you are aware of it, but you have brought forth some difficult and enormously complex legalities in this bill.
I want the committee to look at doing a serious study, and not just a perfunctory one, and then perhaps I can attempt to show the committee why over time.
Some years ago, I did a fairly substantial study of Riel. What complicates the question of Riel is the fact that he was charged with two different sets of offences, one of which was pardoned; he was paid a sum of money and allowed to leave the country. This gets in the way whenever anyone looks at the question of granting a pardon to Riel. I would like the committee to look into this matter. Tom Flanagan, at the University of Calgary has also studied Riel quite extensively.
Senator Chalifoux: He has nothing but bad things to say about Riel.
Senator Cools: That does not matter. The committee's job is to get accurate information. Never mind Riel, the thought of Riel means a lot to large numbers of people. That is why I am proposing that we treat this matter seriously.
As I said, one of the complicating factors is that Riel was granted pardons.
Senator Beaudoin: He was not pardoned at the end.
Senator Cools: When a pardon is granted, the execution comes after.
Senator Beaudoin: I just want to know the true story.
Senator Cools: He did get a pardon.
Senator Chalifoux: No, he did not.
Senator Cools: I am not saying that this was a pardon, although it is hinting at a pardon.
I am saying that the problem that has made Riel very difficult is that the Governor General had granted him a pardon, and the cabinet of the day paid him a sum of money and he left the country. He came back later. That is when these other set of offences for which he was hanged occurred. The problem that the system has always had is that these major offences were committed.
In addition, the granting of those pardons was a contentious matter. At some point in some of those areas, the Governor General acted with the Queen's prerogative and granted a set of pardons to some of the others. It is an enormously complex piece of history.
A couple of years ago, there was a movement to grant Riel a posthumous pardon. Immediately, these were the snags that the system ran into. Another thing we should look at is the parliamentary aspect of Riel. Many people no longer know, but Riel was a member of Parliament.
Senator Chalifoux: Everybody knows that.
Senator Cools: Maybe a lot of native-born Canadians are aware of that fact, but I can tell you that large numbers of Canadians do not know that much about Louis Riel.
Senator Chalifoux: He was elected three times.
Senator Cools: I want to get this information out so that we can look at it properly. Many Canadians no longer know that he was a member of Parliament. We can look at the relationship or the lack of relationship that he had to Parliament.
The man's name has been shrouded in mystery for a very long time and you have achieved great success in bringing his life and the events in it to debate. In different circles Riel is considered alternately with suspicion or canonization. I think we will do Canada a real service to look at this matter. That is another element, the whole question of the parliamentary side of it.
Riel is one of two members of Parliament who were expelled from the Houses, although they were done quite differently. That is to say, the processes that were used were quite different. We should look at that also. I belong to that group that say that our history is our history. Even when it gets a little messy, it is still our history.
A third question that we must look at is the question of honours. It is unfortunate that the word ``honours'' has been used in the bill, because `honours' is pure prerogative. Parliament has very little say in the business of honours. We will have to have a witness to discuss this aspect of Riel. There is a young man at Queen's University who has been studying the subject of honours. We should hear from that man. We should also hear witnesses from the Metis organizations.
We should use this opportunity to do some service to this country in terms of shedding light on this particular individual, who has been as worshipped as he has been maligned.
Senator Chalifoux: George Boulet, from Calgary has been studying this topic for years. I have his book. He would make an excellent historian on this subject.
Senator Cools: We need historians. We also need individuals who know some law of the prerogative in respect to those kinds of pardons. We also need to hear from a witness who knows something about the law of treason. There is some knowledge of the two or three Criminal Code provisions that now exist about treason, but I am talking about the whole law of treason, as it was a parliamentary offence for hundreds of years.
There is the history, the law of prerogative, and the law of Parliament. Also, there is a significant amount of dispute to this day about Riel's mental state. Senator Beaudoin hinted at that when he said that in today's community he might have been dealt with quite differently.
Make no mistake, Senator Beaudoin, some of the penalties under those sections of the Criminal Code are quite stiff. All that happens is that the person is deemed by a state of insanity to be not criminally responsible, but many individuals have been detained for life under what we used to call in those days Lieutenant Governor's warrants.
Many lawyers have gone down that road of arguing on the basis of not guilty by reason of insanity, in the belief that they would receive a more lenient sentence for their client. In fact, they got harsher ones because the person used to be detained at the pleasure of the Lieutenant Governor, quite often for indefinite periods of time.
I know a bit about this subject because at one time when I was on a parole board I went to the Penetang jail facility to speak to the inmates in that institution. One was not only on a Lieutenant Governor's warrant but also under a life sentence. His situation was so complicated that we could not figure out which part of the system should be deal with his case.
Regardless of the outcome of this proposed legislation, I think we would do a good service to cleanse the air and clarify the real situation of this man. I welcome the opportunity to participate in the discovery.
