SELECT COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL UNITY
Mrs. Eleanor Norrie
Bonsoir, mesdames et monsieurs. Au nom des membres de Comité spéciale sur l'unité nationale, bienvenue à cette séance.
First, let me introduce members of the select committee. We have with us Mr. Paul MacEwan, MLA for Cape Breton Nova; Mr. Ronald Russell, MLA for Hants West; Mr. John Holm, MLA for Sackville-Cobequid; and Mrs. Lila O'Connor, MLA for Lunenburg. We have another member on his way, Ernest Fage, MLA for Cumberland North. Hopefully, he is not on the Cobequid Pass somewhere. I am Eleanor Norrie and I am the MLA for Truro-Bible Hill and Chairman of the select committee.
The purpose of this public hearing is to listen to Nova Scotians' opinions on the Calgary Declaration and the discussion paper that was presented by the five national Aboriginal leaders and their organizations. There are copies of both those declarations and the discussion paper available on the information table at the end of the room and also located on that table is the simultaneous translation receiver.
Before I go further, I would ask if there is anybody in the room who would require translation from English to French. If there is, let us know and we will do that. If it is not required, then the translators would feel that it would not be necessary to do that translation into French. Thank you very much.
We will commence the evening's proceedings with the singing of our national anthem. We have two young ladies with us this evening, Danielle LeVangie and Alicia Covey. I would ask you all to stand.
[The national anthem was sung by Danielle LeVangie and Alicia Covey.]
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I would like to thank Danielle and Alicia for their wonderful performance and I would also thank Sister Rita Claire for providing the girls from Holy Angels Convent to be here this evening. Thank you very much, girls.
We have been given a list of five presenters for this evening. I have been made aware that there are others in the room that will be making presentations. When you do so, would you please give your names to Ms. Stevens at the end of the table here so we will be aware of your presentation and who you are.
Our first presenter for this evening is Mr. Allister MacDonald. He is a private citizen. I would ask Mr. MacDonald to come forward to the microphone at the table, and please give your name at that time and we look forward to your presentation.
MR. ALLISTER MACDONALD: Madam Chairman, members of the Select Committee on National Unity. My name is Allister MacDonald, from Louisbourg. I am responding to your request for input on the Calgary Declaration. As a town councillor in the former Town of Louisbourg, I have been active in local politics for many years and have certain concerns about the Calgary Declaration that I itemized below.
I want to tell you the story of a Canadian town, Louisbourg, Nova Scotia. It did not receive help or support from either the provincial or the federal government as it was destroyed by provincial politicians. This, I believe, is a unity issue because ultimately the government must serve and represent the people, not the interest of the politicians.
What we are seeing in Canada today is a rush to operate municipalities like businesses where only the bottom line counts. In this way, the government has forgotten that real people, who are taxpayers, live in these towns - not clients or consumers or non-business entities. Under Premier Donald Cameron, the Nova Scotia Government decided that it wanted greater financial control over the municipalities in the province. I know that the BNA Act of 1867 does not mention towns, cities or villages and that the province has the legal right to determine the governmental structure at the municipal level.
Although this may be within their domain, that power can and does undermine the democratic process. By 1995, eight municipalities in industrial Cape Breton were swept away and amalgamated into one super city on the promise that there would be immeasurable cost savings and service sharing. What actually happened was far from this rosy picture. Although
the indignities suffered under this regime are too numerous to mention in their entirety, here are a few examples.
We have no representation in the super city because our town cannot carry enough votes in the district to elect someone from Louisbourg. Our taxes went up. Our services went down. Local volunteer committees were eliminated in favour of committees hand picked by the representative elected from outside our town. The appearance of the town has deteriorated - flower boxes go unweeded, even unplanted until late in the summer. We have lost the spirit of this place as it existed continuously for 250 years as a significant Canadian community. We have always had the ability to manage our own affairs but with a whim of politicians in Halifax, we are no longer allowed to do so.
Our financial problems stem from the closure of the cod fishery, not from municipal mismanagement, as the province and our representative have claimed. When power shifts to the centre, the problems of the margins are ignored. More and more solutions are found to problems in cities at the expense of rural regions. Louisbourg had an active Harbour Committee before our town was eliminated. Now the super city believes that the solution to an entire region's economic problems is to expand the boardwalk in Sydney. Rather than allow each separate municipality to determine its needs and promote its resources and assets, centralized amalgamation has inspired a narrow urban-based outlook on regional issues.
I am concerned about the Calgary Declaration because I do not see that it protects the interests of the people at the most basic and local level, the municipal level. I believe that every citizen should have the opportunity to be engaged and active in the process of governance but that cannot happen if municipalities, the level of government closest to the citizens, do not have any rights. I believe we need to strengthen, rather than weaken, local governments. The best way to deal with emerging issues of diversity is to place greater strength with the local people and in individuals. All individuals must decide what cultural or social identity they wish to claim for their own. That requires protection at the local level.
The general tone of the declaration suggests that greater power and authority should be handed to the provinces. While this may seem appropriate in light of the unity issue, it is the local government that most directly affects individuals, like you and me. For example, local governments determine very basic services like snow plowing, picking up garbage, policing, weeding the public gardens, and so forth. Usually, it is the local municipality that provides citizens with a day-to-day focus and helps to create their identities and sense of belonging.
We have seen, over the past few years, increasing manipulation of the local structures by the provinces to the point where many citizens are accusing the provincial governments of dictatorial power. Just watch the editorial columns of the newspapers for confirmation of this. In Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Ontario, municipalities were amalgamated against the wishes of the voters. In fact, no citizenry vote was ever taken. In Louisbourg, however,
a plebiscite showed that 84 per cent of the town was opposed to amalgamation but our wishes were ignored and we were eliminated anyway.
Premiers have destroyed communities against their own campaign promises. A case in point is John Savage's words before the election that forced amalgamation is dictatorial and top-down. Once elected, he instituted the unwanted amalgamations and wiped out 12 distinct communities and converted them into two super cities. So in whose interest is it to give greater authority to the provinces? Not mine and not anyone else's either.
The Calgary Declaration seems to have overlooked democracy, at least I have not found the word anywhere in the statement. The notion of democracy underlines and defines other terms used, such as diversity and unique culture. Unless the freedoms and rights of the individuals of Canada are protected from tyrants at all levels - federal, provincial and local - democracy and the freedom of individual have no meaning for us. The Calgary Declaration's very first point emphasises the equality of every Canadian and the right to equal protection under the law yet that protection varies from province to province, depending on the whims of a few elected Party members at the provincial level.
Canada's gift of diversity includes uniqueness beyond language and race. I have to assume that, like Louisbourg, every community in Canada considers itself distinct and every community in Canada wants a voice in its day-to-day operations and its future. Without protecting community rights and identities, we risk the very freedoms the Calgary Declaration hopes to protect. It is not enough to have federal and provincial governments working in partnership, respecting each other's jurisdictions. The jurisdictions of local governments must be respected as well. This way, people have the opportunity to remain involved in their local governments and determine their own destinies.
It is my belief that the best way to promote national unity is to place greater emphasis on local levels of government than on provincial jurisdiction. This will take into consideration the variety of cultures and races in provinces like Quebec, as well as places like Nova Scotia. Acadian, Mi'kmaq, Lebanese, Ukrainian, African, Chinese and a host of other people live in this province. Many of them, I believe, share my concern about protection for the individual in the smaller cultural groups.
We have seen how a government can selectively promote one culture over another. In the 1930's, Nova Scotia Premier, Angus L. Macdonald, decided that for tourism purposes, Scottish-ness or tartan-ism would be the primary cultural identity of Nova Scotia. Thousands of citizens had no connection to Scottish-ness before this and many only reluctantly accepted this new definition of who they were. In addition, beyond all the other distinctions, there are very different types of communities, based on rural and urban ways of life.
The needs and requirements of people living in Sydney and Halifax are quite different from those in a community of 1,100 people, like Louisbourg. People in cities worry about such things as graffiti and smog while people in Louisbourg are more concerned with dwindling resources, out-migration and scarcity of jobs. It is impossible for one centralized government, provincial or federal, to know or understand the needs of every community. Therefore we must be assured of greater consultation at the local level.
In conclusion, I caution the drafters of the Calgary Declaration against placing too much power in the hands of the provinces without also protecting the municipalities because the provinces only vaguely represent the diverse cultural and social identities of Canada. We cannot protect our local identities and individual freedoms by conceding additional powers to the provinces. As a matter of fact, from our Louisbourg experience and the experiences across Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Ontario, the exact opposite may well be the case. Thank you very much.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. MacDonald. If any of the committee members may have some questions, would you entertain some questions, if any of them have any comments?
MR. ALLISTER MACDONALD: Certainly.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Russell.
MR. RONALD RUSSELL: Madam Chairman, I just have a question as to, at the present time you are making this presentation as a private citizen, I take it.
MR. ALLISTER MACDONALD: Yes.
MR. RUSSELL: But you are a member of council at the present time?
MR. ALLISTER MACDONALD: No, I am not.
MR. RUSSELL: You were a former member from Louisbourg?
MR. ALLISTER MACDONALD: Yes, that is right.
MR. RUSSELL: I think that your point with regard to communities losing their identities is one that is very close to the hearts of all Nova Scotians and I take it from your presentation that you feel that in some way the Calgary Declaration is to further take away the powers of local communities with affairs in their own bailiwick.
MR. ALLISTER MACDONALD: Well, we have no protection from tyrannical provincial governments. They can do what they wish with us. They can appoint commissioners or commissars to do what they wish with us and no one has any say; they eliminate democracy for their own purposes. So the Calgary Declaration really doesn't mean anything if you don't have any democracy in your own town.
[7:30 p.m.]
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Holm.
MR. JOHN HOLM: I guess I just really have one question. Am I correct in interpreting your comments to mean that what you would like to see included in the Calgary Declaration is some basic principles of rights of municipalities?
MR. ALLISTER MACDONALD: That's correct.
MR. HOLM: Like a charter of rights.
MR. ALLISTER MACDONALD: Yes.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mrs. O'Connor.
MRS. LILA O'CONNOR: Have you brought that up with the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities?
MR. ALLISTER MACDONALD: No. When I was on council in Louisbourg, the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities was of no use to us. They did not support us.
MRS. O'CONNOR: You're saying that the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities did not support the Town of Louisbourg?
MR. ALLISTER MACDONALD: Did not support the Town of Louisbourg in its fight to stay out of this regional government, no.
MRS. O'CONNOR: But since then have you taken your concerns to UNSM?
MR. ALLISTER MACDONALD: No, I haven't.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: If there are no other comments or questions, I would thank you, Mr. MacDonald, for your presentation. It was very passionate. Thank you for being brave and being the first one up tonight. I hope you stay for the evening and listen to what others have to say as well.
MR. ALLISTER MACDONALD: Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harvey Webber, from the Council for Canadian Unity.
MR. HARVEY WEBBER: Your lives as commissioners must be very interesting because I am here to praise the declaration.
I represent the Council for Canadian Unity in my original presentation of a few moments and then I expect to move over as a private citizen of the Atlantic Provinces at which time I want to remove my hat and just speak as an individual.
First I wanted to comment on the Calgary Declaration affirmatively and to do so I will read it in detail because I represent the Council for Canadian Unity and I want to be precise in our affirmation of approval.
