HALIFAX, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1997
SELECT COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL UNITY
7:00 P.M.
CHAIRMAN
Mrs. Eleanor Norrie
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I would ask everyone please to take their places. We will begin with the singing of our national anthem. I would ask everyone to please rise.
[The national anthem was sung by Jana Miller and Leah Johnston.]
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I would like thank Jana Miller and Leah Johnston for their wonderful performance and also thank their teacher, Ms. Leslie Lake Sarle, for fostering and encouraging such talent. Thank you all, very much, for being here. (Applause)
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. On behalf of the select committee members, I would like to welcome you to the first in a series of public hearings that are taking place across the province on the issue of national unity. Allow me first to introduce the committee members to you. On my right is Bob Carruthers, the honourable member for Hants East, and he is vice-chairman of the committee; Paul MacEwan, the honourable member for Cape Breton Nova; Ron Russell, the honourable member for Hants West; Ernie Fage, the honourable member for Cumberland North; John Holm, the honourable member for Sackville-Cobequid; and Lila O'Connor, the honourable member for Lunenburg, who is an alternate member of the committee. I am Eleanor Norrie, the honourable member for Truro-Bible Hill and the chairman of the select committee.
As you would all know, the purpose of this public hearing is to listen to Nova Scotians' opinions on the Calgary Declaration and, as well, the discussion paper presented by the five national Aboriginal organizations. There are copies available on the information table situated at the far end of the room and also located at this table are simultaneous translation receivers for those who wish to have them.
So without further ado, I would like to move right into our first presenter for this evening. They are people representing the Disabled Persons Commission. We would ask each presenter to be as succinct as possible, to the point, and we are allowing 10 minutes per presentation and then if any committee members would like to ask questions following your presentation, we will do so. Once you are settled, I would ask you each to identify yourselves and then move forward with your presentation.
MRS. NITA IRVINE: My name is Nita Irvine and I am the Chairman of the Disabled Persons Commission. On my right is Craig MacKinnon who is a member of the commission. Craig is working toward a Masters Degree in International Studies at Saint Mary's. He and I are going to share the presentation in regard to the seven tenets of the declaration. On my left I have a gentleman who I don't think needs any introduction to anyone. This is Charlie MacDonald who is the Executive Director of the Disabled Persons Commission and we are going to rely on him for our support, especially if you have some tough questions.
So, since we only have 10 minutes - Charlie always tells me I have 15 or 20 and when I get there I have 3 to 5 so 10 is sort of splitting the difference - so we will try and see what we can do.
I would like very much to thank the Select Committee on National Unity for an opportunity to make a presentation concerning the Calgary Declaration and the subsequent Aboriginal framework. Persons with disabilities have a significant stake in keeping Canada united. As members of the committee are aware, the number of persons with disabilities comprises a significant percentage of the Canadian population. In Canada, approximately 16 per cent of the population - that is 4.2 million Canadians - report some form of disability. As you know, in Nova Scotia the number is closer to 21 per cent of our population. In addition, the Aboriginal community reports upwards of 30 per cent of their people having a disability.
It is a vision of the Disabled Persons Commission that persons with disabilities are able to participate as full Canadian citizens in all aspects of Canadian society. That, of course, will include education, employment, culture, recreation and all other aspects of community life. Unfortunately, today in Canada, persons with disabilities do not have access to the same opportunities as other Canadians and face real barriers in everyday life. I think it is important to note that in building a nation, it is certainly our perspective and indeed that of the disability community not to seek special treatment but rather accommodation that facilitates the achievement of full inclusion and equal citizenship of persons with disabilities in all aspects of Canadian life.
Persons with disabilities have provided, in clear terms, their vision of what it should mean to be Canadian with a disability during the recent hearings and subsequent report of the Federal Task Force on Disability Issues. A Canada which demonstrates leadership on social issues based on clear values and principles. A Canada which takes a holistic approach to disability issues and ensures that persons with disabilities have input into the policies,
programs and decisions that affect them. A Canada which makes it possible for all to achieve a decent standard of living. A Canada that uses proactive measures to promote social and economic equity leading ultimately to equality for all citizens.
There are two terms here that have come to light as I have been speaking. The terms citizen and equality. They are cornerstones that the disability community points toward when speaking of an inclusive society. Persons with disabilities have struggled for decades to be identified as full citizens of Canada and have struggled for equality in all aspects of Canadian life. However, historically, full citizenship has been denied persons with disabilities through such policies, attitudes and mechanisms as institutionalization, labelling, segregation and paternalism. There are many examples of those and I know that in light of the time constrictions, that you are all aware of those.
Citizenship refers to the full inclusion of persons with disabilities in all aspects of Canadian society. Equality is a right guaranteed to all Canadian citizens and the values inherent in the concept of equality include self-determination, autonomy, dignity, respect, integration, participation and independent living. The values that underlie federalism should provide for mutual respect among jurisdictions and an acceptance of diversity, flexibility to respond to local priorities and circumstances, and citizen engagement and public accountability. Now it is from this perspective that the commission would make its comment upon the tenets of the Calgary Declaration. I am going to turn it to Craig for Number 1, "All Canadians are equal and have equal rights protected by law.".
MR. CRAIG MACKINNON: Thank you, Nina. It is clearly important from a disability perspective that the term equal is interpreted to allow for proactive, affirmative and equitable programs and services to mitigate disadvantage. Employment equity initiatives, affirmative action programs, provision of necessary and appropriate disability accommodations enhance the opportunity for equal citizenship.
In short, to achieve equal citizenship it must be understood that persons with disabilities must have equal supports in place to realize a sense of equality and a sense of citizenship.
MRS. IRVINE: Thank you, Craig. Number 2, "All provinces, while diverse in their characteristics, have equality of status.". The commission has no concern or disagreement with this article. It should, however, be pointed out that equality of status for each province should take into account that some provinces may require redistribution of wealth in order to achieve equality of outcome in such areas as health care, social programs, education and other key areas where the fiscal capacity of the province is not equal to other provinces.
I think we are all very much aware of that here in Nova Scotia. It is kind of ironic that we have a larger proportion of our population who are listed as part of the disability community than other provinces and yet we suffer very much from not having the same
opportunities fiscally. So federal transfers and equalization should remain a strong cornerstone to the Canadian federal system.
We are very much aware that social programs, health care and education and all of those aspects of the Constitution are always bargaining chips when it comes to the power trade-offs between the federal and provincial levels. It is fine to talk about these seven tenets and agree with them, as I tell them when I had the meeting with our people this morning, it is sort of like motherhood and apple pie, you can't very well disagree with it. But we have to be realistic and realize that we have to make sure we have some kind of fiscal responsibility built in there at the national level in order for the provinces to have equality that meets this Number 2, despite our diversity, we must have equality of status. It means more than just in name.
Number 3, Craig.
MR. MACKINNON: "Canada is graced by diversity, tolerance, compassion and an equality of opportunity that is without rival in the world.".
Again, it is hard to disagree with it, however, we must be careful here when we use compliments. Persons with disabilities do not want to just be tolerated, we want to be accepted as equal citizens. That again falls back on the necessity of affirmative action programming and basic programming to allow for equity and, as Nita alluded to, dispersal of wealth.
MRS. IRVINE: Number 4, "Canada's gift of diversity includes Aboriginal peoples and cultures, the vitality of the English and French languages and a multicultural citizenry drawn from all parts of the world.".
We certainly agree with that but we had quite a discussion at our regular meeting this morning because I know that you would agree with me that within each of those groups, the Aboriginal peoples and cultures, the multicultural groups, the French and the English, there is great diversity within.
So the commission believes that this statement should reflect that gift of diversity that is within each of these groups and that also includes persons with disabilities, we also are a very diverse group, as you can see here tonight. We all have a different kind of disability. As a result of that, we feel that, at the same time appreciate the unique historical and fiduciary relationship between Aboriginal peoples and the federal government and that there is a little bit of difference there. Maybe at the end, if there is time, I will just sum up about how we see the Aboriginal situation, after we deal with the other three principles here.