Perhaps I am being overbearing or sentimental, but when a personality, however limited, wrong, or brilliant is still surrounded by so much attention, we have a duty to look at that person and we should do so regardless of any controversy.
I do not know of a single occasion in the Parliament of Canada when a serious study of Riel has been conducted. The committee should take this opportunity and study Louis Riel and the law that surrounded him. We should not get bogged down in saying we do not like this clause or that part of the bill and then abandon the study.
The Chairman: Senator Chalifoux, would you like to comment, or move to the next question?
Senator Chalifoux: Let us move to the next question.
Senator Joyal: I have read the proposed legislation many times to determine what it is that you are requesting of Parliament. As I understand your request you want Parliament to recognize Louis Riel as a Metis patriot and as a Canadian hero; you want Parliament to recognize the Metis symbol of the arrowhead sash, and you request that Parliament set aside May 12 as the date to commemorate Louis Riel.
Is it the responsibility of the Parliament of Canada to recognize, for Aboriginal nations, a hero of their own, or are Aboriginal nations not totally vested with the capacity and privilege to determine for themselves just who their heroes are?
We do not have a precedent to follow in a matter such as this; neither the Inuit nor any of the First Nations have asked us to recognize a person or a symbol as part of their heritage. This is very important.
Since the historical decision made on Friday, September 19, 2003, I believe that the Metis are an Aboriginal nation on their own like the Inuit; they have exactly the same status in the Constitution of Canada.
When Parliament is requested to legislate on this matter, it raises in my mind a moment of reflection. Should we do it? I am not saying we should not, but if we do, what are we doing?
Senator Chalifoux: The arrowhead sash is not only a symbol of the Metis, but also a symbol of Quebec. Louis Riel himself also represents Quebec where he is considered a hero.
We must look at Riel's background. Yes, he fought for and identified with the Metis. He was Metis, but he was also French. As a Canadian hero, he is related to the Metis, but also to the French in Quebec. When you look at other heroes such as Chiefs Poundmaker and Big Bear you note that they are identified with one nation. In the case of Louis Riel, he is identified with several nations.
Senator Joyal: I am not trying to oppose the proposed legislation; I am trying to understand what we are doing. At first glance we are tempted to react spontaneously and instinctively. However, when we are legislating, we must ask ourselves about the implications, especially when we are asked to legislate for a group.
You have asked for the date of May 12, the day that Manitoba was created, to be the date set aside. In recognizing that date we will connect Riel's role in the creation of Manitoba and at the same time recognize him as a Metis hero.
I believe that the Metis nation should determine its own heroes.
Senator Chalifoux: We do that in November.
Senator Joyal: Parliament should determine Riel's contribution in relation to Western Canada. The last line of Clause 2 states:
...his contribution to the rights and interests of the Metis people and the people of Western Canada
As you move on you soon recognize the date of May 12. There is certainly the inference that Riel was instrumental in bringing Manitoba into existence as a province.
Senator Chalifoux: Riel is officially recognized as the father of that part of Confederation.
Senator Joyal: You are asking us to recognize a date in which Manitoba has a direct interest.
Senator Chalifoux: That is correct.
Senator Joyal: Clause 4 of the proposed legislation is clear on that point.
I want to discuss clause 5 and not the selection of the sash but rather the fact that we would be legislating the recognition of the sash as a symbol of the Metis. We have never legislated any symbols for any Aboriginal nation. The Inuit, for instance, might ask us to recognize the seal or the inukshuk as their symbol. The inukshuk is probably a better example because it is on the flag of Nunavut.
I wonder if we should do that for the Metis people considering that the Metis are now a nation, and well affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada. I want to recognize the full capacity of the Metis nation to determine its own symbols. Other Aboriginal nations, as you have recognized, have taken such an initiative in the past.
Senator Chalifoux: The Metis nation was the first to fight for free trade; we were the first to challenge the governments of the day for the rights of the people. What is wrong with us being the first to establish a special symbol? It is very interesting that you bring this forward. The Metis sash has always been a very strong symbol of our nation. In my opinion, it is only right and proper to identify the sash in this proposed legislation.
Senator Joyal: I am not questioning that the symbol of the sash identifies the Metis, as the inukshuk identifies Nunavut. The coat of arms of Nunavut also contains an inukshuk. The Canadian flag contains the maple leaf; that is a physical element of the flag. I have no problem with that, but with this proposed legislation we would be legislating for an Aboriginal nation. Should it not be up to that nation to determine its symbols on its own and to say that they do not need the Government of Canada to do so? Do you understand what I mean?
Senator Chalifoux: Yes, I do.
Senator Joyal: If I vote for this proposed legislation I want to know exactly what I am doing on behalf of an Aboriginal nation that has full status as any other First Nation or Inuit group in Canada.
Senator Chalifoux: I recommend that you ask that question of the Metis historians. That is a very good subject for debate. The Metis National Council supports this proposed legislation; I have letters to that effect. Senator Joyal raises a good question.
