SELECT COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL UNITY
Mrs. Eleanor Norrie
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, we need to bring in more chairs here so while we are doing that, I thought I would take this opportunity to thank you all for being here tonight and to welcome you to the seventh meeting of the Select Committee on National Unity. We are going to begin our proceedings tonight with the singing of O Canada. We would ask Heidi Deveau to come forward and she will be singing O Canada in both official languages. I ask you to please rise.
[The national anthem was sung by Heidi Deveau.]
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Heidi. Heidi is a 13 year old student at the Maple Grove Education Centre and I want to thank her very much for coming in this evening and beginning our program and taking part in the hearings.
I would now like to introduce members of the Select Committee on National Unity who are with us here this evening. We have with us Mrs. Lila O'Connor, MLA for Lunenburg; Mr. John Holm, MLA for Sackville-Cobequid; Mr. Ernest Fage, MLA for Cumberland North; Mr. Ronald Russell, MLA for Hants West; and, of course, no introduction to most of you, Mr. Richard Hubbard, MLA for Yarmouth. I am Eleanor Norrie. I am the MLA for Truro-Bible Hill and I am Chairman of the Select Committee on National Unity.
We have with us in the audience tonight some elected officials. It is important to point out that we, as committee members, have been selected by the House of Assembly to travel the province for these hearings. We will be drafting a resolution to go to the House of Assembly for debate and every MLA will have an opportunity to take part in that debate and we appreciate all those who do come out at the different areas when we visit them to listen to comments from Nova Scotians within their area. So we have with us tonight the Honourable Allister Surette, Minister of Human Resources and MLA for Arygle. (Applause) We also have the MP from the area, from West Nova, Mark Muise, and I believe Mr. Muise will be giving a presentation later. He will be introduced at that time but maybe he would be recognized now as well. Richie wants me to also make note of the fact that we have Mayor Charles Crosby here this evening, the Mayor of the Town of Yarmouth. So perhaps he would be recognized as well. (Applause)
The purpose of this public hearing is to listen to Nova Scotians' opinions on the Calgary Declaration and the discussion paper that was presented by five national Aboriginal organizations. There are copies available at the table at the side of the room at the back, if any of you have not picked them up on your way entering the room this evening. There is also located there translation devices. If any of you require simultaneous translation during the proceedings, be sure to pick up a translation device for that purpose.
So we move right along this evening. We have our first presenter, Mr. Cyrille LeBlanc, private citizen, and ask him to come forward to the table. I would ask you to state your name, sir, and then move forward with your presentation.
MR. CYRILLE LEBLANC: My name is Cyrille LeBlanc from Wedgeport, Yarmouth County.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I am taking off my watch because I will be timing you. He warned me.
MR. CYRILLE LEBLANC: It is kind of long but I hope I can be within the time allotted.
Distinguished members of the Select Committee of the Nova Scotia Legislative Assembly. I wish to thank you very much for this opportunity. I represent no groups. I favour no political Party. I am only representing myself as a proud Canadian and equally proud Acadian.
I understand I can make my presentation in French. However, because of the main message I want to convey to you and others, who will be identified in general later, and because of time limits and also because of documents in English I wish to submit to the committee, I have chosen to make my presentation in English. I have, however, a summary
in French. Ten minutes for a presentation is not very long so I will go directly to the points I wish to make.
Firstly, I strongly believe that if English Canadians were more like Acadians, we would not have the problems of national unity or simply the problems between the English and French we now have. The problem we have now is a problem of respect and understanding. Hostility, bigotry, hate and ignorance among the English-speaking Canadians are at the root of our problems. One has only to study Acadian history in Nova Scotia to observe this.
It doesn't matter what you write in the final Calgary Declaration, English-speaking Canadians have to change in order for this country to fully be united and to develop and prosper to its full potential. When the Acadians came to Nova Scotia, we respected and became friends with the Mi'kmaq. We learned their language and we learned their culture. Acadians were always bilingual. We have no problems in wanting to learn other languages, we have no problems in opening up our minds and our hearts to people of different languages and cultures. However, when the English came, they proceeded to annihilate both of us. Half of the Acadian population died during the deportation years and 90 per cent of the Mi'kmaq died. There is immense proof that the English viewed, and still viewed by some, the Acadian and Mi'kmaq good relationship with much disdain.
The Acadians have no lessons to learn in how to respect and live with others. I witness no animosity and no hostility against the English people among Acadians but I witness a lot of animosity and a lot of hostility against the Acadians in the English communities.
