SELECT COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL UNITY
Mrs. Eleanor Norrie
On behalf of the members of the select committee, I would like to thank you for coming to this, the fourth in a series of public meetings that are taking place across the province on the issue of national unity.
Allow me to introduce the members of the committee sitting with me here this evening. We have Mr. Ronald Russell, MLA for Hants West; Mr. Ernest Fage, MLA for Cumberland North; Mr. John Holm, MLA for Sackville-Cobequid; Mrs. Lila O'Connor, MLA for Lunenburg; and Mr. Robert Carruthers, MLA for Hants East. Bob is the Vice-Chairman of the committee. I am Eleanor Norrie, MLA for Truro-Bible Hill and Chairman of this select committee.
The purpose of this public meeting is to listen to Nova Scotians' opinions on the Calgary Declaration and the discussion paper that was presented by five national Aboriginal organizations across the country. Now there are copies available at the table if you have not received them on your way in. Also there are devices for simultaneous translation if it is required during the evening, if any of you would wish to use the device.
We will commence the evening with the singing of O Canada. I would ask Brenna Conrad to come forward and sing O Canada for us and we will join her. Please stand.
[The national anthem was sung by Brenna Conrad.]
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Brenna. Brenna is a member of the First Baptist Girls' Choir under the direction of Mr. Jeff Joudrey and I thank her for her lovely addition to tonight's proceedings. Thank you for being here, Brenna. (Applause)
We will move right on to the presentations. We have a number this evening so without any further ado, we will move on to Mr. Bryden Ryan. Is he in attendance this evening? I know we had a call from Bryden this morning. He is from out in the Great Village area so he maybe had difficulty being here. I know we have Mr. Bill Whiffen with us, a private citizen. Would Mr. Whiffen please come forward? I would ask you to state your name at the beginning, please.
MR. BILL WHIFFEN: My name is Bill Whiffen. I live in Truro. It is nice to get off to a patriotic start with the singing of our national anthem. I can see that Nova Scotians are having trouble with my Newfoundland name. It was misspelled on the sheet. I also have trouble sometimes . . .
MADAM CHAIRMAN: How do you spell it?
MR. WHIFFEN: Oh, I am sorry. I thought the lady had straightened it out. It is spelled W-h-i-f-f-e-n.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I have it spelled correctly.
MR. WHIFFEN: Okay, thank you. You are the important one, I am told. I never argue with a lady, well not very often anyway.
If I could begin, I am not quite sure, these days, to be politically correct, to say Madam Chairlady or Chairwoman. I will just call you Mrs. Norrie, I guess, and then go on from there.
We understand the purpose of this committee is to solicit the views of ordinary Canadians on the unity issue and the Calgary Declaration in particular. My wife and I share similar views and concerns so here you are going to have the opinion of two Canadians who care very much for our country. My wife has allowed me to speak for both of us this evening.
Mrs. Norrie, we feel very strongly that this separation madness has to stop. Quebec politicians do not have the right to hold this entire country to ransom whenever they choose to have a provincial referendum. The unity issue is not just a Quebec issue. It is a Canadian issue. Appeasing Quebec over the past 30 years has zapped our energies and our resources and also has had serious economic and social consequences. It is time - past time, really - for
the federal government, on behalf of all Canadians, to take the initiative instead of just reacting to the demands of Quebec.
The Calgary Declaration is a nice document and we believe most Canadians would agree with it. It is a motherhood statement but the question you are putting to us Canadians is, would it solve the present unity crisis? Not surprisingly, Quebec has dismissed it. Thus, its value is already diminished.
We have to recognize, too, that this declaration is a statement by Premiers who are elected to govern provinces. That is their primary responsibility. Federal politicians, on the other hand, are elected to govern and protect Canada from forces both internal and external that are disruptive and threatening. In this case, we have an internal crisis that is destroying the country and could and should have been fixed by federal governments decades ago if politicians had accepted their responsibility and acted with diplomacy and determination. Each of the two major political Parties is guilty of aggravating the situation and shirking the responsibility by inactivity and acquiescence. The problem deepens as we linger.
Let me make it very clear. We want Quebec to remain in Canada. They add a history, a flavour and a continuity that no other country possesses and we have been singled out, repeatedly, as a desirable country to live in. But we think it is decision time. The federal government should immediately take one of two courses of action and it is our understanding that each one seems quite acceptable under our present Constitution. One option is to say to Canadians, including Quebecers, no more referendums. Holding this country for ransom with threats of continuing referendums until the majority yes vote can be coerced from the Quebec people is not acceptable any longer. We must put this behind us and begin to solve our serious economic and social problems by working cooperatively and not as antagonists.
We have to ask the question, who in Quebec wants to separate. Ordinary Quebecers are not marching the streets shouting for separation. They have more serious daily concerns, as the rest of us do. In 1996, a poll revealed that more than 83 per cent of Quebecers would choose Canada as their preferred country to live in. There is a small political elite in Quebec perpetuating the myth that Quebecers can only preserve their culture as a sovereign unit. This is a sham, a sham that the federal government has only recently begun to dispute.
A second option is for the federal government to take the referendum question to Quebecers so there is no misunderstanding of either the proposal or the consequences. It is ridiculous that Quebec politicians have had full control of past referendums. It is now time for the Government of Canada to take the reins. We have a damn fine country that is worth preserving. We think if this is done with firmness and determination, the result will be positive for Canada and would be recognized internationally.
Also, it is equally ridiculous to conceive that a rejection vote of 50 per cent plus 1 can tear this country apart. We must insist that a 66.66 per cent, at least, yes vote would be necessary to destroy this country. We also have to look at the unlikely event that this percentage may be attained. Then other conditions would apply and these should be spelled out prior to the referendum and relate to items such as areas of Quebec that want to remain in Canada, linguistic and ethnic groups that want to remain Canadian, the payment of our debt on a per capita basis, a land bridge connecting Eastern and Central Canada. Such items are fixed and non-negotiable. That is the second option.
We believe that most Canadians want our political Leaders to stand and fight for Canada, to challenge head on the political Leaders in Quebec. As ordinary citizens, we often have a feeling of helplessness when we try to influence our politicians to act decisively and bravely concerning the unity question. In the past, our voices, we feel, went unheard.
We hope this committee has some success in spurring our federal government into action. After all, we have a great country at stake here and we wish you luck. (Applause)
That, Mrs. Norrie, is the formal part of my presentation. I wonder if I could just take a minute or two to add a few other points. My wife and I have been very fortunate in being able to travel outside the country to three or four other countries apart from the United States. I think I can say that each time when we said we were from Canada and we were Canadians, we really felt proud about the way that they reacted when we told them that.
The other point is we moved to Nova Scotia about 18 months ago and we are still enjoying the province and we feel that we could move pretty well anywhere in Canada and feel as welcome as we have here, excepting one province. We really don't feel - and it is a shame - that we would be accepted as well as we were in Nova Scotia or any other province, in Quebec. From some of the reading that we have been able to do, it seems that if I were an Anglophone in Quebec or if I were an Aboriginal person or an allophone, I think I would probably feel somewhat abandoned by the rest of Canada. I think that is a real shame and I think it should be fixed quickly.
The other point that we were asked to comment on, the document related to Aboriginal self-government, I am afraid I wasn't able to round up a copy of that. I went to the library and there wasn't one there but I understood from reading a recent ad in the paper that they were available from your office but I just wasn't able to get to it. Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Whiffen, would you entertain some questions and comments if any members of the committee have questions to ask?
MR. WHIFFEN: Sure.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Russell.
MR. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Whiffen when you speak of 66.66 per cent, are you speaking of 66.66 per cent of those voting or of the eligible voters?
MR. WHIFFEN: Well, if the federal government has control of the voting, I would say of those who voted. If it were like the last referendum, from what I can read, there were a lot of misgivings about the way that that particular vote was handled, about the way some of the votes, particularly in some of the areas around Montreal, some of them were discarded for I guess what might be considered shady reasons but I shouldn't say any more than that. I would say 66.66 per cent of the people who vote.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Are there any other questions? Mr. Holm.
MR. JOHN HOLM: I, too, certainly would like to congratulate you on your excellent and well thought through presentation. Two questions, if I could. One, in it you said we must put this behind us, referring to the referendum issue, and begin to solve our serious economic and social problems by working cooperatively instead of as antagonists. I guess my question is, if we were able to do that, and if we were able to address the economic and social issues in this country, do you think that the unity and that whole debate that has been going on around it would, in fact, fade away?
MR. WHIFFIN: I really have very serious doubts about that. I think the political Leaders in Quebec, from what I can read, and we follow the news fairly well, as much as we can, I think that they have reached a point now where they cannot back down. They are sovereignists, they are separatists, they have said, look, we have to go all the way. We are going to keep having referendums until we get a yes vote.
[7:30 p.m.]
I don't think there is anything that can be offered by Canada that is going to satisfy them. I honestly don't think that. I think that is why we are suggesting that options like what I have just mentioned to you, those two options are the only way to solve the problem and I think it is the duty of the federal government to do it. If we have to wait, because right now if you listen to the news almost every week, if there is something that Lucien Bouchard says, a hint that there could be a provincial election in the spring, well then is there going to be a referendum right afterwards, and then we sort of get skittery.
It does make a difference and from what we can see, even his comments make a difference to the stock markets. This is something that is affecting all Canadians. I think, too, that so much effort and so much energy has been put into the unity question that we have all been affected. In eastern Canada, the four Atlantic Provinces, I think, are worse off because so much federal energy is put into the Quebec issue. Making the progress or making the headway that you are saying is not going to satisfy them, so I guess my answer, essentially, would be no.
MR. HOLM: It is something that I would love to follow up on more, but there really isn't time in the forum here. The other question, if I could just put briefly, you said you would feel comfortable living in all provinces of Canada, you think your family would feel welcome, except in the Province of Quebec. Is that because of the inability to speak the language? Or maybe to put it another way, people from Quebec, somebody who is basically mainly French-speaking, do you think they would feel any more welcome in Nova Scotia, and that may not be that the people aren't welcoming but that they would not feel comfortable being here, because of the language difficulties? Do you think they would feel the same way in other parts of Canada . . .
MR. WHIFFEN: Absolutely not. I didn't mean to cut you off. I think that two opposite things have happened. I think outside of Quebec, Canadians have really made a great effort to try to accommodate Quebec as far as its language and culture. It is written into our laws that these things are going to be preserved, and I think that has been recognized. Although Quebec doesn't recognize it, it says that that is really not too important, that Canada is bilingual. Inside of Quebec, I think it is the reverse. I think that the laws of Quebec, Bill No. 101, for example, the language law - I think that is the number for it - is absolutely repressive. English-speaking people in Quebec simply do not feel comfortable with that; it is really discriminatory against them.
I think it is only in the past few weeks where the language police have been out with the Jewish community there fighting over some of their signs. I think this is atrocious. So, where in Canada outside of Quebec, I think there is every effort made to accommodate the French language, the French culture, French immersion, right through every province of Canada, inside of Quebec, it has been just the opposite.
I don't know if any members of the panel have, but recently I have read Diane Francis' book, Fighting for Canada, and there are some startling statistics in there relating to the question you are asking. If I remember correctly, one of the statistics said that in 30 years, 300,000 English-speaking Canadians have left Quebec and a lot of their exit is due to the repressive ways in which they have to operate, as far as their language is concerned, as far as education is concerned, as far as doing business is concerned.
Also, I remember a figure, without taking too long, but I am just trying to impress upon you the fact that I really believe that the reverse is true from what is happening inside and outside, is that the provincial Civil Service in Quebec, if I remember the figures correctly, the percentage of English-speaking Canadians is something just over 1 per cent, where the percentage of English-speaking Canadians in the whole province - not including those who are bilingual; this would be strictly English-speaking - is something over 10 per cent. So, you have this incredible imbalance. But if you look in Ottawa in the past number of years, every effort has been made to get French people into the echelons of the Public Service in Ottawa, for example. So, the reverse has occurred, I think. I wouldn't feel comfortable in Quebec, but
in answer to your question, if a Quebecer came to Nova Scotia, I think they would be welcomed, as I was, with open arms.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Are there any other comments or questions from the committee? Well, I want to thank you very much, Mr. Whiffen, for your presentation, very well done, and picked up some points that have been stated by others in previous presentations. So, I welcome you to stay the rest of the evening to hear the other presenters.
