SELECT COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL UNITY
Mrs. Eleanor Norrie
Allow me first now to introduce members of the select committee. We have, first of all, Mr. Ronald Russell, MLA for Hants West; Mr. Ernest Fage, MLA for Cumberland North; Mr. John Holm, MLA for Sackville-Cobequid; and Mrs. Lila O'Connor, MLA for Lunenburg. I am Eleanor Norrie and I am the MLA for Truro-Bible Hill and chairman of the select committee.
The purpose of this public meeting is to listen to Nova Scotians' opinions on the Calgary Declaration and the discussion paper presented by five national aboriginal organizations. There are copies of both of those pieces of information at the table at the back of the room and also located on that table are devices for simultaneous translation if anybody would like to have access to that facility.
So now that we have come to order, we will commence the evening's proceedings with the singing of our national anthem. We have with us tonight Allison Carruthers and Melissa MacKenzie. They are members of the St. Joseph's Youth Choir and they are going to sing the national anthem for us.
[The national anthem was sung by Allison Carruthers and Melissa MacKenzie.]
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I would like to thank Allison and Melissa for joining us this evening and sharing their talents with us and being involved in part of the proceedings. Thank you very much, girls. (Applause)
We are going to move right into the presentations. First of all, the students from Strait Area Education and Recreation Centre. We have a class representative, Kevin MacDonald, and others with him, here for his support, to give a presentation. When you come forward, I would ask you to give us your names, when you are speaking.
MR. KEVIN MACDONALD: My name is Kevin MacDonald and I teach the global history course at SAERC, here in Port Hawkesbury. I would thank the committee for allowing time to hear the students' presentations. After seeing the advertisement in the paper, I presented this project to my class, not as an assignment or not as any project in which they were going to get class value, but as something that I felt was important for young Canadians. The students were very eager to tackle this issue of Canadian unity and we spent several classes in animated discussion on the Calgary Declaration.
Unfortunately, our school no longer offers a course in Canadian history at the Grade 12 level. As a result, the students' knowledge of Canadian constitutional history is minimal. We did the best we could to fill in the gaps in the time that was available and I must say the class debate was lively and spirited. These students care very much about their country and the country that will be theirs in the future. I hope that the committee will see fit to recommend that a course in Canadian history be made compulsory at a high school level in the Province of Nova Scotia.
At this time I would like to introduce the students who will be doing this presentation. The work on this report is entirely theirs. The chairman will be Andrew MacPherson and he will be flanked by Robert Bruce and Jennifer MacDonald but this is an entire class project. There are 25 students in the class. So these are the ones who are representing the other 22. Thank you very much.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. MacDonald. I would ask the students now to come forward and I do ask your forgiveness in my introduction as the class representative. I am pleased, now, to have the young people, young Canadians, with us here tonight. I apologize for being so far away from everybody but this is the way the room was set up. I would ask you now to state your names and bring forward your presentation.
[The students introduced themselves.]
MR. ANDREW MACPHERSON: The Calgary Declaration is yet another attempt to include Quebec in the Canadian Constitution and once again, it has proved unsuccessful. The declaration was discussed at length in our global history class and it was found to be generally
acceptable with a few minor changes. The declaration seems to present a vision that we are relatively comfortable with and appears fair to all parties involved.
In this presentation we will review the points of the Calgary Declaration and suggest possible alternatives.
MS. JENNIFER MACDONALD: We feel the first point dealing with Canadian equality should be defined more clearly. Do they mean political and legal rights or economic and human rights? We generally agree with this point but it should be clarified.
MR. ROBERT BRUCE: As for the second point dealing with the diversity of all the provinces and their equality of status, we feel the provinces are equal in rights and have equal status and they are treated as equals by the federal government.
MR. MACPHERSON: For the third point about diversity, tolerance and compassion for people in different cultures, we do agree that Canada has great diversity and are politically without rival and are basically a tolerant society. However, the quality of opportunity is not equal for all and is something we would like to change. While most people are able to attend high school, secondary education is so expensive that not all students who wish to pursue this form of education can afford to do so. We find this is discriminatory somewhat and does not lead to equality of opportunity. Job opportunities also are not equal for all Canadians. Most jobs now require post-secondary education and cuts to education further reduce these opportunities.
MS. JENNIFER MACDONALD: We agree with the fourth point except for the word gift. Diversity is not a government gift. We feel it is our heritage and our right.
MR. BRUCE: As for the fifth point, dealing with the uniqueness of Quebec society, we feel this is saying that Quebec is the only unique province while the other nine are just ordinary, uniform. We agree that Quebec contains a large group of unique people since there is no other province with a French-speaking majority. However, the rest of the provinces are just as unique. This point should be reviewed since it seems to exclude the rest of Canada.
MR. MACPHERSON: As for the sixth point, we feel that it is fair and just to all provinces, that any powers granted to one should be granted to all. That is about it.