The Calgary Declaration, a joint initiative of the 11 Leaders of Canadian provincial and territorial governments, was signed on September 14, 1997. It's a short document, only two and one-half pages with three parts: first, a press release that describes the content of the declaration of the declaration and explains its purpose; second, seven brief statements of principle on the characteristics of Canada and Canadian unity; and third, five guidelines on public consultations, one of which is happening tonight as an example.
This is the first time in history that so wide a public discussion is taking place on the unity question. The Calgary Declaration and subsequent public meetings across Canada prove how important the subject is. I compliment the legislative committee for seeking public input here and in many other centres in Nova Scotia. We appreciate the opportunity of expressing our views.
What makes the Calgary Declaration so relevant to our lives? It is a guide to future Canadian cooperation. The first two points are basic: "1. All Canadians are equal and have equal rights protected by law."; "2. All provinces, while diverse in their characteristics, have equality of status.".
The remaining points are also self-evident truths because they are written to include Quebec while not alienating any other province that may object to an exclusive "distinct society" title for Quebec. In all, the Calgary Declaration is motherhood, a cocoon into which all Canadians can fit so comfortably.
Now, I would like to tell you somewhat about the Council program. The Council for Canadian Unity began in 1964. To do that we had the feeling that we should bring people together or we should make our views more democratic. The various segments of Canada are too separate. We are five regions in Canada, a couple of languages and, in fact, there is a new influence going on that most people don't recognize and that is that there is a new force, a
new proportion of our population; statistically French and English are no longer the dominant thirds in our make-up of Canadians; the ethnics now are a larger third and many of us, of certain older stock - we've been here 50 or 100 years - we refuse to recognize the changing life in our community.
So, the Council for Canadian Unity, starting in 1964, decided that we must first believe that we bring people together and exchange the views of the various people that make up Canada today. To do that we started a newsletter called, Canada's Opinion, and we published the views of leading Canadians in all parts of Canada and we sent it out to 1,000 opinion makers every second week.
Next, we have the Terry Fox Centre. This is a 40 weeks school, that is because of the school year; we take 150 age 15 boys and girls and we give them an intensive one-week indoctrination about Canada in Ottawa. Picture it, it is your first time away from home and you are 15 years old and you are with 150 other people from the Northwest Territories, British Columbia and you are from Cape Breton, you are from all parts of Canada, there is a huge map on one wall and you are given a pin and you put the pin in that map and it represents you and your community. We have thousands of letters that said the one week is the greatest experience of their lives. They have made penpals that lasted forever.
One interesting event I would like to mention happened about 10 years ago. It was the 25,000th student passing through the Terry Fox Centre in Ottawa and he happened to be from Creignish in Cape Breton. I was the Council President for Nova Scotia at that time so it was quite natural that I was given the honour of making the presentation to the 25,000th student passing through the Terry Fox Centre. I can give you one guess as to who it was since he was from Creignish and he is one of the most famous citizens who has come from that town. Have you guessed? It was Ashley MacIsaac. Ashley has said, up until that time it was the greatest moment in his life and there have been very few others that have surpassed the impact and the dramatic feeling of that moment.
We realize that there is another problem in Canada and that is the unemployed, educated young people. So just last year we started Experience Canada. That is the 18 to 29 year olds who have an education, they have a license, a permit, they have learned something, they have a college degree but they aren't getting any work in their field. So we have taken 500 of them and given them work experience for 10 months in their field, that they are competent to do and to achieve. The success rate of that group has been so high that this year we are moving to 1,000 because we feel we are having a dramatic problem in Canada, that our educated young people are not being placed at these idealistic and great periods of their lives when they are ready to contribute to Canada.
Now we have another technique in the Council for Canadian Unity and that is polling. We are constantly measuring the views in Canada of how people feel about the subject of Canadian unity. I am happy to report that late last fall there was polling in Nova Scotia on the
subject of the Calgary Declaration and there was an overwhelming report that in Nova Scotia they were in favour of the Calgary Declaration.
Now I would like to come to the third part of my presentation which in a way I regard as the most important. I want to speak as a private citizen and it has nothing to do with any organization or the Council for Canadian Unity. I want to defend Canada if there is any hint that the sovereigntists in Quebec should bring on another referendum. I want to attack each of the leaders and each of the reasons for separating from Canada, and I want to do it on that plan B, but with hardball. I want all of the gloves to come off because we are fighting approximately 32 per cent of the people in the Province of Quebec who are trying to move the others. There is another 20 per cent or 30 per cent who are definitely nationalists, and in between we have a great number of people who are listening to these arguments and wanting to go along with what they think is right. So, I am prepared to fight and to defend our position explicitly.
Here is how I would begin. I would cut down the prestige of their Leaders. For example, Premier Bouchard has said to his people that if we were a separate country, we could keep the tax money that we now send to Ottawa, and that is true. But he does not say, but of course we would not get that money that now comes from Ottawa to Quebec and that money, which is the equalization grants and the aids in many forms, is much greater than what we send to Ottawa. Secondly, there is a question of federal jobs. Have you any idea how many Quebec people work on the federal payroll? If the federal employment was closed off tomorrow, Hull, for example, would be devastated.
Again, Parizeau, another one of their Leaders. After the last referendum, when he lost, he was bitter on the air and he said it was the ethnics that spoiled this vote and only - what is it? - the pur laine - meaning the pure French - should be the only ones to be allowed to vote. That means, then, that I would go to every Greek, Italian, Ukrainian, I would go to every Jew and every member of any religion and point out that this man feels you aren't a citizen of Quebec. Why should you vote to support him?
Then we come to the question of the referendum itself. When that referendum was taken last time, it was a fake. There was no clear question of separation. They thought, people said after the election that they were voting to strengthen the hand of the provincial government in negotiations with the feds. They didn't know that it meant separating from Canada.
I have a friend, Avvie Druker, in Sydney who told me two days ago that his daughter was working and living in Montreal and she went to vote in Montreal City. They had a line-up two or three blocks long and she asked how long would it be? They said it would be at least two hours before you are able to vote. Why did they do that? Because in Montreal they were voting no and, therefore, they blocked those people. Why is it there is a legal case lasting four years after the election about how many spoiled ballots there were in Montreal City, because
in Montreal City they were going to vote no and the people in charge representing the government were holding back and were knocking off as many votes as they could. We did not have a close referendum vote the last time, we had a fake, and this time I would insist that there should be just one question: you are voting for separation no matter what fake words are presented to you by your government.
Then again, there is another question. Montreal and Verdun City, and others, have already voted that they want to stay in Canada in the event of another referendum, and the Cree and Inuit. The Inuit that occupy northern Quebec all say, well, we are staying in Canada. Can you picture the map of the separatist Quebec if after there is a vote this is what happens? And there is another question. I have been in retailing for over 50 years. Much of what we bought was from Montreal City. They send foodstuffs; they manufacture all kinds of things; they are a fashion centre. Do you believe that if they separate from Canada and they say that you are not good enough for us to be associated with, that we are all going to buy there? We are positively not going to buy there and I would see to it that every worker in every factory knows that. That would be my attitude. If we are going to be fighting for the life of Canada, I would want to protect with every fair means, and everyone that I mention to you is legitimate.
Another one, Churchill Falls. Can you imagine the boon, what it would mean to Brian Tobin if he could just crack that contract? Do you realize that for a couple of hundred million dollars Quebec pays Churchill Falls owners, which is the Province of Newfoundland, and then they sell it at a fabulous profit to New York City and they don't do anything about it, they merely buy and sell, so if Quebec was to separate, the Premier would be within his rights to say, that was made with a certain time and certain kind of country and now it doesn't work. Also, there are the other things that are more a plus.
When I say these things, you have a feeling that I am angry and upset, which I am, at the thought of these few separatists, the minority in Quebec, spoiling our wonderful country. I don't want to punish them, I want to prevent them from hurting themselves, hurting the majority of their people and hurting us as well. You see, my wife is from Montreal and we have family there. For over 50 years I have been buying merchandise from there, and I have been associated and we have countless friends and we have good times. I admire that life. I want them to be part of Canada.
I am not trying to divide, I am trying to say that I want to fight to prevent the division, because we need them; they enrich our culture. They are different in a very good sense, with their music and their plays, their theatre and their books. They are a different kind of people, they are more lively, they make Canada more cultural, more cosmopolitan, they make us richer. I want them to stay, but I am saying that we will fight if there is any attempt to separate. I say to them that I don't want you to separate the magical threads of the wonderful relationships that we all have had throughout the years.
What is more, there is a title about Canada, it is called One Country From Sea to Sea. Do you remember that in Grade 5 or Grade 6? Ad Mare Usque Ad Mare. Well, I want us to remain that way. Only because I want them. They enrich and they keep us stronger, but on the other hand I fear that if they left us, that the Atlantic Provinces would be sent out on a troublesome sea with an unknown destination and I fear the result. So, it is a strong love for Quebec and fear of the future and the both make me determined to fight to the ultimate to keep them in Canada. Thank you. (Applause)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Well said, Mr. Webber. Are there any comments or questions from members of the committee?
MR. RUSSELL: I would just like to comment, Madam Chairman, if I may, about the Council for Canadian Unity. I think that their work with young people in this country is to be applauded and I would just say, carry on with the good work, because you are doing a tremendous job.
MR. ERNEST FAGE: I would also like to commend your work with the Council of Young Canadians. My daughter was a recipient for a week at the Terry Fox Centre, and it certainly made a large impression and her career and studies have benefited from that experience. So, thank you.
MR. WEBBER: Very good.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Are there any other comments?
MR. HOLM: I would just be echoing that, not about having a child in it, but certainly a few of my friends' children have been in the Terry Fox Program and everybody comes back singing its praises.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. We do have some information from the council which has been forwarded to us and we all have copies of it as well as the poll. I admire the pin on your lapel, as well, sir. Thank you very much.
Before we go to our next presenter, I would introduce Mr. Ernie Fage who has arrived late. He is the member for Cumberland North. Thank you for getting here safe and sound.
MR. FAGE: Thank you. The roads were a little atrocious, but I got here after a while.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I would now call on Mr. Evan Scott, as a private citizen, to make a presentation.
MR. EVAN SCOTT: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I figured I was going to learn something when I came here tonight, so I am very pleased to know that I have experienced some new things, especially with what Mr. Harvey Webber had to say.
Madam Chairman, members of the select committee, my presentation will be in two parts. The first one is about the Calgary Declaration, and after that is a plan C. We have all heard of plans A and B, and I have a plan C that might be workable.
I am commenting on the Calgary Declaration, the notice in the paper, so I will keep that before me because I have some notes on that as well. I know you have it over there and I have my copy, but I would like to use my own one from the newspaper. Item 1, I agree with and item 2, I agree with. Those are my comments.
Item 3. I have a little more to say on that one. I don't agree. I agree with the diversity. As for the tolerance, we can be said to be more tolerant than Northern Ireland and those in Palestine, but I don't know how much further up on the scale we would come. As for compassion - these words are all in Number 3 of course - the cutbacks in health, education and social services, 1.5 million unemployed and millions underemployed, and child poverty seem to illustrate a complete lack of compassion. As for equality of opportunity, many cannot afford university tuition today. I think I read in the paper today that Nova Scotia has the highest tuition in Canada.
Now I want to move on to comment on Number 4, which is about Canada's gift of diversity. You people are all politicians and I don't know where you get words like that, gift of diversity. Anyhow, my comment is that diversity is not a gift, it is a demographic fact. It goes on, the vitality of the French language. I read in the last census that the French language is spoken by fewer as a first tongue than the previous census, so I can't see that we have a vitality there.