MR. MACKINNON: "In Canada's federal system, where respect for diversity and equality underlies unity, the unique character of Quebec society, including its French-speaking
majority, its culture and its tradition of civil law, is fundamental to the well being of Canada. Consequently, the legislature and Government of Quebec have a role to protect and develop the unique character of Quebec society within Canada.".
From the perspective of the commission, we have no direct comment on this issue, however, we feel that it is complementary to the values identified as important to persons with disabilities. Recognizing Quebec's unique, distinct status is supportable.
MRS. IRVINE: On Number 6, Craig is also going to comment on this one. "If any future constitutional amendment confers powers on one province, these powers must be available to all provinces.".
MR. MACKINNON: Again, the additional powers given to the provinces must also reflect the shift in incurring responsibility to provide equitable, adequate and publicly accountable programs or services, based upon the values of full citizenship and equality for all of the province's people. I think it is about core programming and how new programs are administered, how they are accountable to the people.
MRS. IRVINE: Number 7, and the last tenet. "Canada is a federal system where federal, provincial and territorial governments work in partnership while respecting each other's jurisdictions.". Probably that is what is unique about Canada and, at the same, what is its strength and, yet, sometimes its weakness. "Canadians want their governments to work cooperatively and with flexibility to ensure the efficiency . . . of the federation. Canadians want their governments to work together particularly in the delivery of social programs. Provinces and territories renew their commitment to work in partnership with the Government of Canada to best serve the needs of Canadians.".
Our comment here again, as in Number 2, stresses the role of the federal presence within the structure of any in-depth constitutional reform that shows equality for all provinces and equal citizenship for all Canadians. The commission would, therefore, draw the conclusion here that we recommend that cooperative and flexible federalism must have these tenets:
(1) enforceable national standards;
(2) adequate and equitable transfer payments;
(3) adequate and appropriate equalization;
(4) public disclosure and accountability; and
(5) consumer participation.
We would remind the committee that consumer participation means equal citizenship for all, and that certainly includes people with disabilities. I think sometimes we underestimate the capacity that people who have various disabilities have to participate in the mainstream and to bring the skills and the God-given gifts that they have to the process.
We should also note that Aboriginal governments are another established order of government in Canada and, therefore, should be referenced. I just want to quickly speak about that. In regard to the Aboriginal framework for discussion, two principles ring true from a disability perspective. They are:
(1) There must be a willingness to enter into partnerships rejecting federal offloading to the provinces and to Aboriginal governments and peoples in favour, rather, of joint efforts to maximize best possible uses of available resources.
Instead of being at loggerheads and whose responsibility is this and who is going to pay for it, we must get together and bring our forces and our resources together and make it work for the Aboriginal people and, certainly, for all people. That is where we, as representatives of the disabled community, feel we can speak so clearly.
(2) All governments must be committed to promoting and strengthening identifiable social, political and economic developments which will lead to improved education, housing and infrastructure, and to stronger and healthier Aboriginal communities and people, particularly the young and those with special needs.
Full citizenship and equality is very much dependent upon a strong federal government that uses its spending powers to achieve these goals for all Canadians. As well, leadership at the federal, provincial, municipal and Aboriginal governments is an essential ingredient. It is worth noting that the Aboriginal leaders recognize individuals with special needs. The commission hopes that this recognition will ultimately lead to inclusion as Aboriginal self-government develops. Inclusion of students with special needs in the Aboriginal education systems, for example, may indeed be a litmus test of these principles. It exists now and is being refined and developed and we can learn much from it.
In conclusion, I would like to, once again, thank the select committee for the opportunity to attend and give the perspective of the Disabled Persons Commission on this very important matter. If you have any questions, we would entertain them at this time. If we can't answer them, we will call on Charlie.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I agree wholeheartedly. It was an excellent presentation, it was very succinct and to the point and I think very well thought out. I do really appreciate you coming here this evening in presenting the paper and I am sure it will add a lot of food for thought as we put together our resolution.
MRS. IRVINE: Well, we thought, when we got short notice last Thursday, that it was an opportunity that we couldn't miss and we might as well be first off the mark as later complaining because maybe we didn't get the opportunity that we thought that we should have had. So, we appreciate the opportunity and we hope that having found its main tenets and presented it to you, it will give you a chance to look them over. If you have further questions after debate and thinking about it, then you could call the office and Charlie will certainly follow up on it and we will get back to you. So, thank you very much.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for attending. The next presenter will be Dr. Richard Goldbloom. You have a tough act to follow, Dr. Goldbloom. You may proceed. We have a copy of your presentation here, thank you very much.
DR. RICHARD GOLDBLOOM: Madam Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Richard Goldbloom. I'm a paediatrician and I am appearing before you purely in my capacity as a private citizen.
I should say that I have had a long-standing interest in Canadian unity partly because of my own background and partly because I was involved, a few years ago, as Chairman of one of the workshops for the Halifax Constitutional Conference. Tonight, I come before you as a Quebecer by birth and upbringing and a proud Nova Scotian by adoption, but above all as a passionate Canadian.
Madame la présidente et membres de la commission, je suis Québecois par naissance. J'ai passé la motié de ma vie à Québec comme médecin pédiatrique bilingue, mais surtout je suis canadien est très fier de mon citoyenneté.
I want to say that I support the Calgary Declaration and I hope that it will strike a responsive chord in the hearts of the majority of Canadians of both official languages. Without doubt, there will be those who will dismiss the Calgary Declaration as mere words and, in a sense, words do mean very little unless they are supported by actions. But the basis for both words and actions must be a true understanding of why people feel the way they do when they have a sense of inequality.
Permit me just a moment or two of personal history. I moved to Nova Scotia in 1967, not in any way to escape the political unrest that was taking place in Quebec at that time, but simply to seize on an irresistible professional opportunity here. My late father, who was the first fully trained paediatrician to practise in Montreal, spoke both English and French fluently. He was entirely self-taught. He taught himself French and became very fluent in it, simply from reading the newspapers, listening to the radio, going to the movies, and going to the theatre. In that sense, he was decades ahead of his time.
When I was very young, without giving away too much chronology, I was about five years old in 1929, he hired a teacher to teach my brother and me French before we had even started school. Even then, he was convinced that if you were to live as a full member of Quebec society, fluency in French was absolutely essential. But I have to tell you that years later, when I entered the practice of medicine in Montreal in 1954, very few of my anglophone Montreal medical colleagues spoke French with any degree of fluency and some who were able to communicate, at least passably in French, would not do so. Today, in 1997, if we really wish to achieve reconciliation with our francophone compatriots, then it is essential that we understand not only what Quebec wants, but also why Quebecers want their distinctiveness recognized not only in words, but also in deeds.
[7:30 p.m.]
Many Canadians born and raised outside Quebec are either unaware or only vaguely aware of the economic, geographic and social gap that separated and segregated English and French-speaking Quebecers for more than 200 years. We, the anglophones, constituting a mere 20 per cent of the Quebec population, lived and thought and acted indisputably like a comfortable majority; we dominated industry and commerce, we earned larger incomes, we lived in better homes and we interacted largely - or in many cases exclusively - with our anglophone compatriots.
Due to accidents of history, the English-speaking population was significantly wealthier than their francophone compatriots. In the Montreal of my youth, the two main linguistic groups lived largely in separate enclaves. Francophones often could not receive services in their own language from federal agencies or local businesses such as the large department stores. You can imagine what a chronic irritant this was.
In an earlier accident of history, the aristocrats from France, les Grands Seigneurs as they were known, had abandoned their own compatriot settlers to the care of their clergy. In many communities, in my own recollection, everything from what was learned from education to how one dressed and, certainly, to how one voted, was dictated from the pulpit. As happened in a very different context in Mexico, the citizens eventually rebelled, not so much against religion, but against the clerical domination of their lives. Many of them felt that rigid clerical control had also contributed to their perceived inferior status.