MS. JENNIFER MACDONALD: We agree with the seventh and last point but would like to see better and more efficient social programs.
MR. BRUCE: In general, we feel comfortable with the Calgary Declaration but as it is there is some room for improvement. The wording of some points of the declaration can be clarified and others expanded upon. Hopefully, upon consideration of the points presented
here by our group and other groups, we can decide on a declaration which everyone is comfortable with and in doing so, would achieve a unified Canada.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you all very much. If you like to stay there for just a few moments, there may be some comments and some questions from the members of the panel. Mr. Russell.
MR. RONALD RUSSELL: Madam Chairman, I think it was Andrew, you commented on the first item and I presume from your sheet here that you feel that the equality and equal rights should include all of the above but however because the clause itself is not specific, you would like that amplified.
MR. MACPHERSON: What we are saying is that we do believe that Canada does have equal human rights and legal and political rights for all people but other forms such as economic rights, we have some very poor people in Canada and we have some very rich people in Canada. We feel that economic rights may not be as equal as they should be.
MR. RUSSELL: So you are suggesting that Number 1 be extended to specify . . .
MR. MACPHERSON: Clarify, specify what type of equality it is referring to, really.
MR. RUSSELL: That sounds reasonable.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Are there any other questions or comments? Mr. Holm.
MR. JOHN HOLM: Ron really covered the question. I just want to comment briefly and maybe it is the former education hat that I used to wear when I was a teacher, the kind of thing that you were discussing in class, when I was on the other side of the desk as a teacher, I used to enjoy very much.
I want to commend you, as I am sure all other members do, on not only the fact that you are here but by, obviously, the great deal of thought that has gone into your presentation. I think that you are to be commended, that we who have sometimes created some of the problems that we are leaving behind can learn an awful lot from you people with your thoughtful interpretations and assessments. I just want to congratulate you on what I think is a job very well done.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Any other comments? Mr. Fage.
MR. ERNEST FAGE: Yes, I don't have any specific questions to ask but I would also like to echo what John has briefly touched upon there and that is the accomplished and professional manner in which you have delivered your presentation. It is really refreshing to
see young people clearly define their understanding or their feelings and views on this Calgary Declaration.
As we age, we tend to want to put too many acronyms to everything we do and it is very refreshing to see this clear definition of how you view this accord. I would like to thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mrs. O'Connor.
MRS. LILA O'CONNOR: I would like to thank you for the time you have put into this and for coming tonight. I am sure your vice-principal and your teacher both have to be very proud of you. This was, as he said earlier, a lot of heated discussion. I think it shows here tonight and I thank you very much.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: If I might, I would like to just ask one question. At your introduction, you have stated that, once again, it has proved unsuccessful. Now, this is our third meeting and we are in the middle of it. Now, can you explain what you mean, why you think it has proven unsuccessful to this date?
MR. MACPHERSON: Well, from what we understand, Quebec has not yet endorsed the Calgary Declaration, if I am correct here, and that is really all we are referring to, is that we have been trying and trying to help Quebec and give them what they want, and for some reason we just cannot seem to do it. I don't understand. It seems to be a very fair proposal that is here. I cannot understand why Quebec will not sign it and just agree with it.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: That is the general feeling of your classmates?
MR. MACPHERSON: Yes.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Are you all from the same class? I would like to invite you to try to send representation, maybe, to the House of Assembly when the House is debating the resolution. We will be writing a report that will be prepared from everything that we have heard. A draft resolution will be brought forward and it will be debated in the House of Assembly. If it is at all possible, I think it would be wonderful if you could attend and see where your comments are being reflected in the resolution, and maybe see that perhaps some of us in the House of Assembly are not quite as able as you three are in presenting our case.
I do congratulate you on your presentation and please pass on to the remainder of your class our thank you for putting the presentation together and for having three such able and professionally handled individuals to come and present their case for them. Thank you very much for being here.
Now, we have just had the MLA for Cape Breton Nova, Mr. Paul MacEwan, arrive.
MR. PAUL MACEWAN: Better late than never. (Laughter)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: You have missed a fantastic presentation so I hope you take the time - I know you will - to read the presentation that was put forward by the students from the Strait Area Education - Recreation Centre. As Mr. Holm has just stated, it is a tough act to follow so I am going to ask Mr. Frank Sutherland from the Richmond PC Association to do just that. Would you state your name?
MR. FRANK SUTHERLAND: My name is Frank Sutherland. I am making this presentation on behalf of the Richmond PC Association.
Madam Chairman Norrie, members of the Select Committee on National Unity, thank you for this consultation process concerning national unity which you have provided to the citizenry of the province.
Given that the strongest support for the statement of principles contained in the Calgary Declaration came from Atlantic Canada at 66 per cent - that is the Angus Reid poll, November, 1997, tied only with Alberta, confirms the importance that Atlantic Canadians place on achieving national unity and rightfully so.
[7:30 p.m.]
