SELECT COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL UNITY
Mrs. Eleanor Norrie
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I would ask the meeting now to please come to order. We will commence the evening's proceedings with the singing of our national anthem.
[The national anthem was sung by Haley Dempsey, Heather Rosvold and Anthony Gray.]
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Our performers for this evening were three students from the Kentville Elementary School, Grade 6, Haley Dempsey, Heather Rosvold and Anthony Gray. They are accompanied by their teacher, Bob Shields. I want to thank them very much for being with us here this evening and being part of the evening's proceedings. Thank you very much. (Applause)
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Bonsoir. On behalf of the members of the select committee, I would like to welcome you to the fifth in a series of public hearings being held across the province on the issue of national unity.
Allow me first to introduce the members of the select committee. We have Mr. Ronald Russell, MLA for Hants West; Mr. John Holm, MLA for Sackville-Cobequid; Mrs. Lila O'Connor, MLA for Lunenburg; Mr. Robert Carruthers, Vice-Chairman of the committee and MLA for Hants East; and we have one committee member who is a little late arriving so he will be introduced when he does arrive. I am Eleanor Norrie, MLA for Truro-Bible Hill, and Chairman of the select committee. I am pleased to be here this evening in the Kentville area.
Before we proceed into the evening, I want recognize some other MLAs who are in the room. As you know, we are, as MLAs, a non-partisan, all-Party committee. We were chosen by the House of Assembly as a committee to travel the province and hear issues on national unity. We also have in attendance MLAs from the House of Assembly who will, of course, have an opportunity for input when the draft resolution goes to the House of Assembly for debate.
So I would ask you to recognize - I hope I have you all listed down here, there is a large number here tonight which I am very pleased to see. We have the Minister of Education, the Honourable Robert Harrison, MLA for Kings South. We have the Minister of Business and Consumer Services, the Honourable Wayne Gaudet, MLA for Clare; and the Minister of Human Resources, the Honourable Allister Surette, MLA for Argyle. We have Mr. George Moody, MLA for Kings West; George Archibald, MLA for Kings North; and we also have in attendance Mr. Scott Bryson, the MP for Kings-Hants. I see we also have John Murphy, the past member for Kings-Hants here this evening. I am pleased to have them attendance because they will be listening as well as the committee to the comments that will be made tonight when we move this issue to the floor of the House of Assembly to debate the resolution.
The purpose of this hearing is to listen to Nova Scotians' opinions on the Calgary Declaration and also the discussion paper that was presented by the five national Aboriginal organizations. There are copies available of the information on the table at the back. There are also located at the table, devices for simultaneous translation if anyone would wish to have it. I know that we will probably require it this evening so before we get into the presentations, perhaps if anybody wishes to have a device, they could please raise their hand and we will make sure you get it.
Very well. Our first presenter this evening is private citizen, Mr. Henry Bradford. Would you please come forward, state your name and go right into your presentation, please. You may sit at any of the seats. Right there is fine and speak into the microphone.
MR. HENRY BRADFORD: My name is Henry Bradford. I am a private citizen living in Wolfville and I would like to make a presentation tonight which I have typed copies of for the committee and a few spares in case anyone else is interested. My presentation is entitled How Canada Should Deal With Its Unity Problems. It is not strictly confined to . . .
MADAM CHAIRMAN: If you could sit down, sir.
MR. BRADFORD: Yes I will. How is that?
MADAM CHAIRMAN: That is great.
MR. BRADFORD: I would like to make two recommendations concerning Nova Scotia's role in preserving national unity: (1) The Government of Nova Scotia should not support the Calgary Declaration because it has the potential to do more harm than good. (2) Instead, the Government of Nova Scotia should promote and support trilateral constitutional discussions between delegations representing the anglophone, francophone and Aboriginal people of Canada.
I would like to expand slightly on those two proposals. The Calgary Declaration consists of 7 points; Numbers 3, 4 and 7 are simply feel-good statements about Canada and deserve no further comment. Numbers 1, 2 and 5 say, respectively, that all Canadians are equal, all provinces are equal and that Quebec is unique because its society is predominantly French.
As far as the Constitution is concerned, these three points appear to be somewhat over-simplified statements about the status quo and their purpose is not clear. If the Premiers mean that these should continue to be basic principles in any future constitution, then that is what they should say. Otherwise, these points contribute nothing new to the constitutional debate.
Number 6 is the only one that explicitly states anything new. It says, "If any future constitutional amendment confers powers on one province, these powers must be available to all provinces.". This position rules out any consideration of special status for Quebec.
Since any compromise between sovereignty and status quo federalism would involve some sort of special constitutional status for Quebec, Number 6 sends a message of no compromise and seems to reinforce Mr. Bouchard's claim that there is no point in talking to anglophone Canada.
In summary, the Calgary Declaration says very little that is new and the uncompromising message that it sends to Quebec's francophones will likely do more harm than good in the event of another sovereignty referendum. I, therefore, recommend that the Government of Nova Scotia not support the Calgary Declaration.
I don't want to be entirely negative so I have a second proposal, which I stated earlier, to take its place. In order to preserve national unity - this is Proposal 2 - we must first recognize the underlying problems. Canada, like many countries around the world, suffers from the divisive effects of ethnic nationalism. Our three principal founding groups, anglophones, francophones and the Aboriginal people have never assimilated into a single Canadian identity. The result is we-and-them attitudes and stronger feelings of loyalty to one's own culture than to Canada as a whole.
The basic political structure of Canada as a federation of 10 provinces with majority rule does not take these cultural divisions into account. Consequently, Quebec's francophones feel dominated by the anglophone majority on the national scene and the Aboriginal people feel that they are ruled in colonial fashion by both anglophones and francophones.
What is needed is a revision of Canada's basic political structure that will allow the francophone and Aboriginal minorities to feel that they are partners in a Canadian union in which they control their own affairs, rather than being prisoners of a system based on majority rule.
I do not pretend to have any simple answer to this dilemma. Instead, I would like to propose a process which could lead to an amicable solution. I propose that the entire matter of constitutional renewal be turned over to a tripartite commission, consisting of delegations representing the anglophone, francophone and Aboriginal people of Canada. This commission would be given the mandate of designing the framework of a new Canadian constitution that would satisfy the majority of each of the founding groups they represent.
If agreement were reached, the framework would then be submitted to the provincial and federal governments for approval and legislation in accordance with existing constitutional amendment procedures. In the unlikely event that no agreement could be reached, some sort of partition of Canada might have to be considered as a last resort. At least it would be a properly negotiated settlement between the three groups whose interests are involved.
A critical element in the success of such a process would be the selection of delegates, obviously not a simple problem either. Perhaps some combination of appointed and elected delegates would be desirable to obtain a proper mix of expertise and popular representation. The choice of delegates would have to be perceived by the public as fair and non-partisan and be perceived by legislators to represent the voice of the people.
In other words, you would want the recommendations to be taken seriously and not shelved like many Royal Commissions of the past.
When the provincial and federal governments and Aboriginal leaders had reached preliminary agreement on the selection procedure, the selection procedure and mandate of the commission should be submitted to the people for approval via a national referendum. Such a process would be viewed both internally and internationally as a fair and just way to devise a new constitution that respects the political rights of our three founding groups.
Although the separatist Government of Quebec would prefer to avoid constitutional negotiations, they would find it politically difficult to deny their francophone population the opportunity to design a new Canadian partnership if the negotiation process receives approval in the rest of Canada.
Moreover, the tripartite negotiation process would give the federal government the moral right to reject unilateral secession by Quebec and reaffirm that it will only recognize constitutional change approved via existing constitutional amendment procedures.
I, therefore, recommend that the Government of Nova Scotia promote and support a trilateral negotiation process to design a new constitutional partnership for Canada's three founding peoples. Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Merci. Are there any comments or any questions from the committee members? Mr. Holm.
MR. JOHN HOLM: I am intrigued by your commission idea. I think that is the first time, although, we have had some suggestions about negotiations, no formal process has been proposed to us to date that I am aware of.
I am wondering, as I am trying to very quickly think that through, if the process of trying to determine who would or would not serve on the commission that would be negotiating and fair representation representing each of the founding nations, the English and French, if establishing that might not prove to be so divisive that that, in fact, could in itself contribute to the divisiveness within the country as a whole. Have you thought of that?
MR. BRADFORD: Well, I have thought a little about it but my solution to that is just one person's opinion in 30 million. I would really rather see the governments consider, very carefully - as you pointed out, one of the primary obstacles to doing this, is the choosing of the delegates such that everybody would be happy with the choice.
We already have divisive problems that far exceed that. We have the threat of another sovereignty referendum in Quebec. I don't think we should admit that choosing delegates is such an obstacle that we can't go through with the process. It would have to be done carefully but it cannot be partisan. I don't think anything like this can be possibly be done by a hasty meeting of the provincial premiers, for example.
We saw what happened to the Meech Lake Accord. The Premiers may all agree on something and then before it can be put into effect, there are elections in some of the provinces, Parties change and the whole thing falls through.
It should not be - the Constitution is too important and too long term a problem to be simply decided by the governments of the day. It should be, certainly, non-partisan and it should be represented as broadly as possible, I think, of all Parties and all special interest groups.
MR. HOLM: Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Russell.
MR. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Bradford, I take it that, in essence, you're agin' the whole Calgary Declaration in total? Although you say that there are some particular clauses in which you are at least partially favourable, as I understand it, you are suggesting that we, in this province, vote against the Calgary accord in total.
The Calgary accord does not talk about constitutional change, it simply talks about a framework for further discussions. I was wondering if that would be your stance since that is all we are talking about?
MR. BRADFORD: Well, I don't see in the Calgary Declaration any framework there for further discussion at all. The Calgary Declaration strikes me as a pretty wishy-washy document, to be frank. Most of the statements are just statements about the way Canada is today, constitutionally, stated in a rather oversimplified fashion.
As I say, there is only one point that, really, you could consider to be anglophone Canada's position on the Constitution, or in other words, future constitutions and that is the one that says any constitutional changes that apply to one province should be applicable to all the provinces.
I don't think that is a good position for anglophone Canada to take. That is the only position I see in the whole Calgary Declaration. The rest of it is just more or less statements like the sky is blue.
If that is all the Calgary Declaration has to say, that one point, then, yes, I think Nova Scotia should not pass a resolution supporting it.
MR. RUSSELL: Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Are there any further questions? I think the only comment I would make would be similar to Mr. Russell's, that, if we could agree as this being basic values and a basis for further discussion on constitutional change, if all the provinces or the people of the Province of Nova Scotia could agree on that and then move to a suggestion such as yours with a commission, or others, and using this to start with. So, it would be the similar sort of question that I would ask.
MR. BRADFORD: Yes, well, this is my personal opinion, the one statement that it really makes that is different, I don't agree with. It would send the message to Quebec that we are not interested in any kind of compromise.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: We thank you very much for your presentation, sir. Our committee member, Mr. Ernest Fage has arrived, the member for Cumberland North.
Our next presenter is Mr. Allan Lynch, private citizen. We would ask Mr. Lynch to come forward; you can be seated at the table. If you have copies of your presentation, could you give them to Darlene as she goes by there? You need to state your name, sir, first.
MR. ALLAN LYNCH: My name is Allan Lynch; I live in New Minas. I am a writer; I tell you that so you can see that there is a background theme to communication in my presentation. I am here as an individual, though there is a group of writers and filmmakers, and other sort of arty people - or dilettantes if you want - who sort of thought about this question.
Because I am a writer, words are important to me and having read the Calgary Declaration, I find it banal. It seems to be a recipe for a generic country and I don't think it inspires a lot of passion. The one thing that I find truly offensive is the ending of Number 3. It says, "Canada is graced by diversity, tolerance, compassion and an equality of opportunity that is without rival in the world.". That has a jingoistic twist to it that reminds of other countries and not Canada. I think we are a little more mild-mannered. It reminded me of an incident in Florida last year where a school board ordered its teachers to teach their students that the American system was the only true democracy, that only Christianity was the true faith, that only the American legal system was true justice. I find that not a Canadian view of things. I would like to think that we are a little more tolerant.
My question is, how does the Calgary Declaration alter, affect or change the status quo? None of this that I read in this document seems to be changed, seems to be anything different than the Constitution, the Charter of Rights or what the courts already require you to do, or what the electorate would be screaming outside the Legislature if you tried to alter in any way.
I think that we have four issues in national unity, or four that I wanted to deal with. Typically, we ask the question: what is it that Quebec wants? We continually ask the question and reject the answers. So, I think we should stop asking that question, because it only prompts some people to compose shopping lists which are unacceptable to the rest of the population. I think we need to ask Quebecers what they hope to accomplish, and then we should ask them how being a small entity on the world stage would enable them to accomplish this?
[7:30 p.m.]
I recently wrote a business book about business in Atlantic Canada and an entrepreneur in Halifax told me that he merged his company with his rival and he said on his own he could be head of something small and struggling or he could be part of something big and flourishing. You know, it works in business and I think it would work in an economic sense. I think we have to ask them how they are going to survive in a world that is joining larger groups, like the economic union.
I think we have the problem of perception versus reality. As Canadians, we don't know each other very well. What the rest of Canada knows of Atlantic Canada is that we are fishermen, we are loggers or unemployed or on strike. Those are the only times that we ever seem to make the national news, the television news anyway. We live with perceptions of what the rest of the country is like without really knowing if they are true or if they are old impressions. I think that that limits us and that contributes to the national unity problem.
Two years ago, I was writing an article about a company called Efamol Research, which is probably a quarter of a mile from here; it is a great success story. I was writing the article for a national business magazine. The editor called me and said, well, where is the dirt? I said, there isn't any. I interviewed everybody from here to London and obscure researchers in Scotland and everywhere else. The editor who was based in Toronto said, well, if they are as good as you say they are, why are they in Nova Scotia? This is a prevailing attitude in the country and that was sort of the genesis for why I wrote a business book.
The last time I was in Montreal, my cab driver asked me why we - being English Canada - hated the French? There were so many things that I learned from that drive that I should have gotten him to take me around the block a few more times, but he thought that Quebec was the only officially bilingual province in Canada - it isn't of course. He was shocked to learn that we had French language education in the country, not only in schools but we had French language universities. I went to a cocktail party after my cab ride and there were business people and other people in the arts community there. We had a fairly lively discussion because a lot of them hadn't given it any thought. They don't know what we have; it is almost as if they have never even heard of Acadians, some of them. That is an oversimplification, but that group, that day in Montreal, that was it.
I just find that a lot of the people who support separatism really don't know very much about the rest of Canada. They seem to live in a corridor along the St. Lawrence and go South. I have another editor in Montreal, an editor of an English-language magazine, who asked me to write an article about Prince Edward Island because she heard it was very beautiful. She has never been east of the Gaspe, and yet she is an opinion-maker on the national stage. I find that sort of scandalous. I am skimming over this; you people can read it if you are interested.