The anti-clerical component of the Quiet Revolution, la révolution tranquille, doesn't get discussed very much nowadays, and never has been, but it was really a significant force in the social upheaval that concurrently generated a truly extraordinary demographic phenomenon of which, again, many Canadians outside of Quebec are not fully aware. For decades, families with very large numbers of children were commonplace - 18, 20 or more than 20 children, particularly in rural Quebec - a phenomenon that was known popularly as la revanche du berceau, the revenge of the cradle, and which had something to do with the idea of maintaining the French presence in Canada. But in little more than a decade, the birth
rate in francophone Quebec plummeted from being the highest in Canada to being the lowest in the country; a unique event in the history of Canadian demography and one that generated even greater anxiety among francophone Québecois over the possibility that their culture and their language would not survive in the years to come in the face of a declining birth rate.
In any country, every group of citizens that is identifiable by language, culture, religion, colour or tradition - or, if I might say, level of ability - longs for the same difficult-to-define feeling, let's call it simply dignity.
We Canadians whose first language is other than French need to recognize that the feeling of dignity is, above all, what Québecois want. We, les autres, the others, need to recognize that in a hundred different ways, that very feeling of dignity is what most Québecois lacked and longed for for many generations. The feelings generated by such an evident lack of dignity, equality and respect don't evaporate overnight. Nor are they erased by a few kind words in any declaration or by the stoke of a provincial pen. They need time, they need understanding and they need education, particularly the education of the young.
Therefore, it seems to me that before we suggest the remedies, the historical causes of discontent in francophone Quebec need, first and foremost, to be understood. Without that understanding, we are almost certain to react to their complaints with irritation rather than with sympathy. Armed with such understanding, we at least have a starting point for a process which, in a more dramatic current South African context, is called Truth and Reconciliation. We need to teach our schoolchildren the historic origins of the Quebec malaise, otherwise they will never understand our country's history and will never learn how to make Canada stronger and more united. In the past, francophone Québecois were equally poorly informed about the history of English Canada as we anglophones were about the social and political history of French Canada.
Just the other day I was talking to a colleague who also originated in Montreal and she put it very succinctly. She reminisced about her school days and said we learned about les saints martyres - that is the holy martyrs - but we learned absolutely nothing from Confederation forward.
Regarding the seven point Framework for Discussion endorsed by nine Premiers and two territorial Leaders, I am in general agreement with all the points, but I do have one question about point Number 5. That statements indicates that, ". . . the unique character of Quebec society, including its French-speaking majority, its culture and its tradition of civil law, is fundamental to the well being of Canada.". There is no argument on that one. But it does go on to say that, "Consequently, the legislature and Government of Quebec have a role to protect and develop the unique character of Quebec society within Canada.". I find it curious that the statement does not seem to envision any role for the federal government in protecting or developing the unique character of Quebec. Is this a conscious or an inadvertent
omission? In my view, the responsibility is both provincial and federal. To some degree, the presence of a federal responsibility is already recognized in the Official Languages Act.
Madam Chairman, the Calgary Declaration is a useful, important statement, but we would be extremely naive if we believed that by simply approving the statement and giving it wide circulation we will resolve forever the historical problems that have brought us to this point. The Calgary Declaration, in my view, is nothing more than a beginning. It will succeed as a means of keeping Canada whole only if it serves as a springboard for the educational, legislative, economic and social measures that prove beyond any doubt that all Canadians - old and new Canadians; francophones; anglophones; Canadians of every colour, religion, culture, linguistic origin or level of ability - are truly equal and share the same level of dignity.
Should we be surprised that many Québecois are cynical about our protestations about the importance of Canadian unity? I think not. After all, we have tried and failed twice in the recent past - first at Meech Lake and later Charlottetown - in our attempts to offer some sort of consensus on this issue. Believe me, the central issue is Quebec. Often the cause of our failure has been at least partly the commingling of other admittedly important equity issues, issues that however just they may be, had very little to do with relations between Quebec and the rest of Canada. We have even squabbled over the words and, sad to say, some people in various parts of Canada continue to do so.
How distinct is a distinct society? Even the British North America Act went some distance towards recognizing Quebec's distinctiveness and I find it hard to believe that a distinct language, a distinct code of civil law, and a culture that encompasses a distinct literature, distinct performing arts and artists, and distinct communications media is still not sufficiently distinct to merit the term. The specious argument that we are all distinct may be true in strict genetic terms, but it totally misses the historical point, the political point and the points of fact where Quebec is concerned.
Undoubtedly, this select committee would like to know what this private citizen has to offer in the way of solutions, other than a critique of past performance and an endorsement of the document before us. Well, I can offer you a few pleas and some modest suggestions.
As I have said, I support the Calgary Declaration, but if anyone believes that its adoption will put an end to disillusionment and frustration in many quarters of Quebec, they should do some serious reassessment. We must not only "talk the talk", but we must "walk the walk".
First, if we want Québecois to feel Canadian, they must feel genuinely at home in other parts of Canada, in Nova Scotia just to take one example. The "Two Solitudes" of which Hugh MacLennan - who was one of my school teachers by the way - wrote may be less solitary than they once were, but there are still several degrees of separation. Our welcoming gestures towards our francophone fellow Canadians can include some simple, practical
manifestations; a simple thing such as a lapel pin, perhaps the fleur-de-lis, that could be worn by everyone who serves the public in government, or in commerce, and by people in private life who are able to communicate in both official languages. Even such small, inexpensive symbols can have a powerful impact.
Second, more of our children need to become comfortable and acceptably fluent in French. Our available French Immersion Programs should be expanded and encouraged. I might just digress for a moment here to say that in 1967, when I moved to Halifax, my wife was appointed to the school board. They had the opportunity to start a single French immersion Grade 1 class in Halifax; one class entirely with federal money. It was voted down. Now, at least we have come some distance since then, but I remember and I couldn't believe that it would be voted down, but voted down it was. Imagine what a slap in the face that was to our francophone compatriots. So, we need to expand and encourage our French Immersion Programs which have been very successful so far.
Third, Canadians in all provinces outside Quebec, particularly children, need to learn the real lessons of history, to understand the roots of Quebec disenchantment with Canada. We cannot correct what we don't understand.
Fourth, we need more programs to encourage people-to-people exchanges between Canadians from Quebec and Nova Scotia, old and young alike. The few programs that have taken place have been very successful.
Fifth, here in Nova Scotia where we value our tourist industry so highly, there is still a lot to be done to help francophone fellow Canadians feel more welcome and more at home. When we drive through New Brunswick or P.E.I., the use of both languages on road signs and other sources of public information is far more widespread than it is in Nova Scotia. Simple steps to correct this inequity would give a small but powerful message that we really mean what we say in the Calgary Declaration.
Finally, Canadians of all ages, particularly children, need to learn to sing our national anthem, O Canada, as we heard it tonight, in both languages, and to sing it in both languages at every opportunity. That little gesture also has a powerful impact on those who feel somewhat alienated.
Madame la présidente et membres de la commission, j'espère que les efforts de cette commission seront couronnés avec succès, et je vous remercie très chaleureusement pour votre patience et pour votre attention à mon discours.
Madam Chairman and gentlemen, I am grateful for the opportunity to share these few thoughts with you and I thank you for your kind attention. Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Dr. Goldbloom. Do any of the members have any questions they would like to ask or any comments?
MR. PAUL MACEWAN: I would like to commend Dr. Goldbloom for his very thoughtful presentation. Vous avez dit, monsieur, avec belge capacité.
DR. GOLDBLOOM: Merci, monsieur.
MR. MACEWAN: I think your suggestions have much merit.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I, too, hope and wish that this declaration will strike a responsive chord. I think that was a very good statement earlier on in the presentation, that we do get strong response. I thank you for your, I want to say, passionate response to this. I think your presentation was very well done and I do appreciate you being here tonight to share it all with us. Thank you very much.
DR. GOLDBLOOM: Thank you for the privilege of speaking to you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Do we have a representative from the National Congress of Italian Canadians with us? Maybe going to arrive at another time. We also had representation from the Second Wellington Venture Company, Scouts Canada? Apparently, they have not arrived as yet. With that, we will then go to Byrne Williams, private citizen. Is Mr. Williams with us? Okay, Neil Bergman. You have won the draw. Neil is making the presentation as a private citizen this evening.