A comment on Number 5, which starts out with the federal system. The use of the word, Canada, in line 6, maybe I had better read line 6, "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.". I think it is fundamental to the well-being of Quebec.
Then we go on further, "Consequently, the legislature and Government of Quebec have a role to protect and develop the unique character of Quebec society within Canada.". I say they have the role to protect it within Quebec, not Canada. I don't think we could have Quebec changing things in Nova Scotia; I could see them changing it in Quebec. So, that is my comment on Number 5. Number 6, I agree with, and Number 7 I agree with.
That brings me to this business about plans. Plan A is rebalancing of powers. The federal government tried that. Plan B, emphasizing the negative impact of sovereignty; this is what they are working on now. Mr. Dion is doing a good job. Like the previous speaker here, they are taking the boxing gloves off, I think that is what Harvey said.
I suggest a plan C, and this is it. Form a select committee of federal and Quebec experts in law, economics and social programs with the expressed mission of negotiating a cooperative, helpful and supportive manner in the establishing of a sovereign Quebec, including a corridor from New Brunswick through Quebec to Ontario. We have all heard about the corridors in Poland, well here would be a corridor in Canada, in Quebec.
Thank you, Madam Chairman. That is the extent of my presentation.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Scott. That was very well presented. I don't know if there are any comments or questions from members of the committee? No, I don't believe so.
MR. SCOTT: No questions, imagine that.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: You did a good job. Thank you very much.
MR. SCOTT: I look at it the other way. (Applause)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Madame Gisèle Blanc-Lavoie who is representing la Fédération acadienne de la Nouvelle-Écosse.
MME. GISÈLE BLANC-LAVOIE: Bonsoir, monsieurs et mesdames. J'espère que tous le monde est capable de me comprendre vu que nous parlons de l'unité du Canada.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Perhaps before you continue, if anyone wishes to have a translation device, there are some being passed out there. I apologize. You don't mind waiting just for a few minutes? Thank you.
I think we can now begin.
MME. BLANC-LAVOIE: Alors pour nous, les francophones hors Québéc, la déclaration de Calgary nous a choquer. Premièrement nous, les francophones hors Québéc, nous nous sommes pas mentionnés dans le numéro cinq. Il est seulement mentionné "la société Québécoise" or ils existe un million de francophones hors Québéc, notamment les acadiens ici, les franco-ontarians, les franco-manitobans, les franco-albertans, et cetera. Donc, je crois que c'est une très, très grande lacune dans notre papier.
Je me suis arrêtée simplement au numéro un de la déclaration de Calgary. Tous les canadiens et canadiennes sont égaux, et leurs droits sont protégés par la loi.
Pour nous, les francophones hors Québéc, il est très difficile de nous considérer. Je vais donc essayer de démontrer dans ma présentation qu'il nous est très difficile de nous imaginer protégé par la loi et égaux aux autres canadiens dans le domaine de l'éducation et de la culture premièrement, et dans le domaine de la santé. Je choisis de parler de ces deux domaines et, naturellement, je vais parler de la situation en Nouvelle-Écosse.
Pour nous francophones hors Québéc exiger nos droits nous coute beaucoup d'energie, beaucoup de persévérance et beaucoup d'argent. Malheureusement, il y a des coupurants. Et, donc, l'argent est de plus en plus difficile a trouver.
Premièrement, je voudrais faire allusion à la pauvre publicité faite à cette audience publique. Il y a dans la salle des gens qui donnont jamais un temp de parler, qu'il l'ont simplement lu aujourd'hui dans le Cape Breton Post. Je l'ai lu une fois dans le Courrier, l'hebdomadaire de la Nouvelle-Écosse, mais je l'ai entendu ce matin à la radio. C'était la première fois que j'en ai entendu parler. Je trouve donc que la publicité a été très mal faite dans les médias francophones, écrit et parlée.
Au sujet de l'éducation, je vais parler dans la province en générale. Nous, les canadiens français hors Québéc, avons eut finalement un Conseil scolaire acadien provincial qui a été fondue en 1997 est qui doit s'occuper de l'école française. Mais, malgré cela, nous nous battons encore entre nous pour avoir des écoles homogènes française. C'est terrible, parce que, comme la dit le monsieur qui ma précéder, le nombre des francophones diminue et malgré cela, nous n'avons pas encore nos écoles française homogènes pour faire des bons francophones.
[8:00 p.m.]
Donc, le Conseil scolair acadien provincial a été seulement fondé en 1997. Les acadiens sont arrivés ici en 1604. Ils ont été les premiers a arrivé ici après les Mi'kmaqs, il ne faut pas oblier les Mi'kmaqs, et malgré cela notre premier Conseil scolair francophone, en 1997. Heureusement, c'était avant l'an 2 000. Ça c'est dans la province.
Ici à Sydney, beaucoup de gens de Sydney connaissent c'est le prob1ème. Ils nous a fallu 10 ans de lutte pour avoir une école française. Devant les tribunaux, c'a coûté très cher mais ont a eu notre école. Malheureusement, où est-elle située? Entre les étangs bitumineux, tar pounds, juste en face dans une endroit qui est écologiquement très discutable, qui peut être dangereux pour nos enfants. C'est très bizarre.
Des travaux de restauration, ont nous en a promis, ils n'en finissent plus, ont fait des plan, ont fait des plan, mais c'a continue. La restauration très, très lente. Alors, les enfants sont dans cette école: une foie ils ne peuvent pas utiliser le gymnase, une foie ils ne peuvent pas utiliser la cafétéria. Mais, c'a continue.
Je vous donne une autre example pour les bourses. Les anglophones ont droit à une bourse de 2 000$ si ils vont dans une école française, dans une université, pardon, française. C'est très bien. C'est très gentil. Ils ont ce privilège. Mais, les pauvre francophones qui n'ont pas eu d'école élémentaire, qui n'ont pas eu d'ecole secondaire, eux ont droit a 2 000$, la même chose, pour aller dans une université française. Je croit que c'est les francophones qu'ont devrait aider. C'est eux qui on eu des problèmes. C'est eux qui n'ont pas eu d'ecole et il devrait avoir au moins le double. Parce que pour un francophone, c'est très difficile pour qui garde sa langue. Le monsieur la dit là, qui parlait avant moi.
Une autre question. Nos enfants, ici a l'école de Sydney, ne vont que jusqu'à la 9ième année. Pourquoi est'ce que des enfants francophones ne peuvent pas avoir une école de l'école élémentaire-intermédiare jusqu'à la fin? Pourquoi est-ce qu'ils doivent finir dans des classes d'immersion? Est'ce qu'ils sont des citoyens de deuxième classe?
Il ne faut surtout pas avoir peur de souligner que si les anglophones deviennent bilingues, ils auront eux les meilleurs jobs, comme disent les Québécois, si les écoles françaises ne sont pas solidement établies. Ils n'y aura plus de francophones. D'ailleurs le monsieur s'en réjouissait toute à l'heure.
Les francophones hors du Québéc, pour l'éducation, doivent avoir exactement ce que les anglophones ont au Québéc, de la maternelle à l'université, pour pouvoir s'épanouir. Le bilinguisme n'est pas nouveau, il a 30 ans que je le sache. Donc, il devrait avoir l'évolution. Oh, tragiquement, je pense qu'il n'y a pas évolution, au contraire.
Maintenant, nous allons parler de la culture. En Nouvelle-Écosse, la culture fait partie du ministère de l'éducation. En avril 1996, le ministère a publié un document qui s'appelle, Developing a Cultural Policy for Nova Scotia. What do we believe in? C'est manifique. J'adore le mot "believe". Ce document malheureusement n'existait qu'en anglais seulement et les personnes qui dirigeaient les audiences publiques ne comprenaient pas le français, puis ils ne comprenaient pas le Mi'kmaq non plus. D'ailleurs, moi, la francophone je suis passé l'avant dernière et le Mi'kmaq il est passé le dernier. Mais c'est tragique. C'est la culture de la Nouvelle-Écosse. C'est ça qui attir le tourisme ici avec les écossais, les irlandais, les polonais, les autres.
Alors, pour revenir au ministère de la culture, le document apparu en avril 1996 uniquement en anglais. Le 2 décembre 1997, ils nous ont donné une version finale et la version finale en français avec deux pages seulement. C'est tous. Lorsqu'on téléphone au
Ministère de l'éducation et la culture pour demander des document, il n'y a personnes qui nous répond en français.
Au point de vue du tourisme, aussi, il y a des fasicules qui ont été publiés en français mais qui n'ont pas été payer par le ministère du tourisme. C'est fasicules ont été publiés pas des entreprise privés. Je trouve ça très bizarre. Si tous les canadiens et canadiennes sont égaux, pourquoi est'ce que nous, francophones, nous devons payer pour nos fasicules de tourisme? Je ne comprend pas.
Continuent sur la culture, l'Atlantic Film Festival à Halifax, de l'autonme 1997, n'a presenté aucun film en français. C'est bizarre parsque à Moncton, l'ONF produit beaucoup de film. Les East Coast Music Awards, cette année, il n'y avait aucun chanteurs francophone. Peut-être que tous les chanteurs francophones sont affreux. Alors, ont ne les choisit pas. C'est vrai que Edith Butler est pourtant très connue, le gars de Nouveau-Brunswick aussi, Rock Voisine, pourtant il est acadien.
Les tournées thêatrales du Nouveau-Brunswick viennent à Halifax, qui a beaucoup d'acadiens, mais ne se rendent pas jusqu'à Sydney et notamment la pièce d'Antonime Maillet, Evangéline deux, je ne comprend pas pourquoi il n'y a pas d'argent pour présenter cette pièce de thêatre à Sydney, à Cheticamp, à l'Isle Madame. Il faut trouver de l'argent. C'est la culture, ça. C'est la culture des francophones, donc les anglophones bénéficera aussi.
Ici à Sydney, l'école existe depuis 10 ans, mais les gens ne sont pas informés. Je rencontre encore des gens qui confond l'école française, l'école d'immersion, centre communautaire. Mais c'est quand même aberrant que les gens devraient savoir qu'il y a une école française. Ils devraient en être fier. Ils devraient dire, bon, au Cap Breton, ils y a un collège Gaélique, il y a une école française, il y a une école Mi'kmaq. Ça c'est qu'est-ce qui est beau, c'est ça qui fait la beauté du Canada. Malheureusement, ça n'existe pas.
Alors, maintenant, je passe dans la domaine de la santé. Alors, il y a eu des problèmes. Vous avez tous entendu parler de l'hôpital Montfont à Ottawa mais ici nous sommes très, très mal lotis aussi. Je sais que ça coute de l'argent, c'est difficile, mais c'est très important. J'ai moi-même écris aux authorités de l'hôpital et puis ont ma répondu qu'il avait quelque personnes qui parlait français. Pourquoi est'ce que les francophones devraient être surcharger de travail. Pourquoi ont ne prend pas tous simplement une personne qui parle français, une personne qui parle Mi'kmaq? Comme ça les malades pouraient recontrer quelqu'un dans leur langue. C'est très difficile de parler de "sympton" dans une langue étrangère. C'est très difficile. Alors, dans psychiatie, c'est encore pire. Je trouve quand même inadmissible. Je suis au Cap Breton depuis 23 ans et les personnes en psychiatrie, les acadiens sont soignés en anglais. Ça vait contre toute logique. Ce n'est pas rêvé en couleurs que de demander des services en français pour la santé et encore plus en psychiatrie.