I am proud to be a Nova Scotian and I am proud to be from Atlantic Canada; I am proud of an Irish heritage, and occasionally I think about being Canadian. I find this is the way that a lot of my friends also think. They are proud of being from Ontario or B.C.; we don't necessarily have a very strong national identity until we are out of the country, and then we are proud as hell.
I think we have to get to know each other better. I think the traditional ways that we have been doing it don't work, so I think we have to find new ways to do it. It may have to be a guerilla type of movement where we circumvent the politicians; I read that. I realize that
is sort of an anathema to say here, and go directly to people, whether you hire ads or do some sort of exchange, but not send the typical types of people on exchanges that you have in the past.
I also think that we are harmed by modesty. Many Canadians don't believe in our successes and accomplishments. In some ways we are victims of a U.S.-based media. If you watch the evening news, we rarely ever appear on the screen and so, as a consequence, Canadians don't believe that we do all of the things that we do. We go out and pound our own chests periodically but, because we are doing it about ourselves, it is rather suspect.
When I was writing this book about successful entrepreneurs in Atlantic Canada, people invariably said to me, oh, do we have any? It is that type of attitude. Most of the international media just ignores Canada totally; we are lucky if a national election gets 30 seconds on the BBC. I think this sort of conjures a non-belief in ourselves and this non-belief, I think, is transferable to how Quebecers feel about Canada. If we don't rate a very high international profile and we don't believe in ourselves, they don't necessarily see that they are leaving anything behind if they were to separate. So, I think we have to do more to let them know that there is a lot more here than what they think.
In the U.S., they define each presidential term, generally, by how they handle a crisis. I think in Canada, one of our problems at times is that when things run well, you don't necessarily see the need for all of the infrastructure and the rest of the country. Sadly, the Saguenay floods and the ice storms last week may show them some of the benefits of being part of a larger whole, but you take a lot of things for granted a lot of the time.
The fourth thing, I think, is that we have to forcefully question the premise on which separation is based. What leads Quebecers to think that they would be better off out of Canada? I think we have to ask them to look at their personal risk level of being outside of Canada, and I know people are always sort of doing this in a threatening way and I don't mean it that way. I think that these should be simple, basic, legitimate economic questions and not threats.
The people who, in my impression, lead the movement to leave Canada are people who are cushioned in some aspects. They have secure jobs and secure pensions - and I mean they are in the political class or in an academic class with a tenure - or they are totally disenfranchised and feel they having nothing to lose. But there are a lot of other people out there who seem silent most of the time and who have things to lose.
I believe that by celebrating and promoting the success of all Canadians, that we can get our fellow Canadians to believe in themselves and ditch our inherent insecurity. I think that happy and positive people see the benefits of a united country and it is the dissatisfied and disenfranchised who have nothing to lose.
I think we should also not let the population of Quebec live with the false sense of security that a perceived wrong or failure can be legislated right. I don't think that that is going to happen.
I don't think that this Declaration is the answer. I think the real answer is showing Quebecers that fellow Canadians have and do care about them, as we always have, and that the world in general isn't as kind as we are, or certainly no kinder. They can be part of something big or, like Blanche DuBois, they can hope to "rely on the kindness of strangers.". Thank you. I am a writer I had to throw that in. (Laughter)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Merci, and thank you very much.
MR. ROBERT CARRUTHERS: Thank you, Mr. Lynch, it was an excellent presentation. In another one of our public meetings, there was a presenter who put somewhat similar suggestions to us. He had indicated about this getting the facts across, for instance, on how, perhaps, Quebecers might suffer if they separated, in a non-threatening sort of way. He had suggested that, one, it can't be done around referendum times because it is just not going to sell. The other thing - and I just got a bit of it from you - is it really can't be done by politicians because there are interests there. He was suggesting that business would be a great vehicle to do this, when there are no referendums, indicating just exactly what the economic effects might be.
He also was pointing out that it must not be done in a threatening way, just in a factual way. You also seemed to bring in a social level, like you mentioned that there might be some other types of ambassadors between the provinces. What do you think of his comments, in light of what you say?
MR. LYNCH: When people are talking about price increases, at Acadia right now the professors are looking for a raise and the first thing the university says is, we are going to have to raise tuition. Well, you know, the students are just tired of hearing that type of thing. So many things are said around referendum that you just shut most of it out. We have created jobs for people who talk about these things constantly, but I think it is fair to go to conferences and raise the issue. Quebec, for instance, is a major supplier of dairy and poultry products for Eastern Canada and Ontario. Now, if they were to separate - and farmers have been fairly supportive of separation - do they think that their goods are going to travel freely across borders? Do they think that the consumers in the rest of the country are going to be receptive to products from that area? Those types of questions have been laughed at in the past, but it is just a simple economic fact.
I found an enormous amount of loyalty to Maritime and Atlantic-made products by people in business here - because I happen to write a lot of business articles, I run up against this quite a bit - and I think that that would be a problem for them. I think another problem, too, in terms of preservation of language, it costs money to have the labelling on products in
two languages. If a manufacturer, and most of the manufacturers of consumer goods in one way or the other - they may have branch plants in Canada, but they - are American-owned, if they are going to go to the expense of having a second language on their products, it makes more sense to them to have it in Spanish now and not French. So, without the larger protection of a larger country like Canada, with a market of 30 million, and suddenly you have shrunk it to 5 million, there are some manufacturers who could simply say that it is not enough for us. We could do better off putting it in Spanish and selling it in the southern U.S. And those types of little cumulative things all along the way. Okay?
MR. CARRUTHERS: Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Are there any other questions from the committee members? It is interesting that you have suggested the exchanges; we have heard that in a number of presentations that have been made and in discussions in talk-back shows on radio, that in order to get the communications and the understanding between the provinces, that exchanges would help with students, with seniors and with businesses.
MR. LYNCH: Of course, most business people don't have the time to go, but I think that they would be the most important ones to make your strongest ones. You could get the smaller businesses - when I think in terms of small, I am thinking under $25 million per year in revenue - you could get those people travelling, to talk to their counterparts and getting the ripple effect out there, because I think the small business person in Quebec has the same concerns as the small business person in English Canada. They don't necessarily relish the idea of having some sort of consumer backlash or having the value of their assets decline while their bank loans will always mysteriously stay at the same level.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I shouldn't have asked all the questions. Mr. Fage has further food for thought.
MR. ERNEST FAGE: Just on that particular point, do you think it is not already happening widespread right now? When I came down today, I saw Groupe Lactel trucks coming into this province on an agreement where the power has shut down their plants, milk being processed here. When I stop at a restaurant, any Pizza Delight, I see Saputo trucks which are all Quebec products. Many of those things that you have listed, those plants interplay or are already integrated with eastern Canada, when I think of the Irving group and the smaller companies, right down from the box plant in Dieppe to the paper towels manufactured in southern New Brunswick, those go to Montreal, the home office is in Montreal for those plants. A lot of our smaller plants are wired into Quebec strongly now. Is that maybe more perception than not? Isn't that trade in companies maybe happening to a larger extent now in eastern Canada?
MR. LYNCH: Well, there is a lot of trade back and forth. One thing, you talk about all of the companies in Montreal, a lot of things are manufactured there but even more things are simply sent there through a distribution system. It is a hub for things coming from the States and down. Sometimes I don't think that people really give a lot of thought to these things because it is an everyday occurrence. The situation this week is sort of extraordinary and out of the ordinary and makes people think about things. I seem to have spent a lot of time at funerals so far this year and you take people for granted until there is a lot of support and the food comes in the door and people are phoning and you get cards and you think, my God, they really were well thought of but you don't think about that the rest of the time. I think that that happens with some of these people. Invariably there are some business people who are thinking about these things.
The other thing I would want people to consider is that when Mr. Parizeau was the Premier, it was his attitude, like don't worry about it, we will figure it out, we will work it out, we will protect you. Well, they have a lot of money but they don't have as much as they think and you can't protect everybody from everything, as you all know, with what happens to budgets. So I think some people have been given a false reading on this.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Are there any other questions? Thank you very much, Mr. Lynch, for your presentation.
Is Monsieur Louis Cormier here this evening? Monsieur Paratte? If not, I know Mr. Lloyd Schmidt is in attendance; he is with the Reform Party Constituency Association. If the others arrive, we will certainly have them give their presentation when they do arrive.
MR. LLOYD SCHMIDT: Good evening, my name is Lloyd Schmidt and I am here on behalf of the Reform Party Constituency Association for Kings-Hants. There are several of our members in attendance here tonight and I want to thank them for coming.
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to Kentville. Thank you for giving the people in our area the opportunity to take part in open democratic discussion concerning our vision for the future of Canada.
Let me begin by congratulating the Government of Nova Scotia for its decision to form this committee to meet with Nova Scotians on the issue of national unity. This is a welcome development.
You have asked two questions, as we see here, Question No. 1, Does the declaration present a vision of Canada you are comfortable with? and Question No. 2, Do you think anything should be added? The short answer to both of those questions is, yes; the long answer is as follows.
The two outstanding features of the Calgary Declaration are: (1) this process of public consultation; and (2) the emphasis on equality of all citizens and provinces. From the outset, the nine Premiers have framed this discussion in such a way as to give this unity initiative a very high probability of success. Let us hope that this committee's work is a stepping stone to ending this country's tiresome national unity debate. We put our recommendations forward in the hope that the result will provide a document that unifies all Canadians in preparation for the challenges of the 21st Century.
Number 1, Equality of Citizens. Canada is an extremely large and culturally diverse nation. If we are to develop a national vision we can follow into the future, it must be based on some very fundamental democratic principles that we can all share and agree on. Number 1 satisfies that need and must not be compromised in any way. The alternative as proposed by some, would be to confer special status on certain groups based on their linguistic, ethnic, or racial background. This gave rise 32 years ago to affirmative action programs that we recommend be eliminated. Special status is a denial of democracy. That is not to deny the reality that some people are disadvantaged as such, or that we should not try to change that reality, only that this is an ill-conceived idea in the attempt to correct the inequities of history. It compounds the very problem it claims to change.
We are encouraged that the Premiers chose the phrase, "equality of opportunity" in Number 3. As I said before, we are a diverse society and we not only tolerate but uphold the right of citizens to preserve their linguistic and cultural diversity while using their own resources to do so. We also believe that we have an individual and collective responsibility to care and provide for the basic needs of people who are unable to care and provide for themselves. However, we must guard against equality being interpreted as equality of outcome. Equality of outcome would be the result of a government imposing its will on the people. The Premiers have correctly recognized that a government must provide a level playing field so that individuals and families feel empowered to care for themselves.
Number 2, Equality of Provinces. Number 2 is absolutely essential if you agree, as we do, that the democratic institutions of our country need to be rebalanced - and that's a word that I am going to use over and over again. This clause needs to be explained as to how the provinces would be made equal and we offer the following points for discussion:
(1) Give the same package of legislative responsibilities to each province and clearly define the responsibilities of the federal government and responsibilities of the provinces. In cases of uncertainty, the bias should be towards decentralizing to the provinces. As it stands now, the federal government is doing a poor job of delivering many programs and should concentrate on doing a good job on fewer programs. We think the areas that the federal government should concentrate on are defence, regulation of financial institutions, the Criminal Code, facilitating national standards, equalization, international trade, domestic trade and reform of national institutions such as Parliament. Included among the powers that should be left to the provinces are all areas designated by the Constitution as exclusive provincial
jurisdiction, and, also, such areas as employment training, social services, language and culture, municipal affairs, sports and recreation, housing and tourism.
The federal government does have a role to play in establishing and maintaining national standards when there is public support for that, but it must be done through a process of cooperative agreement and stable and continuing funding rather than imposition by a federal minister. The federal government should not withhold transfer payments or use its spending power to influence areas of provincial jurisdiction.
Each province must be dealt with equally by the federal government. To clarify this point further, we would ask that the committee change the wording of Number 6, and I refer you to Number 6, to read, "If any future constitutional amendment confers powers on one province, these powers must be conferred on all provinces." The word available might imply an option.
Once equality of status for the provinces has been clearly defined, Number 7 will largely be satisfied. Only when people in governments understand what their responsibilities are can they work together cooperatively with minimal political influence.
Number 2, Equality of Provinces. The Premier should recommend the establishment of a reformed Triple-E Senate. Many people advocate the abolition of the Senate altogether and many senators have given them good cause to do so but abolishing the Senate would not change the political imbalances in Canada. I have the impression that people who advocate the abolition of the Senate do not understand why we have one and, therefore, do not understand the consequences of abolition. An attempt to abolish the Senate would probably turn into a constitutional nightmare in any event. As a positive alternative, a Triple-E Senate would legitimize the much maligned Upper Chamber and help to reduce the cynicism that many people have about politicians.
A Triple-E Senate means elected by the people with equal representation from each province and which is fully effective in safeguarding regional interests. It is understood and agreed by all that the House of Commons must be representation by population. Representation by population alone, however, leaves areas with smaller populations at a potential disadvantage. The House of Commons must be kept in check by a Senate with equal representation from each province.
We would ask that this committee and the Atlantic Premiers put on their regional caps for a moment and consider the positive impact of a Triple-E Senate on the Atlantic region. Equal representation from each province in a country of 10 provinces gives Atlantic Canada's four provinces 40 per cent of the senators in what would be a legitimately elected democratic body. I hope everyone got that math. Senators from Atlantic Canada would effectively represent the interests of the region for the many causes we have in common. A Triple-E Senate would do more for Atlantic Canada than all of the ACOA grants, all the Atlantic
Cabinet ministers, all the patronage appointments and all the pork-barrel politics rolled into one. It would help restore us to our rightful position as a leading economy, a position Nova Scotia enjoyed when we joined Confederation and a position to which we can return by rebuilding and rebalancing our country.
Number 3. I want to deal with the unique character/distinct society clause, reference clause Number 5. We urge our Premiers to remain vigilant against any attempt to separate Number 5 concerning the unique character of Quebec from the clauses emphasizing equality and turn it into another reworded distinct society clause. It is very important.
As recently as the last federal election, the Leaders of the federal Liberal and Progressive Conservative Parties were strongly advocating distinct society for Quebec. There is a temptation by some to accept the distinct society or unique society clause as a way of ending the unity debate and pacifying the separatists in Quebec. There is no compelling evidence that either would happen. Let me state clearly that this does not imply a sentiment against Quebec. Whether we talk about Quebec separatists, western separatists, or General John Cabot Trail's Cape Breton Liberation Army, separatist sentiment is a sad reality in Canada.
[8:00 p.m.]
Let us outline some of the pitfalls of the distinct society clause. The Parliament of Canada or the Premiers can word a distinct society clause any which way it likes. The job of interpreting such a clause would be left up to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada is not an elected body and therefore there can be no guarantee that its interpretation will reflect the majority will of the people of Canada. We live in a democracy, after all. In the event that an issue concerning Quebec separation was brought before an international court and if distinct society was constitutionally entrenched, it is not hard to imagine how such a clause would influence that court's decision.