The economic, political and cultural consequence of Quebec separation for Atlantic Canada is frightening. It is regrettable, Madam Chairman, that there is no Acadian representation on this committee. Now, I know that is not an oversight because the Premier, in fact, dealt with it. It was raised and the Premier, in fact, said that the Acadian representatives in government had a very heavy workload. As a result of that they did not have representation but it was not an oversight.
Former Cabinet Minister, Guy LeBlanc, correctly reminded us that the difference in perspective an Acadian would bring to the committee would be invaluable and perhaps add additional integrity to the report. As well, the author of the editorial in the Chronicle-Herald, December 18, 1997 spoke to the issue.
There are few illusions in this neck of the woods about long-term survival of bilingualism if Quebec withdraws from the federation. So Nova Scotian Acadians who live under perpetual threat of assimilation have a high stake in the latest round of unity discussions.
Of particular interest to me is the recognition, tolerance and acceptance of the unique characteristics of our aboriginal people, French and English people, as well as our multicultural citizens drawn from all parts of the world which are addressed in the Calgary Declaration.
I am going to digress just momentarily in saying that I believe that Cape Breton is a tremendous example of many cultures living in harmony. French Acadians occupy Louisdale, Isle Madame, Cheticamp, while the Scots are in Port Hood, Creignish, Inverness County.
In Sydney, we have the Italian, Polish, Ukranian people who have been there for quite a number of years and as of late, we are finding we have an influx of a large number of German people buying property and living in the Cape Breton area. As such, I think we have a tremendous mosaic of all cultures in Cape Breton.
Now, up until this point, we have been able to live in harmony and I think that is because we live under one standard and one law for everyone. That seems to have worked very well.
While I recognize that the Declaration may not be included in our Canadian Constitution, nevertheless, it is an important step in promoting a national understanding and tolerance for the uniqueness which all cultural groups possess. Just as we recognize and accept that the Acadians and the First Nations people of this province have taken steps in cooperation with various levels of government to preserve their rich culture, language and history, so must we accord the same recognition and tolerance to the people of Quebec, as well as to the other groups within this province.
It is my view that the focus on our unique differences as a diversity of peoples which the Calgary Declaration addresses will assist us in concluding that therein lies our strength as a great nation, that we are the sum of many parts and that we can only exist as a whole when these many parts are respected, and permitted to grow and to flourish.
The strength of this cultural diversity is a measure of the strength of our nation. The Calgary Declaration preserves the principles of equality by stating that if any further constitutional amendments are conferred on one province, these powers must be available to all provinces.
This allows any group with unique characteristics to be proactive in the enhancement and preservation of their uniqueness. It is non-restrictive, it guarantees our entitlement to our uniqueness and a power to each group or province to act accordingly. If we manage to achieve the level of understanding, acceptance and tolerance throughout this great country, we will have achieved our goal of national unity.
It is my position that the Select Committee on National Unity support the statements contained in the Calgary Declaration.
Madam Chairman, members of the committee, I thank you for this opportunity to appear and present my views on national unity. Respectfully submitted, Frank Sutherland.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Sutherland. Are there any comments or questions from members of the committee? Mr. Holm?
MR. HOLM: Frank, if I could, just really, one question. One of the mandates of the committee is not only to hear views on what is in the accord, but whether or not people think there should be any other additions or changes to it. Is it your position that the accord should stand as it is, that there is no need for any refinement or any changes in the wording to reflect views within this community or within the province as a whole?
MR. SUTHERLAND: I think within the statements of principles in the Calgary Declaration, we are reasonably satisfied that they meet the perspectives of all people in our area. We didn't choose to modify any of the provisions of the Calgary Declaration.
MR. RUSSELL: Perhaps, Madam Chairman, I could just follow up on that. In other words you are saying, I take it, that the cultural diversity of which you speak is being met within the principles of the present Declaration?
MR. SUTHERLAND: I think it is, yes.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Are there any other questions or comments? I thank you very much for your presentation, it was very well done, and I appreciate you taking the time to be here and being part of the select committee's tour and making your views known. We appreciate it very much.
MR. SUTHERLAND: Thank you for the opportunity to do so.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Before we move on any further, other people have arrived. We are bringing in more chairs, which is very nice; it is always a nice sign. Ray White, the MLA for Guysborough-Port Hawkesbury just arrived. Thank you, Ray, for making the trek in tonight.
We would also now ask the third presenter, from the Richmond PC Women's Association, Eva Landry, to come forward. While we are passing out Ms. Landry's presentation, I would like to state here, if there is anyone else in the room tonight who feels they would like to come forward, it is a public meeting and the microphones are here for anyone who would like to come forward following Ms. Landry's presentation. You can give your name to Ms. Stevens, who is passing out the papers there, and we would be more than happy to hear from any of you. Thank you very much. Ms. Landry.
MS. EVA LANDRY: Madam Chairman and members of the Select Committee on National Unity, my name is Eva Landry and I am the President of the Richmond County Progressive Conservative Women's Association. On behalf of our association, I wish to
express gratitude for the opportunity to support the position on national unity endorsed in the Calgary Declaration.