Les anglophones du Québéc ont leurs hopitaux et nous nous ne demandons que du personnel, nous demandons une ou deux personnes, ce n'est pas beaucoup, nous demandons d'être reçu dans notre langue officielle. Ça serait très facile d'avoir un travailleur social qui parle le Mi'kmaq, puis un travailleur social qui parle le français. Ça ne coutera pas très cher au ministère.
Donc, en conclusion, nous aimerions déclarer et répéter au comité, qui a eu la patience de m'écouter, sur l'unité que nous les francophones, nous voulons pas être, comme l'avait déclaré la célèbre Saguoine, d'Antonine Maillet, "The Charwoman", vous avez du la voir à la télévision au début des années 1970, nous voulons être des citoyens à part entière. If faudrait donc que des efforts concerter du gouvernement fédéral et du gouvernement provincial nous fournissent des réseaux pour établir nos droits à l'éducation et à la santé en français. Merci.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Merci. Thank you. Do any of the committee members have any comments or questions?
MR. FAGE: I apologize for not addressing you in French.
MME. BLANC-LAVOIE: No problem. I can understand English.
MR. FAGE: I had a couple of questions. Looking through your presentation and listening to your presentation it becomes very clear that the Acadian or French-speaking community here in the province have some deep concerns about services offered and the quality of those services plus infrastructure.
Can I rightly take the view that you feel some of those should be addressed by the provincial government of this province as well as the federal government?
MME. BLANC-LAVOIE: Oh yes, definitely. We have un Ministere d'Affaires Acadien who should be looking after that very closely, and very quickly because assimilation is very strong.
MR. FAGE: Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Holm.
MR. HOLM: I was also very interested in your comments and then I was looking back at Number 5 and trying to figure out the intent of what I think you were talking about in terms of recognizing the importance and the unique character of the non-Quebec French-speaking communities across the country as well. I was just trying to think of the kind of wording or suggestions as to where or how something could be done. I was just wondering if you have any suggestions or if FANE, and I know I am not pronouncing it correctly, but
if there were any suggestions as to kinds of wording or additions you might like to see included in any resolution that might be introduced here in Nova Scotia?
MME. BLANC-LAVOIE: On the provincial level or on the federal level?
MR. HOLM: Well, on the provincial level, of course, it is the intention to introduce a resolution dealing with the Calgary Declaration but it doesn't have to be 100 per cent exactly. It can have additions to and so on.
MME. BLANC-LAVOIE: Well, I suggest just a direct allusion to Acadians - Acadians being Acadians who were in Canada before Québécois even. So we have a special association, who mentioned Les Acadiens and the other communities. I think it is worth mentioning them, definitely, because they are so important in New Brunswick as well as P.E.I. and even in Newfoundland.
MR. HOLM: And in other parts of the country as well, Manitoba and elsewhere.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: That was going to be my question as well, on how it could be included. What we're asking is for a comment on whether you can agree with the Calgary Declaration, if you think something should be added. I gather from Mr. Holm's question that is something that maybe you would suggest could be added to the declaration.
MME. BLANC-LAVOIE: Definitely.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for your presentation, it was very well done.
I would ask Mr. Jim Peers now to come forward as a private citizen to make a presentation to the committee. (Applause)
MR. JIM PEERS: Perhaps you will notice I brought my own cheering section. Madam Chairman, MLAs, national unity is a very interesting subject and it started for me in the 1960's when I lived in Montreal. When the second mail bomb went off at Atwater and Sherbrooke Streets, it was about 100 yards from where I was sleeping. Since I had recently moved back to Montreal from Winnipeg and was working in Montreal, the bomb and the separatist movement and the culture of Quebec caught my attention. I have been following it rather closely ever since but I don't think we have a problem of national unity. I think that has already been settled. This started in the 1980's.
I have a list of the key activities here. The first referendum was in 1980. Meech Lake was in 1987 when the First Ministers met and this led to new constitutional proposals. In June 1990 the Meech Lake Accord died after Manitoba and the Newfoundland Legislatures rejected it. It was revived again in 1991 when the feds introduced 29 constitutional proposals,
Shaping Canada's Future. In August 1992, the Charlottetown Accord approved this and all of our Premiers seemed to agree but perhaps we should remember that Canadians rejected the Charlottetown Accord in a national referendum in 1995. The Calgary Declaration is mere pap, it is just more of the same. The economy of the world has made Canadian unity a non-issue because we have advanced beyond that.
In Montreal, after the bombs went off, there was another major event in Canada. The Carter White Paper came down which directed Canada along a path toward socialism and huger per capita indebtedness. So my parents and my brother, who were living in Montreal at the time, decided that they weren't going to have their earnings spent by governments, they were going to spend and invest them themselves. So they left Canada for other places. My sister and brother-in-law were in Montreal at that time and my sister had successfully raised $28 million for the Royal Victoria Hospital but her husband, a bright petro-chemical engineer, couldn't get work because he was a "maudit anglais". So they are now both Americans and in the first five years after he moved to the United States, he earned more money than he had made in the previous 15 years in Quebec. My son is also on the leading edge of his profession, and an American, and so is his family, and they live in New York where he works. So I know a bit about national unity.
I have worked and lived and voted and paid taxes in five provinces in Canada. So my remarks may be a little different than what you expected but I love Montreal. When I lived there it was one of the finest cities in North America but it has been superseded by Toronto, at least in Canada. Fortune magazine ranks Toronto number eight in North America as cities for living and earning a living in.
So, I don't believe Quebec is a problem and we shouldn't be discussing it in terms of national unity. We are part of the Quebec problem because we live east of the Ottawa River and all provinces east of the Ottawa River are indebted to the other provinces of Canada. We are have-not provinces and we don't earn enough to even pay the interest on the debt we have consumed in the last 30 years.
So I don't view this as an emotional problem like Mr. MacDonald from Louisbourg and Mr. Webber. I believe, as I said, the status quo is the cause of Quebec's problem and they haven't been able to rise above it because of their educational system and their culture. I remember in the 1960's hearing the President of Quebec Hydro give a speech about the fact that he couldn't promote people within the company because he couldn't move a male manager from one town to another town 30 miles away because his wife wouldn't leave her family. This was in the 1960's. So they are insulated just like we are. Geography is very important and so are attitudes and experience.
We have lost the opportunities for multiculturalism in Eastern Canada because all the immigrants go someplace else. They don't go to Quebec, they go where our kids go from Cape Breton. They go to the cities out West or to the United States. So we have lost the opportunity for diversity and for growing our economy in the global sense.
I would like to take each of these points because I really don't think too much of what they came up with. However, politicians being politicians, they had to come up with something after spending a couple of days together.
There was a great quote in Maclean's year-ending issue of what happened in Canada. There are two issues, the debt and national unity. Those are the two issues that Maclean's claim we have in Canada. They opened with a joke where Paul Martin and Premier Chretien were talking to God. They were asking him all sorts of questions and God said, look, you each have one question to ask me. Paul Martin said, well, I want to know if my budget cuts and better spending are going to improve the social conditions and economy of Canada. God said, not in your lifetime. So then he turned to Chretien and said, what do you want? He said, I want to know if our efforts at national unity and these accords and referendums and so on are going to bring Canada closer together so that we become equal and much happier than we are and less divisive and God said, not in my lifetime. I thought that was pretty good. I think that summarizes the situation that we have.
Dealing with the first one, "All Canadians are equal and have equal rights protected by law.". This is pure hyperbole and a very hypocritical statement. It is not true in any province or territory. If it were true, Cape Breton would not have a state-owned steel plant and coal mines after 30 years of losses nor had an apartment fire started by unionized workers who felt they had a right to work, although in the competitive bidding process, the unionized contractor lost out to the non-union contractor, and governments have also provided 60 per cent of the jobs in Cape Breton, where they employ 60 per cent of the people. Is that equality?
Number 2, "All provinces, while diverse in their characteristics, have equality of status.". With whom? They will get what they earn over the long run but will receive help in the short run to cover costs such as the Saguenay floods. They can't have equality of status with each other for their starting points are different and so are the solutions to their problems. There never was one mold for all Canadians. This is the strength of our country. How can you explain why the provinces east of the Ottawa River are highly indebted to the federal government with the highest per capita provincial debts in Canada, whereas west of the Ottawa River - Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and eventually B.C. - will be net contributors to paying down their debt by spending more wisely, increasing growth, assimilating immigrants from east of the Ottawa River and foreign countries.
"Canada is graced by diversity, tolerance, compassion and an equality of opportunity that is without rival in the world." I have chosen to live in Canada rather than the United States for many reasons and Cape Breton over the other four provinces in which I have lived, worked, voted and paid taxes, first because of its beauty and second, after living here for a number of years, now place the people of Cape Breton - especially the achievements of C.B. youth - higher on my list as a reason for being here.
Canada's gift of diversity is long gone for citizens living east of the Ottawa River. Immigrants and east of Ottawa youth now have to move to the five western provinces which start in Ontario where true multiculturalism and individual economic freedom is more apparent than in the highly indebted subsidized provinces. That means we don't have multiculturalism in Eastern Canada, including Quebec.
"In Canada's federal system, where respect for diversity and equality underlies unity, . . .". Since the 1960's, after the debts of the depression and WW II were paid off, this statement becomes a political sham. This is Number 5 I am talking about. East of the Ottawa River where politicians try to replace the free wheeling activities of the market place with free wheeling spending of money Canadians didn't earn. It can't continue. That is not unity or equality. This has delayed the entry of Canada in the global markets being driven by the information economy. Fortunately, the provinces west of Ottawa had the critical mass levels of knowledge, skills and capital to export more products and services than they imported, whereas those east of the Ottawa were net importers of goods and services, often paid for by the taxpayers in five western provinces.
"If any future constitutional amendment confers powers on one province, these powers must be available to all provinces." This assumes Canadians rank national unity as the number one or two problem in Canada and I don't believe this is so - in spite of Maclean's poll. The question of national unity has already been settled by the strong economies and performance of the politicians in the five western provinces. For them, who has the gold rules and they have the gold.
Preston Manning said, the only ones who should have a veto over constitutional change is the Canadian public in the form of a referendum. Canadians take a referendum every day when they determine where to work and spend or invest their money and what kind of skills their children will need to take advantage of the resources available to them. Hell, we don't need a vote every two or three years to reaffirm the fact that we are still Canadians. What else does a Canadian need other than the freedom to pursue these goals with a minimum of political or government interference?
"Canada is a federal system where federal, provincial and territorial governments work in partnership while respecting each other's jurisdictions.", et cetera. This must have been thrown in at the last minute or introduced after a three martini lunch. What poppycock. As I said before, unity is a done deal. It is dead in the water. Let's not get tied up in the details
like some of the other people have discussed. It will be global markets that induce Canadians to change, not politicians who are playing to folks back home and looking for a leg up through special rights knowing full well they can't and won't deliver any of these seven items.
[8:30 p.m.]
Canada isn't going to fall apart but the provinces east of the Ottawa River can go bankrupt if they don't break out of their comfortable cocoons that are undisturbed by the world of commerce or the need to provide their best intellectual resources to adding value at home in each community. The cultural imperialism of Ottawa has been dead and buried by the successful frontier initiatives and competitiveness of Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and eventually B.C. which took hold in the 1990's. This is the real issue in the 1990's, prosperity not unity.
If this doesn't convince you, the annual GNP of Canada is now about one-tenth of the amount of dollars that are traded back and forth across the Atlantic every day of the year and the GDP of Orange County in California is likely higher than that of Canada.