MR. NEIL BERGMAN: Honourable members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Neil Bergman. I have been a resident of Nova Scotia for about 20 years and I am a native of Alberta. I have also lived in British Columbia and three American States. I have thus been able to view Canada from different perspectives. I received my elementary education in Alberta, Nova Scotia and British Columbia; my secondary education entirely in Alberta; my undergraduate degree from the University of Alberta; and, my graduate degrees are from Lexington Theological Seminary in Kentucky and from the Atlantic School of Theology. Since 1978, I have resided here in the metro area. From 1986 to earlier this year, I have pastored in Hants County.
Like many in Nova Scotia, I have a stake in Canadian unity. My family is spread from Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island to British Columbia and Alberta. I also know first hand the alienation felt in different parts of our country. Too often this gets expressed in resentment toward other regions.
One of the ways we in the Maritimes are viewed by the rest of Canada is in terms of our geography. On any map, we are rather small. In terms of population, we are just as small and usually considered quite impoverished.
It seems to me that our former Premier, John Buchanan, I think, was willing to give up some of the rights we have in Nova Scotia, rights because we are a founding province of this Dominion, in order to give Quebec a guarantee that they would retain a certain percentage of seats in the Senate or some other balance of power. This was offered, I believe, at the Charlottetown Accord discussions; it could have been Meech Lake. This offer that he and I think another Maritime Premier made was praised by many involved in the process, but probably didn't help sell the accord at home.
I also observed that in the immediate aftermath of the latest Quebec Referendum, there was much talk here about Maritime union. Such talk has grown strangely silent now as the threat of separation has eased somewhat. Even the completion of the fixed link has raise no spectre that we are any closer to Maritime union even though, economically speaking, we are closer than ever. But I believe that there is just as much resentment today in Quebec and in some other larger provinces, that Prince Edward Island has equal status as a province. To a lesser extent, this resentment applies also to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
I like the Calgary Declaration but believe that in order for Items 2 and 6, which refer to provincial equality be established that provinces must be more equal in actuality. If it did not matter so much to national unity and if it did not make economic sense, I would see no great compulsion toward Maritime union. But I believe that some kind of union, where we preserve the best of our distinctiveness, yet do not separately claim equal provincial status to Ontario or Quebec, is both necessary and beneficial to all.
Equality of Canadians in Section 1 is an equality of persons and that is granted by Constitution and is even a matter of faith but, on provincial equality, do 125,000 or even 950,00 Canadians have equal status under the federation to that enjoyed by 6 million Canadians or 11 million Canadians? Even Maritime union would bring together only 1.8 million or so. An Atlantic union would count 2.5 million and that would not settle the imbalance but it might go a long way as a compromise toward a closer equality of provinces. Quebec would not worry that Prince Edward Island or New Brunswick would have the same power they do constitutionally.
The unity process could include, even must include, a closer relationship of our peoples politically and even if the worst should happen, and Quebec does separate, union in the Maritimes would quickly become a necessity. Can we afford to wait until then, when working toward such union now might prevent the breakup of the country in some way? I am not naive enough to suggest that is the only issue but the one that I want to bring up tonight. Other neighbouring provinces might also seek closer ties and cooperation. It is not that we aren't doing some of that now but we must continue the effort. Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Bergman. Do any committee members have any comment?
MR. ROBERT CARRUTHERS: I have just a question, Mr. Bergman. I thank you for your presentation. It is very succinct and well put. It strikes, to me, a question as underlining the term equality. Do I read this presentation and hear it correctly, that you feel that there is somewhat of an inherent conflict between Clause 1 of the Calgary Declaration versus Clauses 2 and 6, that there is some conflict in these sections by nature?
MR. BERGMAN: Well, yes, I think that equality of persons cannot be debated to the degree of the equality of political units which are created some other way than just by inherent rights. That is the distinction I see.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Are there any other comments? I thank you very much for your presentation. It was very well done and, as you stated, not that this is the only concern you have but I think you have pinpointed the one thing you feel is the most important issue in the Calgary Declaration. So thank you very much for being here this evening. I appreciate your being here.
I believe the National Congress of Italian Canadians have arrived. I will put you next, then, on the agenda, if you are prepared to start Mr. Bianchini. I would ask you each to identify yourselves before you begin.
MR. LUCIANO BIANCHINI: My name is Luciano Bianchini and with me is Anna Di Costanzo LeBlanc and Dr. Robert Bortolussi and we are here on behalf of the National Congress of Italian Canadians, Atlantic Region.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: You may begin.
MR. BIANCHINI: Thank you. Madam Chairman and members of the committee, the National Congress that we represent has had an interest in the unity of Canada over many years. One needs only to mention that in 1990, the topic chosen for our biennial conference in Toronto in November was our national identity. In the message to the delegates our President, Annamaria Castrilli, who is now an Ontario MLA, recalled first and foremost among the challenging issues of the day our involvement in the constitutional future of the country. She recalled the various briefs submitted by the national and regional offices on the Meech Lake Accord and on the need for the participation of Quebec in the constitutional framework of the country.
The year after, in 1991, the Congress, under the leadership of a new President, Alfredo Folco, promoted a National Constitutional Coalition, made up of the Italian Canadian National Congress, of the Canadian Jewish Congress and of the Hellenic Canadian Congress.
First among the resolutions of the three congresses, in Montreal, October 1991, was that Quebec should remain a part of Canada. Those resolutions were then communicated to all the provincial Premiers; they were presented to the Government of Nova Scotia on
October 22, 1991, at a meeting with Tom McInnis, the then Deputy Premier, and to Dr. Alastair Saunders, who was the Director of Intergovernmental Affairs.
The influence of the three congresses, or rather of the three communities the congresses represent, was noted in the remarks made by Mr. Parizeau after the Quebec Referendum and again recently in Edmonton.
The courageous loyalty of Quebec minority ethnic groups is admirable: loyalty and love for Quebec, and loyalty to Canada, notwithstanding the many pressures under which they operate their community services. I believe they are a definite tie between the two societies, between Quebec and Canada.
The dedication of the National Congress of Italian Canadian to the cause of Canadian unity has not diminished after the Quebec Referendum. Under the leadership of our National Vice-President, who also chairs our Unity Committee, Mr. Tony Manglaviti, a Montreal lawyer, a new statement has just recently been agreed upon, again in conjunction with the Canadian Jewish Congress and the Hellenic Canadian Congress. It is called, The Three R's to National Unity. The document is intended to prevent the debate on national unity from polarizing anglophones and francophones in the aftermath of the referendum. The three R's are: Reconciliation, Recognition and Renewal.
Reconciliation. In mutual respect, avoiding generalizations, promoting harmony, especially through the educational system, the teaching of history and a portrayal of the Canadian reality which is complete.
Recognition. Canadians have a deep attachment to the values of pluralism. This attachment to diversity should ensure recognition of the importance of the French language and culture for all of Canada, and of the important role which French Canadians are playing in the development of modern day Canada. In March 1996, an Environics poll showed that more than two-thirds of Canadians recognized the diversity of Quebec, because of language and culture.
[8:00 p.m.]
Renewal, goes beyond recognition, which is purely sociological. It looks into a new form of federalism, of effective government. Canadian history demonstrates the extent to which the provinces and regions can have different needs. Over the years our political system has adapted to meet these needs. There is no reason why Canada should not continue to adapt without confrontation.
Towards a common future. The National Congress of Italian Canadians believes that the separation of Quebec from Canada would have disastrous consequences for all of us. And that the only way to ensure a harmonious future is to work towards the development of better relations between citizens of all origins, French, English, Native and others.
The three R's statement does not contain detailed recommendations for their implementation. It is a statement of hope, a statement of need. It is not, however, an impossible dream. Other countries have devised federation models which accommodate situations similar to ours. One thinks of Switzerland. I can also think of the special Statute regions set up in the Italian Constitution.