Dr. Charles Gaudet, private citizen.
M. CHARLES GAUDET: Madame la présidente, membres du comité, je voudrais d'abord vous féliciter pour l'initiative. D'abord je suis M. Gaudet, natif de la Nouvelle-Écosse, Municipalité de Clare. J'habite présentement à Bedford, Halifax. Je suis un enseigneur, un administrateur retiré. J'ai travaillé 14 ans à l'Université Sainte-Anne, 4 ans au Collège de l'Acadie, et 7 ans au Ministère de l'éducation à Halifax.
Tous d'abord je n'ai aucune difficulté appuyer l'entente de la déclaration de Calgary. Mais, je crois qu'on doit faire un lien et c'est ça que je voudrais faire durant les quelques minutes avec la situation francophone en Nouvelle-Écosse. Je ne sais pas si vous avez reçu d'autres présentations, mais mes quelques minutes vont se consentrer sur la situation des acadiens de la Nouvelle-Écosse vu d'un éducateur. C'est une situation, d'après moi, assez fragile et fragmenter.
Les acadiens de la Nouvelle-Écosse sont situés en huit régions géographiques. Vous être sans doute au courant de ça parce que votre comité va visiter certaines régions. Je dis que la situation est sombre pour les francophones. En regardant quelques statistiques, si on regardent les . . . une population d'origin française en Nouvelle-Écosse qui se chiffre à 80 000 personnes et à peu près 25 000 aujourd'hui parle encore français. Alors, si vous voulez faire une comparaison avec des partis politiques, par exemple, si vous aviez chacun des trois partis devant moi, avec 80 000 membres au début et se trouvait avec 25 000 membres aujourd'hui, on se poseraient beaucoup de questions.
Si on regarde le système scolaire, d'après un étude du gouvernement du Canada, il y auraient 10 000 francophones qui pourraient suivre des éducations français langue première. Il y a 4 000 étudiants dans le système scolaire de la Nouvelle-Écosse.
Et si vous me permettez, lorsqu'on regarde une société, lorsque la société regarde une langue et une culture, en particulier les acadiens de la province, les sociologues nous dit qu'il y a socialement trois outils pour protéger une langue et une culture. Le premier point, c'est la famille. Le deuxième point, c'est l'église et le troisième point, c'est l'école.
Et puis en Nouvelle-Écosse, contrairement à ceux qui pense autrement, il y a eux des difficultés par des lois dans le passé. Il y a des difficultés aujourd'hui et d'après moi, il y a des difficultés dans le futur si on adresse point la question des droits des minorités.
Pour revenir au trois points, il y a un grand changement dans la famille acadienne de notre province. On vois, puis je regarde ceci comme un enseigneur et un parent, de plus en plus des familles hexoganes, des familles mixte. Par mixte là, on parle point d'un père libéral qui marie une conservatrice, ou un protestant qui marie une catholique. C'est pas ça l'histoire, c'est du point du vue linguistique. Alors, ça c'est un coup du point de vue de la population.
Surtout lorsque l'un des parents, le père par exemple, est anglophone, d'après les études qu'on été faites surtout par Professeur Roger Bernard de l'Université d'Ottawa durant les années 1990, on peut cité qu'à peu près 90 pourcent des enfants d'une famille hexoganes ne vont pas à l'école française. Ils vont à l'école anglaise. Alors, ça c'est un phénomène et je ne dit pas qu'on doit se mêler dans les chambre à coucher de nos acadiens, c'est un phénomène. Mais c'est un résultat dans nos communautés, c'est un résultat qu'on voit dans nos écoles.
L'église du côté catholique, ou la plupart des francophones fréquentent l'église catholique et du même, autres familles Chrétiennes, on voit qu'il y a moins de personnes qui vont à l'église. Autrefois, c'était le curé le seul dans les paroisses qui pouvait écrire en français. Mais il y a de moins en moins de personnes maintenant qui vont à l'église. Alors, définitivement l'église joue un rôle qui a diminuer dans notre société.
Le troisième point, la question de l'école, nous avons seulement depuis deux ans un système scolaire adresser aux francophones, seulement depuis deux ans. Autrefois avec 22 commissions scolaires, les francophones n'avait pas leur gestion scolaire. Je veux prendre exception à la personne qui ma précéder. Lorsqu'on regarde la minorité anglophone de la province de Québec, les francophones hors Québec seraient très, très heureux d'avoir les même droits accorder à la minorité anglophones à la province de Québec. Ce n'est pas le cas en Nouvelle-Écosse.
Aussi avec ce nouveau commission scolaire, le Conseil scolaire acadien provincial, nous avons rencontrer des difficultés. Des difficultés presque partout dans la province, une résistance de la population anglophone, une résistance aussi de la population francophone. Et puis encore si on regarde ça d'un sociologue ou d'un éducateur, on doit se poser la question, pourquoi telle résistance? Lorsque la loi scolaire a été écrite, on parlait de française de langue maternelle. Pour plusieurs acadiens, ils se sont poser la question, quel langue maternelle? Alors, on voyait dans les foyer qu'il y avait un mélange. Ça c'est avec les 4 000 étudiants qui sont déjà inscrits dans le système. Ils se posaient la question, qu'est-ce qu'on veut dire par langue première?
Aussi dans nos régions acadiennes, dans le comté de Digby, dans le comté de Yarmouth, dans le comté d'Inverness, dans le comté de Richmond, il n'y a pas de système scolaire pour les francophones encore de maternelle à douze. A seul place qu'il y a tel système, c'est à Dartmouth. Dans les régions acadiennes, surtout a partir de la neuvième année, on retrouve dans des écoles ça qu'on appele des écoles mixtes, ou bilingue. Et puis, dans une école bilingue, normalement les étudiants on le choix entre un programme en anglais, tout en anglais, ou un programme mixte. Et puis, tout les experts qui on regarder la situation des minorités hors Québec, il a eu beaucoup d'argent, beaucoup d'étude qui on été faite par des spécialistes, recommande que le meilleur système scolaire possible c'est une école homogène française. Mais il y a là aussi une résistance surtout de la part des acadiens.
Puis on a dresser la liste des questions. Si on prend tous nos cours en français, est'ce qu'on va pouvoir lire, écrire et communiquer comme il faut en anglais? Ça c'est la question numéro un. Question numéro deux, si on prend tous nos cours en français, est'ce qu'on pourraient s'inscrire à des universités anglaises?
Alors, c'est bien reconnu que la Nouvelle-Écosse est une province unilingue anglophone, et puis que tout le monde réalise pour survivre économiquement, pour survivre d'un point tout simple, il faut apprendre l'anglais. Il n'y a pas de question. Mais ça qu'on veut dire nous autres pour assurer une survivance à la langue et à la culture, il faut cette programmation intence de maternelle à douze dans nos écoles.
Alors, on est pas encore là. Il y a encore beaucoup de travail a faire à convaincre la population francophone. Vous allez entendre des présentations devant vous qu'il vont dire, bien, on veut point ceci, on veut point ça parce que les droits de la Chartes ne protège pas l'école bilingue. L'école bilingue, en tout sens pratique, est une école anglaise.
La difficulté souvant que j'ai faire ces présentations, c'est qu'en exigent les droits pour la minorité francophone souvent on me prend pour être anti-anglophone. Ce n'est pas le cas du tout. Moi je dit que nous pouvons être de fier citoyens, acadiens, néo-écossais, canadiens, dans notre fédération et puis c'est ça le point souvent le plus difficile qu'il y a expliquer à des anglophones, même à des francophones.
Alors, la situation d'àpres moi est une situation très dangereuse du point vue linguistique pour la communauté francophone. On fait souvent la comparaison, et d'àpres moi il y a des gens qui me disent que je suis trop méchant par fois et trop négatif, mais je pense que je suis réaliste, et que s'il n'y a point des efforts des améliorations de faites, qu'on se dirige vers une dernière génération de la population francophone de la Nouvelle-Écosse comparable à la population Gaelic au Cap-Breton, comparable à la situation francophone des acadiens de la Louisanne qui est purement du folklore.
Je crois que les acadiens de la Nouvelle-Écosse on beaucoup a contribuer à l'économie de la province. Surtout dans ce qui s'en viens, si on parle de l'ouverture des centres d'appels, et puis c'est lorsque je m'en reviens au point de vue positif, il y a aussi un point de vue d'une demande, d'une main d'oeuvre bilingue, quel sois anglophone ou francophone.
Mes paroles jusqu'à date sont adresser pour la situation francophone, mais on encourage aussi les anglophones qu'ils le veulent de poursuivre leurs cours en français les programmes d'immersion. Il y a à peu près 7 000 étudiants anglophones qui étudient le français en Nouvelle-Écosse. Ils devraient en avoir de 15 000 à 20 000 pour rencontrer les besoins. Et aussi même si on veut regarder le taux de population en Nouvelle-Écosse, comparaison avec les autres programmes d'immersion dans les autres provinces du Canada, nous sommes a moitié là ou nous devrons être de ce point de vu là. Mais il y a une demande si on veut rentrer dans la compétition des centres d'appells. Il y a une demande pour une main d'oeuvre bilingue.
Il y a aussi quelques observation. Nous représentons la population francophone, 4, 5 pourcent de la population. Si on regarde l'argent qui est dépenser pour le système scolaire, ça touche beaucoup moins que 4,5 pourcent du budget total du Ministère de l'éducation. Si vous regardez la participation de la fonction publique de la Nouvelle-Écosse, le nombre de francophone serait moins que 1 pourcent. Je parle de tout le monde, sans parler des cadres. Si on veut regarder des cadres, certainement un très, très petit nombre de francophones qui participe.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I wonder if I could interrupt just for a moment. First of all, do you understand me in English?
M. CHARLES COMEAU: Oui.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Your presentation is quite lengthy, and I am wondering if you feel that the Calgary Declaration, if it is a vision that you think, if that was adopted by all Canadians would assist in addressing those concerns that you have just stated for opportunities for all Nova Scotians, regardless of their ethnic, culture or linguistic backgrounds?
M. CHARLES GAUDET: Completely.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: As quickly as possible if you can answer that.
M. CHARLES GAUDET: Je suis finis.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: You are finished now?
M. CHARLES GAUDET: Oui.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Oh, I am sorry then, thank you. So do you agree with the Calgary Declaration as a way and a means . . .
M. CHARLES GAUDET: Oui, j'ai dit ça là tout au début.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Now I am going to ask if any other members have comments or questions.
MR. ROBERT CARRUTHERS: First of all I want to thank you. It is so far somewhat of a unique perspective and I think it needed to be said. A couple of little questions had come to mind. Once again, turning to the Calgary Declaration itself, the third and fourth points that were made in the declaration, particularly regarding the declaration that there is a diversity here and a quality of opportunity, I take it that that and the following point that the Aboriginal people and cultures, the vitality of the English and French languages, are assets to this country. This is what concerns you with our perhaps failure in our educational system to maintain that? At least so far I think you mentioned that there has been some improvement but generally speaking, the educational system has not seen itself clear to protect the diversity of the French language. Do I understand that?
M. CHARLES GAUDET: That is correct in Nova Scotia because there are a lot of improvements. It is just in the past two years that we can say that we have a system across the province for all francophones. It has not been easy. It has been a challenge. It has been a fight and we are not through just the basics. I can give you examples throughout the province. I can start in Truro, here, but I won't.
MR. CARRUTHERS: And that is where it is relevant to this Calgary Declaration?