The second point I want to make is I want to talk about the English press of Nova Scotia. How can we unify this country when so many are against it and I am not referring to the separatists of Quebec. The anglophone press of Nova Scotia, especially the Chronicle-Herald, has been particularly active against Canadian unity by its bigoted and hate editorial policy against the French. I have written to them many times and I have criticized them many more times. In a couple of instances, they seem to have changed on the subjects I had written about but in general they are still very much anti-French and especially anti-Quebec.
I have copied some of the letters I have written to them in the past few years and wish to submit them to the committee. I have already submitted to the committee a copy of a number of editorials, especially editorial content, from that newspaper. I also include articles from the Chronicle-Herald for your perusal that will show how this paper keeps prodding Nova Scotians, keeping them viciously hostile to the French and to Quebec. The Chronicle-Herald never misses a chance to criticize the French, especially Quebec.
The last letter I wrote concerned a meeting, November 17, 1997, of the Conseil scolaire acadien provincial which has been under attack by mainly anglophones opposing French. I quote from my letter that was sent to the Chronicle-Herald's Ombudsman. "Your
reporters did not report on any of the presentations. Your reporters did not report on the meeting. Your reporters did not report on the comments of the superintendent. Your reporters did not report on the comments of the newly elected President of the school board. Your reporters did not report on the proceedings of the meeting.
The issue of voting was not discussed at the meeting. Yet your reporters write extensively on this issue in the story. This is dishonest reporting. This is reporting with a hidden agenda. This reporting creates problems for the purpose of creating problems.
I am disgusted with the anti Acadian and anti French reporting and editorial objectives of your paper.
I have written to you before on this subject. It is about time your paper stops its hatred campaign against Acadians.
I have also spoken to the Education Reporter on this same issue, who wrote a story on this same group (who is hostile to the French and Acadians) and asked him to do objective reporting. He was not interested.".
I have included the full letter and the response in my documents.
The English press is contributing to the conflict between the English and the French. I have also copies of letters, for members of the committee, I sent to the CBC News which is no better than the Chronicle-Herald. I quote from a letter I sent to CBC Primetime.
"As an Acadian I have witnessed and still witness the English CBC assault on good and objective reporting when it comes to reporting on the French and English issues.
This program viewed negatively the reporting in the French Press of the Mohawks. I invited them to do a story on the reporting of the Mi'kmaq in NS by the English Press. I also invited them to report more on Acadians. They are very quick to report on the treatment of the English in Québec but their sense of justice does not extend to Acadians of NS.".
They were, however, very quick to send a crew to report negatively on the Conseil scolaire acadien provincial in Clare. I have caught them in half-truths and misrepresentation many times.
The CBC and the Chronicle-Herald have a double standard.
There is absolutely no comparison to the atrocious treatment of Acadians in Nova Scotia and the treatment of anglophones in Quebec and we learn English. How would Nova Scotia treat us if we refused to learn English as many people in Quebec refuse to learn French?
The other point I want to make is the English language historians. English language historians in general have been particularly adamant in their hostile interpretation of Acadian history. The reason I am saying this is because of the conflict that we have between the English and French stems from that source. The historians have been and still are at the root of misrepresentation and a source of hatred against the Acadians. For example, when the poem Evangeline was published, they condemned the book essentially because it portrayed Acadian suffering. The poem gave a human rather than a military dimension to the deportation but the historians could not accept this. The poem was even banned in British Columbia.
English-speaking historians such as Haliburton, Parkman, Murdoch, Akins and so forth, fell over each other to justify the deportation and make sure that the human dimension, as portrayed in the poem, did not receive any credibility. Factual accounts are not their objective. I have included in my documents a document from Western Washington University on this subject.
Making progress is the fourth point I want to make. We Acadians have made much progress in the past 25 years to 30 years. When I was growing up in Yarmouth County, an Acadian could not get a job at the Yarmouth liquor store. When the first Acadian got a job there, this made the front page news, so to speak, in our communities.
Jobs in the federal and provincial governments were closed to Acadians. There were, however, Acadians in the professional fields of medicine, dentistry, justice, the clergy, teaching and so forth, thanks to the Université Sainte-Anne, at that time the Collège Sainte-Anne which also operated a junior and senior high school. The Acadian school drop-out rate was 95 per cent at that time. The provincial government was not promoting education in the Acadian areas so that was left to the church and to Acadian families. There were regular church collections in support of Ste-Anne's College. Scholarships were established.