DR. ROBERT BORTOLUSSI: Madam Chairman and members of the Select Committee on National Unity, my name is Robert Bortolussi. I am a first generation Canadian of Italian descent. My father arrived in Halifax many years ago as a young man seeking a new life in a country of opportunity. Like many other Canadians before and since, he had left a homeland that was rich in culture, but poor in material wealth. A country that had been visited by war and could not offer its people opportunity for the future. Over the next five years he travelled the length and breadth of Canada, worked in the forests in the North and in the mines in the West and on the construction sites in our cities. He experienced the diversity of our country. Years later he would tell me of the tolerance and compassion of the people he met who respected him as an individual and for the contributions that he was making to Canada.
The third statement in the Calgary Declaration speaks eloquently of Canada being graced by diversity, tolerance, compassion and equality of opportunity that is without rival in the world. It is a statement that few would challenge. I would like to see that these values will be maintained by their inclusion in the Declaration of Human Rights and by any new constitution that may arise as a result of the national unity dialogue.
The fourth statement of the Calgary Declaration speaks of Canada's gift of diversity, including Aboriginal peoples and cultures, the vitality of the English and French languages and a multicultural citizenry drawn from all parts of the world. I understand that the percentage of Canadians who were born in other lands is higher than almost every other country in the world. If we can learn the strengths of these diverse cultures, our country as a whole will gain a richness that is unsurpassed in the world.
As a boy I grew up in a neighbourhood characterized by diversity. My classmates were immigrants from Italy, Greece and Poland. They were the children of Holocaust survivors and refugees from many lands. We shared the same school and daytime experiences, and in the evening we each returned to our homes to learn the culture of our parents and our ancestors. I would, therefore, ask that you ensure that Canada remains a mosaic, not a melting pot of cultures. Respect for the value of diversity of this cultural mosaic should be maintained and supported by our national government as a responsibility enshrined in the Constitution.
MRS. ANNA DI COSTANZO LEBLANC: Madam Chairman and members of the Select Committee on National Unity. My name is Anna Di Costanzo LeBlanc. In view of the two previous presentations, we have suggestions or comments which we feel would be helpful in addressing the unity issue.
Number one, in regard to the Calgary Declaration, the needs of the Province of Quebec are not defined, as is the case, for instance, with the November 18, 1997 framework of principles presented by the Leaders of the five national Aboriginal organizations. In this context, the nine Premiers and the Leaders of the two territorial governments should outline the framework to renew federalism. The framework should then be presented to the residents of Quebec for their endorsement.
Number two, the third statement in the Calgary Declaration on our diversity, tolerance, compassion and equality of opportunity should be included in our declaration of human rights.
Number three, we believe that the Canadian mosaic should be maintained and supported in the Canadian Constitution.
Number four, Article 6 of the Calgary Declaration should not be interpreted as a way through which the provinces may seek additional powers on the back of Quebec intransigence. Rather, on the basis of subsidiarity, it should be interpreted as a basic right of all lower level governments to manage affairs where it is practical and effective to do so. Should there be disagreements in this regard, the need for national unity should prevail. Hence, we must be willing to consider proposals and be prepared to make accommodations for diversity. As a suggestion, the government should examine the principles of other countries where federalism has been successful while respecting diversity. For example, there are several semi-autonomous regions in Italy alone such as Aosta, Sicily and Sardinia.
Number five, the various setbacks suffered by the Province of Quebec in Meech Lake and the Charlottetown Referendum could generate the impression of a hopeless situation which could spur further separatist tendencies. Therefore we must act quickly in resolving the unity issues.
In conclusion, I would like to mention that our views are shared and supported by the National Congress of Italian Canadians which is the only organization representative of Italian Canadians recognized by the federal government. We would like to thank you very much for this opportunity.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Do any of the committee members have any comments or questions?
MR. MACEWAN: I would certainly like to commend the Italian-Canadian Congress for their work. They certainly played a very leading role in the successful outcome of the Quebec Referendum as was demonstrated by the comments of Mr. Parizeau. I certainly would like to commend them very much for having come here this evening and noted some of that work that they have been doing as a national organization.
MR. CARRUTHERS: I guess I am just seeking a bit of clarification on the fourth recommendation that you have. Second sentence, "Rather, on the basis of subsidiarity, it should be interpreted in a basic right of all lower level governments to manage affairs . . .". Do I understand your position to be that the federal government involvement is of maximum importance or do I understand you to believe that the provincial governments are a lower level government and under the authority of the federal government?
MRS. DI COSTANZO LEBLANC: I think what we are trying to say in this statement is that basically those things that can be performed by lower level governments should be performed at that level if there is the will and if it is possible to do so.
MR. CARRUTHERS: That is the point that you are making that if it can be controlled at the local level, it should.
MRS. DI COSTANZO LEBLANC: Yes.
MR. CARRUTHERS: If it can't, then it must be must be controlled at the federal level. Is that basically it?
MRS. DI CONSTANZO LEBLANC: Yes.
MR. CARRUTHERS: Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for coming this evening and sharing this with us. It's the second presentation that commented on a personal experience and that really brings the point home when you hear personal experiences, when you look at a vision and then bring it into the context of a personal experience and where it takes us. So, thank you very much for being here.
I believe the Second Wellington Venturer Company, Scouts Canada, is next on the list. Just before we begin, we are trying to allow about 10 minutes for each presentation. So, if you could try to stay within that. Not everyone has so we have been a little flexible. If you would like to identify yourselves before you begin, please.
MR. DANIEL DOUCET: My name is Danny Doucet. Madam Chairman, members of the Select Committee on National Unity.
Hello, my name is Danny and this is Rob. We are Venturers based in Wellington. We are here to give our views on the Calgary Declaration and national unity.
Statement 1 states, "All Canadians are equal and have equal rights protected by law.". We agree completely with this statement.
Statement 2 states, "All provinces, while diverse in their characteristics, have equality of status.". We agree also with this statement.
Statement 3 states, "Canada is graced by diversity, tolerance, compassion and an equality of opportunity that is without rival in the world.". Although we agree with this statement, some of it can be scaled down to boasting.
Statement 4 states, "Canada's gift of diversity includes Aboriginal peoples and cultures, the vitality of the English and French languages and a multicultural citizenry drawn from all parts of the world.". We agree that there is an enormous diversity of cultures in Canada.
Statement 5 states, "In Canada's federal system, where respect for diversity and equality underlies unity, the unique character of Quebec society, including its French-speaking majority, its culture and its tradition of civil law, is fundamental to the well being of Canada. Consequently, the legislature and Government of Quebec have a role to protect and develop the unique character of Quebec society within Canada.".We agree that the French culture is important to the well-being of Canada, but we also believe that no race, religion or culture should have special consideration over any other race, religion or culture without a good reason. We also agree that the Legislature and the Government of Quebec bear the responsibility to protect and develop the unique character of Quebec society within Canada.
Statement 6 states, "If any future constitutional amendment confers powers on one province, these powers must be made available to all provinces.". This makes perfect sense.
Statement 7 illustrates what Canadians have to do to stay together and run smoothly. We agree with Statement 7 and believe that it is the bare minimum that Canadians have to do.
MR. ROBERT MORRISON: We recognize that the Aboriginal peoples are a unique society with their right for self-government. However, our belief is that maybe their government could be on a voluntary basis. This Aboriginal government would carry on all functions that any other government would, but any Aboriginal person wishing not to be covered by this government would not be forced to. The Government of Canada would still govern the Aboriginal peoples.
Also as previously mentioned, no group shall be treated any different from than any other ethnic, cultural or religious group without an outstanding reason.
Those are our views on the Calgary Declaration and national unity. Thank you for listening.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Do any of the committee members have any comments or questions? Mr. Holm.
MR. JOHN HOLM: I can't help but commend both of you. It is extremely refreshing and encouraging to see young people involved in this very important debate and to see the obvious attention that you have paid to it. Just curiosity, more than anything else, did your Venturer group spend some time sitting down discussing the issues or is this a consensus decision?
MR. DOUCET: The two of us were told about it last Thursday. So, over the weekend, we prepared what we have here.
MR. HOLM: Very good, congratulations and thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Well, congratulations and I do thank you for coming. What happened to Chris?
MR. DOUCET: He wasn't able to attend.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I really do want to thank you for being here. There are very thoughtful comments and some of it, I guess, is to the point and maybe it teaches us all a little bit by some of your comments. So, I do thank you for being here and I hope you do stay to hear some of the rest of the presentations. Thank you very much and you didn't even take your 10 minutes. That's terrific.