M. CHARLES GAUDET: Yes.
MR. CARRUTHERS: I thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Are there any other questions from the committee members? Well, I want to thank you very much for your presentation. Your point is very well made, thank you very much. (Applause)
Are Mr. Andy Smith and the Bible Hill Junior High School Grade 9 class in attendance? I didn't see Andy. I think with school perhaps being cancelled today made it difficult for him to get his class together. I was looking forward to their presentation because they were quite excited about being able to do so. Maybe we can accommodate them in another way.
Mr. Jim Doane, private citizen. Would you state your name please, and make your presentation.
MR. JIM DOANE: My name is Jim Doane. I am a private citizen and I will make my remarks very succinct and to the point. The Calgary Declaration seems to me to be an admirable document except for Number 5. We talk about unique. When I look up the meaning of unique in the dictionary, unparalleled, unequal, one of a kind. I have travelled fairly extensively. I would challenge this statement. You talk about civil law, you talk about language, you talk about culture. I would question each and every one of you, right here, right now, to present me with one aspect of Quebec, right off the top of your head that is unique in those three aspects. I don't think you can do it. It is not unique. Yet, you would foist this off on Canada. You would have me accept this as a declaration of truth? It is not. What it seems to me to be is a springboard for the further deposition of federal money and political correctness into Quebec to achieve whatever political aims the federal government would choose.
It also seems to me to be patently clear in this country to just about every ordinary citizen that I run across that, sooner or later - and it would appear sooner rather than later - we are headed for a divorce.
You can appease all you want but the divorce will come and for the life of me I cannot figure out why your policy of appeasement is continuing to be pursued. This would perhaps be part of it but it runs fair in the face of the facts which I will not further discuss in view of the fact that Mr. Whiffen seems to have done them fairly eloquently.
I have nothing more to say other than to challenge this statement. Quebec as unique, I don't believe it is. The written word in the Calgary Declaration as a springboard for political aims, clearly, that is what is achieved. Finis.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Doane. If there are any comments or questions from the committee, would you entertain some questions?
MR. DOANE: Certainly. I don't know how well I can answer them but I will be glad to entertain any.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Carruthers.
MR. CARRUTHERS: I just have two quick questions. First of all, in the early part of your presentation you indicated that, generally speaking, you accepted the other parts of the declaration. It was Number 5 that caused you difficulty. Would I take that to mean that, generally speaking, the other points in the Calgary Declaration seem to be acceptable to you in general terms?
MR. DOANE: Generally speaking, yes. Allow me one final point. With respect to unity, the use of the word, unique, seeks to set aside the Province of Quebec, its language and its culture as something, perhaps, to be elevated above equal with the rest of the country. The word, unique, pits Quebec against the rest of Canada and it pits the rest of Canada against Quebec. That wording is inflammatory.
Again, it flies in the face of a Manitoban, a British Columbian, a Nova Scotian. Of all the people in Canada who could be regarded as unique, let's not forget the Newfoundlanders. I fail to see how any aspect of Quebec could be more unique than almost every aspect of Newfoundland, Cape Breton, New Brunswick or right across. Again, finis.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I think Mr. Carruthers has another question.
MR. CARRUTHERS: I think I understand your comments on that term.
MR. DOANE: It should be quite clear. (Laughter)
MR. CARRUTHERS: Yes.
MR. DOANE: There is no question it should be very clear on that one point. You insult the rest of Canada with that word.
MR. CARRUTHERS: I understand that, the Calgary Declaration in that regard.
The other thing that was in the second part of your presentation, you indicated that you feel the divorce is coming and appeasement is not the answer. I think, once again, that is pretty clear from your comment.
Do you see another answer or do you feel there is no answer and the divorce shall come no matter what approach is taken, or do you see that while appeasement is not the right route, there is another route that could prevent such a divorce?
MR. DOANE: In a divorce, presumably, in an unpolitically correct country you have a husband and wife - maybe not so in this day and age - both who vie for certain assets and allocations. This will come, there is no question about that. I do not see any way around it.
The position of the federal government should be as representative of all Canada, to get the best terms. Why continue "for the sake of the children" in this marriage? The children recognize the futility and, in fact, are being sorely hurt. Let the federal government negotiate legally the best terms for Canada as a whole. Let's not have a situation parallel to Northern Ireland, let's have peace, proper legal representation as the negotiations go on, but get the job done for crying out loud. It has been too long.
[8:00 p.m.]
MRS. LILA O'CONNOR: Well, since I want to save the marriage and I would like to keep the children together, what word would I want if I didn't want unique? What word would you suggest be there?
MR. DOANE: I love the word different. I can show you people who are unique. My father is unique. My father is a World War II veteran who lost his arm fighting for Quebec and its right not to fight. Try the word different, it doesn't have the same spit-in-your-face connotations that unique does. Unique, unparalleled, one of a kind, unequalled. Quebec is equalled; Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and the rest of the provinces equal it. Try different.
MR. RUSSELL: I am just going to comment, Madam Chairman. Back in the 1800's, Mark Twain visited the Town of Windsor and he described the Town of Windsor as being a unique town. The mayor said, what do you mean by unique town, Mr. Twain? He said, well, it comes from the Latin unus, meaning one, and equus, meaning horse. (Laughter)
MR. DOANE: The point, sir.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Are there any other comments or questions? I thank you very much, Mr. Doane, for your presentation, and thank you for coming this evening. (Applause)
I am going to interrupt the proceedings just briefly. Members of the committee are all members of the House of Assembly and we have been selected to represent the House on this tour around the province to listen to Nova Scotians. We have also encouraged MLAs in each area to attend because they will have an opportunity to debate any draft resolution that comes forward. So, we do have in the audience with us tonight, the MLA for Colchester-North, the Honourable Ed Lorraine, Minister of Agriculture. (Applause) And the member for Clare, the Honourable Wayne Gaudet, Minister of Business and Consumer Services. (Applause) And the member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley, Mr. Brooke Taylor. (Applause) I thought I would wait until I got through the evening to make sure if there were any latecomers, that they would be here and they could be recognized. Thank you very much for that.
I would now ask Mr. Michael Janael to now come forward, as a private citizen, to make a presentation.
MR. MICHAEL JANAEL: Good evening, members, and everybody behind me here. My name is Michael Janael, I am a resident of Truro. I am a former French, Cape Breton, Lebanese, Newfoundlander as multicultural Canada tells me. I am a Canadian first. (Applause)
I look at unity, not just with Quebec, I look at unity as a family of people, of cultures living together. As a family of people and as a family of cultures, we in Canada have, perhaps - at least what the world tells and what we tell ourselves - produced the number one culture
in the world. What does that mean? That means we have produced the number one place for people to live in the world. Why? Because of culture. But yet we sit here, we allow the media, we allow anybody who wants - the CBC - anybody off the wall who wants a national audience, they are happy to give it to them and they are happy to give them this national audience, and it seems just to break Canada down. Anybody can come out and speak.
When my grandfather came over from the old country, Lebanon - and he came over to this country because of persecution - he didn't come over here to be Lebanese, he didn't come over here to ride a camel, to wear traditional dress, he came over here because he heard of Canada and he heard that Canada was a wonderful and tolerant country. Yes, there was racism back then with a lot of groups. There was racism against the Italians, the Irish; if you were an English community, they didn't like the Irish and if you were Irish, they didn't like the English. We, as a people, evolved beyond those; we have progressed beyond that. I think most people - we are not living back in the 1920's anymore where there was a lot of ignorance, and I guess at any time there is still a fair amount of ignorance.
He told me, he said, when I came to Canada, it is because of what the country had to offer me. He said, I didn't come from anything that was good. If there was anything good, I would have stayed. But, yet, we as a government, we bring people into our country and we say, be what you want to be; be from Angola, be from South Africa, be from Russia, be from Belarus, be from Japan. Be anything but a Canadian, which was the reason they came here in the first place. We give them money, we try to legislate things to tell the people, promote your own culture. Well, look around. Look at the Soviet Union. They went in and they grabbed all of these cultures all up, and look at what happened to the Soviet Union. They allowed everything to break apart. We are allowing the same thing to happen in our country. We are allowing everything to break apart, because nobody - and I blame mostly the politicians. You folks up here, federal and provincial - and it doesn't matter what Party. I'm sorry, I didn't write anything down and you get ahead of yourself a little bit.
I guess the bottom line to my first question on unity is we are all Canadians. Language shouldn't matter. If we have a culture and we want to support our culture, let that be done by the people within the culture through volunteerism and because they care, not because the federal government has legislated or given big grants to one culture promoted, but yet not to another culture. You promote divisiveness by then. The only way we can stay together as a country is we have to hold the centre together. If we don't hold the centre together, the sides are all going to fall apart on us. We see that in history.
We have to work and we have to care for one another. As far as Quebec is concerned, we tend to get a lot of American quotes, I guess maybe because of television and what not. I think it was Thomas Jefferson who once said, equal rights for all and special privileges for none. Me as a worker, me as a citizen, me as a husband, me in a group, I would not last very long and I would not feel very comfortable if I felt I was giving my utmost yet another group because of their language or because of the colour of their skin or because of their gender,
is given special privileges and rights over myself. So, when we talk about equal rights, it has to be equal rights. It can't be perceived by the citizenry as groups having special privileges. No country has ever lasted.
Quebec, Bouchard, no, you are not going to appease him; it is impossible. Anybody who wants power, you are not going to appease him. He wants power; he wants to be number one. He will fool himself, he will justify anything he can in his own mind to promote his ideas and he will ignore the things that will make his ideas less credible. But the bottom line is, if tomorrow, we said, okay, Lucien, we are going to give you $1 million for every man, woman and child in Quebec if you stay. He's not stupid, he would probably take the $1 million and then maybe the next day he would separate and then they could afford to separate at that point in time. But it doesn't matter.
The gentleman a while back was talking about the Calgary Declaration, I wish you had left it alone. Bouchard's popularity was going down. He was hanging himself. The people of Quebec, yes, there is an emotion. I think any culture would like to have some kind of direction. Bouchard lied to the people and I think the people were finally starting to see that and then we and the Premiers decide to open up a can of worms, I am not really sure why but you did that.
The other gentleman said that unique is not appropriate, different is not appropriate. We are all Canadians, we are all the same. We are not different from one another in many ways, as we are no more different than every other individual in the room. But we can't take whole cultures and whole segments of our society and say, you are different. Is that a plus or is that a minus? If it is a plus, someone has to feel a minus; if it is a minus, someone else has to feel a plus. Look around you, look at history. I guess we can go on on a lot of different issues.
The third thing, when we talk about unity is, where are the politicians when it comes time like GST, gun control, gambling? When you are making your decisions in Halifax and you are making a decision in Ottawa and it seems to be controversial, politicians disappear. It seems to me, and I am sure probably to most people, that you don't work for General Motors, you don't work for Nissan, you don't work for Apple Computer; you work for everybody behind me here. You owe us your loyalty. You owe loyalty to the people before the Liberal Party, before the Conservative Party, before the NDP, before the Reform Party and whatever other Parties that some people think up in this country. The loyalty has to go to the people. I don't feel that the politicians show trust in the people. If you did, give us some credit for having a little bit of wisdom. We can handle some of these things that you talk about, if you explain it properly.
I do understand the difficulty of politicians also. I understand sound bites, I understand what journalists can do, how you can say something and a journalist can just take something right out of context and blow you right out of the water and make you come off as a fool. I
understand those things and I know it is not going to be easy. But I do ask, if you want unity, unity is not something like morality that can be basically legislated, unity is something that we have to feel in our hearts, that people in Nova Scotia and people in New Brunswick and people in Quebec, and wherever else in Canada, that we all feel that we are working together.
If I came home every night to my wife and my wife says, I am special and you're not, how much can I take of that or if I did that to her, how much could she take of that? We have to look at it as saying, we are equal, we are different and we respect each other's differences, but we don't have to legislate that. We didn't need that kind of legislation in our marriage vows for our marriage to be successful.