There are very few non-abstract concepts in this world about which one could get universal agreement. One of the few that comes to mind is the rainbow. Everyone, worldwide, regardless of status or culture, appreciates the beauty, the colour and the symmetry of the rainbow. If one of the colours of the spectrum were removed, the rainbow would lose its perfection and something precious would be irretrievably lost from our world. This illustration exemplifies, in our opinion, the effect on Canada should we lose one of our provinces, and Quebec in particular.
Canada enjoys a reputation globally as a country of peace and tolerance, with a comfortable standard of living and a strong social conscience. We have earned this reputation because of the diversity of our history, our culture and our multi-faceted ethnicity. As is often the case, we fail to recognize from inside Canada what is obvious from abroad.
We submit that all of us, and particularly our government Leaders, must step back, review our past practices and determine how to more effectively manage our domestic relations and how we demonstrate our mutual respect for each other as provinces, territories and as different levels of government. Then in the strongest and most vocal terms possible, we must put forth the case for acceptance of the Calgary Declaration if we are to combat the forces of misunderstanding, intolerance and ignorance which fan the flames of disunity.
One need only travel a short distance into the Province of Quebec to recognize that Quebecers do possess a uniqueness which they are correct in wanting to preserve. This uniqueness is a natural result of their history, their culture, their religion and the physical characteristics of their settlement in this land. Nowhere else in Canada do the same factors exist to the same concentrated extent for any other cultural group, although all provinces have pockets of population with unique characteristics to a greater or lesser degree. The Calgary Declaration is an important first step towards recognizing and respecting these unique differences.
We, in Nova Scotia, with an Acadian population which, although substantial, is a minority group, understand very well the fears of assimilation which have led to Quebec's position on sovereignty. We believe that overzealous leaders, combined with a lack of empathy and understanding on the part of the federal government and many Canadians, has fanned a flame of extremism which will not lead to the goal they desire. Leaving aside all other factors, the economic consequence for Quebec and for all Canada will make this impossible.
The principle of equality of the Calgary Declaration, which states that future constitutional amendments conferred on any one province must be available to all provinces, is a guarantee for all Canadians that our unique identities will be preserved. It is an
opportunity to bring all Canadians together, to create that elusive Canadian identity which everyone believes exists, but no one can adequately identify or describe.
It is extremely sad that, after 300 years, anyone should feel alienated in his own country. Surely every Canadian must bear some responsibility for not extending the hand of friendship firmly enough, for allowing the bigotry of a few to override the tolerance of the many. Let the Calgary Declaration be seized upon by all provinces and territories as an opportunity to mend our relationships and to promote the understanding and tolerance that will keep the Canadian "rainbow" intact.
Our organization wholeheartedly supports the concluding statement of the Declaration in which our First Ministers commit to, ". . . work in partnership with the Government of Canada to best serve the needs of Canadians.". The more real and concrete evidence we have that this is happening and that no region is being favoured or discriminated against, the more meaningful will be the principles of the Calgary Declaration. Thank you very much.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Ms. Landry. Are there any comments or questions from members of the committee? I guess there are no questions. That was very well presented and I thank you for making the effort to do that. It was very well thought out. Thank you very much.
MS. LANDRY: Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: We have another presenter. If Mr. Yvon Samson would come forward as a private citizen.
M. YVON SAMSON: Merci, madame la présidente. May I first say that I am here as a private citizen and not for the CSAP or la Salle de la Picasse or anything like that, so I want to make clear to everyone. I am going to speak in French because it is my first language and I am more comfortable with that language.
The first point I would like to say is that the Calgary text to me is a good basis to start on and constitutes something that we can use in order to make Quebec come forward and to be at the table to discuss.
Cependant, le texte tel qu'il est aujourd'hui n'est pas un texte juridique. Donc, on ne sait pas les précisions qu'ils va avoir aux fur et à mesure des discussions bon avoir lieu entres les provinces et le gouvernement fédéral.
Dans les procèsus entérieurs ou est'ce qu'on a toucher la question du Québéc. Ont parle toujours comme c'est eux au Québéc et nous le reste du Canada. Vous pensez qu'on est tous des canadiennes et des canadiens et on a tous des divergences d'opinion et des differences régionales.
J'ai été impliquer dans la différence des droits des acadiens et des francophones à travers du pays. Je travail ici en Nouvelle-Écosse et j'ai également travailler à Ottawa. Un des points que les soverainists utilisaient pendant le débat référendaire ça été que le français n'existerait plus à l'extérieur du Québéc, donc c'est inutile de continuer à défendre les intérêts des francophones et des acadiens. Donc, nous, il faut se séparer, faut s'en aller, et c'était une des arguments qu'était difficile à contrecarrer parce que la simulation était tellement éléver à 34-40 pour cent et 42 pour cent pour ça ici en Nouvelle-Écosse. Donc, il faudra que les gouvernements provinciaux et le gouvernement de la Nouvelle-Écosse fassent plus pour aider à assurer une vitalité de la langue et de la culture acadiens en Nouvelle-Écosse.