Is Mr. Williams here? We move then to Bruce Devenne. Ronald Colman? There is another gentleman here and I am not going to insult you by trying to pronounce your name. It's printed here in front of me, a gentleman who would like to make a presentation.
Do you have copies of your presentation? Well, we will make them available following the presentation. Would you mind identifying yourself, sir?
MR. IGINO DIGIACINTO: Madam Chairman, members of Nova Scotia's National Unity Committee. My name is Igino DiGiacinto. I wish to express my sincere appreciation for this opportunity to address you.
I would like to begin with a little bit of history. In 1759, when French Quebec surrendered to the British, Article VI of the Articles of Capitulation gave Quebec the right to maintain their Roman Catholic religion. This was confirmed in Article XX of the Treaty
of Paris in 1763. In 1764, the British confirmed French property and inheritance laws. In 1766, the British allowed the use of French in the Quebec courts.
Thus, French Quebec had confirmed for them, in law, their religion, rights of property and language. This all came to a head in the Quebec Act of 1774, which gave these special provisions to the Quebec Government. It was retained in the Constitution Act of 1791 and recognized by the provisions of the British North America Act of 1867.
In 1990, the Meech Lake Accord gave Quebec distinct society status. The accord failed because it was rejected by the Provinces of Manitoba and Newfoundland.
In 1992, the Charlottetown Accord modified the distinct society status with a definition of the distinctive character of Quebec within Canada. The Canada Clause recognizes that Quebec constitutes a distinct society within Canada in light of its French speaking majority, unique culture and civil law tradition and the role of Quebec's Legislative Assembly to preserve and promote that distinctiveness. The accord failed because it was rejected by the majority of Canadians in a referendum.
Now, 1997, we have the Calgary Declaration. It would recognize that, ". . . the legislature and Government of Quebec have a role to protect and develop the unique character of Quebec society within Canada.". This uniqueness would encompass Quebec's ". . . French-speaking majority, its culture and its tradition of civil law . . ." However, at the same time, it would recognize, "All Canadians are equal and have equal rights protected by law.", and that. "All provinces . . . have equality of status.", and that, "If any future constitutional amendment confers powers on one province, these powers must be available to all provinces.".
I believe that there is a common fault with all these accords. They insist on using adjectives and phrases to identify Quebec - the distinct society, the unique character. With the definition of distinct society in the Charlottetown Accord, and giving Quebec the special responsibility to preserve and promote the distinctive society or unique character, made former Premier Clyde Wells of Newfoundland uneasy. He feared it confers special legislative powers to Quebec that could be used to protect collective rights at the expense of individual rights. His fears are understandable. The Supreme Court of Canada has struck down provisions of Quebec's Law 101. A United Nations human rights committee has ruled that its signed provisions violate freedom of expression. In 1996, Quebec gave its language laws more teeth with a series of measures including the return of the so-called language police. Name me another country in the world which has a language police.
In 1996, I read where Quebec civil servants will now have to get permission from their bosses before they can give speeches in English. Louise Beaudoin, Quebec's language minister, said that Quebec isn't bilingual, it is unilingual French and yet I remember during the
debates on making Canada bilingual how the late Premier of Newfoundland, Joey Smallwood, suggested that it was not asking too much to have French put on our Corn Flakes box.
Adjectives and phrases infer, whether true or perceived, special status. Quebec Liberal Leader Daniel Johnson concedes that admitting Quebec is unique is the same as agreeing the province is distinct. The bottom line for Quebec is power. Conferring unique status on Quebec doesn't give the province any additional powers, Premier Lucien Bouchard said.
I did not bring with me a bronze statue of the late French President Charles deGaulle. However, I did bring with me a poppy. Each year on Remembrance Day, in the 11th month, on the 11th day, at the 11th hour, we remember those who died enabling us now to be here freely discussing our future. "In Flanders Fields the poppies grow, between the crosses row on row.". Do you have the courage to tell their relatives and friends that they are not a distinct society? I don't have the courage. Do you have the courage to tell their relatives and friends that they did not have a unique character? They all died. I don't have that courage.
And maybe I died in vain
But if I were alive and my country called,
I'd do it all over again."
Would he? Knowing what is happening in Canada today, politically, did he die in vain? I hope not.
Do you have the courage to tell Canada's Aboriginal peoples that they do not have a unique character and aren't distinct? I don't have the courage. Do you have the courage to tell the Nova Scotia Mi'kmaq people that they do not have a unique character? In fact, in 1752, there was a treaty signed between the Mi'kmaq and the British Crown which guaranteed Native hunting, fishing and trading rights. Also, there were treaties signed between 1725 and 1794. I don't have the courage.
Do you have the courage to tell the Scots of Nova Scotia, the Maritime Provinces' Acadians, the ethnics in Quebec, the Cree and Inuit of Northern Quebec that they do not have a unique character? I don't have the courage. Do you have the courage to tell the ethnics in Ontario, the Ukrainians of the Prairies, the Asians of British Columbia that they do not have a unique character? I do not have the courage.
I refuse to become Canada Utility when another segment of my country becomes Canada A. I firmly believe that we must avoid adjectives and phrases. I suggest that we insert into the Constitution the facts of Quebec history and that these facts are protected by law. The phrases "preserve and promote" and "protect and develop" are like a stick of dynamite. It comes in small packages but the power within when detonated is awesome, then do we realize the destructive force.
The words of the late Duncan Fraser are as true today as they were when he applied them to the Charlottetown Accord: "the changes now proposed will direct Canadian Government into the foreseeable future and any mistake now will be almost impossible to rectify.".
". . . any mistake made now will be almost impossible to rectify.". Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, sir. Do any committee members have any questions or comments? I thank you, if you would allow us to have a copy of your presentation to make copies. Thank you very much.
Are there any other presenters? If not, I do want to thank everyone for coming tonight. We do know that it was short notice and I commend each and every one of you for putting together your presentations in such a short time.
MR. RONALD RUSSELL: Madam Chairman, shouldn't we recess just in case these others are coming in?
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Perhaps we should.
MR. HOLM: We should certainly make every effort to contact those, because we have given them times, I assume. I think we should verify if they were given suggested times that they would be presenting.
MR. CARRUTHERS: I think the clerk advised them to be here sometime ahead.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I think they have all been advised but if you would wish, we could recess for a few moments to see if we can contact those people who have not arrived as yet. The hearing was to last from 7:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. and there may be some who will show up before 10:00 p.m.
So we will recess for a few moments and maybe make contact with those people who had indicated that they would be here.
Thank you for your indulgence.
[8:30 p.m. The committee recessed.]
[9:05 p.m. The committee reconvened.]
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, we do have a further presenter. Perhaps we could reconvene.
MR. BYRNE WILLIAMS: My name is Byrne Williams and I am from Dartmouth. I very much endorse the Calgary Declaration but I do have a few reservations. Maybe they are more misunderstandings but with regard to Number 5, I am concerned about the cost of the purpose of an item 5, which is really the whole thing, ". . . Quebec society, including its French-speaking majority, its culture and its tradition of civil law, . . .". Wonderful, wonderful. ". . . is fundamental to the well being of Canada. Consequently, the legislature and Government of Quebec have a role to protect and develop the unique character of Quebec society within Canada.".
I would add that I hope the understanding is that that would be supported by the Province of Quebec and that part of the population. In other words, I had difficulty with that, "within Canada". At first I thought, look, is Quebec going to take over the promotion of bilingualism across the whole nation but then I reread it several times and I think what it is supposed to be is that Quebec would do this, promote the Frenchness and all the good things of Quebec society while it stays within Canada. I think that may be what it means. But some lawyer might try to make a big thing of that.
So, I am very much for Quebec staying in Canada and for recognizing its wonderful contribution to the overall greatness of Canada but I am concerned about the costs. It could bankrupt us as a country trying to defend the undefendable, if it comes to that, if you see what I mean.