I guess in conclusion - I am a little scattered talking here a little bit - is that I love my country. Canada in the world - and maybe this is a statement when you say about Quebec, and maybe we are and I don't know if we are going to say that we are better, but we are different in the world. I spent 10 years in the United States and that is why I recognize how important it is for us to have a strong federal government so that our country cannot be dismembered. It is a pretty sad scene when you go into a doctor's office in the United States and you bring your child in and you look at two or three children and they look anaemic because the parents couldn't afford to bring them in before that, that is a pretty sad thing to see.
It is a pretty sad thing to see when you go into rural Mississippi or Alabama - and we are heading that way in this country; I see it after living in the United States and coming back home 10 years ago after spending 10 years down there - you go into some areas of Mississippi and they have the very best of computers and the very best of schools, top-notch everything, the best educators, people who have won awards and prizes, and then you go to the next district and they can't even afford their school books, paper to write on, buses to take the kids to school. Teachers are spending money out of their own pockets to buy kids supplies. I don't want to live in a law of the jungle kind of country like America has become, and that is how America has become. It is wealthy, yes. America is very wealthy; 2 per cent of the population owns 40 per cent of the resources, so there are a lot of people who have a lot of disparity.
That is all part of our unity. All of these things that we talk about, it is all part of our unity. The trust we have in you as politicians, the respect that we get back, again, it is a family, in a way it is a business, and we have elected you to run our business affairs for us. We hope that you do that with us in mind, not the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party or the NDP. We have to be put ahead of yourselves; that is why we elected you. That is all I have to say. Thank you. (Applause)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Are there any comments or questions?
MR. ERNEST FAGE: Mr. Janael, in your opening comments on democracy and everyone being able to speak, I think that is the diversity and the strength, when we look around this room tonight; that is one of the real strengths in this country, that everyone is allowed to have a comment, have a say about a situation where national unity, where the values and respect of this country and every citizen are called into play.
When I look at diversity in the context you are discussing, diversity can also be a strength. When you look at a small area like Nova Scotia, if you go to a community like Tatamagouche and help celebrate the German heritage, if you go to l'Université Sainte-Anne, see the Acadian heritage, if you attend the Highland Games and see the Celtic culture coming out, those are all diversities of strength in our community, in my opinion.
When I look at the Calgary Declaration and hear your interpretation, for clarity of purpose, would you be willing to say that you see this, at least, as a symbol or a gesture to all people in Canada and Quebec that there is goodwill out there, there is a framework?
MR. JANAEL: Oh, unquestionably, there is a wonderful goodwill across Canada. You have got your people out there that do not care and there are the racists that are still there in our society, but as a general rule, most people care, most people want Quebec within Canada. None of us want the problems that we are having.
I guess, as a population, as a citizenry, we get - I broke three teeth last week so I am having some difficulty saying words. I guess in that aspect we look at Quebec - I'm sorry, I lost my train of thought there.
MR. FAGE: Well, as a symbol or a gesture, this accord, to all people of Quebec or Canada . . .
MR. JANAEL: I think it is a good gesture. What frightens me with it is when the lawyers are going to get at it after all this is said and done. I think that frightens me more than anything. Then you are going to get into court: define unique.
Look at the Constitution of the United States. What has happened to that constitution, how people, for generations, thought this was good. All of a sudden it is bad. Why? Because somebody says it was bad.
MR. FAGE: But I think we have to be a little careful here. This is a statement of principle and not a constitutional amendment that we are discussing here tonight. It is a statement of principle how we view our country.
MR. JANAEL: Legally, where can that statement take us? Can it take you anywhere legally? Can Lucien Bouchard use this statement in saying, well, listen folks, you said unique and in Webster's dictionary - it may be different in the French dictionary, I don't know, but
in the Webster's dictionary he says, uniqueness is this and all the Premiers have agreed to that. Doesn't that give him some precedent?
MR. FAGE: Well, I guess in my mind it is not our job as members of this committee to interpret the Calgary Declaration but record your views. The statement of principle or an accord is defined, is a principle view on which are the terms of how you view a discussion.
MR. JANAEL: Okay. I think the whole Calgary Declaration is a - I am glad that we have the chance here to come but I would like to say that I really feel that we have opened up a can of worms or contributed to opening another can of worms in this issue that we did not really have to.
I really question why the Premiers did what they did, considering the fact that sovereignty - the percentage of sovereigntists in Quebec have been on the decline. Why did the Premiers all of a sudden bring this up when the so-called bad guys were going downhill, type of thing?
Now we have resurrected them and we really have. We are resurrecting them and all because we are trying to do good. We have got to be a little realistic sometimes. No matter - you know, you have got - I don't mean to relate Lucien Bouchard to the Hitlers, the Stalins and the Maos of the world, but there are a lot of better people than us here and a lot wiser people tried to appease them with a lot more money, a lot more power and effort and never has.
Somebody who is a dictator who wants power, you are not going to appease them. They will use this declaration against us if given the chance.
MR. FAGE: Just one more comment, for my clarity of your remarks. In my estimation, the accord is to all Canadians, not just the political Leaders . . .
MR. JANAEL: I understand that.
MR. FAGE: I feel that the accord is there to appeal to all Quebecers as well as the gentleman who happens to occupy the Premier's chair. I guess I would feel very strongly that this appeal is to Nova Scotians, to New Brunswickers, Albertans, all provinces of Canada as well as Quebec. This is an appeal to all Canadians.
MR. JANAEL: Now see this appeal, to me, would say possibly down the road, because there are some very profound things, as the other gentleman said, in that statement, that appeal to me, again, opens up a whole can of worms that not only are we going to be giving Quebec the opportunity to destroy the country, we are going to be giving the nine other provinces that same kind of opportunity and we are going to end up like the United States, is where we are going to end up. I am telling you right now, I see it, the writing is on
the wall and we are all going to go off in our own little provinces and we are all going to say, yes, we respect everybody's right but we are going in the same direction as the Americans and with that, we are going to have the crime and we are going to have a lot of the problems of the Americans with that as we take the direction the United States is taking. I really believe that.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Carruthers has a comment.
MR. CARRUTHERS: Well, actually, I think you answered my comment. When you summarize all this, am I correct - I am interested in your view - that you think the Calgary Declaration opened up a can of worms? Is that it?
MR. JANAEL: Oh, absolutely, yes.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for your presentation. (Applause)
I would ask Mr. Luke Young, private citizen, to come forward.
MR. LUKE YOUNG: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, honourable committee members and fellow Canadians. I travelled a long way to get here tonight, across some icy roads and through some pretty harsh weather because I feel it is very important to keep this country together. I am a small-town boy from the County of Pictou and I am pretty proud of the Canadian mosaic. I hope to see it not only survive but to thrive as well. However, quite frankly, this meeting is a waste of my time and it is a waste of your time as well.
We are here tonight because the provincial government is trying to decide whether or not the Calgary Declaration contains the right words, whether or not it sends the right message and whether or not it represents the views of the people of Canada, including Quebec. However, our country will not remain intact because of the words or message of any particular document. Rather, Canadians have to believe that they have a country worth saving.
In approving the Calgary Declaration, Canadians will be saying that they agree that Quebec has a unique character. That is true. When we reflect on the language, culture, geography, history and politics of Quebec, we cannot help but notice the difference between us and them. On the other hand, if we look at the history of Canada, it is glaringly obvious that these differences have not divided us but instead have made us stronger. While English and French Canadians have had disputes over many issues such as language rights and conscription, we have always been able to accommodate each other and reach agreement. This contributes to our international reputation for expertise in compromise and conciliation.
If we want the people of Quebec to decide to remain a part of Canada, we have to come up with more than words. We have to help them to know Canada. It has to be known for its diversity, its compassion, its intentions and its goals. I daresay that if each of the
members of this committee were to travel to a different Canadian province this winter and spend a week, you would each come back and comment on the unique character of that province that you had visited. Whether it is Calgary, Montreal, Hamilton, Pictou or Whitehorse, each community in this country is unique.
I don't think it is appropriate that the main concern of the Standing Committee on National Unity is to simply get views on a particular document. In Nova Scotia, if we are determined to be part of a strong federation, our role is to reach out to other Canadians and help them to know Nova Scotia. We also have a unique character. Like Quebec, we have distinct musical traditions. Like Quebec, we have, in the past, elected a separatist government. Like Quebec, we have sent a huge number of influential politicians to participate in our federal government and contribute to our national diversity.
If we want to make a meaningful mark on this country, we should be sending Nova Scotian ambassadors to other provinces and we should be inviting people from those provinces to experience Nova Scotia. We should be explaining our position on the national agenda and explaining its background. You can send this declaration to Quebec but in Quebec, like Nova Scotia, few will listen and few will be affected. Tonight, I am urging you to send more than words to Quebec. As a committee and as a province, we should be considering how we can send them a piece of Nova Scotia. Thank you. (Applause)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Young. Any comments or questions from anybody on the committee? Mrs. O'Connor.
MRS. O'CONNOR: I wasn't going to say anything but I guess I will. I guess I am disappointed that you feel this meeting is a waste of time, your time and our time. If we hadn't had the meeting, we wouldn't know how you felt, or anyone else in the room. So therefore I don't consider it a waste of time. I don't consider it a waste of time going around the province and listening to what Nova Scotians have to say. For the number of times we hear Nova Scotians say you don't listen, this is your opportunity for us to listen to you.
You talk about being ambassadors to Nova Scotia. A number of the high schools do that. They send students on exchange trips and I think we have to start with our youth and I feel very strongly that that is happening and that as long as Nova Scotians and the rest of Canada do an exchange trip, there is a piece, they will understand us. I feel that being in Montreal in October 1995 was one of the most moving experiences of my life and I feel any Canadian who was there will feel the same way. So I don't feel this is a waste of time. I appreciate hearing what you had to say and thank you.
MR. YOUNG: Actually, I was in Montreal with you in October 1995.
MRS. O'CONNOR: Great.
MR. YOUNG: It was also a meaningful experience for me and I guess I missed you there. (Laughter)
MRS. O'CONNOR: A lot of us missed a lot of us there.
MR. YOUNG: It is a pretty big city.
MR. HOLM: But my daughter, who was in Montreal, found me in the crowd.
MRS. O'CONNOR: Good for her.
MR. YOUNG: I agree with you very much that going around the province and hearing our views is an important issue and something important to do. I think as far as the issue of national unity goes, however, I don't believe that this document, when it gets to Quebec, is going to mean a whole lot to the people of Quebec in terms of how they feel about national unity and how it affects the next referendum. I think youth ambassadors are a great idea but I think that should be something that is extended not just for youth but also up to senior citizens. It is something that should cover all of Canadians and it shouldn't be just from Nova Scotia but from people across the country.
MRS. O'CONNOR: But I think that is happening.
MR. YOUNG: I agree and it is the most meaningful thing we can do.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Are there any other comments or questions? Mr. Holm.
MR. HOLM: Just very briefly and I can't help but throw in that my daughter lived in Montreal at the time, in 1995, and my daughter somehow found me in that crowd by looking for the Nova Scotia flag which was an added plus for myself. (Interruption) At least the flag did.
I guess a couple of points. One, what you are saying is by these exchanges we have to get to know each other and once we do get to know each other, then we will understand each other and a lot of the difficulties might disappear.
MR. YOUNG: I think we have to make sure we know what we are trying to defend as a nation. I don't think it is very worthwhile to be trying to force the issue and saying you have to have a certain number of votes to separate from Canada. It is more important to want to stay a part of Canada. If you are going to have a marriage, you have to both want to be in the marriage, not be dictating its terms.
MR. HOLM: Value the same things. I guess the second point, I hear what you are saying about the accord, that it won't accomplish but do you think that it is worthwhile passing it as a gesture?