En faisaient cela, ça va prouver au québécois qu'ils peuvent sortir de leur province. A l'heure actuelle, la plupart des québécoises et des québécois n'en parle que du français. Mais quand ils sortent, ils ont tellement peur, tellement crainte, parce qu'ils ne rancontre pas des francophones, n'y qu'ils peuvent avoir dans certaines localités des services en français. Donc, pour eux, c'est pour se sentir chez-eux au Canada, il n'y a pas une personne de l'extérieur. Donc, ça c'est un point que je voulais amener pour vos délibération que jamais si vous allez dans le procèsus de discussions comme tel.
I heard the young fellow say that, well, because the Quebec Government did not affirm or confirm, the discussion paper was a good starting point. You have to make a difference between the Government of Quebec and the people of Quebec. They are two different angles. You have to understand this. It is a separatist government and they want to separate. That is their main aim, their main goal. The people of Quebec are people who want, and there is a majority I feel anyway, to stay in this country. I believe if we work together, we will be able to do that. So, that is what I am offering you today and good luck in your deliberations.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Samson. Would you take some questions in English?
M. SAMSON: Sure.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: We would ask any members who would like to make comments or ask questions. Mr. Fage.
MR. FAGE: Could I interpret then your comments in the main that this is a good gesture, or a symbol, to the people of Quebec, the Calgary accord that negotiations and dialogue are open, and that there are other regions in Canada, other communities, or I should say, right down at the community level, that are willing to embrace French as a language and that they should not feel isolated? Is that the message I should be taking?
M. SAMSON: Yes, I think the people of Quebec will take it as a good gesture. When I say the Government of Quebec, you don't exclude them but you must take it not for granted but take it as being you are talking to the people of Quebec and not necessarily to the Government of Quebec. I feel it is a good first gesture toward that.
I was in Val d'Or and for those who were in the referendum campaign, you saw the dynamics there. The people wanted to stay within the country. You have to make a difference between rural Quebec and urban Quebec. There are two different areas so you have to make sure that your message arrives at rural Quebec rather than Montreal and those regions. That is where the most votes were during the referendum and that is where the message should be given to.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Are there any further comments? Mrs. O'Connor.
MRS. O'CONNOR: How do you suggest that we get that message through to Quebec?
M. SAMSON: Like I said, it is a first gesture but we can't just talk between ourselves in our own provinces. We have to go there, we have to go to the rural areas of Quebec and talk to people, dialogue and start thinking along the same lines as they are thinking. You must remember that Quebecers think they are a majority, too. They don't think of themselves as a minority, although in a North American aspect they are, but they have feelings. They are people like you and I. They are no different. They have jobs, they go to work and they do things. Once we start interrelating with the people of Quebec, I am sure we can work together on making this discussion a reality, which is something that is constitutionalized and we can go on to other things.
MRS. O'CONNOR: They are doing a number of school trips now from Nova Scotia and Quebec and I am a firm believer that if our youth get involved and want it, it can happen. I think that is one way but we need to get the message more to the older person, not just the school children.
M. SAMSON: We need to tell them, too, that all the Francophones and Acadians are not dead ducks. In other words, we are still living, we still have schools. We have certain things here and we may have to do exchanges, as you say, between schools but between adults, too. The senior citizens can go there and exchange and dialogue with the people of Quebec, as we can learn from them. They are a people who have a richness, too, and we must be open-minded when we go there.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Holm.
MR. HOLM: Thank you very much for your presentation. Just really picking up on one aspect, if I could, and certainly talking about the unique characteristics and cultures in Quebec, as you correctly pointed out, we have a large Francophone population here in Nova Scotia, 40,000. We have various pockets as being one area where, of course, we do have a large Francophone community. I am just wondering about your thoughts on the accord. Do you feel that there is a need to insert in the accord something that would recognize the unique characteristic, for example, here in Nova Scotia, the Francophone, the Acadian community here, placing any kinds of requirements or statements of principle in terms of what we should or should not be doing in this province and other provinces to try to protect . . .
M. SAMSON: Like I said, in the process, when we go to the judicial wording, the legal text, if you want, when we talk about languages, it is more a theory than it is in practice but when you talk about communities, then you know what you are looking after. So you have to look at it as a community-type approach rather than a theoretical language, sterile communication thing. In other words, I would rather talk about Acadian and Francophone communities than to talk about French and English languages. You also have an English community in Quebec which is a minority which probably wants to be called a community also. So, yes, they should be more precise on that question.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Russell.
MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Samson, when you are addressing rural Quebec, I understand from what you were saying that the message has to be massaged to some extent differently to the way the message is presented to . . .