With reference Number 4 of the Calgary Declaration, it mentions, ". . . multicultural citizenry . . . from all parts of the world.". That leads me to attempt to work in a related matter, kind of related, I think, and that is that right now the Department of Multiculturalism in Canada very much supports the development of various cultures and funds it. I think, myself, that all that should be funded by the culture itself rather than support. If you have a culture, be it Scot or whatever and you want to promote it, in generations past the culture itself, that society, looked after the cost and I think that should be the way it should be with the program of multiculturalism.
Further to that, I think the practice of allowing dual citizenship in Canada should be stopped. Very few countries do this. In the United States, if you want to be a citizen of the United States, that's it, you swear allegiance to the United States, no other country. But this business of Canada, where you have French-Canadian citizenship, dual German-Canadian citizenship, you get our athletes playing hockey on all kinds of teams other than Canada. I think we really have to focus on Canada itself, the greatness, the number one country in the world. If you want to come here and you don't want to be a citizen, fine, you just don't vote and you lose some other privileges. If you want to stay German or whatever it might be, that's great, but no German-Canadian.
Moving on to the Aboriginal peoples. The relationship between the various levels of government and our Aboriginal and Inuit people, I feel that self-government is really leading everybody down the path. Municipal government, yes, but no more, and they report to the provincial system. You know right now the Native Bands really don't practice what we call democracy. The Charter of Rights, you have terrible abuse and fraud and corruption. The chiefs get all the money and give the jobs, in some cases, to their own kinsmen. They go off on extended educational trips and so on. This is starting to run away. I think we have to bring it all back where the Aboriginal people are under the same justice system as everybody else and that the Charter of Rights applies to Indian children and women and men and they have the right, as Canadians, to be properly dealt with by not only their chiefs but everybody else. So I think that would be where I would position myself with regard to the Aboriginal peoples.
We cannot have a nation within a nation, it just won't work. A group of people who have a different justice system from the rest of us, how would it work? It is just impossible to think of anything other than just a good municipal level of government plugged into the provincial system and then, of course, the land settlement is an aside. That would go forward on a separate track and give them the resources that they feel they are entitled to but they must really abide by the rules that we all do otherwise, the country won't work. Thank you very much.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Any questions or comments from the committee members?
MR. CARRUTHERS: I just want to be clear on the issue of Aboriginal issues. It seemed to me you pointed to two things. What I wonder, do you mean these points separately or is one dependent on the other? You indicate that a nation within a nation, governed by perhaps different criminal law or other types of law enforcement, is unworkable. I think I understand that point that you make but then you also made reference that the existing forms of government, well I guess the only term I could use would be corrupt, is what you seemed to indicate. Is one dependent on the other? What I am getting at, is your point that the concept is unworkable or that it is the way it has been used or affected in the past is improper?
MR. WILLIAMS: I take your point. There are grounds for corruption in any system, ours and the Native system. I took an extreme example of how money isn't trickling down in all cases. You have a case where in Alberta, I think one of the richest bands in Canada, they have oil and all sorts of resources, and yet people are starving on the reserve because the money just doesn't get down. Now that may be a case gone bad and we have cases in our history where our system has gone terribly wrong as well but I just see a lot - let's say that we disregard that comment and just compare the two systems. I guess the fact is, let's say their system is a great system. Now either we all adopt the Native system of justice or they adopt ours.
MR. CARRUTHERS: So, if I am right, when you say just forget about that point for a moment, that your position is that the concept of a government within a government is the one that you . . .
MR. WILLIAMS: That is right. I will go with that one, yes.
MR. ERNEST FAGE: Madam Chairman, just a little clarification for myself on that point as well. You say treat them as a municipal unit of government and land claims. What about treaty claims which allow, whether it is gambling, hunting rights, how do you address those issues if you don't include them?
MR. WILLIAMS: I guess what I was doing, sir, was projecting ahead, after you go through all of that, where are we going to go with this? Again, you can't have a privileged group and I don't see how we can have - the recent case in New Brunswick where the Native people have management rights over all Crown lands - that, of course, is under appeal - what is that going to do if the appeal is disallowed and Native people do have first management rights? We are going to have timber companies electing Native people to the board of directors, and it will all work out if that is the way it goes. That has nothing to do with how they run their day-to-day affairs. They still have to abide by the same rules as we do and those rules, I would suggest, are living in communities that are organized along the same lines as other municipalities. They pay taxes.
If they are going to get great resources as a result of these court cases, they are going to have wealth. They can't expect not to pay taxes. So, it is eventually going to break down into one system of business, as well. I am just saying that the form of government for the day-to-day running of their communities has to be along municipal lines with rights and privileges, the same as we have, and no blocking of resources at any point by the chief and the council. That is a system that they have gone by for years, but I don't know if it will work in our modern context, especially if they get large amounts of resources.
MR. FAGE: For my own understanding, then, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but can I paraphrase to the point, then, that the administration of a form of government, in your view, is separate from land claims and all treaty rights or other obligations. Can I paraphrase them in that manner?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I would suggest that your comments with regard to relationships between the different levels of government refer really to Number 7 in the declaration?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: In the declaration it suggests that there be a partnership and you are suggesting that you do not think that that will work. You are saying that you don't agree with number seven?
MR. WILLIAMS: I was answering the request for comments over to the left of that.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: You were talking about the second Framework for Discussion, then, were you?
MR. WILLIAMS: I would say that Number 7 applies, yes, that the Natives have to fit into that.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: So, you are agreeing with Number 7?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, exactly.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Are there any other questions that you might have? Well, I do thank you very much for your presentation and appreciate you coming in.
It is now 9:20 p.m. We will be staying until 10:00 p.m., but we will recess again until a further presenter arrives. So, thank you very much, again, for your indulgence.
[9:20 p.m. The committee recessed.]
[9:44 p.m. The committee reconvened.]
MADAM CHAIRMAN: It is time for the meeting to come to order again, please. We have another presenter with us this evening and we would ask Mr. Devenne to come forward.
We would ask you to please identify yourself.
MR. BRUCE DEVENNE: Bruce Devenne, just a private citizen.
Unique people or distinct society enshrined in the Constitution, passed as a federal law or simply recognized by Parliament and the provincial Legislatures. It is all the same thing, an action that you, as a government body in Canada, have been told not to do twice in the past already.
Despite the overwhelming polls to the contrary, the Mulroney Conservatives tried to shove this down our throats at Meech Lake. Messrs. Wells and Harper stood up for the people and stopped that.
Not long after - and I may be mistaken here because we have had a real rotation of Premiers over the last four or five years, we have gone through five of them - John Buchanan or Donald Cameron, John Savage and Alexa McDonough sat in a circle holding hands in an unprecedented display of all-Party solidarity and urged us to vote yes on the Charlottetown Accord. We said no, yet - and, again, it might have been Mr. Buchanan, whoever was Premier that day, was telling us that the vote was not binding on the government, and the government did not have to follow the expressed will of the people. The vote said no in 6 of 10 provinces. It said no in English Canada, it said no in Quebec. No matter how you looked at the results, the answer was no. What part of the word no don't you, as elected officials, understand?
This no was given in the most democratic manner possible, a referendum where each person had a vote. Morally and ethically, if not legally, in order to change the results of the last referendum, another one should be held to see if the majority of Nova Scotians have changed their minds on this matter and, since we are all voters and taxpayers, the funds for this referendum should be split based on the results of the last one, which would mean that the no side would have more funds to fight with because the people of Nova Scotia said no. Again, what part of the word don't you understand?
With our neighbours to the south enjoying a strong dollar and record low unemployment, while our dollar drops, unemployment stays high and inflation picks up, I can't help but wonder if national unity is being used as a red herring to distract the people from what the governments aren't doing on a day-to-day basis.
If Premier MacLellan really wishes to address the concerns of Nova Scotia and answer the questions of Nova Scotia, let him follow through on his promise concerning the toll highway, his promise concerning the BST, his promise concerning double dipping. Let him do something to help the landowner in the Liberal-created super-cities who face continual tax increases. Let him end the delays and talking and come to the aid of the hepatitis C victims of the blood supply.
These are issues that people want to see addressed; the issue of any kind of special recognition for Quebec has been laid to rest already twice. Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Do any committee members have any comments or questions?