MR. YOUNG: As a gesture, I think, as I said, if you are going to be looking at resources, sure, it is something that you can pass. I really think that if you look at the media in Quebec and you look at how it is going to be received in Quebec, very few people in the Province of Quebec - and in my experience, people even in the Province of Nova Scotia - are going to know that it has even been passed, let alone what the value of that declaration has been.
[8:30 p.m.]
As I say, I think if you send one more person from Nova Scotia to Quebec you will have accomplished as much as you have with this accord.
MR. HOLM: They might know more about the Calgary accord if it does not pass than if it does.
MR. YOUNG: Exactly.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Any other comments or questions? Well, thank you very much for your presentation and your long trek from Pictou County. (Applause)
Mr. Don Hamilton, private citizen. Thank you very much. We will have copies provided to the rest of the committee following the meeting.
MR. DON HAMILTON: Madam Chairman, honourable members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Don Hamilton, I am retired, I live in the Village of Brookfield, Colchester County, Nova Scotia.
For some years now, I have watched with concern the growth of separatist sentiment within the Province of Quebec and the apparent inability or unwillingness of our federal government and of the rest of Canada to do anything about it.
As a university student, I spent two summers working in Quebec and living with French Canadian families. I appreciate the desire of Québécois to protect their language and culture as 10 million Québécois in a North American ocean of 300 million English speakers, but Canada is my country and it is now at risk. All efforts to save this country must be made.
I do not advocate violence or military intervention to achieve this end. If a substantial majority of Quebecers, upon being presented with a fair and clear question and with a clear understanding of the likely results of a yes vote decide that they want to leave Canada, then that decision must be respected.
The Calgary Declaration must be seen as an honest effort on the part of the rest of Canada to accommodate legitimate Quebec interest. I am not opposed to giving Quebec more constitutional powers if this will help, providing our federal government is not weakened in areas of protecting social programs, providing sound financial institutions, trade, economic and foreign policies. However, I believe that the Plan B approach, whereby the obstacles and probable results of separation are defined, is a more positive approach.
Recent polls show a decline in separatists supporting Quebec and I credit Plan B with this result. There are three groups represented in the Quebec referendum: first of all, the federalists who need no convincing; the separatists, who no amount of reasoned argument will persuade; and the third group who have been called soft nationalists. These are the people who want it both ways, a sovereign Quebec with all the advantages of being part of Canada. They have been led to believe that a separatist vote would strengthen the hand of Quebec in the negotiations that seem to be an ongoing feature of our Canadian federal system.
To some extent, the federal government has been a party to this misunderstanding through not clearly spelling out the consequences of separation. The result has been a sleepwalk to near disaster, as shown by the results of the 1995 referendum.
The alternative to this is to make clear to the soft nationalists and, indeed, to all the people of Quebec just what the results of a yes vote would be. There would be, in my opinion, a period of time between a yes vote and the actual separation. In this period, the consequences will begin to become clear. Quebec voters must be led to sober second thought. This is a dangerous waiting game to play and it is incumbent upon the federal government to clearly spell out what those consequences will be beforehand.
Quebecers are no different than the rest of us in their everyday concern. Very few of them lie awake at night thinking about the Constitution. The questions that concern us and concern them are these, will I or my children have a job, can I afford to own a home, will health care be there for me when I need it, can I afford to retire, and on a night like this, what will my dollar be worth in the U.S. if I want to go south in the wintertime? (Laughter) So the question becomes, how can we communicate to the average citizen of Quebec the effect of separation will have on such issues as these?
Part of the answer to this question lies in an honest and unbiased press, including radio and television. It baffles us to hear that the majority of employees of the CBC in Quebec are openly separatist. Surely, federal institutions have the right and responsibility to ensure that persons on the public payroll are not using their position to break up the country.
In any case, the federal government must find ways to communicate directly with the citizens of Quebec and to point out the following inevitable results of separation, notwithstanding the predictable reactions from Bloc Québécois:
(1) Flight of capital from the area. There are already signs of substantial decay in the City of Montreal. This will be compounded by the loss of federal aircraft maintenance contracts and other federal contracts on which much of the economy in that area depends.
Mr. Laurent Beaudoin, CEO of Bombardier, which employs 12,000 people, pointed out repeatedly during the last referendum campaign how difficult it would be to do business in a separate Quebec which could not afford the exporting credit system on which the exported big ticket items such as jet aircraft and subway trains depend.
(2) Devaluation of the currency. Recent efforts to stabilize our own currency above 70 cents U.S. should be instructive in estimating the value of a Quebec dollar without the support of the Bank of Canada.
The implication of this for employees of resource industries which export to the U.S. such as minerals, hydro power, aluminum and pulp and paper certainly include an immediate drop in their earnings. This includes $1 billion from the sale of Newfoundland power to the U.S.
Of course, you see, the reason for that, they have to pay more for it in Newfoundland and they get less for it on the U.S. end so they lose their approximately $1 billion they are getting now. That is just an example.
The end of the Canada assistance payment. Any independent Quebec will have to pay the full cost of welfare and social programs which will be substantially increased through the loss of employment. Social workers and others in this sector will see greatly increased workloads, coupled with a loss of federal pay scales.
The closure of Canadian Armed Forces bases in Quebec. It must be clear that upon separation, all CAF bases will be vacated, equipment removed and civilian workers laid off. This fact alone and the knowledge of this fact would have substantial reverberations through the work force and unions in Quebec, and I submit, their voting patterns as well.
Other things we can mention, just quickly. Loss of federal pensions, including old age assistance, bank deposit insurance and there are many other things that I am not going to mention here but I can leave it to others. This is just a brief list.
In conclusion, I want to say, Quebecers may soon have another opportunity to choose or reject Canada. They must be left in no doubt as to what the consequence of this choice will be. A Quebec without federal transfer payments, without the presence of federal institutions,
without the wait to obtain satisfactory trade agreements in an increasing competitive world and with a devalued currency will be a Quebec with a grim future. Increased unemployment, a lower standard of living and the inevitable social dislocation can hardly be a prospect that the average Quebecer would desire.
While the Calgary Declaration is a positive effort on the part of Canadian Premiers to accommodate legitimate concerns of Quebec, the voters of Quebec must approach any future referendum on separation with a very clear understanding of the consequences of their choice. Thank you very much. (Applause)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Hamilton. Any comments or questions? Mr. Carruthers.
MR. CARRUTHERS: Interesting points. I have heard those points. The question that strikes me is, is it your view that the average Quebecer is not receiving this information, that this information is not getting through to the average Joe on the street in the Province of Quebec?
We know that, certainly, there have been some countering views coming from politicians who have a different view on sovereignty. How do you see government trying to get those points to the average fellow?
MR. HAMILTON: Well, part of the problem - I just alluded to this - is that you make these arguments during a referendum campaign and this is the unfortunate part about it. It is part of the mix. What I am saying, I think, as far as this is really an accelerated Plan B, this is to say what your plans are going to be before the referendum. Then you make those plans known in various ways, not just at the government level but through industry, through banks, whatever other ways.
The very fact that you have done this, so that people can see what the results of their vote will be, I think, will affect the vote. I think it is because they have not really come to grips with what the results will be that accounts for the votes that have occurred.
For instance, in the case of the Canadian forces bases, I think that all the commanders should have standing orders that the day after the yes vote, they start to pack it up, buy them out, planes out, take the equipment out. But the people working there, the civilian workers should know that this is going to happen beforehand.
You see, if they know the results and they still want to vote yes to separation, there is really nothing that the rest of us can do about it, short of military intervention and I don't advocate that.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Russell.
MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Hamilton, I listened to you very carefully and I gather what you are saying is that the economic factors, in your opinion, far outweigh any cultural differences or factors that would influence a vote in a referendum.
MR. HAMILTON: There is one part there that I did not include in the typed copy and that is that what happens to an employee in Quebec who has lost their job, in a separate Quebec, where do they go? They cannot come to Canada. This is a separatist nation now, you see, so they have a completely in-looking group.
It is like people in a cage, what are they going to do, where are they going to go? I mean, it's a completely different set of circumstances and they have to be made aware of that now before it is too late. That is all I am saying.
I wanted to mention Mr. Laurent Beaudoin of Bombardier because I read some of his speeches during the campaign. If that gentlemen and his company had options, several thousand acres of land in eastern Ontario, beyond commuting distance of the Province of Quebec, before the referendum, what do you think the effect on the shop floor of his companies would have been? The guy that is voting, goes to vote, he is not voting just for sovereignty, he is voting for his job. So how are these 12,000 people going to vote? I leave it to your imagination.
MR. RUSSELL: Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fage, did you have a question?
MR. FAGE: When I am in Quebec, talking to people who are viewing separatist language very seriously and that particular argument is put to them in an academic way, let's say, they very forcibly point out what region of the country we reside in and what the corresponding effect would be on the Canadian dollar. They also quite quickly point to any jitters, whether it was near the time of the referendum when the vote was appearing to be close, the devaluation of the currency, the effect on the total economy.
They quite easily informed - and I can see their point strongly - where we are in this together. I think we have to be very careful that we also measure the effect on Atlantic Canadians and being a member of the Nova Scotia Legislature, in particular, we measure that very strongly on the effect of all Nova Scotians.
MR. HAMILTON: Which is an argument for a no vote, correct?
MR. FAGE: That is why I think you have to be very careful when you make the arguments because in most cases, the converse is very close to being true.
MR. HAMILTON: I agree, there is no argument here. I am in favour of keeping the country together. I am saying that the reason that too many people have voted is that they have not considered the consequences. I say that we, as Canadians outside of Quebec, have been a party to this because we have not told them the way it is going to be.
We are not going to assist them to separate. We are not going to provide the stability to the dollar in Quebec by the Bank of Canada. We are not going to leave all our Armed Forces in Quebec for them to say, well, here, we already have part of your assets. We are not going to do any of those things.
MR. FAGE: I think you are missing my point.
MR. HAMILTON: Maybe I am.
MR. FAGE: My point is that the net effect, whether you take it out or leave it in, is going to affect all Canadians and that is why it is so vital that discussions, symbols and gestures continue to ensure that we put this country together. The economic pain will hurt Quebec. The economic pain will hurt Nova Scotia to the same degree if a separation ever occurred. The economic pain will hurt the engine of the heartland of Canada which traditionally has been Ontario.
MR. HAMILTON: We should not be blackmailed by this, is my point.
MR. FAGE: Absolutely, there is the point.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Holm has a comment or a question.
MR. HOLM: I listened as carefully as I could to your comments and I think that one of the things that all Canadians pretty well are tired of is the constant discussion, threats and so on of separation, upcoming referendums and so on, and wanting to get on with it.
In listening to your remarks, you seem to be emphasizing that we should be telling Quebecers of the consequences of separation, rather than the benefits to belonging to this great country.
Now, one of the benefits, of course, is that you will not suffer the consequences. Now, maybe you could put it in that regard. Rather than looking at and emphasizing the values and the things that we share in common that could be at threat, you are talking about the economic types of consequences.
I guess my question to you is, if that is the approach that we use in the short-term - yes, indeed, that may be very successful - but in the longer-term, will that get us past that hurdle? Would that get us past the nationalistic, the separatists who, let's face it, Mr.
Bouchard is - we are not going to persuade him, nor members of his Cabinet or his close followers. There is nothing that we are going to do.
MR. HAMILTON: Like I said, I referred to the soft nationalists.
MR. HOLM: Yes. So I guess what I am wondering is, how do we get beyond a reoccurring, every couple, every five or every ten years, this kind of an issue, if it is being - if we are going to use a consequence or the threats approach? Is that really going to address the longer-term Canadian best interests, or simply delay it for another five or ten years until economic situations, or whatever, change?
MR. HAMILTON: Well, I can only answer that by saying that I am not against the Calgary Declaration, I am in favour of it. I am in favour of anything positive that we can do, either in improving the constitutional position of Quebec or somehow telling them that we love them, whatever way this form takes. I am not against that.