M. SAMSON: Yes, effectively, because the regions in Quebec are like the regions in Nova Scotia. They are living the same economic difficulties as the rural communities, all rural communities, have. They see Montreal, although Montreal is not necessarily the richest city in Canada, but it has certain advantages as being a city. Rural regions have certain advantages of being rural. For example, you could have something in Grande Riviere in Gaspé, Quebec, between them and this community in Petit de Gras, you could have an exchange between both communities. That could be goodwill gestures or even better than that, it could be an economic stimulus, if you want, because it could help tourism. So things like that can be done but you need resources and you help between communities in order to make it happen.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Are there any other comments or questions from the committee?
I thank you very much for coming forward with your thoughts. It is an interesting perspective. It gives us an opportunity for some thoughtful ideas that we can take back with us as we deliberate on the declaration. So thank you very much.
Is there anybody else here this evening who would like to make a comment, a brief one, even?
MRS. O'CONNOR: Don't be shy.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I see a gentleman there, sure. When you come forward, you can just state your name.
MR. DAVID MILLER: Good evening. My name is David Miller. I am a Cape Bretoner who has moved to the mainland and now lives in Antigonish. I am a strong federalist and support the confederation that we are very lucky to find ourselves in. In trying to comment on this declaration, I have been reading it over and think that it is not positive enough and it doesn't specifically mention that the goal of this exercise is to support national unity. So it seems to me that some words should be woven into it that would emphasize that, that would be satisfactory to those who support the whole concept of maintaining the national unity.
I think also it is lacking in that it is not positive enough about Canada. There should be some words that somehow say that we are very proud of the great country that we have and I think it is also lacking something that is positive but it is the component of change and evolution. It seems to me that one of the things that we have, I feel we live in the best country in the world but I think we have to recognize it has come a long way in the past 100-something years and as time evolves, this process should continue and make it a better place for those of us who live here following some of the, possibly even along the lines that the young people suggested in their first presentation about opportunity and not excluding anybody.
So I have suggested a few words, which I have just drafted, to try to briefly modify what has been presented to try to incorporate these thoughts that I have just presented. What I would do is make changes in the seventh paragraph. The changes would start at the start of the last sentence. Just before I give them, I am impressed that the second and third sentences of the seventh paragraph say that Canadians want things to be done. I think that is an important thought but they have dropped that from the last sentence and I think it would be useful to start this last sentence by saying Canadians want provinces and territories - I had inserted to there - to renew their commitment to work in partnership with the Government of Canada to best serve the needs of Canadians. Then I would add a sentence. It would just continue that sentence, which would say, toward maintaining national unity and this great country as one country which would continue to evolve and improve the quality of life for its citizens into the 21st Century. So I have introduced the concept of evolution, the concept of things getting better but also the statement that we are very proud of what we do have and that we call upon the various governments that represent us to try to maintain and improve what we do have. I think it is certainly implicit in the declaration but it doesn't seem to jump
out at me. So I was trying sort of be a drafter and I am not a lawyer or anything like that but some words that would express these additional comments. Thank you.
[8:00 p.m.]
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Mr. Miller made a comment to me at the beginning of the meeting that he hadn't had a chance to read it in any depth to make a presentation but I think you have done a very good job of doing it quickly and making a presentation to us.
MR. MILLER: I will type these out and send them in on the Internet because on the Internet they have asked for people to send it in. I sort of planned to do that after the meeting. So I will send them in as being a formal presentation.
MR. HOLM: We will have a transcript of the meeting at any rate.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Any comments or questions?
MR. MACEWAN: I think I will get in on this one. You notice that nowhere in the text does the Calgary Declaration refer to Canada as a country. Did you pick that up?
MR. MILLER: Well, that general concept.
MR. MACEWAN: That may be deliberate because I don't know if exactly in the French language that the Declaration of Canada as a country would be unifying or would be divisive. The statement defines Canada as a federal system and there are many who view Canada as a federation or a confederation. That is a situation that is not found in too many places in the world, although there are many federal states. Germany, for example, is a federal state but it is not a federation or a confederation. Switzerland is. We think of Switzerland as one country. It is the Swiss confederation. It is a federation of cantons or jurisdictions which consider themselves to be autonomous except that they are federated for certain common purposes. The Russian federation is a federation and includes all kinds of different component parts. Have you factored that into your call for these amendments, the fact that many view Canada as a confederation or a federation rather than as a pays, a country?
MR. MILLER: I have thought that obviously a lot of great legal minds have gotten into these words and they have tried to structure them in such a way that they would be attractive to people in Quebec. I am trying to emphasize the concept, without the legal jurisdiction between cantons and federations and confederations and republics, that we are a people much as in the Cape Breton song about we are an island. I feel a sense of identity if I run into someone from Quebec or from Alberta or from British Columbia and I happen to be in Britain or I happen to be in Japan. I would still feel a sense of community with those other Canadians. That concept doesn't come out and the lawyers will argue the technicalities
of what it should be but I think that there is a sense of, I call this national unity, but it is a pride of being Canadian and it is a common approach to being a Canadian that stretches from sea to sea that we have in common with each other that people from other countries don't have in common.