MR. HOLM: Just really one question, Bruce. Just for clarification then, you're equating the Calgary Declaration with Meech and Charlottetown as being the same?
MR. DEVENNE: Well, you would have to be pretty slow not to in my opinion, if you are going to single out anybody based on geographical, racial, sexual, or religious denomination and say, these people are special, If you look in a Thesaurus, unique, distinct, rare, they all mean the same thing; society, people, country, race, they are almost all
synonymous. So, to change the wording, I don't know how many people you are going to fool. Why don't we have a referendum and find out? We are going against the wishes of a referendum of the people in doing this.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Are there any other questions or comments? If not, I thank you very much, Mr. Devenne, for attending this evening. We all have copies of your presentation and we appreciate it. Thank you very much.
It is now about 9:50 p.m. We will recess until 10:00 p.m. How does the committee feel?
MR. HOLM: If there are no others, we will recess until we are called back. If there is another presenter before 10:00 p.m. then we reconvene. If not, then we come back (Interruption)
MR. DEVENNE: I was told to come for 10:10 p.m.
MR. HOLM: You were told 10:10 p.m.?
MR. DEVENNE: Yes.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We will recess until anyone appears before 10:00 p.m.
[9:50 p.m. The committee recessed.]
[10:00 p.m. The committee reconvened.]
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Well, ladies and gentlemen, it is now 10:00 p.m. so I would move that the meeting be adjourned until we meet again in Sydney on January 6th.
MR. CARRUTHERS: Well, should I say motion carried?
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Sure.
MR. CHARLES PHILLIPS: Is it possible to ask a few questions?
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Do you have a presentation? If you wanted to come to the table to ask some questions . . .
MR. PHILLIPS: I don't have a written presentation.
MR. CARRUTHERS: Oh, you don't need a written presentation.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I don't know, do we want to carry on past 10:00 p.m.?
MR. PHILLIPS: The odd question or two that I had was that when I read the Charlottetown Accord . . .
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Could you identify yourself first?
MR. PHILLIPS: Charlie Phillips. It said that any future amendment that would give special rights to any province would be given to all provinces. So that is any future amendment. I was just wondering, how does that apply to what is now present? In other words, could there be an interpretation that it would give rights to one province from an existing constitution?
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Well, I think the example that was stated there, right now every province has the right to opt out of social programs. Now the only province that does that is Quebec but we all have the right to do so. So the option is there and that is there presently.
MR. PHILLIPS: But doesn't it say, the Calgary Declaration, any future constitutional amendment that gives rights to a province, they must be given to all? Now I know Section 43 of the Constitution which means that the federal government can work a deal with one province right now. So that still stands, doesn't it?
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Until it is changed, it would stand, I would think.
MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, but it obviously wouldn't be changed because the Calgary Declaration doesn't make any attempt to change that, does it?
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Well, it is a vision of Canada that we are asking Nova Scotians and Canadians - every province is doing this - to address the Calgary Declaration and whether you agree that this is a vision of Canada and it is a basis of further, once those resolutions are passed or changed or anything added to them in each House of Assembly across the country, then it would go further from that for any future change.
MR. PHILLIPS: That is the one thing I am quite interested in. How would it go further than that? In other words, the thing that we are talking about right now is just a simple declaration and I am not exactly sure what Nova Scotians . . .
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I wish it was simple.
MR. PHILLIPS: No, but whatever the people may talk to you, will talk to you, and will give their views one way or the other, I am just wondering, what is the Nova Scotia Government going to do with this? Do they plan to make it a constitutional amendment or do they just plan to leave it like a statement?
MR. CARRUTHERS: Perhaps I could step in a second here. This is an accord that has been put to all the provinces to see if they would go out and ask the people whether they agree with it, whether they disagree with it, whether they have a comment to make on it. It carries no legal weight and to my knowledge there is nothing that flows from it in terms of a law coming to Nova Scotia or anywhere else.
MR. PHILLIPS: Let's just say that in the view of this committee that it comes to the conclusion that Nova Scotians agree with it. Does that mean at that point, what happens then? What does the committee want to do with it if they decide that Nova Scotians agree with it?
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Once we hold the hearings and receive all proposals by other means as well, those will be put together in a report and we will draft a resolution that will be presented in the House of Assembly for debate.
MR. PHILLIPS: So there is no possibility of constitutional amendment coming out of these hearings?
MR. HOLM: If there is anything, what it would mean is that really the Premiers from across Canada and the territories would have to then come together and there would have to be discussions based on what has been heard across the country, where we are going to go with this beyond this stage. But it does not certainly effect any kind of constitution changes, nothing in what we are doing or what we will be bringing forward in the Legislature that would effect any constitutional change.
MR. PHILLIPS: When Nova Scotians voted upon distinct society in the Charlottetown Accord, where we voted that down, and now it is called unique character, the difference between distinct and unique seems to me equivalent to something between big and large which is somewhat nugatory. That would be brought back again, and as I say, we voted against it, but now we are coming with a slight difference of the wording.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I think if you look at the resolution that went through the House of Assembly as the seven points of the declaration, if you wish anything to be added and whether you agree this is a framework for a vision of Canada, we can all further develop any constitutional change down the road . . .
MR. PHILLIPS: So there is constitutional change?
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Down the road. This is the basis of a place to start. As someone suggested tonight, it will be a springboard. Every province is doing this very same exercise in one form or another. Four provinces have already canvassed their citizens in each province and have resolutions passed in their Houses of Assembly. Some of them have changed it, some of them have not. Some of them have added to it. The Premiers would then meet once it is completed in every province and take it from there.
MR. PHILLIPS: Can I ask you one question? I know that British Columbia and Alberta have to have referendums upon any constitutional amendment. Now Nova Scotia does not have that. Is there any possibility that Nova Scotia will go the same route as British Columbia and Alberta and submit to the people of Nova Scotia that they have to agree to something before any constitutional amendment is passed?
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Well, you are asking a question of this committee that it is not our mandate to respond to. We are here to listen to Nova Scotians' responses to the Calgary Declaration so it is not within our mandate to respond to that.
MR. HOLM: I would think in part we can't say yes or no. All we could do is if we heard a lot of people making that suggestion, be putting that as part of our report and/or recommendations.
MR. PHILLIPS: I am just wondering, in general, in the fact that those two provinces now say that we won't pass anything unless the people agree with it through a provincial referendum, we won't put it through a constitutional amendment unless the provinces, will Nova Scotians ever have that same right? I know specifically with this one here now, it is not there, but is there any view, does anybody from any Party have any views upon that that Nova Scotians should have the right to maybe have a referendum before there is any constitutional amendment passed?
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I would suggest, sir, that if you think that is one of your responses to the declaration then you should make that your response to the declaration and we will reflect that.
MR. PHILLIPS: Whether it is this one or whether it is some future xyz resolution, whatever it may be, I would hope that Nova Scotians would have a chance to vote on it and to pass it before the Legislature actually passes it as - say this is a constitutional amendment and the Legislature passes it - they put it to a referendum.
MR. RUSSELL: This is not a constitutional amendment. What we are doing today really has no bearing on any future constitutional talks. This is just a basis to determine, province by province, if they agree with the concepts of the Calgary Declaration.
MR. PHILLIPS: So that if every province agreed, including Nova Scotia, you still wouldn't go forward to make it a constitutional amendment, then you are saying?
MR. RUSSELL: I can't answer that.
MR. CARRUTHERS: Well, when you say would we, we wouldn't go forward. Well, you can rest assured the six of us aren't going to do it. We are to report back. You are asking a question, would our government do something? You would have to ask a government. Our mandate here is to elicit responses and I think you have just given us one, your position, I think you have made it plain. Your position is that you are concerned about this and you wouldn't want to see any type of amendment done before a referendum of some nature.
MR. PHILLIPS: That is true.
MR. CARRUTHERS: That is a good response. I think that should be noted and we should report that also. I thank you for it.
MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you for letting me speak.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. I think with that, then, the meeting is adjourned.
[The committee adjourned at 10:10 p.m.]