What I am saying is that we have not done enough of the other. We are just going to drift it along and a lot of politicians are afraid to tell the people of Quebec what is going to happen if they go. It is going to be really horrendous. It does not bear thinking about, really.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Hamilton, for your presentation. We appreciate your being here. (Applause)
MR. HAMILTON: Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: The next presenter is Mr. Brooke Taylor. He is representing the Royal Canadian Legion, Valley branch. I think I will just remind the members that the Royal Canadian Legion President has forwarded copies of their Belief in Canada to each and every one of us. We all have copies of this.
MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Thank you, Madam Chairman, and good evening committee members and colleagues, ladies and gentlemen. It is, indeed, a pleasure to be here this evening. I want to commend the committee members and, of course, staff and all ladies and gentlemen that came out this evening. When you brave the Nova Scotia weather, sometimes it requires you to dig down deep.
I am making this presentation tonight on behalf of the Valley branch Legion 147. I would just like to say that I have been a Legion member several years previous to provincial politics. I believe in the statements of principle that I am going to read into the record tonight.
I have had discussions with the Royal Canadian Legion, Nova Scotia Command. I have spoken with the provincial president and, as you would know, they have asked all MLAs in Nova Scotia to help progress their objectives. I am pleased to do that this evening.
I also do this presentation in memory of my father and of my older brother; both were former military members.
The covering letter, I know, which you also do have, indicates that this statement of 10 points has been developed over the last year and fully represents the views of the legion and its 500,000-plus members.
Our Belief in Canada. We believe in a united Canada in which all Canadians are equal under law and where the rights and the freedoms of all Canadians are nourished and safeguarded. We believe that federal services must be available in both English and French languages. We believe that a strong, national government is necessary to ensure a united country. It should have sole authority over matters of national significance.
All other spheres of responsibility should be shared with or devolved to the provinces in a spirit of partnership. The federal government should not interfere in matters of provincial jurisdiction. We believe in the rule of the law and that the Parliament of Canada is the supreme legislative authority and that the Supreme Court of Canada is the supreme judicial authority in the country.
We believe that the Constitution should reflect the will of the people and that amendments to the Constitution should only be initiated or implemented with the consent of all of the people, such consent to be obtained only by national referendum. We believe that the current notwithstanding clause in the Constitution should be eliminated to prevent any one province from enacting discriminatory laws or legislation. We believe that no one province should be accorded special powers under the Constitution; however, provincial programs which do not violate the Constitution may be implemented within a province to help foster the particular heritage of that province.
We believe that Quebec is a province which enjoys a unique and distinct culture and is one in which the provincial government may implement incentives or initiatives to foster the French language and culture. We believe that Canada should be indivisible and that no province shall be able to withdraw from the Canadian Confederation. The Canadian Constitution should be amended accordingly.
We believe that in consideration of the current Constitution, the Canadian Government should take immediate steps to clearly define the consequences of separation by any province and to advise that any provincial referendum on separation will not be accepted without the concurrence of the people of Canada.
Just in conclusion, committee members, I want to state that I don't have any difficulty from time to time baring my soul on behalf of this country, Canada. I think it is a great country, I love it, I would like to see us stick together, but I will not sell my soul and I don't believe government, any government across Canada, has the right to try to encourage people
to sell their souls to save Canada. It is a great country; I think we all have to work together to save it. Thank you. (Applause)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Are you prepared to take questions from the committee members on behalf of the Legion? Just prior to others speaking, given the statements here - so that it is in the record - would you suggest that the Royal Canadian Legion members can agree with the Calgary Declaration, or if they think this would be an addition to it or incorporated in it?
MR. TAYLOR: Madam Chairman, it would be completely out of place for me to speak on behalf of the Legion on that matter because, as you note, they have not clearly represented their view of the Calgary Declaration. I personally could certainly agree with it and support it.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I wondered, given the statements that you made here, just for the record really.
MR. TAYLOR: They never indicated or referenced, at all, the Calgary Declaration, but they have beliefs and principles, of course, in Canada.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Carruthers, you have a question?
MR. CARRUTHERS: That, effectively, was my question too. Being a long-term member of the Royal Canadian Legion, and my father before me, when I read the statement, I wondered whether you, in contacting the Nova Scotia Command and others, had asked whether it is the position of the executive, or those in authority, that this statement can be reconciled with the Calgary Declaration. Do I understand that you said you don't really know if you dare venture into that realm?
MR. TAYLOR: I clearly said I wouldn't answer that question on behalf of the Legion, but I will say on behalf of the Royal Canadian Legion in Nova Scotia - and I feel quite comfortable in saying this - that we clearly understood and understand that the mandate of the National Unity Committee was to listen to the views, irrespective of a position on the Calgary Declaration. Am I correct, Madam Chairman?
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Any comments that are made at these presentations are being recorded and on the record, and that is why we are here. So, you are absolutely correct.
MR. CARRUTHERS: As I say, I haven't quite finished with that yet, but what I want to know is, even in your personal view, do you believe that this statement can be reconciled with the Calgary Declaration?
MR. TAYLOR: Personally, I think it could be blended, yes, I believe it could be.
MR. CARRUTHERS: Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Holm.
MR. HOLM: Really, just following up on the same theme, the mandate of this committee is not only to go back and say, yea or nay to the Calgary Accord, it is also to suggest whether or not there should be some additions to it or things taken out of it, you know, whenever the resolution is passed or comes before the House. I should not even say it will be passed. If it does come before the House, it is not even - there is no requirement that it be exactly the Calgary accord.
My question is, are you proposing or suggesting that the points that were made in your address, that those points should be added to - if they are not currently covered in the Calgary accord? Is that what you or the Legion are recommending?
MR. TAYLOR: I actually am recommending, Mr. Holm, that the 10 principles, beliefs in Canada that the Royal Canadian Legion holds, and its 500,000-plus members, must be given every consideration by every unity committee, not just the Nova Scotia Unity Committee. I believe the concerns of the veterans, both living and deceased, and all members of the military would support these beliefs in Canada.
Irrespective of the Calgary Declaration, with all respect, I think it is important that if there is an opportunity - and I would hope and subscribe that there is, an opportunity - for these statements to be given consideration, I can see where they could easily blend into the points of the Calgary Declaration.
Now, I encourage this committee to give them deliberation, the same as any other presentation. I think it is incumbent and inherent on the committee to do that.
MR. HOLM: Well, certainly, you can, yourself, guarantee that they are given consideration because whatever comes on the floor of the House, you would have an opportunity to speak to it so to ensure that they are brought forward there and even drafting amendments to the resolution. So there is a way that - not even only asking us, you can certainly commit that there will be some kind of consideration given.
What I am really just trying to find out is, if it is your request or if it is the Legion's request to have those 10 points actually incorporated in or added to the accord?
MR. TAYLOR: Well, just to go back to your comment, Mr. Holm - and again, I say this with all appreciation - I have every intention of speaking in the Legislature when the time is appropriate.
MR. HOLM: I am sure you will.
MR. TAYLOR: I am encouraging you and your colleagues to do likewise in support.
I know the Legion has lobbied hard and fast to have these incorporated. But the Legion is not saying - or at least, my Legion, Valley Branch 147 is not saying, look, we do not have to have these embossed, jump right out at you. We want the unity committees in Canada to give consideration to our concerns and that is all we are simply saying.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Can I just clarify the mandate of the committee so there is no confusion with the people that are here and on the record.
Every presentation that is put to the committee is included in the report. A draft resolution will come from that report from what we have heard across the province, by presentations by telephone, by e-mail, Internet, all other means of communication. Everything we hear will be in that report. A draft resolution will come from that. So whatever we hear will certainly be taken into consideration in the drafting of that resolution.
MR. TAYLOR: I appreciate that, Madam Chairman, thanks very much.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you. (Applause) Mr. Gabriel Comeau, private citizen.
[9:00 p.m.]
M. GABRIEL COMEAU: Madame la présidente et les membres du comité. Je m'appelle Gabriel Comeau. J'habite ici à cette jolie ville depuis une douzaine années et même si depuis plusieurs années, j'ai le privilège de faire partie de la fonction publique de cette province. C'est un titre simple, citoyen néo-écossais je me présentre se soir pour faire quelques commentaires.
Premièrement, je vous remercie de me permettre de vous adresser la parole dans ma langue maternelle. Je vais témoigné cette connaissance. Je vais vous rencontrer a demi chemin et la deuxième partie de ma présentation sera dans l'autre langue officielle de ce pays.
Lorsque j'ai perçu votre annonce dans le journal dimanche dernier, j'ai songé essayer de décider si oui ou non j'avais quelques message utile et valable à vous transmettre. J'ai décidé que oui. Là j'ai du choisir une méthode. J'ai songé et communiqué par courrier electronique mais finalement à la dernière minute, j'ai préferé cette méthode plus traditionelle de vous transmettre mon point de vue. Je suis bien content que je l'ai fait.
Ça été utile pour moi d'écouter les autres néo-écossais vous transmettre leurs point de vue. Même s'il y a des d'opinions que je partage et d'autres que je ne partage pas, j'apprécis quand même que chacun d'entre nous qu'on vie dans un pays ou on est libre de pouvoir exprimer ses point de vue et partager des messages, et qu'on à quand même ce lien commun qu'on est tous canadiens et qu'on habite dans un merveilleux pays.
Je suis original de la Nouvelle-Écosse, un des 25 000 néo-écossais qui retient encore leur langue maternelle que Mr. Gaudet a mentioner tout à l'heure lors de sa présentation. Et même plus, je suis un des 10 000 qui, plus ou moins, a retenu l'abilité de non seulement parler la langue mais l'écrire, et cetera. Et comme tel, je me considere bien chanceux.
Pendant mes 47 années, j'ai eu le privilège de voyager assez souvant d'un bout à l'autre de ce merveilleux pays. J'ai habité pendant un an dans la province de Québec. Je travaillais comme étudiant et j'ai habité là comme étudiant aussi dans une section anglophone de l'ouest de l'îsle de Montréal. J'ai développé pendant cette vie une appréciation, je pense, des québécois qui est peut-être un peu différents de celles des autres habitants de la ville de Truro.
Je dois dire qu'il y a eu un commentaire de faite plus tôt qu'un néo-écossais qui déménage au Québec ne se sentirait pas à l'aise. Mais mois je dois dire que pour moi ce n'était pas le cas, que je me sentais aussi à l'aise au Québec que je me sens ici en Nouvelle-Écosse.
C'est Mr. Gaudet qui est l'expert dans le domaine de l'éducation. Ce n'ai pas mon domaine mais j'aimerais quand même, ce n'est peut-être pas votre partie de votre mandat directement, mais comme membre du gouvernement provincial.
Je désir quand même vous féliciter pour les améliorations qui on été faites pendant les dernières années depuis le periode ou moi-même je participais comme étudiant dans le système scolaire publique de la Nouvelle-Écosse. On a dans les régions acadiennes des écoles francophones qu'on avait pas à ce moment là. Et même ici à Truro, même ici on n'a pas de programme d'immersion. Quand même on a maintenant une école francophone et mon fils participe au programme où il a le privilège d'étudier les sciences sociales dans sa langue maternelle aussi, ce qui est quand même une amélioration.
Je souhaite qu'on continue à faire du progrès dans ce domanie là, non seulement pour permettre aux acadiens de perfectionner leurs français mais d'offrir à tous les néo-écossais, surtout nos étudiants, l'occasion de devenir bilingue, car je suis convaincu que plus on aurait de canadiens bilingues, plus on augmentrait les chances dévités le divorce que certain des autres intervenents considére comme inévitable.
I indicated earlier that I have had the privilege of being a public servant most of my working career which I have enjoyed and continue to do. As part of my work, especially in recent years, I have had the opportunity to participate in a couple of national committees. That has been a most interesting experience for me and as part of that I was a member of one committee with one of your committee members, Mr. Fage. So, he would appreciate where I am coming from. Having done that, in many ways our committee was like a miniature Canada and I gained much more sympathy for the difficulty in governing a country like Canada.