The last point. The results of the last federal election left Canada divided into what could be described as regional blocks. The West rejected the status quo over concerns for equality and inclusion. Quebec rejected the status quo over concerns for real systemic change and preservation of language and culture. Atlantic Canada protested against the government's inability to address our chronically underperforming economy. Ontario opted for the status quo. In the face of this, Atlantic Canadians could play a pivotal role in ending this constitutional agony by aligning itself with the West's position.
If you believe that bestowing distinct society status will win the day in Quebec, then you run the risk of further alienating the West. I want you to think about that for a moment because I don't think that that is a point that is appreciated too much in Atlantic Canada here. If you are convinced, as we are, that the people of Quebec have not heard the option of equality - and I want to stress that as well - for all and the devolution of powers for which
they have been asking and you are willing to support that position, then you accomplish two things in the process. You help rebalance the country so that our economy can improve and you have a better chance for consensus of values in the West, in Quebec, in Atlantic Canada and hopefully Ontario, once people in that province get a sense that a solution is imminent. You will notice that I didn't leave Quebec as the odd man out on this one.
The last part, secession contingency plan. It is incumbent on any responsible government to plan for worst case scenarios. It is also only fair to people contemplating separation to let them know exactly what the consequences of such actions would be. There is no question that in the 1995 referendum, a large number of people of Quebec misunderstood what the results of a yes vote would mean. This would hardly have been fair to them had the yes side been successful. Therefore, we recommend that the Premiers prevent such misunderstanding from occurring again by defining terms and conditions of secession. These terms and conditions would be applicable to any province or region attempting secession from Canada.
We offer the following points for the basis of such a plan. Any secession negotiation must respect the principles of democratic legitimacy, the rule of law and the interests of Canada. The right of Canadians within a seceding province to remain part of Canada and to petition Parliament for that purpose must be respected. A seceding province would have to assume a share of the national debt proportional to its share of Canada's population. The Canadian citizenship and passports of people choosing to reside in a seceding province would be revoked. Full, unhindered rights of transportation and transmission across the territory of a seceding province would be maintained. Last, and perhaps the most important of all, final terms and conditions of any secession agreement would require the approval of Canadians through a national referendum.
The federal government does not appear to have formulated any contingency plans for this eventuality, the excuse being that by doing so it would exacerbate a delicate situation. We offer this secession contingency plan in the spirit of fairness to all.
In conclusion, it is our belief that this committee's work will take on great historic significance. By focusing on equality and by consulting the citizens of this province, we stand a far greater chance of getting it right this time. The ultimate goal of this committee must be to finally end this unity debate as it has been an ongoing sore spot in Canadian history and impairs the growth of our country. We hope our recommendations meet with general approval and want to wish this committee much success and look forward to a positive outcome for a unified Canada. Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much. Are there any comments or questions from any of the committee members? Mr. Carruthers.
MR. CARRUTHERS: Two points. In the closing part of your submission, you indicate these terms of secession. I have heard some other comments from presenters, basically on this principle, but the rules of what is going to happen should be made clear. Once again, it was emphasized that it should not be done at a time of referendums or a time when the issue is on the table and it should not be done, necessarily, by politicians in a threatening way. I wonder, first, what your comments on that would be, if you would agree with that.
MR. SCHMIDT: That it should not be politicians?
MR. CARRUTHERS: That is what this presenter was saying, that the economic things, that sometimes if two sets of politicians face off, all you get is a face-off. I don't know how else to do it in some of these terms.
MR. SCHMIDT: I have heard that comment a couple of times tonight about politicians not being the ones to do it. I just wonder how - if I can wonder out loud - that would possibly change things. At the end of the day, if you choose somebody else to do the same job, you wind up with a politician only with a different name. The Reform Party has long advocated that we need to reform our national institution so that we can make our politicians more responsible and more responsive so perhaps if we took that tack instead of going out and choosing - I mean we have a room full of politicians here and every one of them wants to do the best job for this country that he or she can possibly do. I don't doubt anybody's integrity in that regard. I find it a little discouraging that so many Canadians have that opinion of you people who have been elected and us aspiring politicians.
MR. CARRUTHERS: The other part that I had in that regard came from, actually, it seemed to be just the opposite, a couple of presenters. You are advising that any bias on a question of constitutional powers be shown toward the provincial government versus the federal government. Most of the presenters have said the opposite. One of things that was pointed out on the powers of the provincial government versus the federal government, a presenter at the last meeting we had pointed exactly to the one that you emphasize should go to the provincial government, that being employment training. He went to quite some length to indicate why a small province like Nova Scotia could never compete, could never educate its people properly in employment training on its own. These are not my words, these are another presenter's. I wonder if you have a comment because your position here, biased toward the provincial government's powers in the area of employment training, flies exactly opposite to the point that he had made. Now that is great to hear two views but I wonder if you had a comment on what he said, that we are just not big enough to be able to train our people in wide areas properly. What would you say to that?
MR. SCHMIDT: Well, we have a Minister of Education in our midst here. Perhaps he could answer it better. What I would say to them is, look, we have done a more than adequate job of educating our people up to this point. There are a lot of people nowadays who would like to see some educational reform but I think it has far more to . . .
MR. CARRUTHERS: I wasn't talking about education. I was talking about employment training, as mentioned in your submission.
MR. SCHMIDT: Okay, once again I am not sure that size has anything to do with our ability to train or employ or educate anybody. I will just point, and again it is not about employment training, but the issue in the Ontario teachers' strike was not money and it wasn't the size of the Teachers Union, it wasn't the size of the budget, it was about results. So there you have the largest education budget in Canada, and I think they even said it was the largest in North America and yet the results were brought into question. So I don't think size would have anything to do with it.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Are there any other comments? Mr. Holm.
MR. HOLM: Briefly, if I may, there are a number of points but for time I will try to be briefer. You talked about decentralization. You are advocating then the devolution of increased powers to the provinces from the federal government. Correct?
MR. SCHMIDT: Yes.
MR. HOLM: You talked also about facilitating national standards. You also talk about that Number 6 should be changed so that it would be a requirement that all provinces assume powers if those powers are given to any one province. I guess I am looking at here in Nova Scotia, and similar to the train of thought that Bob is coming at, I mean, we can talk about all being equal but economically we are not all equal. In Atlantic Canada, as in other parts of the provinces, Atlantic Canada once was providing assistance to other parts of this country when we were, and hopefully, some day we will again be a have province and be able to assist the others. I guess I am having some difficulty, I admit freely and ask you to comment upon it, if we are all equal, if those provinces that do not have the economic basis, the means to be able to deliver equal processes or programs, if you are forced to assume them aren't you in effect making them less equal because they don't have the ability to deliver at the national standards that the federal government is supposed to facilitate for but for which it cannot use any threats about withholding monies if they aren't met?
MR. SCHMIDT: You are talking about ability to fund programs based on national standards that are agreed upon.
MR. HOLM: That's part.
MR. SCHMIDT: I guess we should take greater care in trying to explain that these ideas of devolution of powers in no way impact equalization payments and in no way impact the province's ability to tax for those programs. We talk within the Reform Party of restructuring the tax programs so that tax points are given to provinces in order that they can raise those funds and that equalization payments should be focused on provinces that are most in need so that funding is always made available. Funding should never be a question. I reference you back to, I think, it was the 1993 election when the issue of funding for Medicare was an issue, and in fact it was an issue in the last election, the government of the day takes great pride in saying that they are the great preserver of the national Medicare Program but yet the funding continues to shrink. We would in the face of a question like yours, we would say well, why is this happening? Why not have a government commit to a funding program and stick to it and be made to stick to it? So I think in that way the smaller provinces in Atlantic Canada could rely on some kind of stable funding. I make reference to continuing and stable funding. That would, I hope, answer that question.
MR. HOLM: Just if I might, one other brief point. The Triple-E Senate concept certainly has been an idea that has been floating out there for a long time.
MR. SCHMIDT: I will tell you, it is a very prominent idea in western Canada.
MR HOLM: I appreciate that. Certainly in the United States they have a Triple-E Senate. You also talked about getting rid of the Senate which in itself would create major constitutional and so on problems. Do you think it would be easier to sell to the people of Ontario, for example, or British Columbia, that they will have the same number of senators that Prince Edward Island will and would and on a population basis not just provinces but on a population basis? When we talk about democracy one of the fundamental things we always say is representation by population. If we are going to give, in effect, about 55,000 people each one senator or if it was two, just to use the American model, versus 3.5 million in Ontario to one senator is there really much possibility of that kind of an issue flying?
MR. SCHMIDT: If I could have taken longer in writing this, I would try to point out, remember the part where I broke it into four regional blocks and I did point out that really the question is, first of all, let's sell this idea of equality and devolution of powers to Quebec. Let's see if they accept that idea and then the odd man out is really not Quebec anymore it is Ontario. I would ask the people of Ontario, first of all, do you believe in democracy, do you believe in a balanced Confederation? I would hope that the majority of people in Ontario would answer yes to that. I am sure the people of Ontario are as tired of this unity debate as we are, and once they understand that the other three regions, so-called, have some kind of consensus on this, I would hope that they would step up and agree with that.
That's why I would urge that the Atlantic Premiers and this committee adopt the West's position because they are the ones that, for the most part, have stressed equality of citizens and provinces. I think I am running over my time here. Thank you very much.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for your presentation, sir.
Mr. Gordon Willden of the Homeowners Association of the Village of Cornwallis Park. Would you please state your name at the beginning of your presentation, sir. Thank you.
MR. GORDON WILLDEN: Madam Chairman, members of the select committee, good evening and thank you for the opportunity to make this presentation. It is an honour to contribute our opinions to this most serious question, the unity of our country.
My name is Gordon Willden, I am 68 years old and I am retired. I am now living in the retirement community established by the disposal of the 246 units of the permanent married quarters at what was the Cornwallis Naval Base. I am a director on the Board of Directors of the Homeowners Association and I am making this presentation on behalf of this organization.
The citizens of our community come from every province in Canada, the Yukon and Northwest Territories, from three states in the United States of America and even from Africa. Typically, we are retired after years of productive activity in many locations throughout the world. We are retired with many skills, trades and professions. Having reached this stage in life and having the ability to look back over a great number of years and a great many experiences, we are pleased to have this opportunity to contribute in a small way to the future of this most wonderful of all countries.
We feel that the problem being discussed by this committee, national unity, or more properly, the lack of national unity, is only a symptom of the real problems that pervade this potentially great country. The underlying problems are the destruction of symbols that remind of our experiences together and the lack of real Christian equality being practised by our governments. To say this is to place the blame for the situation directly on the governments, and this is exactly where it belongs.
Our governments have concentrated on defining and catering to differences in our people and in doing so have pointed out to the whole world that we are having trouble with the different kinds of citizens in this country. We stress differences in language, in culture, in race. We go further. We give preferential treatment of many kinds to any who are perceived to be different, even if it is only that their ancestors spoke a different language or came to this country from a specific country or were maltreated by today's standards by those who were disputing ownership of the land at the time. We even seriously consider the category of being designated special in some way. The term in Quebec is distinct.
Our government has systematically destroyed the heritage that our ancestors brought to this country and the heritage that we, as a people, have built together over time. Nothing can be as despicable as an organization that destroys its own. I will mention only two
examples. First, the institution of the new Canadian flag to replace the red ensign. Our government ignored the fact that it was under the red ensign that our men and women had served in so many places under so many circumstances and became recognized, at last, by the world as a nation. This flag did not indicate race, colour, creed or ancestry. It indicated Canadians - strong and proud and together - not hyphenated Canadians, not semi-Canadians but Canadians.
Our new flag identifies us only as one of the new small emerging nations that try to establish tradition and heritage by political decree. It can't be done, just as unity cannot be legislated, just as a people cannot be joined together in mutual respect because you give away free copies of our flag. Unity, through mutual respect, must be earned and it must be earned together.
For my second example, I would remind you of the herculean effort put forward by our governments after 1945 to rid this country of the signs of war, the insignia of war or anything that remotely reminded us of war. This effort, and at horrendous expense, was fostered by bleeding hearts in our government who felt that war could be done away with if the things of war or war effort were removed from our sight. Just last month, the Cornwallis Park Development Agency, an arm of ACOA, moved a Voodoo aircraft and a Churchill tank from the static display site at the base to a makeshift museum so as to hide the tools of war and make the area they were previously in more unmilitary in appearance. What hogwash. Do they think that symbols of our heritage are only bright, warm fuzzies? How do they think Canada protected itself, with damp hankies?
In the documents supplied, I find the Framework for Discussion of this committee, and it is divided into two schedules. Schedule A has to do with the points agreed to by the Premiers and territorial Leaders in September 1997 and Schedule B has to do with the points brought forward by five Aboriginal organizations in November 1997. Why are the Aboriginals not included in Schedule A? How is this possible? Are Aboriginals living in this country not Canadians? Are these people some kind of special citizens with different rights and privileges? How have we allowed them to fight for this country if they are not considered Canadians? Is this committee itself unable to extend equality? We believe that Aboriginals must be full citizens of Canada and must be treated as such.
Number 1 of the framework speaks of Canadians as being equal and having equal rights. We agree wholeheartedly and expect all our governments to follow this in every facet of every program and to the letter. No more social engineering. No more deciding that our Aboriginals are different, that those who speak French in the Civil Service should receive $800 per year extra. No more denying jobs to qualified applicants because they don't speak French, even though the job can be done without it. No more establishing and supporting unilingual universities in provinces where their requirement is so low that they have to recruit students from other countries to be viable. How about actually practising equality?
Number 2 speaks of all provinces as having equality of status. Coming from the Maritimes and seeing so many government offices, service centres, branches, et cetera, being transferred to Quebec, and knowing of the refusal of the government to allow one of the federal Houses to have equal representation by province can only indicate that there is no real commitment to equality on any level. Favouritism then, is the name of the gave.
Number 3 speaks of equality of opportunity and this, by a government that stresses the hiring of visible minorities according to some bureaucratic percentage. Never mind that they may have to adjust the requirements in order to fill their quotas. As an example, I give you the present RCMP recruiting campaign aimed at women and visible minorities. They have said that they have adjusted the entrance requirements to make it easier for women and some specific minorities to qualify. This is not equality of opportunity but social engineering of almost the worst sort. Social engineering destroys equality. Opportunity must be equal for all, no special cases, no patronage, no changing of the rules to achieve racial, language, political or gender makeup. Anything less is social engineering.
Number 4 says that Canada's diversity even includes Aboriginal peoples and cultures, the English and French languages and a multicultural citizenry. Do they think that by describing our diversity that way they will somehow legitimize the fixation with French and the idiotic position with Aboriginals? Canada was filled by peoples from almost every country of the world. We hope that they have brought their culture and their language with them to enrich us all for the future. We hope that they will find culture and language here that they will add to their own for their enrichment. We wish that the government would stop promoting minority language, culture and rights and I am including here the promotion of the French language.