In the sense of there was someone on, I don't know who it was, on CBC the other day, that Canadians would say something, if Canadians are having a disagreement - and you people obviously have disagreements from time to time in your business - we are known to stand up and say, excuse me, with respect, I would like to differ with you. Americans might stand up and say you are a stupid so-and-so or you are full of you know what. But Canadians have a great respect for each other and when we go to other countries, and I have travelled a lot in my years, I found that the kind of approach I have had towards working with people from less developed countries was an approach that was very similar with other Canadians who were there who come from completely different backgrounds than I do in Canada but we had this common Canadian thing. We like helping other people - as evidenced by our peacekeeping - and we are a very rich country and that permits us to do a lot of these things. I think we have to recognize how rich we are and how lucky we are to have all the things that let us have these wonderful aspects of life including discussing this kind of thing. So that is a long answer.
MR. MACEWAN: To a long question. It wasn't very focused either.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: That is very well put. Are there any other comments or questions? Mr. Holm. Don't say with all due respect. He is the most guilty of saying that.
MR. HOLM: Who me? No, not I. We never have disagreements. I didn't catch all of the wording of your proposed addition at the end but it was something to the effect, working toward the improvement of . . .
MR. MILLER: Toward maintaining national unity and this great country as one country which will continue to evolve and improve the quality of life for its citizens into the 21st Century.
MR. MACEWAN: Can you give a French translation for those words.
MR. MILLER: To say it now?
MR. MACEWAN: Would you use pays or nation?
MR. MILLER: I would use mon pays. C'est pas mon nation.
MR. HOLM: Okay, and you were talking about improving the conditions and so on of the life for all Canadians towards the end, or something to that effect. So there, are you talking about social conditions, economic conditions?
MR. MILLER: We have different people who have different needs and so I have just tried to talk about the generality of it and that as things get better, everybody hopefully will be better off.
MR. HOLM: The social conscience.
MR. MILLER: There is a big social argument we could open here and I don't necessarily want to get into that.
MR. HOLM: That is something that is quite uniquely Canadian as you were talking about in your journeys around the world and how Canadians like to help and so on. I guess I am trying to put it in the context of the comments you were making earlier about how we like to become involved in assisting people in Third World nations and our approach, as Canadians, to people, regardless of where we come from within this country. I am just wondering if that is what you are, therefore, also talking about within this country, the social context.
MR. MILLER: Within this country I was talking about commonalities of Canadians, how they have a common approach. Within the country, I don't have a good explanation of all the social things that have to be done. I am very proud that most people have - I think all people have - access to medical care if they need it. We all have access to basic education. I would like it to be better, that there is better access, as the kids said in the introduction, better access to post-secondary education but there is a whole list of things that we could debate and I wouldn't propose to start that debate right now because that would open a very interesting and challenging subject that would be the subject of a whole other public hearing, I would think.
MR. HOLM: It might be fun, though.
MR. MILLER: Indeed.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Russell.
MR. RUSSELL: Perhaps we should be stressing the commonality of Canadian traits and I think that is possibly what you are saying. In other words, we are a very civilized people compared to perhaps other races, other nationalities. Those traits cross provincial lines and are common to all which is something, I think, that tends to bind us together.
MR. MILLER: I think, further, if we were to separate, it would be very negative toward these positive common traits. These positive common traits, I think, have grown because we are what we are which is a country that is 5,000 kilometres or 7,000 kilometres or 8,000 kilometres wide and has people spread out and we have more people who talk on the telephone than anywhere else in the world. We have a lot of common characteristics and I think together they have been one of the factors that have helped to make us emerge as what we are which I think is very good and I want to maintain that and have it evolve, though - I don't want to maintain it in a static environment - in a continually evolving environment.
We had a discussion with some of my colleagues from Antigonish on the way down in the car about maybe all the Maritime Provinces should join together and we would be, in the economic debates that take place, in a stronger position to work with the rest of the country. Maybe we should join with Quebec. There are all kinds of things but there is an evolutionary process that has to take place and if we don't recognize that evolutionary process has to be taking place, has to be taking place in an environment of moving forward as opposed to a lot of the negative discussions that we have had, we will not be moving ahead as fast as we might otherwise. We have to get this stuff behind us and move forward for the betterment of everybody.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fage.
MR. FAGE: Just for clarity, when you were answering Mr. MacEwan, you were saying a common pride of being a Canadian. That common pride to me is probably one of the key statements you have made tonight that rings true to me. As you said, anywhere on this continent, or any continent, this world, when Canadians travel, it is so true, when you meet another Canadian, regardless of that diversity or that region they are from, that pride shows through. That common pride, you know, if it is all right if I paraphrase and use that as one of your comments of . . .
MR. MILLER: Certainly, common pride of being a Canadian, yes.