If Quebec wants to play the separation game, let them do it on their own time and with their own money. Our youth is too busy creating a brighter, socio-economic future for Canada than to waste any more time talking about national unity. This discussion is for old people like those represented here tonight - sorry folks - who didn't keep the lines of communication open with Quebec, Western Canada and the United States or each other on what the issues are for all of us. Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Peers. Would you entertain any questions from the committee? Does anyone have any questions or comments? Thank you very much. Do you have a copy of your presentation?
MR. PEERS: Yes, key points. (Applause)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. There are a number of other people here this evening who would like to make presentations. The first I will call now is Mr. John MacMullin.
MR. JOHN MACMULLIN: Thank you, Madam Chairman and committee. I really appreciate the opportunity to express my concerns as a Nova Scotian and as a Canadian. I would like to address issues that are affecting the Mi'kmaq community. I am doing this presentation on my own, having worked in that community for the past 12 years or so and worked in other Native communities across Canada.
I would like to say that of the Government of Nova Scotia I am ashamed of the document that they endorsed in Calgary, Item No. 1, "All Canadians are equal . . .". I am ashamed to say that in Nova Scotia that is not the case. I would like to just touch on a few things that have happened in the few years that I have been in a Native community and the people I have got to know and got to know very well.
Eskasoni is the largest reserve in Eastern Canada and I got to know one of the officials up there who was the longest living elected official and presently still holds office in Eskasoni, was always apprehensive of non-Indians or commonly referred to as White people. They can't be trusted. I had difficulty accepting that because in time you get to know him and other non-Natives come in and they get to know him. So one day I went to his home and sat down and I said tell me, what is it that you don't trust about non-Natives? He said, well, I want to show you how they see us. I am going to read a little circular here, although it is old, it is in his heart, this is how he feels, how we see Indians. It is a circular from the Department of Indian Affairs and it is dated December 15, 1921. It is going to lead up to today because there are issues today that touch along the same guidelines.
"It is observed with alarm . . .", this is a circular to the Indian Affairs agent, ". . . that the holding of dances by the Indians on their reserves is on the increase, and that these practices tend to disorganize the efforts which the Department is putting forth to make them self-supporting.
I have, therefore, to direct you to use your utmost endeavours to dissuade the Indians from excessive indulgence in the practice of dancing. You should suppress any dances which cause waste of time, interfere with the occupations of the Indians, unsettle them for serious work, injure their health or encourage them in sloth and idleness. You should also dissuade, and, if possible, prevent them from leaving their reserves for the purpose of attending fairs, exhibitions, etc., when their absence would result in their own farming and other interests being neglected. It is realized that reasonable amusement and recreation should be enjoyed by Indians, but they should not be allowed to dissipate their energies and abandon themselves to demoralizing amusements. By the use of tact and firmness you can obtain control and keep it, and this obstacle to continued progress will then disappear.
The rooms, halls or other places in which Indians congregate should be under constant inspection. They should be scrubbed, fumigated, cleansed or disinfected to prevent the dissemination of disease. The Indians should be instructed in regard to the matter of proper ventilation and the avoidance of over-crowding rooms where public assemblies are being held, and proper arrangement should be made for the shelter of their horses and ponies. The Agent will avail himself of the services of the medical attendant of his agency in this connection.
Except where further information is desired, there will be no necessity to acknowledge the receipt of this circular.". It is signed by Duncan Eliott, the Deputy Superintendent General of the day.
This was passed to me and said, this is what I think of White people. This is how you think of Indians. This is in my father's time. Getting into the 1990's, when I see the agreement that was signed in Calgary by the Premier of our province, and understanding and studying the problems facing the individual that I am involved with, which is a self-made businessman who lives in Eskasoni, who three years ago peaked with 68 employees working for him; the largest non-government employ on any reserve in Eastern Canada. He took the reins of that business and he passed it over to his brother. His brother today is carrying on that business and employing, if not that many, more people today.
He pursued three years ago another business venture. The problems he is running into is the position of the provincial Government of Nova Scotia not recognizing what they signed they recognized, the rights of all individual Canadians in being equal, his constitutional rights, specifically under Section 35(1) of our Constitution.
Various cases have been taken and tried in the courts of the land from a provincial level to the Supreme Court of Canada. Most recently the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in, I believe it was 1985, and I will just go to a small paragraph where the decision of the court was that the Treaty of 1752, which actually to this individual's belief gives him the right, and it is worded to give him the right, that the Treaty of 1752 was as valid then as it is today. He considers it just as valid today as 1752 and it decided a case under the name of Simon.
So this individual pursued to go ahead and get into his business and he ran into roadblocks, many, many roadblocks. He did this on his own on the principle of it. He said, I will fight it to my grave. It is going to put him in his grave, it is destroying him financially, it is destroying him physically. He ran into another situation among his own government on another reserve that involved him getting involved in a legal confrontation and his own people were his judge and jury, the Grand Chief and several other chiefs as well as a law professor from Dalhousie, and they sit on an arbitration panel. It cost him $216,000, legal costs and arbitration costs but in the end he won 100 per cent of what he claimed including interest.
What good did it do him, the toll it took on his health, the years it added on his life? Then he said, I've got to get away from that business, my brother, you take it over and he started a new battle with the Nova Scotia Government.
So I wonder how, when we see this taking place, and I know his case now is going through the courts and it is going to the Supreme Court of Canada, but why does this have to happen? Why, when he is given this right, why do we either have to try to bankrupt him or destroy him to recognize the rights that he has? Look around the room here tonight. How many Mi'kmaq do you see here? The largest reserve in Eastern Canada is situated right here within 25 minutes of this city and there are none here. They don't believe in us, they don't trust us. And I can see why, because these things happen.
Here is a treaty which considered in the words of many on reserve is a 1997 treaty. It is an MOU but they consider it as a treaty document, signed by our Premier, by the Indian Affairs Ministers and all the chiefs in Nova Scotia. One clause in that says that the parties agree that this Memorandum of Understanding is intended as an expression of goodwill and political commitment, to enter discussions. It is not intended to either create, define or affect legal rights or to be construed as an interpretive aid in the determination of any legal right.
They agreed that it would never be used, this document, but when this individual businessman attempted to set up his business, this document was submitted by the Justice Department of the Province of Nova Scotia. They said, look, we are working things out with the Mi'kmaq community. Things are working out just fine. Well, more was accomplished by them submitting that than all of the fighting and the struggling that this individual had to do to take on the government to get his legal and constitutional rights because now the whole Mi'kmaq Nation in Nova Scotia, all chiefs, have endorsed legal counsel for that body to take on the Province of Nova Scotia, right to the Supreme Court of Canada, on behalf of this individual and pay for it for him.
So I see serious problems with how we deal with Mi'kmaq in Nova Scotia. They have to knock down the barriers and they have to build up a line of communication and a bond of trust. If we don't do that, we are never going to have peace and harmony among these people and you will never have the trust that you are looking for. (Applause)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. MacMullin. Are there any questions or comments from any of the committee members? I thank you very much for your presentation.
I would now ask the next presenter, Mr. Allan McMullin, to come forward.
MR. ALLAN MCMULLIN: Madam Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Allan McMullin. I am a private citizen. I am neither a politician nor an economist although at times I have been accused of wanting to be a politician and I must confess from time to time that is quite true. Please excuse my remarks this evening if they appear to be a little incoherent but I only found out about the meeting this morning by listening to Talkback and I managed to put together some thoughts prior to coming here and while listening to the other presenters. So with your indulgence, I will begin.
By the way, I come here not to praise the Calgary Declaration, but I come here, I hope, to help bury it. (Laughter) For 22 years I have watched the continuing struggle of the people of Quebec as they discuss and debate their future either to remain inside the federation we call Canada or to set off on their own as a nation, a country, a republic called Quebec. I have watched as the PQ Government was elected by an overwhelming majority of Quebecers in 1976 and I have been appalled and ashamed at the reaction of some of our Premiers, some of our citizens and some of our businessmen from all corners of our country. How horrible,
they claimed. Some went so far as to suggest we send in the army. Others called these Parti Québécois traitors while some wept openly at this new Parti Québécois Government that would surely desecrate and destroy our Country of Canada.
A certain high-profile businessman in the Province of Quebec publicly referred to the Premier-elect, René Levesque, as a bastard but then had to apologize publicly, realizing that much of the product he produced was also consumed in Quebec. Yet the PQ Government delivered reasonably good and effective government but most importantly they were loved and respected in their home province. Their rallying cry became, we want our place in the sun; and their dream was independence.
I have witnessed the first referendum on sovereignty association fall short of victory in May 1980 with approximately 42 per cent of Quebecers voting yes. I watched and listened as the federal government pulled every trick in the book to win this referendum and there was no denying the federal victory. I squirmed as all the so-called experts repeated over and over again that they, the Quebec people, could never survive as a country on their own. Who would recognize them? Who would help them? How would they live? Would it be as a Third World country, or worse still, would they become a banana republic? Who among us could forget Mr. Levesque's, à la prochain fois?
I watched as the Constitution was repatriated from Great Britain to Canada with the approval of nine provinces and two territories but not Quebec. The true story on why Quebec was excluded during the night of knives, as they so commonly refer to it, will probably never be known but suffice it to say that the Quebec people have never forgotten this insult nor, for that matter, have they forgotten the part that Jean Chretien has played in this deception. I have watched as the Meech Lake Accord and its promise and hope of recognition of Quebec as a distinct society failed because the rest of Canada wanted also to be recognized as distinct societies in their own regions.
Once again, a few short years later, I saw the Charlottetown Accord overwhelmingly rejected by the people of Quebec as well as the rest of Canada. Oh, but the politically elite of our precious country urged, lobbied and tried to cajole us and coach us into accepting the Charlottetown Accord. We, the unwashed masses, said no. As a lion we roared that night and citizens all over this land said no to the politicians, no to the politically elite and once again this problem of what Quebec wants went unsolved and the situation remains in turmoil to this very day.
In between these events, I have seen the birth of a new federal Party, the Bloc Québécois, whose sole purpose was to protect the interest of Quebec and advance the cause of Quebec independence. The howling and screaming from the rest of Canada was long and loud. Hang them for treason. We beat them on the Plains of Abraham, we can beat them again. Throw them out; on and on and on, ad nauseam. It seems that the remainder of Canada conveniently forgets that this Party was duly and properly elected by the people of Quebec -
elected by the people of Quebec. They cast their votes as they saw fit. Should the rest of Canada not respect their wishes, even if this very same Party was to become the Opposition, as it did?
I have watched and listened as the referendum of 1995 took place, as the entire country held its breath and the Quebec people came within a whisper, a percentage point of winning. They did not. Yet they as a people, respected the outcome and planned ahead for the next one. Their dream continues. Meanwhile, the PQ Government, under Mr. Bouchard, continues to provide worthwhile government and the approval rating for Mr. Bouchard, personally and his government, remains extremely high.
Now we are presented with another decree, the Calgary Declaration. If a picture could truly express a thousand words, then the recent cartoon in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald said it all exactly. This declaration is about as useful as breasts on a bull. This amounts to more federal pablum which will surely be spit out by the people of Quebec if not by the rest of Canada themselves. It is not what Quebec wants. Distinct, unique, original, it is all the same. It is not what they want.
Madam Chairman, I sincerely believe that with continued good government and a balanced budget by the PQ, not only will they win the next election, they will very probably win the next referendum. The problem arises on how we, the rest of Canada, will relate to this victory. How will we deal with this victory? Will we block it in the courts? Will we send in the troops? Will we refuse to recognize this victory or shall we have them declare UDI?