Number 5 has to do with the recognition that Quebec was allowed extra privileges under Confederation in that it was allowed to keep its Civil or Napoleonic Code, its religion, its language and its culture. This, by the way, was given to a people who were given away by their mother country and defeated or conquered by those in their new country. Because of this, Quebec has claimed the right to protect and develop its code, language and culture within Canada. This is fine as long as it does not get favouritism from the federal government and money to pay for these extra considerations. Special consideration under our governments has extended to the ridiculous point of having representatives from Quebec being paid by the Government of Canada, refusing to carry on the business of government and working for the break-up of Canada. This is just like the last war when it was necessary to invoke conscription to provide sufficient replacements for our forces and it was resented in Quebec to the point that many had to be hunted down or disappeared into the countryside.
Number 6 says that any future powers that one province gets must be available to all. It should also be that any past constitutional amendment should also be available to all. I guess that I should not be surprised that this had to be put in as a separate item because it is
obvious that our governments do not understand that equality must apply to all or it is not equality.
Number 7 says that the federal, provincial and territorial governments should work in partnership and cooperatively to ensure efficiency, particularly in the area of social programs. We think that the needs of our country would be best and most efficiently served if there was a clear division of responsibilities and authority between the different levels of government. The federal government should look after things that are national and international in scope and provincial governments should look after things that are provincial in scope. Defence, immigration, security/intelligence, international trade, income tax, banking, postal services, transportation, citizenship and old age pensions would be the most obvious federal responsibilities. Things like natural resources - with the exception of fisheries - should be provincial, along with the balance of government services, things like education, health, social assistance, unemployment, workers' compensation, corporate regulation. The important dividing feature would be whether or not it is national or international or is it strictly provincial in scope.
[8:30 p.m.]
Regarding Schedule B, we invite the Aboriginal peoples of Canada to consider themselves to be full Canadian citizens enjoying all the inherent rights and privileges that that entails. In addition, we invite the Aboriginal peoples to participate fully in the political and governmental processes of this country. We want full equality with all citizens of this country and we are prepared to respect them and expect to be respected in return. Existing treaty rights and land claims in existence at Confederation were guaranteed and continued and now must be looked at in light of the existing circumstances of population and fairness and reasonableness to all. We do not see how two peoples can occupy the same area and operate two separate and distinct systems of government. Who sets the standards of communal interaction in this kind of situation? Who enforces them and who pays the bills?
We feel that this country can no longer afford the piecemeal, paternal, disjointed bureaucratic system of Aboriginal claim handling to continue. Settlements of the size and style of the Nunavut debacle must be avoided. The principal of appeasement illustrated here is ludicrous. Less than 20,000 people received a gigantic tract of land, large individual cash payments, a $350 million capital city and it went on and on, with mineral rights beyond that enjoyed by any other Canadian. We feel that this is the type of largesse that will come back to haunt us in the future.
We believe that the Aboriginals can probably govern themselves in the areas where they have exclusive control but only there and only if it does not disrupt or deny their neighbours from the proper enjoyment of their area. Self-government of this type will only be possible if we have a strong, national government paying attention to their specific concerns and staying out of areas of provincial concern.
In conclusion, we want all levels of government to display and promote the preservation of deployment of all kinds of symbols of our heritage, whether it be the red ensign or the last corvette, HMCS Sackville. Wanton destruction, as has taken place with the facilities at Cornwallis, should never happen again. We want equality, true equality, practised in the day-to-day operation of all levels of government. No more social engineering. God created us equal and we will die equal. In between we want equal treatment. Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Willden, for your very concise presentation. Would you entertain any questions from the committee?
MR. HOLM: Just one, if I might, as you are the first presenter this evening who is presenting on behalf of a group, on behalf of the Homeowners Association of the Village of Cornwallis Park. Just for clarification, the presentation, now, was this formed at a public meeting of the Homeowners Association of the Village of Cornwallis Park, by the board of directors? I am just wondering what kind of involvement all of the other 200-some odd homeowners would have had in the preparation of the presentation.
MR. WILLDEN: I was wondering if anybody would ask me by what authority I spoke. I have been on the Board of Directors of the Homeowners Association ever since it was formed and I expressed to them that I wanted to make a presentation here as a private citizen and they asked me if I would do it on behalf of the board. No, they had no input into it.
MR. HOLM: Okay, so this is on behalf of the board, but these are your thoughts; they have not been run by all of the other members of the board or the homeowners?
MR. WILLDEN: That's true, but with what has happened down at Cornwallis Park and the kind of formation it is, our meetings have been almost weekly; in fact, they had been weekly up until about Christmas time. We have been in all kinds of situations and they know me pretty well. They have asked to have copies of this to include in their newsletter, which they will get tomorrow. I feel quite confident that the views I have expressed here would be fairly well endorsed by them.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Are there any other comments or questions?
MR. CARRUTHERS: I just have one quick question. This may be expounding upon the obvious, but I could say safely that you are not in agreement with either one of these accords in any way? (Laughter) Would there be a short answer to that question?
MR. WILLDEN: Not really. If you go back over the comments, you will find that to a great extent we agree with the points that are made; that is fine, because they follow pretty well what was in the original Constitution of Canada of 1867. However, these points have not
been applied by our federal government, in particular, in detail. We do not have a country in which the individual citizens are equal. They are not.
MR. CARRUTHERS: So it is the application more than the words themselves?
MR. WILLDEN: Absolutely the application.
MR. CARRUTHERS: Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for your presentation; we appreciate your coming this evening.
MR. WILLDEN: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I would ask if Mr. Harry Cook, private citizen, would come forward.
MR. HARRY COOK: Madam Chairman, members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, it is a pleasure to be here to address the subject of standing up for Canada. Now, I would probably not be here this evening if it were not for a casual comment by Carl Brewer at the trial of Alan Eagleson in Boston. This is what Carl Brewer said, "Thank God for the United States of America because this never would have happened in Canada.". I am sure he would not want Canada to try to emulate the Excited States, and neither would I, but might it not be about time we developed a stronger, more positive, pro-Canadian attitude. Official reaction to the Quebec referendum and the threatened break-up of Canada, for example, was hardly that of a mature nation. We were saved only by the response of patriotic Canadians from all over the country who travelled to Quebec to stand up for Canada. The people are ready, but the question remains, who speaks for Canada?
Now, an entirely different situation. Lysiane Gagnon, a prominent Montreal journalist, reveals another factor in the separation question, "Ideologies are stronger than facts and figures in Quebec to-day.". Attempts to placate Quebec by logic absolute and by political and economic favours were unsuccessful in the past and would be more so today. You would probably be surprised, for instance, to see frequent mention of The Conquest in Quebec media. Two colonial invaders fought over Canada over 230 years ago and yet, as the Quebec licence plate states, "Je me souviens". I remember what you did to us. Sir Winston Churchill observed in a similar situation, "If the present now engages in a quarrel with the past, then surely the future will be lost.".
Is it any wonder that facing this basic ideological reality and with Quebec showing scant interest verging on contempt for the Calgary Declaration, it would be unwise to contemplate any constitutional concession along the lines of Meech, distinct, unique, whatever. Thus we continue our endeavours to weave a nebulous emotional factor into a
proud and united Canada. Manifest goodwill must prevail in a comprehensive statement of Canada's policy, including a commitment to respect and defend the rights of all Canadians, wherever they may be.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Cook. Are there any comments or questions from the committee?
MR. RUSSELL: Just a quick one, Madam Chairman. I take it, Mr. Cook, that you are in sympathy with the principles of the Declaration?
MR. COOK: No, sir. I am sort of for the Quebec view on that; I don't think it is useful at all. I think it is a lot of words that mean nothing. I think it shows the weakness of Canada. If Canada has to come out with its leaders making a statement like that, what sort of a pussy-cat nation are we?
MR. RUSSELL: So, your suggestion is that the Framework for Discussion should be much meatier, it should be more detailed?
MR. COOK: Many of the suggestions that I have heard by previous speakers here this evening - I must say that I worked in Montreal all my life until I retired here. My wife happens to be a French Canadian, so we have deep family and friendship relationships in Quebec. It is surprising to note, as one speaker did, how little they know of Canada. They know so little of Canada as a nation; they know Quebec and, as someone said, they probably have never been beyond - I forget where they said. They don't travel Canada; they don't feel comfortable in any other place.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Are there any other questions or comments?
MR. HOLM: Just one, if I might. I am interested, certainly, in your perspective, from the fact that you have lived and worked in Quebec and have family there, as well. When we are talking about attempts to placate Quebec or to appeal to the people of Quebec, there are the people of Quebec, then you have some other people in Quebec who are the hard-line sovereigntists who, I am sure, this accord or any gesture may not get through to them. But do you think that efforts to reach the citizenry - I am not talking about the ideologists, those who are committed hard-line and nobody will get through to them - but do you think that attempts to show a sign of good faith or of caring, or expressions of we care about Quebec as being part of this country, those kinds of sentiments, to the citizens of Quebec is a wasted effort?
MR. COOK: No, I think that is useful, but I think the primary thing is for Canada to act as a nation and to show strength and goodwill, but not to keep on talking about Quebec to the extent of Canada.
MR. HOLM: But the framework that is here doesn't just talk about Quebec when it is talking about equality, when it is talking about diversity of people, that is over the whole country. So, the framework really isn't, although it may have a purpose of trying also to appeal to the citizens of Quebec, it talks about a vision for the entire country. So, you think that proceeding with that kind of vision is not really helpful as helping to define ourselves as a nation?
MR. COOK: I would say, sir, that the teaching of history in Quebec today is deplorable from a Canadian viewpoint; there is little Canadian in the teaching of history in Quebec. So, you have to start a little a earlier than what we are talking about.
MR. HOLM: The only sidebar that I would put to that one is that we should take a look at what we offer in our own high schools here in Nova Scotia about Canadian history, and you might be surprised.
MR. COOK: Yes, I understand.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much; merci beaucoup.
[Mr. Robert Carruthers (Vice-Chairman) took the Chair.]
MR. CHAIRMAN (Mr. Robert Carruthers): The next presenter is a presenter on behalf of Chrysalis House, Ms. Mary DeWolfe. I believe Mary is here, isn't she? Please come forward; make yourself comfortable. Just advise the committee of your name and you may proceed.
MS. MARY DEWOLFE: I am the Executive Director for Chrysalis House, which is the shelter for abused women and their children which serves the Annapolis Valley. As well, I am the Co-Chairman for the Transition House Association of Nova Scotia, and I also speak on behalf of our sister organizations. However, some of what I have to say comes from my heart and my experience, personally; I don't see how we can speak to this issue without doing that.
I am a good Maritimer; like most of my generation, at least, I have lived a good number of years away from the Maritimes. I had the privilege - and I say that in all sincerity - of my first experience away from my native New Brunswick living in Quebec. I went to Montreal in 1967 and, yes, I lived through the subsequent turbulent years, leaving that province in the early 1970's. It was a rich experience; I loved the province; I loved the people. It was an incredible learning experience, particularly for a middle-class anglophone young woman from southern New Brunswick, in spite of the fact that I come from the province which proudly calls itself bilingual. At that time, I will tell you that it may have been a bilingual province, but the two entities were not very merged, as any of you who are familiar with New Brunswick probably know. The French had their community, the Acadians had
their community, the English had their community and as far as the immigrant population, as small as it was, they were rather invisible.
This past weekend, I had occasion, again, to think a lot about Montreal, about Quebec, about the nature of the people and about the nature of this country as I sat in our home on the South Mountain without electricity for 53 hours, which is why, incidentally, I don't have a formal written submission, but I will do up my speaker's notes and submit them at a later date. It helped to affirm the thoughts that I have had for many years now about our national union, about our country, about what it means, about what the problems are around national unity and what my feelings are about Quebec. I just want to do the Quebec thing and kind of move on to other issues.
I have heard several different presentations of our history here tonight and I know there are many more. It is very interesting that different people have very different spins on who we are as a country, how we emerged, who had rights, who was "defeated", and so on and so forth, and I find all of that interesting and also troubling.
I believe that Quebec is part of our fabric, that even if Quebec were to secede, were to become an autonomous or semi-autonomous state, its importance in this country would not be diminished. It would be different, but it would not be diminished. I am going to make it very clear that I hope that never happens; I hope this country pulls together and becomes very strong. I think Quebec is richer for being in Canada and Canada is certainly far richer for having the Quebec presence. I do believe very strongly that whether we want to say it is unique or distinct, or whatever words we want to put to it, the reality is, yes, it is, as I believe anyone knows who has had the good fortune of spending any time at all in that province.
In Montreal, as a young woman, as I said, I learned many lessons and it was really my first taste of getting some kind of an analysis, some kind of an experience around social justice issues, around what community action really is all about, in a small 'p' political sense, and I saw this happening within different communities inside that one larger community.
It was a very diverse city; to me it seemed like that was the microcosm of this whole country because, as has been pointed out, we have people of perhaps not every single nationality on the globe there, but I would say pretty darn close to. There are several very strong aboriginal communities; communities that are very predominantly francophone; communities that are very predominantly anglophone, as in the West Island where I spent some time; and other communities where there seemed to be a very harmonious blend. I must say that at no time did I feel disrespected or disenfranchised, either as - and this is quite remarkable - a woman, a young woman, or as an anglophone, let alone as a Maritimer, which certainly was different from my experiences in other parts of the country. So, I just wanted to put that on the table.
In terms of the Calgary Declaration itself, I think that it is a good document; it would be suitable for framing. There is very little in it that I can take exception to, but I will come to the points where I do have some serious questions; however, I do believe that it speaks to what we would like to see ourselves as, rather than what our reality is.
As I said, my work is working with abused women and their children, and has been for many years. I, therefore, respectfully put to you that I know that all Canadians are not equal, that we have people - and not just abused women, but that is my constituency at the moment - in this country from coast to coast who are disenfranchised. If we are going to talk about equality and egalitarianism, then we have to talk about equality not only between and among provinces, but in regard to those words that I am sure some eyes will roll at because we hear them over and over, but I am going to restate them. We need to be thinking about equality in terms of gender; in terms of sexual preference; in terms of age; ability; cultural, ethnic and linguistic background; and rural and urban. We have to think about the class differences that exist in our country. This isn't to be sitting here with a brick bat because I am part of this country as well and, therefore, have my responsibility to work on these issues. Poor people are not treated equally in this country; that is my very strong belief.
The second clause, which states that, "All provinces, while diverse in their characteristics, have equality of status.". I believe that that should be; that is a goal. And, again, having lived from Nova Scotia to British Columbia and points in between - actually, I have lived in five provinces and 10 larger communities in those provinces - I don't believe in the perception of the majority of Canadians that we have equal status province to province. I think we can have; I think there are some ways that we can work towards doing that.
"Canada is graced by diversity, tolerance, compassion and an equality of opportunity that is without rival in the world." Again, a wonderful credo to work towards. I have only been in one other country, and that is the United States of America - I was brought up on the border - but I have done extensive reading and know many people from many different nationalities and countries. I respectfully submit that we do have a wonderful country, but to say that we have one that is the best in the world, without rival in the world when it comes to equality, compassion, tolerance and so on and so on, I am afraid to say that it is a bit of a stretch. We do have other nations in the world where social democratic principles are exercised in a much higher fashion than they are in our nation.