MR. FAGE: Yes, thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Any other questions or comments? You see, you have spurred on some thought here at the table. Thank you very much. Come forward, thank you.
MR. GARY RANDALL: Madam Chairman and committee members, my name is Gary Randall. I actually live in Port Williams in the Annapolis Valley and I am fortunate enough to be here in Cape Breton sharing some of the work going on at Stora. I consider myself very lucky.
I must confess, I had not read the accord until this evening and being from the Valley, I look at it and I say it is much like picking apples. You go through the orchard and you pick all fall. The perfect apple is there but all apples are good. I think everything that is in the accord is good. Maybe there is something that would be much or a bit better but it is much like motherhood and apple pie, it is good, what is in there. There is nothing really negative that a person could comment on.
Whether it will actually fix the issue of Quebec - and I think what the issue is, is, how to keep Quebec within Canada because most people feel it is a bonus to have Quebec there.
I look at it very simplistic and I hope I don't make any enemies before I leave the room tonight but, as with any neighbour, the best way to keep in good with your neighbours is to stay out of their business. It seems that any time an issue comes up in Quebec, everybody else and every other province in the country has to make a comment on to it, whether it be their language laws that they decide to adopt, or whether it be our natural gas that may go through Quebec or may have gone through Quebec. Everybody has to comment on to it. I think some issues within Quebec are better to be contained within Quebec.
I think, also, if we spend more of our time trying to make our country one in which all of the citizens can share equitably, why would anybody even consider leaving? If it is a good thing, you want to be part of it, you don't want to leave it.
In my own community recently, the regional health board, they went around and asked, much as you are, about issues people felt were very important on health care in that community. The number one issue that came out, it was a bit surprising to some but not to myself, was that jobs were the number one concern of the people when they talked about health. It reflects a great amount on your health.
Jobs were the number one issue in the federal and last provincial elections, or by-elections, I should say. Jobs for all would go a long way to keeping every Canadian proud to be part of what we should all be enjoying.
My recommendation is not to interfere in Quebec's business. If you have to push them to remain in Canada, it will ultimately fail, in my opinion. As legislators, I think your job should be to spend more of your time working for Nova Scotia, to make Nova Scotia work within Canada, an example for the rest of the provinces and the rest of the people of those provinces, to stay within the framework of Canada.
I think, if we put our minds to it and maybe spend less time on the divisive issues and more time on issues that can bring us together, and once again, make the Province of Nova Scotia better for the people here, we will have the money to spend as some of the students suggested, to maybe travel and correspond with other people of our country. Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Any comments or questions from members? Mr. Holm?
MR. HOLM: I guess, then, could I summarize by saying, really, what you are saying is, stop worrying or talking about the divisive issue, maybe, of unity and start building the economies. When we have done that, that all the other things will really take care of themselves, is that . . .
MR. RANDALL: I think it will all fall in place. I mean, it is divisive amongst our own communities. I mean, here we are struggling. Will this area get something, will that area get something, right? If we work to build what we have in our community here, it will transfer on to the community across the causeway, it will transfer onto the community across the provincial borders and so on. We have got to start working in our own areas to make what we have work.
It is a great country. The more we make it work, the more people are going to be part of it, rather than talk about a country of their own or leaving. If it is good, you want to be part of it, it is as simple as that.
MR. HOLM: One other question, if I may, Madam Chairman. Some have said that this is a gesture, the Calgary Declaration is a gesture to the people of Quebec, indicating, of course, the principles for which we all stand, to indicate to them that we certainly, as the other parts of the country, wish them to remain part of Canada.
Do you think that the accord should proceed as a gesture, as some way to express, I guess, the desire for the things that are in that accord and for them to remain, or should we just set it aside?
MR. RANDALL: Like I said at the first, it is like apple pie, it is a good gesture. There is no doubt about it and there is no reason that it should not go forward, but we have to somehow wisen up and get on with living. These gestures have gone on for quite some time now. Let's get on with what is really important here, people's lives. I think if we do that, everybody will want to be a part of this country.
MR. HOLM: Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Any other comments or questions? I guess, like my husband says, money does not make you happy but it keeps you from being unhappy. (Laughter) Thank you very much, Mr. Randall. We appreciate you coming forward. Is there anybody else with us this evening who would like to make a comment, even a brief comment?
If not, I would like to thank so many of you for coming out this evening. It has been a great turnout and I am sure you have all heard the same thing we have heard and have a lot of food for thought. If any of you would like to make a presentation, oral or written, in by what they call snail mail, e-mail or by the toll-free line, please feel free to do so.
I would also like to thank the large turnout from the media tonight. We appreciate you being here and I am sure that we will all read and hear, and listen with interest, your comments of this evening. Thank you for being here as well.
With that, I would thank the committee members for this evening and, as well, all the staff and our translators. If any want to stay around and have a chat, we would be more than willing to have a chance to socialize with you a bit. Thank you all very much for coming.
[The committee adjourned at 8:18 p.m.]