The PQ have promised to negotiate sovereignty associations within a one year time-frame, negotiate such items as common borders, passports, common money, free trade, Quebec's share of the deficit, et cetera. I believe, Madam Chairman, that instead of pipe dreams, such as uniqueness or distinct society, we should get down to brass tacks. Negotiate, negotiate, negotiate. For once in our lives, let us respect the wishes of the people of Quebec. If they have 51 per cent or more of the majority then they have spoken. They have spoken as one voice as a majority.
When the majority of people choose to go their own way, can those who do not share this victory then ask for their own little sections of Montreal or parts of Quebec to be separated and divisible? Certainly not. I believe that every politician of every stripe in the Province of Quebec has stated that this will not be allowed to happen. Recognition of the Quebec nation will come from other countries, surely, and although I realize there will be hurt feelings and frustrated feelings and feelings of animosity from many sources, I hope and pray that calm heads will prevail. Let us not turn to the same reaction or action as some other countries such as Rwanda, Burundi, Yugoslavia, Chechnya or parts of Russia. Such talk or such action would be more dangerous than separation itself.
Many so-called experts claim a separate Quebec cannot survive economically or fiscally on its own. I disagree. I quote to you a recent address by Jacques Parizeau in which he stated, the United States does as much trade with Quebec as it does with Brazil, Argentina and Chile all put together. Money talks. Of course other countries will deal with Quebec as a nation.
The Quebec people are resourceful and sharp businessmen. Their standard of living may well be lower under a separate Quebec but they will survive. It may be simplistic but when a family can no longer survive or continue to exist as one unit, then there is only one solution. The unhappy party must leave. Wise people and calm heads can and must bury their frustrations and agree to separate amicably. What of the rest of Canada? What of the Atlantic Provinces? Will Canada survive as a country? Who knows? I don't know nor do the experts know, although you will hear them every single day on television and radio say that Canada will be broken up. Who knows?
I see no reason why the rest of Canada cannot survive, although there is talk of separation from the Province of B.C. through Pat Carney. I don't know what will come of it. The country can survive - that is Canada - if it has to.
The Atlantic Provinces may well be another question. Personally, I believe we will be faced with a momentous task but not an insurmountable problem. We are a resilient breed of people and we may well face our toughest challenge but it may have unexpected dividends. We may find our areas relying less on the largesse and public handouts of provincial governments and federal governments. We may then find it necessary to get down to brass tacks ourselves and survive on our own.
Am I suspicious of those experts who preach gloom and doom? I certainly am. No one knows for sure what will happen to the Atlantic Provinces and those who tell us that do don't know any more than you and I.
I wish at this point to state a personal story - and it won't be long. I married an Acadian woman, a lovely Acadian woman. She was born in D'Escousse, Nova Scotia near Arichat, the Isle Madame area. Her family moved to Sydney in the early 1950's. Her family, both pure Acadians, spoke French. To this day, not one of the children of that family speaks a word of French. They have been assimilated into the English society. Through this, I understand what the Quebecers feel and what they fear when they talk about their culture and their language and the necessity to protect it.
My personal opinion, should Quebec choose sovereignty, separation or independence, whichever they wish to call it, then I will salute their efforts and I will respect their wishes. I will wish them well and good luck. As a Canadian and a human being and person who believes in the rule of democracy, I can do no less. Merci, je vous souhaite bonne chance à Quebec. Thank you. (Applause)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. McMullin. Another very passionate presentation and even though you put it together quickly, as you have said, I think you have done a very good job and thank you for your presentation. Are there any comments or questions from the committee?
MR. RUSSELL: I just have one question, I guess, Madam Chairman, which refers to the committee itself. It appears that a number of people were not aware that we were meeting this evening and I think that that is something that should be addressed immediately.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I took note of that as well in a couple of the comments that were made and actually became aware of it more myself on January 1st that there were people in my own community who were not aware that anybody could come to the event. I called our staff and asked them to make sure they got another media advisory out and I have tried myself to make myself available to all forms of media for interviews to make sure that every citizen was aware that we were going to be in their community, that they could attend, whether they wanted to make a presentation or otherwise.
I do thank those who have paid attention and made the effort to be here tonight. Thank you, Mr. Russell.
MR. ALLAN MCMULLIN: Very well. One final remark before I leave. I wish to take exception with something that Mrs. O'Connor said on radio this morning. She said - I believe it is Mrs. O'Connor, is it - yes. She said that the people of Quebec do not want separation, do not want sovereignty association, only the politicians do.
I ask her what 50.4 per cent of the people said in 1995. Are they all politicians? I think not. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
MR. MCMULLIN: You're welcome.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Dr. Greg MacLeod, University College of Cape Breton.
DR. GREG MACLEOD: Thank you very much, honourable members of the select committee. I preface my remarks with a point. I approve of the Calgary Declaration, not so much for the specific points that it makes but, rather, as a gesture of goodwill and an attempt by our leaders to show some tolerance and a positive attitude, especially towards Quebec. I think it has great symbolic value. It is not so much the specific points within it.
My position is that I think we have to go further. I want to underline the importance of gestures and the importance of how we view each other in the country. I think today, when we look at Serbia, Croatia, Iran, Northern Ireland, Palestine and such places, it is not just economics that is driving the world and events, it is how we view each other.
I would like to propose, perhaps, another way of looking at us in Canada. I would like to propose the notion of a tri-nation, asymmetrical federalism. That is a mouthful. This means there are three basic partners in the Canadian family, the first nation, the Aboriginal people of Canada; the second nation, the French-speaking peoples of Canada; and I would say the third nation, made up of those people who consider English to be their identifying language of communication.
Within each of these groupings, there is diversity but there are very strong historical and traditional grounds to consider them as three different groupings. Before 1600, the only permanent residents were the Aboriginal people, the First Nations. Up until about 1759, outside the Aboriginals was a large French-speaking group of people as majority. After 1759, Quebec, the main French-speaking group, came to terms with the English-speaking group and the English-speaking group grew. Scotch people, Ukranian people, whatever people, came and identified with the English-speaking people.
I have no problem with all that but I am saying, when I sit back and look it seems, sensibly, you can say there are three main groups in Canada.
Now, I think leaders in Quebec are very wrong when they consider that we just have the problem of Quebec as a special group. I would like to propose, we should be thinking in terms of three main groupings.
I see no difficulty in each grouping having a different sort of relation towards the state. We are beginning to recognize this with the Aboriginal people. We say they have a different sort of relationship to the central government and they take on different sorts of powers. We don't consider that a major problem to tear the country apart.
I would like to see Quebec - we recognize them as having certain kinds of powers and certain kinds of relationships that are different.
English-speaking Canada, I believe that we share a great deal in common from coast to coast, the English-speaking people of Canada. I am very strongly in favour of a strong, centralized system for English-speaking Canada. Nova Scotia is part of the dominantly English-speaking Canada.
[9:00 p.m.]
I suggest that Nova Scotia should support a strong central government and I oppose decentralization of federal powers to all of the provinces. For Nova Scotia, it would result in a weak province in a weak Canada. So, it appears a bit contradictory, but I say, in my perspective, it is not. I support a devolution of power to the Aboriginal First Nations, a devolution of power to Quebec - the Second Nation - and I see no contradiction in supporting a strong centralized system for English-speaking Canada. Someday the Aboriginal people and the people of Quebec may choose a stronger relationship with the federal government, but I say that should be their choice and it should be based upon their experience. This is the end of my comments, and I thank you. (Applause)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Dr. MacLeod. Are there any comments or questions?
MR. RUSSELL: Madam Chairman, I have just one question. Dr. MacLeod, you speak of Quebec rather than French-speaking, but you speak of the English-speaking as being one of your legs on this stool. Are you saying that the French community of Quebec would be the spokesperson, for instance, for Acadians and all other French-speaking communities across Canada, or are you treating Quebec as being a geographical entity?
DR. GREG MACLEOD: No, I don't say that. It makes sense to me that Quebec, the majority are French-speaking. That is the major language and I am quite happy to recognize that way. I must say that I think in Quebec they have been quite fair with the English-speaking minority, in giving English schools from Primary to high school and I think in the same sense, in the rest of Canada, I think it is very important that the Acadian people, the French-speaking people in the rest of Canada, be respected and that they be given the rights to have French-speaking schools, as we are tending to do.
I don't think in a country you can have any absolute divisions and borders between peoples. There will be mergings and there will be shady areas; it is never black and white. But I say based on our history and our traditions, it seems to me it is fair to say that you can distinguish in Canada these three different groupings. I don't expect Nova Scotia to look for the same rights as all of the Aboriginal peoples in Canada; it doesn't make sense to me. I would say in the same way, if Quebec wants to do their manpower training and take over certain sectors more so than other provinces, I have no problems with that. I can see that some of these demands are connected with their history, traditions, cultures and things like that.
I would like to put it in the perspective of thinking of three nations in Canada - and we use the term First Nations - and I think really you can think of French as a Second Nation. You know, there will be Native people who will not be living on reserves, you can't just have the black and white division, but I think it is very important for the preservation of Aboriginal
culture and languages that we support and respect communities such as Eskasoni, and in the rest of Canada there are Native communities that want to be a bit apart to keep their language and culture. But it is never a black and white.
I am proposing this and I think politically in countries it begins with how we view ourselves and each other and the kind of respect we have for each other and that the political and legal stuff will follow later. I think in Canada, our bigger problem, it isn't simply legalistic and it isn't simply economic, it is more how we view each other. The politicians in Calgary - and all of the political Parties were involved - I think there was a sincere effort to show more tolerance and respect for the different groups of people in Canada and I think we can build on that by broadening out. I would hope in this kind of attitude, and I am suggesting another way of looking at it as a tri-nation approach and where we allow each of these three nations to have different relationships to the federal reality.
MR. HOLM: Father Greg, really just one question, if I might. I am not even sure how I want to phrase it, but really just to get your initial thoughts or observations under the three-nation concept. Of course, we heard earlier, for example, from representatives of the francophone community in Nova Scotia and concerns for protecting and developing their own culture here. Under the three-nation concept, what are your thoughts on how the significant minorities like the French community here in Nova Scotia may be affected by living in a so-called dominant group that identifies with the English language? Do you have any concerns that that could have a negative impact on the French culture outside of Quebec?
DR. GREG MACLEOD: Look, if we did not have Quebec, the Acadians would not have the rights that they have now, I am convinced of that. I think the way Canada has been organized - and I have some Acadian blood in me - I feel if we did not have Quebec, the Acadians would not have these sorts of schools we have now and some of the rights that we do have, and the fact that a person could come to this meeting and speak in French. I think that the Quebec presence is important for the preservation of the Acadians. The Acadians haven't asked for a separate state and I think that the Acadians are very strongly federalist.
MR. HOLM: I guess my point that I am not really expressing very well, is that if the second nation is really the French-speaking people of Canada, if that is going to be Quebec, then I am wondering if that might create any backlash? Are your thoughts that that could create - I don't know if backlash is the proper word that I want to use - some feeling of threats towards the French community in other parts of the country?
DR. GREG MACLEOD: I see your point. You are suggesting that, perhaps, English-speaking Canada would be monolithic English with no room for the Acadian or the franco-Manitobans.
MR. HOLM: I am just wondering if you thought that?