In terms of equality of opportunity, I really have to question that statement. I am looking at the current status in this country. Do we, as Canadian citizens, all have equal opportunity for jobs, for instance, for adequate housing, access to health care, access to education, access to justice? Access to clean water and air, even, are not guaranteed in some situations. I think that these are things that we really have to examine. When I say we, I mean all of us and I am not going to single out elected politicians or ordinary people or the corporate elite or what have you. We are all in this together and we all stand to profit or to lose big time.
At this point, I would like to say that in terms of this debate that we have been having for, quite frankly, almost as long as I can remember, and I am 48 years old, we have had this debate in this country for all those years I believe and before that. The debate takes different shapes, it comes about at different times, it spins around and comes up through a different door but it has been the two solitudes mentality for a long time in this country. Thinking about all of the issues that we are dealing with, all of the components that make a strong and wonderful and progressive nation, it occurs to me that we have actually used the Quebec situation as a great cover-up, as one of the biggest red herrings of our lifetime.
While we have concentrated on either trying to support Quebec or to bash Quebec or whatever, the debate constantly is focused on Quebec. In the meantime, just in the last 15 years, we have seen our national railway gone, our concept of universality gone, eroded in some cases beyond repair, or so we are told, in other cases weakened and a weakened universality is not universality. These are elements, I believe, that are absolutely necessary when we are talking about a unified country. In fact, we are, in this country, a collection of many, many communities; even within Quebec there are many, many different communities and to be looking at it from a singular or from a unilinear perspective is to both diminish the magnitude of this situation and to diminish us individually in terms of who we are as Canadians.
To bring my focus back to the work that I do and the group that I represent, I would like to talk about the importance of national standards and again speak to the issue of universality and egalitarianism. We absolutely believe that we need national standards. We need national standards particularly as they apply to our social programs, education, justice, health. I believe that in order for that to happen, we must support and strengthen a central government. As a grass roots community worker, I absolutely believe in and work every day of my life within the context of community, working from the micro out. I think the paradox there is that you cannot have strong community development, you cannot have strong community work except its existence within a strong outer framework.
[9:00 p.m.]
I think that the devolution has been really counterproductive, not only in terms of the social programs that I have been speaking of but in terms of our respect from province to province for each other. Rather than its having what I believe was the desired effect that each province would become stronger and by becoming more autonomous would therefore be more compatible with its next door neighbour and so on and so on. I think the exact opposite has actually happened. I have spent a lot of my adult years as well living in western Canada, where both my children live, by the way, because there are no jobs here, and there is not a real sense of sisterhood or brotherhood, I hate to tell you, across this country. There is not a great outpouring of sympathy in western Canada for unemployed Maritimers. We do come together as a nation around catastrophes such as the ice storms and the Saguenay flood and the Winnipeg flood and that's the best of us. But day to day, at this point, I think we really need
to work a lot harder on getting to know each other, on getting to know our country. A little bit difficult to do, a little more difficult to do without having a national railway or a solid Trans Canada Highway.
We cannot speak of egalitarianism, equality, fairness and justice or national unity in the absence of the clear universal national standards that I have been speaking of. To take that to its logical conclusions, if we did have universal national standards, in the true sense of the word, that means that every Canadian regardless of who they are, where they live, would have the same access and that, I believe, is true equality. I started learning about these concepts, ironically, in the Province of Quebec, back in the 1960's. We may have political differences from a Party perspective and certainly political differences between Quebec and other parts of the country, but when it comes to a fundamental understanding of how people can live and can interact and can access education, health care and justice, I believe that we have much to learn from the Province of Quebec, and especially in terms of an understanding of who we are, what our culture is and the importance of that culture. I don't believe that those concepts are mutually exclusive.
[Mrs. Eleanor Norrie (Chairman) resumed the Chair.]
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Ms. DeWolfe, I would ask maybe if you would start to conclude your remarks.
MS. DEWOLFE: Yes, I am. I am trying to gather my thoughts, it has been a very long day, you will have to excuse me, I know it has been for you as well.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: We have a number of other presenters as well. Thank you.
MS. DEWOLFE: I think that pretty well sums it up. Just that a very strong pitch that we do whatever is necessary as a nation, and when I say we, I am including Quebec, to keep this country together, to make it stronger and to recognize that we are human beings. There is very little talk about flesh and blood, walking, talking, breathing human beings in these discussions and yet that is who we are.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Very good. Thank you very much for your presentation. Très bien, merci.
Mr. Fage.
MR. FAGE: Ms. DeWolfe, your comments were well thought out, concise and certainly we clearly see that a strong federal government figures largely in how you view a strong social and a strong country in delivery of services and the best chance of equality. I would probably paraphrase that you support the Calgary Declaration. Do you see this without the Government of Quebec signing or supporting this as a good gesture or symbol on behalf
of the remaining provinces and territories, that they are looking at reality and that they wish to continue discussions with the Province of Quebec?
MS. DEWOLFE: I think that there were very many good intentions that went into the creation of this document. I don't think it is a bad document, as I said, I think that there is a little bit of the mythical quality to it. In terms of whether Quebec accepts this or not, I don't think that at this point in time, and who am I? I am just an ordinary person but I think that at this point in time it is going to take more than seven clauses on a piece of paper to get Quebec back to the table. In some very perverse way, perhaps the ice storm has done more for national unity than the Calgary Declaration, I don't know. But if Quebec still resists recognizing the Calgary Declaration, I don't think that we should give up, I don't think that we should resort to threats. I know that is not going to work.
MR. FAGE: Thank you very much for your comments.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Any other questions or comments? Thank you very much for your presentation.
We have a number of other presenters who have come this evening wishing to speak. We would like to give everyone an opportunity to speak, so I would ask the remaining presenters to keep their remarks as short as possible, so that everyone would have an opportunity to speak within the time that we have left.
So we would ask Phyllis Nixon, private citizen, to please come forward.
MS. PHYLLIS NIXON: You are lucky, Madam Chairman, I have a short presentation. I see by the resolution that went out from the Legislature that your mandate is to specifically determine the views of Nova Scotians on the seven statements describing Canada and the Framework for Discussion, whether any further statements should be added and whether overall Nova Scotians can support the Framework for Discussion as a vision of Canada with which they can feel at home. I, as a private citizen, can accept this Calgary Declaration. It is an ideological document, good, I am an idealist myself. I support it.
The second part of your mandate is to ask Nova Scotians to take into consideration the points of the Framework of Principles for discussion of relationships between federal, provincial and territorial governments and Aboriginal governments. I didn't have the schedule before me before tonight, I can't articulate that, so I can't respond to that.
I will read my statement and thank you for the opportunity to reaffirm and affirm the position of how I feel about Canada.
I am a Canadian citizen and I love Canada. I want Quebec to continue to be one of the parts that make up the whole of this country. How to do this? By communication, education and tolerance; educating our students and re-educating our adults of the past history of our Canada, the present history of our Canada; and promoting, encouraging and working towards the beneficial future our country holds for all of us together; and by teaching and learning and appreciating a tolerance for each region of Canada, culturally, historically and economically. The most effective tool to implement this education and tolerance is through communication and action.
We, the people of Canada, must ask, seek out and demand the truth from our politicians and the media about every aspect of the Quebec separation issue. We have the power, as people - act on it. Our politicians must give out the truth. They must have the courage to define to Canadians the legal aspects of the issue of Quebec separation. They must use all of its resources to promote the benefits of a united country, not just for political expedience but for the common good. The governments in Canada have the power, act on it. The media in this country must take responsibility to report and promote the truth about the Quebec separation issue not just negatively but positively and unbiased. Open the channels of communication between the rest of the provinces and Quebec. We are tired of faulty messages. You have the power, act on it. Communication is about talking and listening. We have already talked a lot of talk, which is good, but it is now time to walk the walk. We, all of us, on behalf of a united Canada must put into action our better impulses, straightforward and unafraid. Let's do it. Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: A very good presentation. Any comments or questions from the committee?
MR. CARRUTHERS: One quick question. My colleague for Hants West once said, sometimes the briefest presentations are the ones that get the point across. I just had one question. Some of the other presenters, I think most of the other presenters had some comments on how they felt whether a devolution of powers out of the federal system towards the provincial system or vice versa, that a stronger central government would aid the unity question. Do you have any comment on that?
MS. NIXON: I believe in a strong central government, but a strong central government responsible to its so-called lesser governments, meaning the provincial governments, municipal governments, and the Aboriginal governments, that we have seen spoken of in Schedule B. I do very strongly feel that our central government should be strong, giving us leadership, that is most important.
MR. CARRUTHERS: Thank you. Sure.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Any other comments or questions from the committee members? Well, thank you very much for coming forward Ms. Nixon. Thank you.
MS. NIXON: You're welcome.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: John Moorehouse, private citizen.
MR. JOHN MOOREHOUSE: Madam Chairman, members of the select committee, ladies and gentlemen, I have spoken to Mrs. Norrie. My first question was going to be what happens to the results of these hearings? I understand now they will be debated, however, I made a remark to Mrs. Norrie that if they are presented to Mr. Lucien Bouchard, he is not going to listen because he hasn't listened to anything else in this country and he is, in my opinion, a member of a minority group in Quebec. My son-in-law is from a small village outside of Granby, the people all around there want Canada to stay the way it is, they don't want to have anything to do with this. It is a minority group. Mr. René Lévesque and Mr. Parizeau and our friend, Mr. Lucien Bouchard, got all of this going.
However, I would like to make another remark, I think in this country we are grossly over-governed and if we had one government for one country instead of 10 governments for 10 different countries, which it seems to me we have, that we wouldn't have this problem. So, I think our politicians have got to take some responsibility for creating this thing. They don't seem to want to do too much about it. That kind of bothers me.
I am a senior citizen, I am 70 years old, I live in Lawrencetown in the Annapolis Valley. I have spent 25 years in the Canadian Army, the Royal Canadian Air Force and the Canadian Armed Forces and I have seen a lot of this country and instead of getting better, it is getting worse. So I think we have to change our system of government and that is to have less people governing in this country.
I think that is probably all I have to say. I would like to thank you people for listening.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Now, would you entertain some questions?
MR. MOOREHOUSE: Yes, I would.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Carruthers.
MR. CARRUTHERS: I think I understood you about the over-governing and I do understand that. Did I understand you to say that perhaps at least it might be looked at that all provincial governments, we would be a unity system perhaps like Britain that has the one central government, municipal government?
MR. MOOREHOUSE: Yes.
MR. CARRUTHERS: That might be something to look at?
MR. MOOREHOUSE: Yes.
MR. CARRUTHERS: Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Holm.
MR. HOLM: I think that really answers my question then, which is that you would not support the weakening of the federal government by the devolution of more powers, of the giving away of more powers to the provincial governments.
MR. MOOREHOUSE: No, that is not what I said. What I am saying is that we need less governments in this country. We have one country, Canada, but, as an example - just a small thing - I have a sister in Ontario. If she writes me a letter, it costs 48 cents to mail it. If I write her one, it costs 52 cents. Do we live in the same country?
MR. HOLM: I won't touch on that one right now.
MR. MOOREHOUSE: No, I realize. It is the same thing, Mr. Holm, of flying from Halifax to Toronto and Toronto back to Halifax for less.
MR. HOLM: Now I understand where you are coming from on that issue, or what you are saying. I guess that raises, with me, then, the question of whether we have equality of standards, or if you can call it standards, the price of a stamp or whatever, or in terms of the government, when you are saying we are over-governing, I thought you were saying, for example, in response to Bob's question that we should really have one government for all of Canada and get rid of all of the provincial . . .
MR. MOOREHOUSE: Yes, that is what I meant.
MR. HOLM: So I guess what I was just taking from that, until or if that ever happens, you would want to see a stronger central government and not have all the powers of the central government then given to all of the provinces because that would increase the differences between them. Am I am mis-stating it?
MR. MOOREHOUSE: I think you are to a certain extent. What I would like to see is one government for one country. We are just over-governed as far as I am concerned, but that is strictly my opinion, now.
MR. HOLM: It is as good as everybody else's opinion. That is all that anybody's is, is one opinion.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for coming forward, Mr. Moorehouse.
Is there a Mr. S.J.P. Davies? Would you like to state your name, sir?
MR. SID DAVIES: My name is Sid Davies and I am a very proud Canadian and I am very proud of our Canadian flag and that is all I want to say about that.
I am getting a little bit tired of so much criticism of our politicians. We deserve the kind of government that we have because we put them there and if we are not satisfied then we can do something about it but I am sick and tired of all this criticism of governments, either provincial or federal. I would hate to think that we were going to be governed by some of the presenters who have given us their opinions tonight. I think we are confused enough, and God help us, they would confuse us even more. If we are in a bit of a mess now, we would be in a bigger mess then.
I tell you this, too, I just want to say this, I am an Atlantic person. I have lived in Prince Edward Island, I have lived in Newfoundland, I have lived in Cape Breton - which is part of Nova Scotia - and I have lived in Nova Scotia. I am very proud to be part of this great province and again I am sick and tired of people talking about us being a have-not province. We are not a have-not province. We are one of the best provinces in the whole of Canada because we have the best people. (Applause) We may not have all the money but we have the money too, all the money we can spend on lotteries and on booze and cigarettes, we have the money. The money is being spent in the wrong way. We are not a have-not province. I live in the Cornwallis Inn and underneath us is the Liquor Commission. I say that when that Liquor Commission goes out of business because of lack of customers, then I will believe that Canada is a have-not province. (Laughter)
I also have some connection with Quebec because I went to college in Quebec and I often visit Quebec. I am very fond of the people of Quebec. I think it is a wonderful province.
Regarding the Calgary Declaration, I don't think that there is anything that I have to say about that very much except it provides a good basis for discussion and I have no quarrel with any kind of motherhood statement like that. It says a lot of good things and I think that the people who provided us with it are doing their best to say something that is realistic and proper for the good of our country.
Now it is a rather sad coincidence of timing that this particular thing is going on now because in 1996 when John Murphy, our former MP, convened a meeting about Canadian unity and we were very concerned about the Saguenay flood. Tonight, as this committee on unity meets, we are very concerned about the sad situation in parts of Quebec and Ontario. I think it is rather a sad coincidence that the unity question would come up with these two particular tragedies that have hit our brothers and sisters in Quebec.
At John Murphy's meeting, I suggested three things. First of all, I said that instead of being so critical of our politicians that we should pray for them a little more. I really do feel that. I think that if we prayed for them a little harder that perhaps somebody might listen to our prayers but I don't think that we can be so harsh and so critical about people whom we remember before the Lord in our petitions. I think we need to have a great deal more sympathy and understanding of the positions that they occupy.
I said at that time, too, that we should show our concern for the flood victims by making a generous financial contribution, which many people did. I think we might be able to do something about this terrible situation. I don't have any particular ideas, but I know for my wife and I, we are going to make a very substantial contribution, ill though we may be able to afford it, to the Red Cross in order that some money might go to help somebody who is in need in Quebec.