Senator Andreychuk: Article 35 of the Constitution and the Powley case refer simply to existing cultural rights. If we are to acknowledge a symbol, there must be some legal mechanism whereby the Metis claim the symbol. Otherwise, we are intruding on the existing rights of the Metis.
It is a bit like the questions we were putting to Professor Chartrand yesterday. We asked him if he spoke for the Metis and he said, ``no,'' that he was speaking for himself. It is the same thing. We need to know that the Metis community has requested the acknowledgement of their symbol. It is a legal question of how to accomplish this without infringing on article 35 of the Constitution.
Senator Joyal: The self-government capacity of the Metis is undetermined but, nevertheless, it is implied by the fact that it is an Aboriginal nation in its own right.
Senator Chalifoux: This is a very good subject for debate, and when the Metis legal people come before you, I suggest you ask them these questions.
In the meantime, I will go back to the Metis National Council and to our legal people and make them aware of exactly what will happen at our next meeting. This will give them the time to prepare for your questions on this subject.
Senator Andreychuk: The difficulty is not the request but how to satisfy the request without infringing on anyone else's rights. From where do we draw the authority to acknowledge symbols? We have a Senate seal and we can change that, but do we have the authority to acknowledge symbols otherwise? We need the legal experts to answer that question.
Senator Cools: It is all part of heraldry.
Senator Andreychuk: We can create new precedents. We need advice and information from legal and parliamentary experts to determine whether it would be within our scope to recognize a symbol.
Senator Joyal: I am not opposed to the Parliament of Canada recognizing the sash as the Metis symbol. We must read the proposed legislation carefully. As one of my early professors would say, ``each word means something.''
Clause 5 states:
The arrowhead sash would be hereby acknowledged as the recognized symbol of the Metis people.
The Powley decision marked an extension of section 35 of the Constitution. The case has implications on initiatives that Parliament can take within section 35. Paragraph 45 of the Powley decision of September 19 states:
Although section 35 protects ``existing'' rights, it is more than a mere codification of the common law. Section 35 reflects a new promise: a constitutional commitment to protecting practices that were historically important features of particular Aboriginal communities...
Section 35 refers not only to land titles, or existing rights in terms of land and self-government, it is a promise to protect the historical practices that distinguish the Aboriginal people.
There is a lot in that paragraph, more than the Supreme Court has ever said about section 35. It is a tremendous extension of section 35.
Senator Chalifoux, while I read this proposed legislation I wondered how we could intervene in legislating a national hero and a symbol for the Metis nation. I wonder where this falls within our fiduciary responsibility. The Crown has a fiduciary responsibility to the Metis. The Metis are a full Aboriginal nation.
Should not the Metis, as part of an inherent self-government prerogative, determine its own heroes?
That does not prevent Parliament from recognizing Louis Riel as a Canadian hero; that is something different, than recognizing him as a Metis hero. We have recognized Sir John A. Macdonald and we have a Laurier Day. Just as we might recognize Louis Joseph Papineau as a Canadian hero, even though he was a ``rebel,'' as Senator Beaudoin used the term. There are statues and monuments of Papineau everywhere.
However, there is a distinction between Parliament recognizing a Canadian hero, and we, as a Parliament, legislating a symbol for the Metis people. If the sash becomes the symbol, do not think you can ask to legislate another one in five years.
I am not saying that we should not recognize Louis Riel as a Canadian hero who played an important role for the Metis, Manitoba, and Canada.
This is a very compelling issue. I am concerned, like most of you, about intruding into the affairs of the Aboriginal nation, when it is clearly within their scope and responsibility to do this own its own.
The undisputable fact is that Louis Riel is a Canadian hero. Your arguments have convinced me that there should indeed be a Louis Riel Act. However, how should we go about wording the act so that it includes the self-governing capacity of the Metis? You said they had their government. That is true.
The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Joyal.
Senator Andreychuk: In your preamble, you stated:
And Whereas it is now expedient for Parliament to effect that reconciliation... What do you mean by ``it is now expedient''?
Do you mean timely?
Senator Chalifoux: Yes, and it is very timely.
I think another thing we have to look at is western alienation. Western alienation began with the provisional government and Louis Riel, and it has been exacerbated throughout the years. It is really getting to be an issue, and this is why I think it is both expedient and timely.
Senator Cools: Perhaps we should each submit names, or have a meeting on this, to decide how to go forward.
The Chairman: Our steering committee will take under advisement the names that we have heard this morning, and some of the suggestions that were passed on to us. No doubt we will have other witnesses at the next round of hearings.
I want to thank you, Senator Chalifoux, for coming this morning and for bringing this very important debate to us.
Senator Chalifoux: I would like to thank each and every one of you for bringing this forward. It is a wonderful debate and it is the proud history of all Canadians. I think it is a very good time to begin this debate.
Senator Beaudoin: When we discussed the question of the Acadians, we made a list of historians to consult. I think we should do the same; but as you said a minute ago, perhaps we may do something in the steering committee.
The Chairman: The committee adjourned.