I have come here tonight, primarily as a result of your ad, to tell you that I, as one Nova Scotian, I didn't even have a proxy from my wife as one other gentleman did, I am speaking as one. (Laughter) I have no problem whatsoever with any of the seven statements that are stated there in the Calgary Declaration.
I would like to speak a little bit on item Number 5, out of the seven, on which some people have a different opinion than I, and that is fine, they have a right to do that. I, myself, believe that within the 10-province confederation and 2 territories that form Canada, that Quebec is unique. When I visit in Quebec or travel in Quebec, for whatever reason, it is obvious to me, I don't need a dictionary definition to tell me that compared with the other ones, that it is unique. I also recognize there is an element of uniqueness in all, but the degree of difference between Quebec and the other provinces is greater than between the remaining nine provinces.
I have, through my life, tried to understand why there are a significant number of Québécois who might want to change the political arrangement that we have, and I am not sure that I fully understand that at the present time. But I believe that the basic difference, the basic reason for it is cultural, and I am a long way from being an expert on culture and I don't think I will say much more on that.
There are some people who have said here tonight that they are blaming certain political Leaders over the last 20 years for not having solved the problem. I guess I recognize that it is a very difficult problem to solve and I am not that critical of the efforts that have been made, because it is not just an economic question, or whatever, it has these deep cultural roots that make it a difficult one to resolve.
I guess I would say in conclusion, I wanted to make it clear that I endorse all seven of those statements in the Declaration. I believe the Province of Nova Scotia has to continue efforts to reach out and to increase the level of understanding between the Province of Quebec and the other ones, and I think a lot of things have been done that have worked. The focus tonight, a lot has been on the half of the glass which is empty; I like to look at the half which is full, that up until this point in time, even in Quebec, that the majority of Québécois, like us, still want to have this one country.
In conclusion, I would like to make one more point, which is that one of the things which I think makes this a difficult country to govern is the cultural diversity that we have, but which is also its strength. I think another thing which makes it very difficult is the geography. Geography in Canada is a real challenge, and I think if we are talking about Canadian unity, we don't want to just focus on one particular area of Canada, which is the Province of Quebec. I think we also have some threats to unity that are caused by geography, and there are differences in this country between the eastern part of the country and the western part of the country. I think those are just as important as the other ones and they worry me just as much.
The divorce may not come from where we are expecting it to come, and I hope that Nova Scotians would be aware of that and try to be open to discussions. It is a real challenge, but I think we have to address those as well and listen and try to understand western concerns and western views as well as those in the Province of Quebec. Thank you very much. (Applause)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Will you accept questions and comments?
MR. COMEAU: Certainly.
MR. CARRUTHERS: That was very interesting and enlightening. I wondered when you first spoke in your presentation, you spoke at the local level - local being Nova Scotia - about the education system and its effect on the francophone population in Nova Scotia. Towards the end, your indication that there must be an increased understanding across the country, including other interests such as western, do you see any kind of relationship, some correlation between the education system and how it evolved and that type of understanding? Or are they distinct issues?
MR. COMEAU: I guess I indicated that I feel that one of the underlying elements of difference between Quebec and the rest of the country are cultural ones, and I think that for the rest of the country to understand those differences and then be able to deal with them, that it is much easier to do if you eliminate the language barrier; then you have gone a long way towards eliminating the cultural barrier. I just personally find culture a very difficult thing to define or to put my finger on, but yet I understand it when I read a novel that was written in Quebec and they write about Quebec things. I can understand it, I just can't describe it.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Are there any other comments or questions? Mr. Fage.
MR. FAGE: I want to thank you very strongly, Gabriel, for your presentation. It makes me feel much more positive when I hear a person such as yourself, with your background, discussing that the road and the path are improving, that isn't a stalemate, that it isn't sliding the other way, that inside of this province there is progress being made on our diversity. And it is positive progress in that the Acadian culture or the francophone language has, hopefully, a better chance and the opportunity, even though it is slow, it will persist and grow in appreciation.
I guess my main comment, you alluded to our participation in a number of negotiations. I travel throughout Canada and, certainly, I sense some of those strains, being an English-speaking Nova Scotian, that you sensed that come from west to east, as well as linguistic and cultural backgrounds. The one comment I would like to make is whether one was in Granby, Quebec, going into a maple syrup supper or in Mapleton, Nova Scotia, I quite honestly felt welcome in both. I would convey that to everybody here.
I guess after your presentation, I just would like to say, merci, bon ami. (Applause)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I really would thank you for your very thoughtful and very well-spoken presentation. I just want to touch on one point that you briefly touched on at the end of your presentation, referring to the geography. There was another presentation which was going to be made here tonight by a gentleman who wasn't able to get here because he is from Economy and it was very difficult. We will hear from him, I know, by other means, if not at another hearing. He asked me to convey to the committee that we mustn't forget the one thing that built this country, and that is our transportation system, and that helps offset the difficulties we have with geography. So, your point is well taken. Thank you very much. Merci.
MR. COMEAU: You're welcome. (Applause)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I think there may be others who want to make a presentation. If there are, we would ask you to make yourself known. Mr. Baxter. Do you want to give your name to Ms. Stevens here?
MR. BOB BAXTER: Good evening, Madam Chairman, and members of the committee. It is my pleasure to say a few words on behalf of the Truro and District Chamber of Commerce. I will cut my remarks down because many of the things that we had to say have already been covered. Then at the end I would like to make a few personal comments because I was the serving officer in Quebec from 1976 until 1991 when the Parti Québécois came into power, and I had an opportunity to vote at the very first referendum.
The Truro and District Chamber of Commerce affirms its full support to the one strong country concept, with Quebec as an integral component. We believe, in principle, the seven tenets of the Calgary Declaration; however, we are fully aware that they are simplistic in fact and to think that they will be fully applied within our country would be folly. For example, to say that P.E.I. has the same status as Ontario or British Columbia, or to say that Nova Scotia has the same status, always, as Ontario or British Columbia, is not really practical, realistic or achievable.
I agree when people have questioned the word, unique, because I also looked it up in the Oxford Concise Dictionary, but I like it better than distinct. So, we have no real difficulty with the word, unique, as it concerns Quebec, as they are unique and important in our Canadian country. We must keep in mind, however, that we have several other unique areas within Canada besides Quebec. Even the most adamant separatists seem to want to retain many current conditions and terms that are advantageous to them within the concept of a sovereign Quebec to the detriment of the rest of the country.
We started a "give in" to Quebec many years ago that we cannot seem to stop, such as collecting their own provincial income tax and having the QPP instead of the CPP. We have to know as a country what further concessions, if any, the objective, rational Quebecer really wants that other provinces do not want or should not have.
We believe that the federal government has already decentralized too much power and too many responsibilities across the country now. As much as we truly want Quebec to remain in Canada, under no circumstances should the country accept - I want to emphasize - poor legislation and bad national policies in order to appease Quebec or any other single area of our country. We understand that we are discussing a destiny of a people with a unique culture, but in the 1990's we have more than Quebec with a dominant unique culture; for example, the Oriental population of British Columbia; for instance, in Richmond, B.C., there are two major shopping centres with no English signs, only Chinese signs.
Federalism must remain strong and progress on merit and not on compromise. It is essential that the federalists stand firm, be as vocal and as strong in preserving our country as the separatists are in trying to push their separatist movement. Canada is worth fighting for and we must all become fully involved.
As a final thought, we believe that a detailed, accurate demographic study of the profile of the separatists in Quebec versus a profile of the federalists would be worthy of the cost of the research. We believe it would clearly depict the serious economic problems that separatism would create for a proud people, a very important part of our country, and the final decision must be made by the people of Quebec and not by the courts or the politicians.
The Truro and District Chamber of Commerce fully stands for one country which includes Quebec within our Canada.
I also have attached to our presentation an article that I wrote in December 1995, We Must Be One Country, and recent article that our Chamber president had in January 1998 of our Central Nova Business News, Quebec Separation - non!
I should add, if I may, Madam Chairman, a couple of personal comments. I lived in Quebec from 1976 to 1981, when René Levesque came into power with the Parti Québécois. I lived there as a unilingual Anglophone. When Dr. Gaudet spoke tonight, again, I felt guilty that I had to get one of those machines because I had several opportunities to learn to be bilingual but when you have a hard enough job stuttering in English, it gives you a good excuse.
The Quebec culture is complex. I tried very hard to totally understand it, but I must admit that there are far more similarities than there are differences. I went through the period with a lot of hurt and watched Montreal go downhill from being Canada's most dynamic and most diverse city to what it is now, which is a shell of its former self.
I should add that I lived in five provinces in Canada, have spent considerable time in every other one, including the territories. Quebec is not totally different. Every place is different. At the start, after René Lévesque went into power, I went to ball games and hockey games and hardly anyone stood up for O Canada. At the end of two years, when the economic difficulties started to come, like every place, people were standing up, people were starting to sing O Canada again. Taxi drivers were speaking English again and other people were.
The economic factors, as Mr. Russell, I think, said tonight are real. René Lévesque said Sun Life would not move out of Quebec. Sun Life did move out of Quebec. The sad part, and the message we must pass to Quebec, is that when industry and economic strength move, economic strength does not come back. I think this is very important.
I think Mr. Whiffen's speech was very eloquent and well-prepared. Don Hamilton's speech was very well-prepared but I expected that from a boy from the east end of Truro. (Laughter) When you talk about a distinct society, we are one in the east end of Truro. (Laughter)
I went through the language police aspect in Ottawa. I watched all the different problems. I watched the French language unfold within the Government of Canada. I agree, what happened, we went from where a French-speaking Canadian could not be trained or work in his own language to the other extreme where we would attend briefings where most of us in the room would not understand. So, again, one extreme to the other. I think that is what causes many of our problems.
I was involved indirectly in the FLQ crisis.
I think this country is so important. As people said tonight, when you go some other place, you realize how important it is.
I have been to the Berlin Wall before it came down and watched with tears in my eyes when a grandparent is waving to the other side of the wall while her daughter or son is holding up the grandchild for them to see.
I was involved in family visit days on the Golan Heights, where they could not even shake hands but they could get from here to the wall to speak to their brothers and sisters, and sons and daughters.
What we have in this country should make us thankful but there is a price and I think that Quebec must clearly understand what they are losing. It is, without a doubt, and we can argue forever, that is social and not economic, but you cannot have a social prosperity, you cannot have good social programs without economic stability and economic growth. Thank you very much. (Applause)
MR. RUSSELL: I take it from what you are saying, initially, when you are speaking of the position of the Truro and District Chamber of Commerce, that the Chamber of Commerce is saying that we have, at the present time, too much devolution or that we should not have more? I didn't quite . . .
MR. BAXTER: Oh, there is no doubt, we are strong centralists in every way. We believe in a common training system.
I think the recent thing, by giving training to the provinces is wrong, especially to Nova Scotia because we are incapable of taking on training that the feds were doing. Without national standards, how can we have a mobile population that can go from place to place to earn a living when we do not have common trade standards? I think that is a federal responsibility. In fact, I would like to see a federal education system when I had to move my kids from five different provinces and convince them that it was all for their own good and not for Dad to earn a living. (Laughter)
[9:30 p.m.]
MR. RUSSELL: Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mrs. O'Connor has a comment or question.
MRS. O'CONNOR: Well, I would like to ask a question. The Royal Canadian Legion apparently got together to make up their ten principles.
MR. BAXTER: Yes.
MRS. O'CONNOR: Has the Chamber of Commerce across Nova Scotia, the Maritimes or even Canada gotten together and made any comments that they want to put in, to help or . . .
MR. BAXTER: Regretfully, no, but I am sure - in fact, we are trying to get that organized now within the Atlantic Provinces and within the Nova Scotia Chamber of Commerce.