Then I also suggested that the powers that be in Ottawa might revive the plan that was once in operation under the auspices of the Council of Christians and Jews to make it possible for an exchange of students between Quebec and the other people of Canada. I will speak just briefly to that later.
Last year, with the cooperation of the Rotary Club of Kentville and Good Neighbours Organization, we sponsored an essay competition in the Kentville High School, Grades 10, 11 and 12. The topic was, my vision of Canada's future with special reference to Quebec. There was a great response from the pupils. I want to tell you people this. These essays from these young people - and they are the people of the future. We can talk all we like about what we are going to do. Somebody said they are senior citizens. God help us, I am a senior, senior citizen. I haven't got many years left but these young people are the people I think that we should be concerned about and what they said, as I can recall, their central theme was, Canada is a family and like any families, there are many differences but we don't look down on each other because we have different opinions, we respect and accept each other and as a Canadian family, we must accept and respect the people of Quebec as part of that family and do everything in our power to tell them that we don't want to break up that family relationship. That is what the young people were saying and I think that is important; as somebody was saying, we do do a lot of talking but there seems to be not much flesh and blood in it but there is the flesh and blood thing, it is the family. It is what really concerns our young people.
Our biggest problem that we have with Quebec is the mentality of isolationism. We have isolated ourselves from them and they may have isolated themselves from us. The only way in which we can get over that isolation is education and sincere concern for the continuance of the unity of this great country.
I am sure that you are looking for some practical suggestions and ideas. We can talk all we like, we can have all the meetings we like, all the government people can come to us and we talk about the terrible geographical isolation in the Maritimes if, God forbid, Quebec decided to separate from the rest of Canada and I have heard people just hint that there may be some kind of way in which we could have ambassadors.
I do not think the powers that be in Ottawa would listen to my plan to have student exchanges but it could be that Nova Scotia could give leadership to the rest of Canada by having the Government of Nova Scotia, in cooperation with the many fine organizations like Rotary Clubs, Lions Clubs, Kiwanis and those clubs and so on and begin a realistic, bold program of having our young people exchange home visits with young people from Quebec and have them turn around the visits in due course. It could be done with a bit of planning and a bit of financing and a bit of imagination. I still say, pray for each other. I hope we can help with the current disaster in the same way as we did with the Saguenay flood but let's do something practical and not merely sitting around and, as they would say in Newfoundland, yammering, and getting nowhere. Thank you. (Applause)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Davies. I think there are a couple of committee members who have some comments. I don't know if they want a response or not. We have heard some of your ideas already on our tour and I do appreciate your comments. I think Mrs. O'Connor has a question.
MRS. LILA O'CONNOR: I don't have a question but I do have a comment. On the student exchange, a lot of the schools, now with the French classes, are doing student exchanges and they are going to Quebec and the Quebecers are coming down and they are staying in homes. I like the idea of the Rotary and the Council of Christians and Jews and I think that is wonderful. The more we . . .
MR. DAVIES: It was done some years ago. My daughter was part of that. She went to Quebec and now she is out West and she has a hard time trying to sell Quebec to the people in Victoria.
MRS. O'CONNOR: It is still being done, it is in the school that is in my area. I know they have done it for the last five years.
MR. DAVIES: Where is that?
MRS. O'CONNOR: In Bridgewater, Park View Education Centre.
MR. DAVIES: That is good. I didn't know that, you see. What I am saying is that is wonderful. Let's make more of an effort. Let's make it a sort of Nova Scotia thing. Let the Government of Nova Scotia take hold of it. Let this committee go back and say, this is something practical that we could do and then get in touch with these wonderful
organizations like Kiwanis and Lions and Rotary. I am sure you would get the support of those people.
MRS. O'CONNOR: I believe you are right. I know the chamber of commerce talked about it. I would like to say you are not the first one to say Canada is a family. I agree with that, that every person in the family is different and so is every province but may I make the comment that what I especially appreciated was that you pray for us politicians. I wish we had a lot more of you around but there is also a saying that I should never criticize my brother until I have walked a mile in his shoes. But thank you, keep praying, and I wish we had a lot more like you around.
MR. DAVIES: Thank you. Those who pray together, stay together.
MRS. O'CONNOR: That is right.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Carruthers has a comment.
MR. CARRUTHERS: What she said.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Does anybody else have a comment? Mr. Fage.
MR. FAGE: Just a couple of comments. First of all, just being a newly minted politician of just slightly over two months, you certainly made me feel a lot better with your comments. I was beginning to feel the citizens weren't the ones who elected politicians because you are truly right, they are the ones who have elected and put them there.
MR. DAVIES: It is our fault if we don't like you.
MR. FAGE: That is right and I appreciate your comments. Secondly, it is really refreshing to see someone who does have faith in Nova Scotia and is proud of being a Nova Scotian and a Canadian. This is one of the finest provinces in this country, if not the finest, and it is just up to us to make sure we make it that way and continue to keep it that way.
[9:30 p.m.]
MR. DAVIES: Thank you, very much. The finest part of Nova Scotia is the Annapolis Valley. (Laughter) (Applause)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you, very much, Mr. Davies. I think you probably are aware that the Town of Wolfville has twinned with a community in Quebec and there has been some exchange with the town. I think some of the representatives from the town will be in Wolfville this summer to take part in that exchange, so your idea is being exercised now. I want to thank you very much for your prayers.
I would ask, then, Mr. Ron Cromwell to come forward.
MR. RON CROMWELL: Madam Chairman, my name is Ron Cromwell, I am from Kingston. To the committee, I believe you have had a lot of valid remarks made here this evening and mine may be a little different.
We came here to talk about the Calgary Declaration; in my opinion, it should be ripped up, done away with. It is a politically correct statement made by politicians to appease the separatist movement, hopefully, in Quebec which will not work.
The politicians have been dealing with the Quebec issue, in a major way, for the last 25 or 30 years and have not succeeded. Pertaining the Meech Lake Accord; particularly, to the last referendum, when you saw the movement from the politicians was, keep quiet, don't say anything to hurt the French feelings, don't do anything to upset the apple cart.
What saved the referendum from this country was the people of Canada. They drew together. It was not the politicians. They drew together; they went by train loads, by bus loads, by plane loads to Quebec, a lot at their own expense, to try to save this country which the politicians were ready to let go down the tubes.
Now, I say to you politicians, it is time to get off the bus. Let the people of this country start making some decisions as to the welfare and the continuity of this country. We have to do something because you have failed. I am not being political when I say this; I am talking politicians, per se. You have not done the job and that is why we are where we are today.
Take a perfect example. We are trying to pacify a separatist movement in Quebec. If we keep pacifying the separatist movement in Quebec, 20 years from now you will still be here asking the same questions, what can we do to unify this country?
Lucien Bouchard is not interested in unifying this country. He wants to be president of his own country. He and his 300 or 400 henchmen in Quebec will do everything possible to achieve that end. As long as we sit here and let them do it, they are going to get away with it.
Another generation comes up in Quebec where they are brainwashed, like other areas of the country, to vote for separatists because they believe it is the best thing in the eyes of Quebec to be separate from Canada. We know it is not. We know it is a disadvantage to them. We know it will not work but that is beside the point.
You have elite people in Quebec pushing separatism. As long as we let them get away with it, they are going to get away with it. As I said 20 years from now we will be talking the same thing.
There is a solution and it can start with the provincial government here in Nova Scotia. Pass a motion. Canada is not divisible. It is as simple as that. Encourage the other provincial governments to pass the same motion. Canada is not divisible. Then encourage and make strong representation to the federal government to pass the same motion. Canada is not divisible.
If we are not a divisible country, I don't care what you vote for, you are still a Canadian and we stay as a Canadian. Granted, there are a lot of issues we have to sit down and discuss as far as culture, education, social benefits, things like this. They have to be achieved. A committee can be struck after this is passed and say, how are we going to help the French recognize Canada, the English Canada, the Aboriginals and vice versa? This can be achieved but we cannot do it by making silly declarations of ideology that look good on paper but mean nothing to the people who are against this.
You talk to Lucien Bouchard, you will never convince him of anything but to have a separate Canada. As long as you let him at it and as long as you give him the time, he will achieve it. It will be in our time that he will do this. It is time to get off our high horse and start passing some motions because if Canada is not divisible, that's it, there is nothing more. We are a nation. If you think there is a problem with that you do not have to amend the Constitution to match that motion, either federally or provincially. You can pass it and it stands as a law of the country. That is where you should start.
Then, after that, try to achieve some of the things you have heard here tonight from a lot of these good people who have come forth with their ideas and try to start doing something along those lines. I thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Cromwell. (Applause) We are slowly running out of time but I think some of the committee members have some comments or questions. Mr. Carruthers.
MR. CARRUTHERS: I will be quick. First of all, I want to suggest that you are not the first person that has come before us that had comments, both on Bouchard's position and those like him, in terms of being leader of his own state, and not the first person who said comments on the politicians, where they have gone wrong. I understand that and I think one of our mandates is to find just how many general percentages think that way.
What I do have as a question, let's say the federal government - I guess it would have to be the federal government - would have to make a law, perhaps, in its Constitution that Canada is not divisible.
MR. CROMWELL: Excuse me, it does not have to be in the Constitution.
MR. CARRUTHERS: Well, in any way they pass a law, is the term you used.
MR. CROMWELL: Yes, a law, that is good.
MR. CARRUTHERS: All right. Are you suggesting that no matter what the public wanted - like, let us assume for argument purposes that 100 per cent of the population of Quebec wanted to divide and 100 per cent of the population of the rest of the provinces wanted them to go. You would state that under no conditions, ever, could any part of the nation secede?
MR. CROMWELL: Correct.
MR. CARRUTHERS: Okay.
MR. CROMWELL: I think it is time we stood up for our nation, not to stand up for individuals who want to break the nation. We have to stand up and be counted.
MR. CARRUTHERS: Sure, I just want to be clear on that.
MR. CROMWELL: Of course.
MR. CARRUTHERS: Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Okay. Mr. Russell.
MR. RUSSELL: Well, I thank Mr. Cromwell. You probably answered my question. My question was, what kind of a vehicle would you have to speak to the people of Quebec to pass on to them the fact that the majority of Canada wants them to remain within the framework of the country? I mean, that is what the purpose of this Calgary Declaration is.
MR. CROMWELL: I understand that. Well, the Calgary Declaration is not saying anything we didn't say in the Meech Lake Accord, basically, if you read the Meech Lake Accord or other accords we have passed since then. It is just sort of a watering down effect, or watering up effect, however you want to read it but it is saying basically the same thing.
Quebec, if you go back a number of years ago, we talked about distinct status. That was in the Meech Lake Accord, if you will recall. Quebec does not want distinct status. I mean, surely, they want distinct status but it is not going to stop the separatist movement. Nothing is going to stop the separatist movement because the people who are running the separatist movement want to separate. I mean, we have got to realize that. That is a fact.
I would suggest that probably 60 per cent of Quebec today do not want to separate if there was a vote. I am quite sure that 60 per cent would vote against separation. That is what the separatists are having to deal with. They are going to do everything possible, even
if they have to wait five years. Their view is inevitable. It is inevitable they are going to separate.
I firmly believe if we stay the same we are now and cowtow to them, try to pacify them with these silly declarations, we are just giving them the ammunition to separate. We have to either get tough or just let them go, just wait until they separate.
I mean, a perfect example, your Prime Minister here just before Christmas, the Prime Minister of this country said, well, if you separate, we will sit down and have some dialogue about it. I mean, how ridiculous can you get, for anybody to make a statement like that? We are not ready to dialogue on separation. We are ready to say, Canada is a nation which was fought for, for many years. My father, maybe your fathers or grandfathers fought for this country. We fought it for our nation, not a divided nation, and it should definitely stay a nation. That is why we use that not divisible clause.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Holm.
MR. HOLM: Yes, I am not sure if I want to go down this road, or not. Just this point about being non-divisible, we cannot divide, we are one nation. A moment ago, you also said that you believe that the majority of people within the Province of Quebec would vote to remain within Canada.
MR. CROMWELL: Yes.
MR. HOLM: Now, if . . .
MR. CROMWELL: I am talking today.
MR. HOLM: Today, yes. If we turn around and we were to pass laws, resolutions that said that we cannot divide, is that not almost like raising, or could that not be seen by the people in Quebec as waving a red flag and actually encourage - maybe encourage isn't the right word, but I will use it for lack of a better term or thought - many who would actually vote to stay in Canada, but to actually vote to separate if they say that you are going to take our right away to decide our own future, to cause them to say, well, then we are going to vote to separate. Should they hold a referendum, whether we like it or not here in Nova Scotia and they decide to separate and we tell them that under no circumstances can the country be divided, what is the next logical step? Are we looking at a Yugoslavia or are we talking going that far . . .
MR. CROMWELL: Well, I will put it this way, John. I think you are looking at a Yugoslavia if you let it go the other way. I think eventually you are going to have civil war in this country if we keep going the same way we are going now. You might say that only in Canada could this ever happen; this would never happen in any other country, I can think of,
in this world today, including America. Sure, you are going to annoy some people, but I still believe that majority, when I say 60 per cent of the people, I believe would vote against separation today, all the same people want to stay in Canada for the reasons that they want to be Canadians. They are getting tired of the buffoonery of Bouchard, they are getting tired of all these things they are hearing, and as they get a little more educated as to what the rest of Canada is doing, they are going to go along with us.
As I said before, somewhere you have to take that step, because we are not taking any steps. We haven't taken any steps, that I can remember in the last 25 years, to help the unity crisis in this country, so I think it is time we did it. It may annoy some people, yes. Politicians make decisions every day that annoy people; you know that yourself. You can't keep everybody happy.
MR. CARRUTHERS: I have to remember that. (Laughter)
MR. CROMWELL: But, seriously, we have to take those steps or, as I say, in 20 years from now you will still be here, but you may not have a country. So, it is time to do it now.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Cromwell, for your presentation.
Mr. Norm Jackson. We have further presenters, so we will move right along.
MR. NORM JACKSON: Well, I am a Canadian. I was in the Canadian Armed Forces; I was a captain. I was a master mariner in the gypsum company. I have worked on the waterfront. I was manager of the Royal Nova Scotia Yacht Squadron. Then I became a student and I graduated from Acadia in history. Now I am a student at Dalhousie. Maybe I will be Prime Minister someday, because I am in political science. (Laughter)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: We would ask you to take a seat, Norm.
MR. JACKSON: And after all of these learned people, I am just going to say a few words. I have many notes here and I just have a few guides. I am not going to take too much time. One of the things I would like to say, first of all, that I think we should all think of our friends in Quebec, in the situation they are in today. Right in this building we have had Nova Scotia Power, 25 trucks and 100 men looking after Kings County. They have come from all over Nova Scotia. There is a good chance that soon they will be on their way to Quebec. Now, I think that shows something of the country I belong to. I am a Loyalist.