DR. GREG MACLEOD: No, I don't believe it would work like that. Let's forget about provincial distinctions. I want to say - as Canada, as a nation, because this whole thing is about the federal reality - let's take Canada as a nation and I would say Canada, when we look at our history, I think based on tradition and history you can say there are these three groupings. Now, how we cut them up and how we set boundaries in provinces is a secondary question. I think we will have the same problem with Native people, that we will find that Native people who live on reserves will have certain rights and they will be defined in certain ways, but there will be Native people also outside and living in cities. So, I am saying there is no absolute distinction.
I don't know how to solve all of these problems, but I would be quite comfortable, if the approach that I am talking about was adopted; Quebec would still be a very important part of Canada. I am not in favour of separation of Quebec at all. I think we are all trying to come up with ways that Quebec will be in Canada, a strong member of the Confederation, but yet have what is necessary for Quebec to maintain its French language and culture as the dominant; it is the dominant. I feel if we do that, Quebec will have an influence on the rest of Canada and I think Aboriginal people will have an influence on the rest of Canada, on the French-speaking people and English-speaking people. I am not saying to separate them when I say three nations, there would be a play back and forth.
I think history and tradition are awfully important. I think in Croatia and Serbia and all these places, they are living out today a lot of history that went on before and it is popping to the surface. I would like to say, let's recognize some of this history, and a lot of it is in gestures, what we try to do in Quebec. Sometimes we think it is just the economics that everybody will have to face; it didn't work out that way in Croatia, Palestine or anywhere else.
MR. FAGE: Just one quick question. On your interpretation of the Calgary Declaration, is it fair to say that you view the Calgary Declaration, that the motherhood issues addressed here, are large enough, that it is just a symbolic gesture of goodwill to all groups? Our diversity is our strength, is what you are saying, is that true?
DR. GREG MACLEOD: I am saying that the Calgary Declaration, in a sense is motherhood because legally, technically, you can't get your teeth into anything there. But I am saying, that is not bad, that is important, because I think the politicians, they didn't quite know how to come up with the technical solutions, but I think they wanted to show to people in Canada, especially people in Quebec, we're trying and it was a goodwill gesture. I am saying that that shouldn't be dismissed, that is extremely important and I am saying it is the beginning of a talking process.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much and I think that your comments regarding the Declaration, it is exactly that, it is considered a vision, a starting point. So, thank you very much for your presentation. Very good. (Applause)
Mr. Bob Lewis, private citizen, come forward, please.
MR. BOB LEWIS: Madam Chairman, my name is Bob Lewis and I am speaking as a private citizen. I am not much when it comes to public speaking. I have no political aspirations, so I guess I can say what I want.
This committee has been mandated by the Government of Nova Scotia to listen to the views of the average Nova Scotian with regard to the Calgary Declaration. As a resident of this province for 47 years, I have to commend this government for at least listening to Nova Scotians before making important policy decisions which will affect the lives of Nova Scotians and all Canadians. It is too bad that the government didn't consult Nova Scotians before other important decisions were made, and I will cite as examples the BST and health care reform.
When we talk about the Calgary Declaration, we have to realize that we are not talking about national unity in the true sense. We are talking about one province that thinks they can do better on their own without Canada. Nova Scotia doesn't want to separate, Newfoundland doesn't want to separate, Saskatchewan doesn't want to separate; just Quebec.
With regard to the Calgary Declaration, I have some serious concerns, especially with regard to Number 5 as it relates to the Province of Quebec being more special than any other province in this great country. Almost daily we read in the newspapers about how some poor minority businessman is being harassed and even jailed for using his own language on signs which do not conform to Quebec's discriminatory language laws. How can we as a province, which does everything in its power to fight discrimination in all forms, condone the actions of a province which blatantly discriminates against its own minorities? I am ashamed that our federal government has not stepped in and brought to an end this obvious discrimination, after all it was the federal government that sucked up to Quebec in the first place and forced two official languages on us.
Over the next few months, each and every one of us in this room and across Canada will be doing our income tax and it really bites me to the bone to know that a huge percentage of our tax dollars - and I mean millions and millions - is going to be spent to satisfy the wants of a few radicals who are holding this country's future up for ransom. These radicals have been able to brainwash hundreds of thousands of Quebecers into believing that they are better than anyone else in this country and deserve more than the rest of us.
As a previous speaker stated, we have been listening to this bull for over 20 years, and enough is enough. The leaders of this radical movement are much like Adolf Hitler who manipulated his people in much the same way, and we all know the results of his movement. We know who these radical leaders are and I believe they should be brought to justice and tried as traitors to this country. When that is done, I would hope that we can get on with the
rest of our lives and our governments can start working on our biggest problems which are youth crime and unemployment, which go hand in hand.
Having said that, I would ask that our Premier revoke his endorsement of the Calgary Declaration. Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Lewis. Are there any comments or questions from the committee? I guess there are no comments or questions. I do thank you for coming forward. Thank you very much. (Applause)
Now, that is the last of the names of people we had, people who indicated they would wish to speak. Is there anybody else in the audience who would like to come forward? State your name, please, when you come forward.
MR. RAFAEL GOMEZ-MORALES: My name is Rafael Gomez-Morales. I am going to make some comments, as a private citizen.
I am a Canadian. Let me first tell you, I came to this country a long time ago. I was a teenager with $7 in my pocket. I found this beautiful country, Canada. I was in Ottawa. I lived in Ottawa for many years. Then I moved to Quebec. I stayed in Quebec for several years, in Montreal, in Quebec City, in Chicoutimi, in Rivière-du-Loup and so on. It is a beautiful province and beautiful people; in particular, if you get out of Montreal, but I lived in Montreal.
I was very close to McGill University. I belonged, at that time, to many clubs in McGill University. I love people. I am a Latin American person and I found, what I said, this beautiful country.
I went to universities in Ottawa and Montreal and I got my degrees as an economist. I am teaching today, here, at UCCB. I feel very proud of this land but let me tell you this. I have not prepared any speech. I learned about this today.
I tried to bring my son to Ben Eoin, he deserves that kind of treatment, of course. He is my only son and I am very proud of him. I want him to be a good Canadian; by the way, a trilingual Canadian, Spanish, French and English.
I do know this, that we if we want to keep this country together, you better learn French because French is the sign that we can comprehend the French people. Languages are very important. It conveys a domain of culture and through that culture, you can understand the French people; if you do not, you cannot keep this country together.
Believe me, when I read this Calgary Declaration, I don't believe what I read. As I said, I was here when I was a teenager. Many years, I was in Montreal, in Quebec in 1960, and I remember very well, walking the streets of Montreal, Ste. Catherine, Sherbrooke, Dorchester and those businesses were controlled by the English people. I was wondering, what was wrong with the second largest French-speaking city in the world. I asked my friend, a doctor from Spain, tell me, what is wrong here? He said, the English people control the economy of Quebec. I said, that is not right. Why? I ask you gentlemen and ladies, why? This is an aberration in any country. I don't want to see in Caracas, Venezuela or in Buenos Aires or in Sao Paulo, the French people dominating the business of the country. That is a bad sign.
Now how serious are we? How serious are you? I don't want to see this country divided but I must tell you that this country, if you don't wake up, it will be divided because Quebec will go its own way. I worked in Quebec, as I said to you. I visited many little villages and most of the French Canadian people, yes, are for independence. The assimilated ones, they are in between and the other ones, people like me, coming from other parts of the world, most of them, like my friends, Italians, they were, well, listen, you don't bite the hand that feeds you, English people so we are Canadian. So they voted no in the referendum. You know that. I was not in Quebec otherwise I would have voted oui because I want to give a lesson that we have to wake up. There is no reason why not to do something about it. By the way, I am not a politician, I am a teacher.
Now, how serious are we? I wrote this little note while the people were talking and I was amazed to hear, with due respect to the previous speakers, some words that dismay me. How to speak in the way they did, like imply using force against Quebec, the Separatists. I met René Levesque while I was going to Carlton University - a decent human being for his own people. I was in Quebec when Lesage and I know the way these people feel about the English-speaking people. They are far away from Quebec. How can I trust this Declaration? Can you imagine, to think about McKenna? Do you know what McKenna did with the Meech Lake Accord and the other one, the Charlottetown Accord? You remember what happened. Now we should convert the saviour of the nation. Hey, be careful.
Hey, what about the other one from Saskatchewan? Well, I shouldn't say that because I am an NDPer but he is the Leader, the Premier of Saskatchewan and he belongs to that ugly night of the long knives, Romanow, and I am going to throw anything coming from these people towards Quebec that we are equal, that we are compassionate people, that the provinces are equal? You know it is not true. Before the law everything is, okay, in front of the law. But this is a political thing. This is a political thing and this will be solved politically because Canada is one of the biggest countries in the world. There won't be any force.
If by any chance the English people do not respect the will of the people and by the way, we don't. That is the sad part of it because the referenda have been taking place in Ontario. They have not been respected by Mr. Harris and here Mr. Lasage, he did whatever he wanted to do with respect to the people of this beautiful province. Where are we going?
Where is the leadership of the nation? We don't have leadership. This is the bad part of Canada, we don't have political leadership. Look what happened in the town hall talks in the University of Ottawa with Mr. Chretien, the way he mistreated a waitress from Montreal. Isn't that sad? Very sad, coming from our Leader. How can I trust M. Chretien when he belongs also to that ugly night of the long knives.
This is a very sad time for Canada. We need strong leadership to take this ship of the nation to peaceful waters, to make this country greater than what it is. How can we unite this country when the mother of my son could not travel from Ottawa to here because it was too expensive? Air Canada was too expensive. I have a student of mine who could not go to see their parents during Christmas time because it was too expensive to fly to Port aux Basques or to Labrador City or to St. John's. I have a colleague of mine travelling to Vancouver, extremely expensive. All his salary goes to pay the flight. How can we keep - like the Pope says - this continent together if we cannot provide the services at reasonable prices for people to keep this country together?
The Declaration does not talk anything about the Aboriginal people, so far as I can see in these five points. They were the first inhabitants of this land. There is tremendous mistreatment against them. How can we keep this country together ladies and gentlemen? How can we keep this country together? These are the problems affecting me as a foreigner, now a Canadian. I want to keep this country together but it makes me sad when I think that the leadership is given in this program by McKenna, by Romanow, by Harris, by some sort of Mr. Wells in Newfoundland. I know that he is not the Premier today but he was one of those who voted against the Meech Lake Accord, a member of the federal Liberal Party.
How can we trust these people? Is it true, this Declaration? Tell me in my agony because I love this country. I do, seriously, because I have a son here and I want this son of mine to be a good citizen, not only a good citizen of Canada but a good citizen of Quebec and a good citizen of the world but I am troubled and you must be troubled too, as politicians.
You know, I remember very well during the Government of Trudeau, Mr. Marchand was the Minister of Transport and he was given a ticket, that is in the capital city of this country, Ottawa, getting out some time after midnight from Parliament Hill and he was given a ticket because he went through a red light, I think. The poor guy was too tired. He was working. Do you know the nature of the ticket, the language employed in that ticket? Guess what? Guess which one? Do you think it was French? No, it was English. So he defied the ticket and he defied the court because he said, I want to make a political statement. That was in 1972, somewhere around there. In that period of time.
[9:30 p.m.]
That is a long time ago, my friend. As I said, the movement in Quebec was just starting in 1960. That is a long time ago. We were not here in this land at that time. Much before the battle of the British people and the English people but I will tell you something, wherever the British people, the colonial power has been, they always have created a big mess. A big mess. They left behind a big mess. They left it in Canada, they left it in Argentina, they left it in Venezuela, they left it in Central America, they left it in Asia. Where are we going? Now we have the mess in Canada.