MRS. O'CONNOR: When you have something together, I don't care when it is, I think it would be nice if you could pass it on to us.
MR. BAXTER: Can you wait until January 16th?
MADAM CHAIRMAN: January 23rd, judging by . . .
MR. BAXTER: No, no, because I think that you will find that it is a common thread, a pro-centralist government, pro-power in Ottawa because, after all, that is what Ottawa is supposed to do, govern, not delegate and disappear.
MRS. O'CONNOR: Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: You're DND?
MR. BAXTER: That's right.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Colonel Baxter. Your background gives you a unique and broad understanding that all of us should have in this country. I thank you for your presentation. (Applause) I didn't forget you. I wanted to make sure that you had to sit here and listen to everybody else, as well. Thank you very much, Bob.
We have one more presentation, I think, Dr. Scott Armstrong.
DR. SCOTT ARMSTRONG: If I had known I was going to have to follow the colonel, I probably would have regressed.
I am very pleased to be here tonight, particularly since I have great respect for the chairperson and the rest of the committee. It is kind of special, I think, for me to be here.
I am really here because I love Canada and I think everyone here tonight loves Canada. In my opinion, Canada is a virtual Garden of Eden. It has got vast beauty, abundant natural resources and relatively few people to enjoy them.
To extend this analogy of Canada as the Garden of Eden, I feel that English Canada represents Adam, Quebec represents Eve, the referendum is a poison apple and Bouchard is the snake. (Laughter)
Now, the snake does not scare me, as he already has one foot in the grave and, God willing, nature will take its course and he will meet his maker before he ever has a chance to feed Eve the apple again.
However, what does scare me is a clause in the Calgary Declaration where nine Premiers feel that Quebec should have a role to protect and develop its unique character which includes a French-speaking majority.
Now, I grew up in Truro and I graduated from Acadia University. When I got an education degree I could not get a job in Nova Scotia, which is fine because I was able to go to British Columbia and secure employment.
Now, if you give Quebec, which already has control of their own immigration, the right to make sure they have a French majority, if there are jobs in Quebec, an English majority in Quebec gets higher, say, in 50 years it becomes higher, then are you not giving them the right to limit my ability to go to Quebec to gain employment? I don't think that is right. That is not Canada.
What is great about Canada is that if there are jobs in Quebec - let's say there is a gold rush in Quebec - I can go up there and have a chance to become employed. But if you give the Quebec Government the power to restrict this right by ensuring it has a French-speaking majority, who is to say in 50 years they might start busing people out of Quebec because they cannot speak French? That is wrong. Believe me, we know that they probably would sink to that level.
Now, God willing, in 50 years, the entire population of Quebec could speak Gaelic. A lot of Gaelic people might decide to move to Quebec and become the new Gaelic community. I don't think that the Province of Quebec should have the power to restrict people to move there because they cannot speak French. I think that is undemocratic, unconstitutional and un-Canadian. Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Does anybody have any questions or comments?
MR. CARRUTHERS: Just one question. It is an interesting perspective, when you talk about the restriction on the rights of citizens to move freely within provinces of the country, and you see this restriction coming out of the Quebec legislation. Do you mean the existing restriction or do you see the onus on us not moving to allow a greater type of restriction? Do you think that exists now, the potential is there now?
DR. ARMSTRONG: I don't think the potential really is there now. I think if I am qualified to, let's say, teach university in Montreal, for example, I can apply and I might be able to get that job. But I think in the future, if the English population climbs to the point, they might start asking English-speaking people to move out to protect their French-speaking majority. I don't think that is right. I think if we give them that right in the future - now, granted, this doesn't give them that right, but it is sort of a first step to that.
I disagree with that one clause. I think most of this Declaration is wonderful, but to me it is a little scary and I want to ask the committee, do you feel that that clause is going to give them an added power to stop the movement of Canadians within our country?
MR. CARRUTHERS: Well, actually, that is sort of what we want you to tell us. It is Number 5 you are referencing, is it? And you have some concerns because of that potential? Would that be right?
DR. ARMSTRONG: I'm not a lawyer, but I figure . . .
MR. CARRUTHERS: God bless you, you don't want to be. (Laughter)
DR. ARMSTRONG: This is not going to happen soon, but if you are looking 50 years down the line, who is to say what the population demographic in this country is going to be and all joking and jocularity aside, I think we have to be far-sighted in what we decide the future of our country is going to be. As a young Canadian, I am thinking about the next millennium and I try to look ahead at what might happen 50 or 60 or 100 years from now. I think making statements such as this, supported by nine Premiers in our country, is kind of dangerous.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Are there any other comments or questions? I want to thank Dr. Armstrong for his very insightful presentation. I didn't admit that I had any relation to Dr. Armstrong prior to his presentation and now I am very proud to say that Scott is a nephew of mine and I am very impressed with your presentation. Thank you, Scott. (Applause)
Is there anyone else who would like to come forward?
MR. KIM MCCALLUM: My name is Kim McCallum; no prepared statement here. I am a strong Canadian, a strong federalist. I have watched, over my lifetime, ever since Trudeau left, we have had weak-kneed Prime Ministers and various Premiers across this country have gone not to help the country, but to see how many powers they can bring back to the provinces. Subsequently, we are weakening the central government to the point where somebody here mentioned earlier the dangers come as we are closer to the United States. Alberta and British Columbia - you know, why stay in Canada? I can think of 100 reasons why we all can. But we are slowly disintegrating, tearing the country apart before our eyes.
I think it would be very instructive for the committee to read that book of Trudeau's selected writings. Granted, it is his self-interest, but he strongly understands Quebec - it is unfortunate he wasn't Premier first before he became the Prime Minister - and understands the dangers of what we have been doing by caving into them. He sets it out very plainly. Every time we meet, it is never good enough. The bar goes higher. Somebody said, give everybody $1 million, while they change tomorrow. I want them as part of this country, I want the country to stay together, but there is a point. We have to be strong. As long as we have caved in, fine.
None of us can have any real problem with this Declaration. I know people will pick apart that Number 5. Well, sure, whether you call it unique, different, whatever, we all know they are definitely more different than Saskatchewan is from Manitoba, or whatever. They sell beer in corner stores; they have a few brains. (Laughter) I just don't want to water it down anymore.
Perhaps, the next time Bouchard says, we are going to have a referendum, don't go, horrors, let him set the date and the feds can say, all right, we will have one in Quebec. Set it one week earlier and say, this is the question, yes or no: you are a Canadian, you will have the Canadian passport, et cetera; if you are not, fine. Lay it out; just a thought. I really don't want the divorce to happen, but since Trudeau left and we got weak, they want more. And we Nova Scotians are no better. Whatever weak-kneed Premier we have had, well, we have more powers. But we are just destroying the country. Some pundits - I haven't read it clearly enough - are almost saying that when European union goes through, if it does - it looks likely - they will be closer to being a country than we are. I don't know, it just scares me.
There is nothing really wrong with the Declaration, but as somebody said, it is opening a can of worms and perhaps we should just leave it to the feds. It is nice that you take the time to get our opinions, but I think most of us can live with the Declaration if that is what you wanted to know. I could ramble on all night.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: We certainly appreciate your coming forward. Does anybody have any comments or questions?
MR. CARRUTHERS: I just have one question. When you speak about, perhaps, the weakening of the federal government, do you mean that vis-à-vis Quebec only, or do you think that that is a problem vis-à-vis western interests or eastern interests and it is the whole concept of the weakening of the federal government as opposed to simply vis-à-vis Quebec? Which of those two positions are you advocating?
MR. MCCALLUM: I want a strong federal government with the same rules. We are all the same, equal powers, everything is good about that Declaration. I think they have given away, or we, the provinces, have taken too many powers. Now, I can't articulate which are which; just from general readings and what I hear. I am not quite answering you there.
MR. CARRUTHERS: Yes, you are. Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: You are not the first presenter - of course, you have heard others here tonight - and at other hearings we have heard the same sentiment echoed on a strong central government. Number 7 refers to the federal system. Would you like to see that - I just ask the question - state more firmly that within a strong federal system or central government?
MR. MCCALLUM: Sure, that sounds fine.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for your presentation. (Applause) Are there any further presenters, or would anyone else like to make a comment?
MS. ELIZABETH MACKENZIE: Madam Chairman, members of the committee, and ladies and gentlemen, I didn't come with a prepared speech, but I know if I don't come forward and speak I am not going to sleep tonight. My name is Elizabeth MacKenzie and I was born and educated in Quebec and I have been living in Nova Scotia since 1964, having married a Pictonian, a strong Nova Scotian. I would like to say that I am very happy living in Nova Scotia, but I do miss Quebec. I also don't come with a proxy from that significant other.
I want to praise the committee for doing what you are doing and it was Mrs. O'Connor who said that it is never a waste of time when you are consulting other people, especially politicians. I think this is very fine. I feel very strongly about Canada. We are very lucky. We do not know how lucky we are. My husband and I had a chance to visit Israel in April and we came home realizing that we live in a very special country.
I think we are very lucky to have two official languages. I know there is some complaint about that, but with more than one language, I think especially our children benefit. I think that it is also a matter of recognizing the French culture, especially their language, and my experience has been, because I speak a little French, if you try some French, they just change their attitude right away, and it is because of your attitude that you are putting forth. I have noticed it on the telephone with long-distance operators in Quebec and I have noticed it when you approach a store clerk.
If we don't do anything else but try to teach our children five important words - and adults can learn it too - est-ce que vous parlez anglais, do you speak English? You are letting them know that, first of all, yes, you don't speak my language, meaning English, fluently, but would you be able to speak enough so that I can get along because I can't speak your language as well as I would like to. It is recognizing in the language and the culture. So, it is a matter of attitude. I know you can't legislate attitude, but I think in our educational system, that is where we can start. My training is as a teacher, but my experience has been that the majority of teachers have a good attitude, especially French teachers, and for the most part - well, they shouldn't be there if they are not trying to - want to pass this good attitude along to students.
I would like to suggest that there be more youth exchange programs between, well, let's just say the Province of Nova Scotia and Quebec to start with. There are wonderful exchange programs in 4-H and if it has worked there, can we not do something similar to promote the goodwill on behalf of Nova Scotians going into the Province of Quebec and vice versa. I think Mrs. O'Connor also mentioned, perhaps it is possible with adults. I think there
are many adults who would like to travel and let Quebecers know that we do care, we want you in Canada, and let's be Canadians first and together. Thank you. (Applause)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for coming forward. We appreciate it. Are there any comments or questions from members of the committee?
MRS. O'CONNOR: I think you can go home and sleep tonight. (Laughter)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Ms. MacKenzie.
Is there anyone else who would like to come forward? Yes, please do.
MR. EVAN PRICE: I also didn't come here today with a prepared speech, but I collected one as I was listening to the previous ones. I really don't know a whole lot about government and other topics related here today, so I can't say a whole lot. That is pretty much due to my age; I haven't been exposed to a whole lot. But I do think that Canada is more like a family than a marriage and in a family you don't really give one member total control over the whole family just because that member can damage the family unit, or the image of the family. The family as a whole should be doing everything in its power to stay together. Thank you. This meeting was very enlightening for me. (Applause)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for coming forward. I think there may be some comments.
MR. RUSSELL: If I may comment on Evan's presentation, it is certainly very short, but I think its brevity makes the point much better than perhaps some of the longer ones that we have heard. We thank you very much for coming forward.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: We appreciate very much your coming forward. Thank you very much. (Applause)
Is there anyone else in the room who would like to come forward to make any comments? Well, I want to thank all of you for coming tonight and I am sure that you all are as enlightened as all of the committee. I do appreciate your supporting the committee and showing your support for the country by being here tonight. I am very proud to say that it has been the largest attended hearing with the largest number of presentations.
MR. CARRUTHERS: What would you expect?
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Yes, what would I expect. Thank you very much.
[The committee adjourned at 9:51 p.m.]