I was the vice-commandant of one of our military colleges. Our mottos were truth, duty, valour. As my daughter said to me not long ago when I was talking to her in Houston, I said, were my cadets truthful? Oh, Dad, she said, no. I said, why? Well, she said, do you
remember when your cadets took your car and put it in the rose garden, they said that they didn't know where it was. (Laughter)
Now as far as duty is concerned. She said there were many cadets at Royal Roads that ran circles and we had a one-half mile track and the cadet officers ran circles. Then I had some staff officers. They were dealt with forms of punishment. I said, did your father ever give a punishment at Royal Roads. She said, not that I know of. She said, you were tolerant. As far as valour is concerned, well, I think we have a lot of valour in our country and it was mentioned by a gentleman who talked of World War II, Korea - I served in Korea.
Now, I believe that our country consists of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, P.E.I., Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, Newfoundland and the territories. It is a big area; we are one of the biggest countries in the world and it is a big area to govern. I don't think we can say that it can be governed by one government, but I think we are over-governed; we all know that. What we have to do is find a balance in this. I think that people like to have something to do with government and we now decided in our own province that Halifax should be a government. Whether it works or not, I am not going to get involved in that, because I am no politician.
I think the negotiations must fall within these categories: truth, duty and valour. I believe that it must be done democratically, but I have a question there in my mind because we are starting to rely on our justice system as being the answer to our prayers. I am not sure that when our judges all come from lawyers, that the Supreme Court is the final ruling body, and I think it is suspect, in my mind. I think that we have to have people - that is why I believe that the final decision has to come from the Senate and our government, not the Supreme Court.
I do not believe that Canada should be split up and I don't think it will be. If a divorce should take place, it must be, as far as I am concerned, a 50/50 split. This goes for all areas where government is involved. I am just going to use the health care, defence, finance. If the split becomes necessary, it must be done in a fair and democratic process.
Other areas to be considered are rights should a separation become necessary. This is a big subject. And then I think we have to think of - and I am just going through a few words - negotiation, we have to think of education, we have to think of fairness, we have to think of unity, we have to think of defence, we have to think of taxation, recognition of the differences, inequality in a level playing field, criminal courts and Armed Forces; many of these things.
Now, as a Maritimer - not as a Maritimer, but a chap from B.C. who lived in the Maritimes - if they want to do it, I don't think we can stop them. I don't think it is fair, because sometime in the future history of our country, which is a big country, we might end up like England is now, producing Wales, England, et cetera.
So, I say right now, if it happens, my solution would be very simple. Think of what Maritimers need; they need access to the rest of their country. So, that is easy. We tell the people in Quebec to go north of the river. We will take the south so we have contact with the rest of our country.
When they do that, they find a problem because they meet the Eskimo and the Métis who say, hey, don't come too far. Then we put a few troops in up by Montreal to have a border there, and then there is another border back on the other end. Then we have sailed half of our ships up the river so we then put a blockade down in the Gulf. With that, I say thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Jackson. Are there any comments from any of the committee members? I do thank you for coming forward this evening and staying. The hour is late so I do thank you making your presentation.
MR. JACKSON: Canada means everything to me.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. I believe we have at least one more presentation. Monsieur Paratte, would you like to come forward? If you would state your name, sir, and then make the presentation.
M. HENRI-DOMINIQUE PARATTE: Henri-Dominique Paratte. Vue l'absence de Louis Cormier ce soir, j'aimerais dire que je parlerais en effet en mon nom mais, également, au nom du Conseil consultatif de l'École R.C. Gordon donc je suis membre.
Madame la présidente, mesdames et monsieurs, et membres du Comité spécial sur l'unité nationale.
Pour prendre position sur les sept points de la déclaration de Calgary, permettez-moi de vous situer la francophonie de la vallée de l'Annapolis, communauté à laquelle je praticipe, et dans laquelle je vis, écris et enseigne depuis un quart de siècle. Comme vous le verrez, cette réalité n'est pas sans rapport avec la vision qui devrait être la nôtre, en tant que néo-écossais, sur la question de l'unité nationale.
Il y a 25 ans, il aurait été difficile, sinon impossible, de parler dans cette région d'une communauté francophone. Il y avait, par-ci par-là, des individus d'origines diverses qui vivaient tant bien que mal en français; des gens d'origine acadienne et francophone qui pour la plupart se rendaient vite compte, s'ils étaient encore francophones, qu'ils leurs étaient impossible d'avoir une vie culturelle ou de songer à une éducation française pour leurs enfants; des gens d'origine éthnique ou familiale acadienne pour lesquels le français, après des générations d'assimilation à l'anglais, n'était même plus un souvenir.
Tout cela, dans une région qui est sans doute la plus riche au monde en sites archéologiques acadiens, et qui doit son profil géographique à la volonté qu'a eue il y a cinq siècles le roi de France Henri IV, grand champion de la tolérance à une époque de guerres religieuses incessantes, d'apprendre à des paysans et des artisans du centre-ouest de la France les techniques par lesquels les hollandais ont bâti des polders.
Au regard des associations acadiennes, des pouvoirs publics, du gouvernement fédéral ou des touristes québécois, nous étions une région fort belle sans doute, mais solidement, massivement, anglophone. Le symbole le plus évident était peut-être celui de parc historique de Grand-Pré, propriété pourtant de la Société nationale des acadiens, comme on disait alors, et du gouvernement fédéral, dans lequel les principales expositions concernaient non les acadiens ou l'histoire des digues, mais les Planters et les Loyalistes. Tout était fait pour nous convaincre que non seulement une francophonie vivante dans cette région était chose impossible, mais que même notre mémoire collective ne devait surtout pas apparaître trop francophone, ce qui aurait suscité des réactions de racisme et d'intolérance à toutes sortes de niveaux.
Du racisme et de l'intolérance nous en avons vécu. Des collègues qui claquent la porte parce qu'on parle français, aux villageois qui pensent que l'établissement d'une escadre aéroportée francophone est la fin du monde. Des gens qui ne comprennent pas pourquoi les acadiens voudraient rester francophones à ceux qui croient encore, contre toute évidence, qu'il n'y a pas d'avantages en 2000 au bilinguisme pour l'économie, le tourisme ou le dévéloppement culturel. Il y a le racisme des attitudes et le racisme oblique, plus difficile à détecter: les postes qui vous sont refusés parce qu'on a un nom francophone, les bourses qui ne vous sont pas accordées parce que le jury ne comprenait pas le français, l'hostilité lorsqu'on réclame une école homogène en français.
Tout cela existe, ou a existé. Mais, se soir, je ne veux pas m'en souvenir. Je veux, au contraire, insister sur les points 3, 4, et 5 de la déclaration de Calgary pour laquelle nous sommes ici. Je veux vous remercier, membres d'un gouvernement qui compte deux ministres acadiens, et dont le premier ministre francophone sa mère, et ancien étudiante à l'université de Poitiers, nous permets d'avoir l'occasion, tout bilingue et même trilingue que je sois - puisque je parle allemand - de m'exprimer dans ma langue maternelle en toute égalité devant vous.
J'ai été conseiller de ministres fédéraux, président de commissions nationales, président d'associations interprovinciales. Mais le fait, à Kentville ce soir, de pouvoir m'exprimer en français, dans ma régions, dans ma province, sur un sujet d'importance nationale, est un moment que je chéris particulièrement, et pour lequel je vous remercie.
En l'espace de 25 ans, beaucoup de choses ont changé. Le recensement de 1991 donnait un chiffre de plus de 2 000 francophones dans cette région, et cela sans compter les personnes qui étaient de descendance acadienne, les personnes qui se considéraient comme bilingues, ou les personnes qui avaient une connaissance du français.
Le site de Grand-Pré est aujourd'hui, incontestablement, un site acadien, géré en partie par la communauté acadienne des maritimes, et identifié comme tel. Au centre de la vallée, une école francophone qui fut longtemps limitée à des enfants dont les parents travaillaient dans les forces armées canadiennes est aujourd'hui sous la responsabilité du Conseil scolaire acadien provincial, et, si mon fils aîné n'a pas eu la chance de s'y rendre, mes plus jeunes enfants peuvent progresser, grâce à cette réalité, dans l'apprentissage d'une réalité nationale bilingue à partir de leur propre langue - et ce malgré les difficultés financières dont nous sommes fort conscients dans le Comité consultatif de gestion de l'école, malgré le manque de locaus qui atteint un point critique, malgré les limites imposées au transport scolaire, et j'en passe.
Sans mettre en cause les efforts de la collectivité acadienne francophone de cette province et des provinces voisines, sans mettre en question la bonne volonté de certains membres des gouvernements de la Nouvelle-Écosse au fil des années, on doit dire pour ne prendre que cet exemple, que, sans la présence du Québec dans le Canada, nous n'aurions pas aujourd'hui, dans la vallée, ce foyer de développement essentiel pour nos jeunes qu'est une école comme notre école francophone.
Sans la présence d'un noyau de personnes convaincues de l'importance du français, et de l'enseignement des cultures du Canada français comme de celles du reste du monde, au sein du départment d'Études Française de l'université Acadia où j'enseigne, nous n'aurions probablement pas non plus de possibilités de développement. Car, depuis un quart de siècle, nombreux sont les futurs cadres, les futurs enseignants, les futurs entrepreneurs ou fonctionnaires ou politiciens qui ont passé par nos cours, ont appris que la diversité culturelle est un facteur fondamental et incontournable de développement, et que les tensions qui peuvent se poser entre collectivités de langues et de cultures différentes sont chose normale, et non exceptionnelle.
Aujourd'hui, pour nous toucher qu'aux enseignants, il est gratifiant de voir qu'à travers cette vallée qui est la nôtre les réactions de racisme ou d'intolérance, si elles n'ont pas complètement disparu, ne sont plus comme il y a 25 ans la norme. Il est gratifiant d'aller à Aylesford, un petit village, et de trouver au dépanneur Needs un jeune qui correspond par Internet avec des québécois et des français, et qui a été en vacances au Québec. Il est gratifiant de voir qu'un juge à Berwick a acquis un véritable amour du français au fil d'années de cours de magistrature fédérale. Sans nos amis québécois, tout ceci n'aurait jamais été possible.
Dans ces circonstances, il n'ait pas possible de ne pas appuyer le point 5 de la déclaration de Calgary. Oui, je veux que le Québec soit fort. Oui, je veux qu'il assure un développement réel de la majorité francophone qui s'y trouve. Mais cette affirmation, je doit, malgré tour, l'accompagner d'une certaine méfiance. Car, si le Québec doit être fort, si les nombres lui confèrent - comme à lOntario pour l'anglophonie canadienne - un poids démographique, politique, social, économique, et culturel considérable, je ne veux pas que le Québec soit considéré comme le seul représentant de la francophonie au pays.
[10:00 p.m.]
Cela m'irrite profondément de constater que, lorqu'un de mes livres circule en Europe, que les commentateurs disent de moi que je vis au Québec. Comme si l'on ne pouvait pas être francophone ailleurs qu'au Québec. Comme si être québécois conférait des vertus magiques qui seraient déniées aux acadiens ou autres francophones.
Certes, bien souvent, sans une présence québécois dans la francophonie en dehors du Québec, nous n'aurions pas les nombres voulus pour établir des institutions d'enseignement en français, et développer des programmes ayant les qualités d'excellence qui sont nécessaires en cette fin du vingtième siècle. Dans de nombreux cas, nos formateurs, formés eux-même au Québec, n'aurient pu se développer.
Mais, si la communauté acadienne et francophone de la vallée est aujourd'hui vibrante, diversifiée, en pleine expansion et de plus en plus fière d'elle-même, disposant non seulement de souvenirs historiques, mais d'historiens, de spécialistes d'Internet, d'entrepreneurs en tourisme, en restauration, en édition de livres; de journalistes, d'entraîneurs de sport, de techniciens spécialisés, de pédagogues, et je pourrais continuer, c'est incontestablement dû au mélange passionnant que constitue la présence dans le même espace d'acadiens, de québécois, de francophones venus du monde entier, et d'anglophones convaincus que l'avenir du Canada réclame non seulement la présence du Québec en son sein, mais aussi la présence des communautés francophones qui ne sont pas québécoises - à commencer par la communauté acadienne qui est la plus ancienne au pays et l'une des plus anciennes en Amérique du nord - en tant que partenaires égaux, disposant des mêmes possibilités de développement, quelle que soit la province de résidence.
Car on se déplace, au Canada! Face aux difficultés économiques rencontrées par de nombreuses communautés des maritimes, nous venons de perdre, entre autres, à l'échelle de l'Acadie de cette province, Leonard Buckles, ancien président du Conseil coopératif de Chéticamp, parti pour diriger le centre francophone de Calgary. Un parmi des centaines d'autres! En fait, notre région, la vallée d'Annapolis, est l'une des rares en Nouvelle-Écosse qui connaise depuis des années un développement constant: si la collectivité francophone s'y développe, une diversification ethnique et culturelle croissante y est la règle, et nos amis Mi'kmaq, dans le territoire qui est le leur depuis bien avant l'arrivée des premiers européens, ont aujourd'hui une fierté plus identifiable que jamais.
Notre francophonie ne peut se passer de sa composante québécois. Elle ne peut pas plus exister sans sa composante acadienne, qui lui donne sa couleur régionale et provinciale. Et, sans sa composante internationale qui lui ouvre les portes du marché global et des communications mondiales dans tous les domaines, il manquerait un élément essentiel à cette communauté.
Mais notre francophonie ne peut pas non plus se passer des contacts qu'elle a établis avec le monde anglophone. Je préfère bien souvent regarder CBS plutôt que Radio-Canada, parce qu'on parle trop du Québec à Radio-Canada, et qu'après tout, Boston est plus proche de nous que Montréal, et certainement que Toronto. Je ne me sens pas moins francophone pour autant. C'est la réalité d'un bilinguisme additif vivant qui me permet d'avoir fait connaître Anne of Green Gables, sous le titre Anne: la maison aux pignons verts, aux petits enfants francophones du monde entire. C'est une réalité de bilinguisme et de biculturalisme vivant qui me permet aujourd'hui, comme écrivain, de savoir que la nouvelle version de mon livre Acadians sera diffusée à travers toute l'Amérique du nord. C'est la même réalité qui me permet, comme petit éditeur, de travailler avec un gros éditeur en Louisiane, pour des projets de développement dans les secteurs du tourisme et de l'édition en anglais comme en français.
Malheureusement, c'est le fait d'être en Nouvelle-Écosse, d'être dans une petite communauté acadienne, et non la grande communauté montréalaise, qui a fait que je n'ai pu obtenir des Éditions Québec-Amérique un contrat d'édition satisfaisant, même si Anne aux pignons verts, best seller à l'échelle internationale, m'a permis pendant une saison de tourner dans les salons du livre en compagnie de René Lévesque, dont les Mémoires étaient sorties au même moment chez le même éditeur.