Do you know that Mr. Harris decided to close the Montfort Hospital, the only French hospital? How can we talk of unity? How sincere is this man who wrote part of this declaration? I am troubled. I don't think these politicians are sincere. They say one thing and they do something else.
Yesterday, the government of Mr. Chretien - and believe me I fought very hard with Trudeau for the recognition of China but there is no sincerity in our political behaviour. That is what it is all about. The GST. Where is the GST? Gone. How can we keep this country when we lied to our own people, the people who pay our bills? I am troubled, very troubled, because the people of Quebec are going to get independence.
Now I believe that you people, you are politicians, I am a citizen, I am a teacher - I never talk about independence, by the way, in my classroom - but I must tell you that we better wake up and do something better than this declaration because this declaration has declared nothing at all. It just says blah, blah, blah. That is what it is. Because nothing coming from Romanow, nothing coming from these people, Harris, and something coming from McKenna and so on, this is not serious business. Believe me, it is not and you will see that this will fail and the poor Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Stephane Dion, he is trying his best. By the way, he got an A in The Globe and Mail for his big effort. The poor guy is battling all by himself and he will discover the truth that he will not achieve what he thinks because he is not clear himself. I am troubled, very troubled, ladies and gentlemen.
What are we going to do? I believe the best thing we can do, and I said this to my friend - he is a medical doctor, I am not a medical doctor - in 1960, the best that we can do in Canada, at that time, is to reformulate this federation, which is a good one but it is not good enough. To reformulate the federation and to have Quebec as a nation within a nation. To have Quebec as a country within this country. In other words, give Quebec powers enough to defend itself in culture, in law, et cetera, in maritime affairs and so on; I haven't thought about defence, maybe not. International affairs, I think they should have because they are completely different.
And to give the rightful place to the Aboriginal people. Then I believe, I am not quite sure of what I am saying when I use the term believe because the Anglo-Saxon people I know, they are very stubborn and they don't want to let it go. The thing is that if you don't let it go, we are going to have a civil war, believe me. Look what is happening in Algeria.
In 1992, when this government, the military power was going to lose power because the Islamic Party was going to win the election, they decided to retain power. I know about this military government. I lived part of my life within those kind of regimes.
Well, civil war, that is what we have over there; that is what we have in Northern Ireland and we must let people go, democratically speaking.
So, gentlemen, to finish my comments which are very long, because there are people wanting to talk, I must tell you that this will solve no problem. This will not be recognized by Quebec. Even the Cardinal of Montreal has pronounced, himself, that the Supreme Court of Canada has no business whatsoever in this affair. This is a political affair and only the people of Quebec will solve that problem.
Now, what we have to do is keep Quebec with us together and make this country better by letting Quebec be a sovereign nation. Thank you very much. (Applause)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. I don't know if anybody has any questions or comments. Is your last name . . .
MR. GOMEZ-MORALES: You see, this is the problem.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: No, well, I only heard it the once.
MR. GOMEZ-MORALES: Gomez-Morales, hyphenated name.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Yes. I had the Gomez but I did not have the Morales.
MR. GOMEZ-MORALES: No, you can call me Gomez.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Can I call you Rafael? (Laughter)
MR. GOMEZ-MORALES: Yes, even better.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Fage?
MR. ERNIE FAGE: Mr. Gomez, after listening to your comments, somewhat, about distrustful leaders, provincial, federal, past and present, who should be the ones - if there are going to be add-ons to the Calgary Accord, additions or suggestions as this forum was
designed for, who should be the people that actually make those suggestions and who would be involved in that process across this country?
MR. GOMEZ-MORALES: History tells us that every attempt, I mean, the history, I recall, say, 1960, that, because there had been lies ahead of everything.
If you remember, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, he promised Quebec not to vote, oui, because he was going to do whatever they wanted to be done. You know, that failed. That is a lie.
By the way, I have on tape Mr. Chretien's comments in 1995. He promised many things. The question is, did he deliver? He delivered, blah, blah, blah, yes, and there are few little things done but they do not contain water, just like this does not contain water either. This is an empty vessel.
MR. FAGE: The question I asked is, you have told us that is an empty vessel, you have told us that people who put the accord together may not have been totally sincere, who should be putting it together, then?
MR. GOMEZ-MORALES: My friend, that is a very tough question. This is what I meant before when I said, where is the leadership? We do not have leadership in Canada. Right now, when you look at Parliament Hill, question yourself, who is that leader? Who is that leader that will deliver, that has the capacity, the intellect, the energy to deliver a better Canada?
If you will remind me, I am just trying to bring into my memory the President of South Africa. Mandela. Where is Mandela? We need him here in this country. Where is he? Where is that Gandhi for this country? We don't have those people. We thought Pierre Elliott Trudeau was going to be the guy but he failed us.
Chretien came along. Well, there was a very good attempt given by Mr. Mulroney. There was an attempt right there. I think - I have to admit, painfully, it was an attempt. Mr. Bourassa, by the way, again, a federalist, a sincere man, he tried very hard, five basic points to keep this country together by giving Quebec those powers.
He failed, they failed. We have a Liberal Premier in Newfoundland and we have the other one here in Fredericton. We failed.
We don't have a leadership, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I don't see it. If you can discover that leader, we had better rush him into power. We don't have it.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: What about her? (Laughter)
MR. FAGE: I guess that was my question. How will we know when the Messiah is coming? (Laughter)
MR. GOMEZ-MORALES: Yes, that's right, we killed him first, remember? Yes, we brought him to crucifixion.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Are there any other comments or questions? Thank you very much for another passionate presentation.
MR. GOMEZ-MORALES: You're welcome, Madam. Good night.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I think we have one more that I know of, Walter MacKinnon. Would you like to come forward?
MR. WALTER MACKINNON: It is tough following that act, Madam Chairman. My name is Walter MacKinnon. I am a private citizen.
Madam Chairman, the first information I had relating to the complaints by Quebecers was back in 1947 or 1948. As a member of Local 1064, United Steelworkers of America, we would invite labour leaders from all parts of Canada to speak to us here in Cape Breton.
I remember distinctly one of the major complaints that was made by the representatives of unions in Quebec was that Quebecers could not become foremen, superintendents or managers in the plants and factories in Quebec because they spoke French or because they spoke English with a French accent. The factories were mostly owned by English people.
Now, this was Quebecers in their own province treated like second- or third-class citizens. From that experience, Mr. Chairman, it led me to be cautious about dismissing, out-of-hand, complaints from the people in Quebec.
I was also cognizant of the fact, Madam Chairman, because of my age and because I was unfortunate enough to be 18 or 19 years old in 1941 - and someone has mentioned here some of the things that are taking place in Europe - I, unfortunately, was in Europe in 1946. It made me determined to get back to Cape Breton as fast as I could and never to leave again.
There have been periods during that time of extreme shame in Canada. I will mention three of them. Our treatment of the Japanese Canadians at the beginning of the war and during the war and the majority of Canadians supported that treatment. Then, the most shameful period of all, our treatment of Jewish refugees who attempted to come to Canada prior to the war and during the war. One of the largest land masses in the world and we refused to take a few thousand Jewish refugees into this country, supported by the majority of Canadians. Then, later on, Madam Chairman, the passage of the War Measures Act in the
Province of Quebec. If memory serves me correctly, something like 80 per cent of Canadians supported the War Measures Act. We know what the consequences were.
So, Madam Chairman, I guess I am one who is very careful not to adopt the majority view just because it is the majority view. I think that we have to be very tolerant.
One of the previous speakers had mentioned, negotiate, negotiate, negotiate. I agree with him. We have to continue to talk to Quebecers. We have to listen to them. We have to recognize that they are different. They feel different and they are different in every way. They are just different.
As one of the speakers said - and I don't think there is any question - that we can live with them but we have to adjust to their requests.
I just conclude with this observation. Someone had mentioned that their children no longer speak the French language. My parents' mother tongue was Gaelic; my mother couldn't speak English when she first went to school. When I got to be a little older, I asked her one day, why didn't you teach me Gaelic when I was a baby? Why didn't you talk to me when I was young and now I would know how to speak Gaelic? She said, because I was told that Gaelic was a crude language, it is not a language that you would want to pass on to your children. So, I understand how the French feel. I understand how the Mi'kmaq feel. I could have had Gaelic. The only time she spoke Gaelic to me was when she was cross at me. (Laughter)
So, Madam Chairman, I want to thank the committee for giving me this opportunity to speak to you. I say once again that, as Canadians, I don't think we realize - here we are sitting in this room - that there is something unique about Canadians. We don't hurt each other, we are not going to kill each other, we are not going to shoot each other. If you travel around the world, and I have gone back to Europe, there is a Canadian - I don't know what you would call it, but when you tell people you are a Canadian, they know exactly who you are. You are a peaceful nation. I would repeat what the former speaker said: negotiate, negotiate, negotiate. Thank you very much. (Applause)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. MacKinnon. I don't know if anyone on the committee may have a question or comment?
MR. PAUL MACEWAN: I would like to say a few things, Madam Chairman. I think that the mandate of this committee is one of listening rather than one of arguing with or confronting the witnesses. The witnesses who come here are all volunteers who come forward and want to be heard, they are not people who have been summoned or invited to come; they have come forward on their own. Therefore, while there is a range of opinions expressed, I certainly haven't attempted to disagree or to agree with anyone who has spoken tonight, but
I think that the spectrum of opinion that was presented was very impressive and certainly reflected the community of this area.
I think I am the only representative from this area who is here; I am certainly very pleased to see the excellent turnout here this evening and I want to commend all those who participated, both by speaking and also by staying the whole evening and listening. I see some people down at the back, Dave Irvin and I think I see Rick Brophy down there and a few others who haven't come forward to speak. I even see Peter Mancini, our local Member of Parliament. I thought he might come forward, but he hasn't, but he stayed the whole evening and I respect that. It is a contribution just to sit and to have participated in that way. So, I just wanted to put that on the record. (Interruption) You want to come up? No?
MR. PETER MANCINI: No, I came for this, as well, because I think at the federal level, certainly, the comments of the citizenry are important.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Are there any other comments from the committee?
MR. HOLM: I would just point out that there is another MLA, as well, in the audience.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I would like to recognize Helen MacDonald, the MLA for Cape Breton The Lakes. (Applause)
I am very proud to be an elected representative, which by definition makes me a politician - and I am proud of that - but I do want to protect the gentleman beside me. He is not a politician. This is Paul Gaudet and he is with Acadian Affairs and he has agreed to accompany the committee, to assist us in any way possible from an Acadian point of view. He has attempted to teach me a few words of French tonight and I made my little effort and I do thank him for being here. I would let you know to protect him and tell you that he is not a politician.
With that, ladies and gentleman, I agree with Mr. MacEwan. I do thank you all for coming tonight, some of you with short notice, and preparing something and speaking, I think each and every one of you, from your hearts; it was very obvious. Our job and our mandate is to listen and to reflect back what we hear. So, for all of you to be here tonight in the weather and to miss the Screaming Eagles' game tonight.
I urge you all to get the message out to young people as well. They are the future of Canada and I see a few people who I would consider young, from my viewpoint, here this evening and I thank them for attending as well. So, thank you all very much for your attention.
MR. MACEWAN: Tell them too, Eleanor, that there will be a printed transcript available of everything that was said and if they want a copy, they can get it from the Committees Office.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: If any of you would wish a copy of tonight's proceedings, they can be made available through the Committees Office as well.
[The committee adjourned at 9:50 p.m.]