Je veux, donc, sans hésitation, que ma province, la Nouvelle-Écosse, ait accès aux même programmes que les autres, et au même financement que les autres. Que l'égalité soit une réalité, et non simplement une déclaration de principes. Que, par le jeu des échanges et des ententes, faire de l'édition ou de l'écriture en français en Nouvelle-Écosse me permettre aussi bien de me rendre au Québec pour faire des tournées d'école que cela permet aux québécois de faire des tournées d'écoles chez nous. Avons-nous, dans cette province, enfin signé le fameux accord d'échange qui, il y a quelques années, attendait d'être signer sur le bureau de Robert Bourassa, entre cette province et le Québec? J'en doute. Je n'en ai en tout cas pas entendu parler. Allons-nous devoir attendre une autre alerte référendaire pour le signer, sans lui conférer un contenu quelconque.
Je veut vois ma province entretenir avec le Québec - comme avec le reste de la francophonie d'ailleurs - des rapports plus réguliers, et mieux organisés. Je veux, comme d'autres, y apporter ma contribution. A l'ère de l'Internet, nous vivons à l'échelle du monde. Membre d'une petite communauté, je veux voir, dans les faits, l'égalité dont il est question dans le point 1 de la déclaration de Calgary être autre chose qu'un grand principe. Je veux voir le point 7 assurer le meilleur développement possible à mon travail d'écrivain, au travail de nos écoles, au travail des artistes acadiens qui continuent de créer en français. Pas
seulement, d'ailleurs, pour les francophones: le nombre croissant, même dans cette région, de programmes d'immersion partielle n'est-il pas la preuve que, si les moyens nous sont donnés, nos compatriotes anglophones de Nouvelle-Écosse auront tout autant envie de participer à la francophonie canadienne et mondiale que nous pouvons, pour notre part, bénéficier de notre présence dans un environnement culturel anglophone riche et diversifié?
Voici donc posé, en termes communautaires et personnels, un dilemme que les premiers ministres ont essayé de résoudre à Calgary par les sept points que vous nous demandez de discuter: comment faire pour satisfaire les aspirations légitimes des québécois, et reconnaître l'importance du Québec au sein du Canada, sans pour autant léser les personnes qui, francophones ou anglophones, ne veulent pas que l'importance du Québec au sein de la fédération devienne un monopole par le seul jeu des nombres, ou des principes qui auraient perdu de leur validité dans le contexte d'une diversité croissanté?
Francophone, je ne vis pas au Québec. Pourtant, l'un de mes enfants est en partie québécois; j'ai bien connu René Lévesque et d'autres membres fondateurs du Parti québécois; je travaille avec des imprimeurs au Québec; et je me réjouis de voir des échanges plus réguliers entre la petite ville de Wolfville et une ville jumelle au Québec.
Ma réalité est acadienne, et tout développement du français dans les maritimes ne pourra se faire que dans le contexte de cette Acadie qui, sans être ni pays, ni province, ni même une région administrative distincte, est de plus en plus reconnue et visible. Quelque part dans vos résolutions, j'aimerais que cela figure. Non pas en traitant l'Acadie comme une pièce de musée, un lieu touristique ou une série de rouleaux généalogiques: mais comme une réalité bien vivante, celle qui pourra peut-être le plus convaincre les québécois de la valeur du Canada. En effet, si une communauté menacée de disparition à cause d'un colonialisme borné et raciste a pu survivre, et se donner aujourd'hui un dynamisme et une diversité qui assureront peut-être enfin son avenir, il n'y a pas de raison que les québécois pensent - en dépit de la fierté que leur donnerait la reconnaissance d'un pays québécois - que le Canada n'assurera pas leur avenir à long terme, non seulement dans un ghetto qui serait la province du Québec, mais dans l'ensemble d'un Canada où, dans de moindres proportions mais un peu partour, le français sera bien vivant.
Il est fondamental, pour mois, plus que jamais, de convaincre les québécois que le cadre canadien leur est bénéfique, non pas simplement par de grandes déclarations que les hommes et femmes politiques s'échangent comme des balles de ping-pong, mais par la prise de conscience très claire que, où que les francophones se trouvent au Canada, ils peuvent à la veille de l'an 2000 envisager d'avoir une vie sociale, culturelle, éducationnelle, et même parfois professionelle qui soit tout ou en partie la reconnaissance de leur identité.
Surtout en Acadie, c'est-à-dire dans cette francophonie des martimes qui s'affirme de plus en plus depuis un quart de siècle.
Quelle que soit l'utilité des grands principes, c'est au niveau des personnes, des échanges entre communautés, des relations interprofessionnelles, des programmes d'enseignement - entre autres - que peut se manifester clairement cette réalité propre au point 3 de la déclaration de Calgary: le Canada, c'est le respect de la diversité, et c'est aussi la tolérance, la compassion, et l'égalité des chances.
Le Canada a été là pour les inondations au Saguenay. Le Canada a été là pour les inondations en Saskatchewan. Le Canada est là pour les circonstances hivernales tragiques que le Québec vient de connaître.
Si nous sommes là lorsqu'il le faut, si nous sommes là par nos relations personnelles, nous devons l'être aussi par la reconnaissance claire de l'importance du Québec dans notre avenir collectif.
Il faudra beaucoup d'efforts pour convaincre les 49,5 pour cent de québécois qui ont voté, oui, au dernier référendum que cela vaut la peine de renoncer à leur rêve d'un pays, un rêve vieux de 150 ans. Nous ne pourrons le faire par des comités et des commissions à chaque fois qu'une alarme sonne. Nous pourrons le fair, peu à peu, et permettant à une Gaspésienne dont le frère habite Greenwood de se rendre compte qu'il y a, peu à peu, un réel progrès dans la présence du fait français dans son environnement. Que les machines bancaires fonctionnent en deux langues. Qu'une campagne claire identifie et valorise les commerces qui fonctionnent en français. Que l'on n'est pas obligé de parcourir la vallée en tous sens le jour de l'épiphanie sans trouver une galette des Rois en nulle part.
L'ancien président de la France, François Mitterand, grand ami de l'Acadie et de la Nouvelle-Écosse, disait sagement: "il faut laisser le temps au temps". On sait que le rêve de Pierre-Elliott Trudeau, d'un Canada bilingue d'une côte à l'autre, ne se réalisera pas. On sait que nombre de pays fédéraux, à travers le monde, éclatent ou se divisent: la république tchècque et la Slovaquie, la Wallonie et la Flandre en Belgique; même ce modèle de stabilité qu'est la Suisse montre aujourd'hui des tensions croissantes entre la Suisse romande et la Suisse alémanique.
Qu'un pays quitte la tutelle d'un autre peut se faire en douceur: René Lévesque aimait à citer l'exemple de la Norvège et de la Suède. Mais le dilemme canadien est tout autre. Tout comme je n'ai pas voulu alourdir cette présentation des mauvais moments des 25 dernières années, rappeler sans cesse les vexations et les exactions de systèmes antérieurs n'aiderait pas à faire progresser le Canada. En appuyant massivement le libre-échange, les québécois ont fait preuve de leur ouverture au monde. Ce n'est pas en érigeant de nouvelles frontières qu'on bâtit une communauté à la veille de l'an 2000, alors que des milliards transitent tous les jours par dessus les frontières et que nos moyens communications, et nos informations, sont plus planétaires que jamais.
J'ai participé aux travaux de la commission Spicer dans la vallée. Je n'ai entendu personne qui veuille voir le Québec quitter le Canada.
J'ai des amis québécois indépendantistes comme fédéralistes. Je reconnais aux uns et aux autres le même désir: avoir pour leurs enfants le meilleur pays possible. Je pense que le Canada peut leur offrir cette possibilité. Je pense que le Canada, que leurs ancêtres ont fondé, doit leur offrir cette possibilité.
Tout comme je pense que le Canada doit offrir au peuple Mi'kmaq et aux autres peuples autochtones les meilleurs chances de se développer dans tous les domaines.
Main comment le ferons-nous? Après tout, nous, descendants de colons européens ou immigrants récents, sommes les occupants du teritoire des peuples autochtones. Ne faut-il pas reconnaître en fin que les autres autochtones ont droit à leur propre pays, à leur propre gouvernement? Ne faut-il pas, du même coup, reconnaître qu'il faut que le fédéralisme change, et que le pouvoir des provinces, dans l'esprist de collaboration indiqué dans le point 7 de la déclaration de Calgary, soit plus grand, dans de nombreux domaines, tout en étant respectueux de la diversité linguistique et culturelle?
Je peux parler anglais, sans doute. Mais c'est en français que je m'exprime, que je peux donner à ce que je dit, à ce que j'écris, ce que je transmets à mes enfants, une valeur qui enrichit toute la communauté et lui donne des possibilités de relation avec le monde qui n'existeraient pas autrement.
J'attends de ma province qu'elle reconnaise formellement cette réalité à l'échelle de l'Acadie francophone en Nouvelle-Écosse.
J'attends de ma province qu'elle nous donne la possibilité de tout faire pour continuer, par nos efforts, ce qui est essentiel au même titre que les grands principes: convaincre les canadiens d'expression française, d'où qu'ils soient, que le Canada offre des possibilités de vivre, de travailler, de s'amuser et de se développer en français à travers le pays. A travers le travail amorcé par les comités d'écoles, les groupes communautaires, le comité régional de la Fédération Acadienne de la Nouvelle-Écosse en cours de constitution, c'est une réalité que dans cette région nous voulons que les québécois comprennent clairement.
J'attends de pouvoir faire la fête avec tous les groupes de la vallée aussi bien le 24 juin, jour de la Saint-Jean-Baptiste, que le 15 août, fête des acadiennes et des acadiens. Parce que notre diversité est aussi la leur.
Et que le jour où nous ne pourrons plus avec eux faire la fête pour célébrer cette aspet de notre identité collective dans l'esprit du point 4 de la déclaration de Calgary, celle-ci n'aura pas plus de sens que les défunts accords du Lac Meech ou de Charlottetown, et nous n'aurons
plus alors qu'à reconnaître, avec tristesse, que Jacques Parizeau et Lucien Bouchard avaient raison.
"Il faut laisser le temps au temps", sans doute. Mais il faut savoir utiliser le temps. De retour à l'assemblée législative provinciale, dites-vous que les programmes qui nous permettront de travailler plus étroitement et plus efficacement avec le Québec dans le cadre canadien, dans un esprit d'ouverture réciproque, sont plus utiles que toutes les grands affirmations. Et, dans ce contexte, notre réalité francophone peut jouer un rôle de premier plan pour convaincre les québécois que le Canada est un pays ou ne peut aussi fonctionner, s'amuser et vivre en français. Merci beaucoup. (Applause)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much Mr. Paratte. Will you take some questions in English?
M. PARATTE: Bien sur, oui.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Merci beaucoup. I noticed that you did shorten your comments a bit, but it is good to have the written comments so that we have those for our records. I think Mr. Carruthers has a question he may like to ask.
MR. CARRUTHERS: I just had one quick question. I thank you for your presentation. I just want to make sure I understood correctly. Did I understand you correctly when you were saying that the only voice for francophone Canadians must not be the québécois but yet a purpose had been served and maybe continues to be served by the French Canadian element in Quebec, in that is perhaps without this some of the movement that has been achieved in the last few years on education might not have been achieved? Do I have that right?
M. PARATTE: Oui. I will answer this in English. My presentation was in French for a number of reasons but primarily as a solid presentation. I wanted it to be very clear in my mind as well and also because it may be new for a number of you that there is actually a solid, strong and a growing francophone community in the Valley. In fact, we are by numbers, the fifth francophone community in Nova Scotia.
I think there are two things in your question. One thing that I am really mad about, as much as a writer being identified to Quebec every time I publish something and it is reviewed in Europe, which is very unpleasant; it is about like being called Norweigan if you are Italian. I mean it is roughly the same. It is the fact that we seem to forget, largely because of the whole rhetoric of not so much René Lévesque who was actually from Gaspé and knew very well that there are regions where there is a mix of French and English, but the rhetoric of people like Jacques Parizeau has convinced people in Canada that there is indeed such a thing as English Canada as a total bloc. There isn't. There are in Canada about 1 million francophones, that is more than the francophone number in Switzerland. So, even if Quebec
separated tomorrow, Canada as such has a number of French-speaking people that is probably larger than some of Canada's provinces. This is an important element.
Now, out of this group, and this was one of the points I think I tried to make, particularly here in the Valley, but the same would be true in Halifax, the same would be true in Sydney, is the fact that as much as in the Maritimes of the basis of this is an Acadian reality, like it would be franco-Manitoban in Winnipeg, or it would be a franco-Ontarian in Sudbury, in reality our francophone communities are a mix of a number of people from Quebec, a number of people from Acadian regions or of Acadian origin and a number of people from other origins, Belgian, and so forth.
Provinces have not dealt with this reality with one exception and the exception is Manitoba that has understood clearly that the francophone element was an important tool, not only to convince Quebecers eventually to stay in Canada, but also for the development of the province. Manitoba has a whole immigration program for francophone countries at the provincial level. I am dying to see this happen in Nova Scotia. The only thing I hear in Nova Scotia is beautiful speeches by politicians saying it is wonderful. Great, it is wonderful so let's pass some kind of legislative framework by which we will clearly recognize that yes, indeed, there is a francophone community in Nova Scotia and we don't simply want to see it die. We don't want to see it leave because of absence of work. We want to see it grow in the interest of everybody.
As far as I know, Michelin is neither a British nor a Welsh nor a Senegalese company. It is one of the major tenants of French capitalism in the world. Where is it located? Primarily in Nova Scotia and we want to keep it this way and we want to see it grow. Our roads are paved by French companies, LaFarge and so on. This is an actual reality and we want to, basically, see it not only maintained, not only preserved, but grow.
So there is a whole legislative framework, I think, that a province like Nova Scotia - and I am not speaking for other provinces - can pass without much cost to the province, without threatening the people who dream about a government like Britain. I don't dream of a government like Britain. They are breaking it. The Scots are going to be independent again so where is the strong national government of Britain right now? There isn't one and there doesn't have to be one. I think diversity, I think cooperation, I think tolerance, I think all the elements that are in the Calgary Declaration are essential but I also think that it will be a hard sell to sell anything to Quebec unless before the next referendum you can send to Quebec a number of well-known francophone leaders from the supposedly English Canadian provinces to say, look, we are living in French, we are working in French, we are developing projects that are as varied as what is being done in Quebec and we really feel that Canada is the best framework for this.
I am francophone. I can assure you that anyone doing this in French will, in any Quebec region, stir a lot more than anyone going in and requiring simultaneous translation and I am ready to tackle Lucien Bouchard any time. I was an advisor of Marcel Masse at the time he was in Ottawa and I have met him before.
MR. CARRUTHERS: We may have to send you. Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Are there any other comments or questions? I thank you for waiting until the end of the evening. You were scheduled to be in earlier.
M. PARATTE: Thank you for being patient.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I do appreciate your presentation en français and I thank you very much for being here this evening. Merci beaucoup.
That is the end of the presentations unless there is someone else who wanted to speak. The hour is late. If not, then I would thank you all for attending this evening and safe journey home. Thank you very much.
[The committee adjourned at 10:24 p.m.]