Recently, in the dispute against the Conseil scolaire acadien provincial, the university is heavily criticized, and now the opponents of French are also criticizing the Collège de l'Acadie. Because of the important role the college played and is still playing in the Acadian areas, it is no wonder that anglophones have such disdain for the college which fires up from time to time. They view the college as a nest for terrorists akin to the FLQ. Although we have made progress in employment opportunities, there is still much progress to be made.
The fifth point I want to make is local hostilities. A few years ago, a new Yarmouth bank manager chastised an Acadian business customer of 12 years because the bank manager's daughter had to, according to him, study French. At another meeting shortly after, the manager told the Acadian, who was active in promoting Acadian culture and language, that his bank account was not welcome at the bank. Don't ask why Acadian businesses don't display their businesses in French. They fear reprisals and harassment.
When I was at the newspaper, Le Courrier, I offered to do an interview with an important Acadian businessman. He refused because he didn't want to be classified as an Acadian businessman. I understand fully why, especially since his business depended largely on the anglophone communities.
The Acadian areas more economically active have one or more bank branches and don't have to depend on Yarmouth banks who have some people that are not sympathetic to Acadians. I would not want to paint all bank officials with the same brush but there is much progress to be made in this direction.
Our economic development is hampered because of discrimination. We have immense possibilities of economic development in this area of Yarmouth County. I am much impressed with economic development in Clare and West Pubnico. However, this economic activity is threatened as is a better school system.
I was involved in establishing a museum in Wedgeport. I can tell you that in this area there is a quota system for Acadian projects and the quota is one, maybe two, is good enough for them. In the past 10 years two local Acadian projects got the green light. A local newspaper sounded the alarm and put the anglophone communities on alert. Don't let the Acadians get ahead.
Acadians were referred to pockets of Acadians by our local newspaper. More anglophone projects are demanded when Acadian projects are accepted. There is tremendous animosity in the area when Acadian projects are accepted. There is no regional economic overview in this area which includes Acadian communities as such, other than individual Acadians applying for employment.
The Municipality of Argyle, which is predominantly Acadian, does not receive the respect it should from the other municipal units in the area. There is a constant hostility against Argyle and even in Argyle this hostility exists. There was tremendous opposition to bilingual letterheads for the municipal council. One anglophone councillor from Argyle told me, point blank, we have been dominating the French for 200 years and we are not going to stop now.
At our high school in Sainte-Anne-du-Ruisseau, anglophone students are continuously opposing the use of French in their presence. One parent said at a meeting that the anglophone students might as well be in the middle of Paris as in SAR. In actual fact, if we could count the words spoken at the school, the school is 80 per cent to 90 per cent English. These people hate French so much that any amount is too much. Everything is translated for them but even at this they are hostile and they regrettably get support among some Acadians. Not all are bigots. Acadians have friends among the English but they are not speaking out and when they are, it is not loud enough.
Another instance I want to relate to you is the case of the anglophone community having been invited to participate in the fire department of an Acadian community. Anglophones did not want to take part in meetings which were held in English for them because Acadians were speaking in French among themselves before and after the meeting. A woman became a member of an organization of Acadian women on the condition that everyone speak English if she is within earshot of them.
Acadians have built vibrant and dynamic communities, rich in many ways, especially in Acadian heritage of respect, justice and charity, contrary to the British design. They are, however, still being harassed, not because of their religion this time but because of their language and their ethnic origin. Some people who are refusing to learn French preach against what they call segregation and discrimination. They say they want unity but they don't want the Acadians to use French in their presence. There are many other examples of this hostility.
[7:30 p.m.]
When I was following conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, I was of the opinion that this sort of armed conflict could very well happen in this area, in Yarmouth County; not on the Acadian side, but on the anglophone side.
The federal Reform Party is certainly not a friend of Acadians; they wish to get back at us for progress we have made in the past few years. However, in the last federal election, in Nova Scotia, Reform did best in the anglophone communities of Argyle and in West Nova, from Annapolis County to Yarmouth County, where there is an important number of Acadian communities. Most, if not all, of the anglophone communities of Argyle voted Reform. The Reform percentage of votes in West Nova was 18 per cent; the percentage in all other ridings ranged from 5.3 per cent to 13.9 per cent. This shows what many anglophones in our area think of us, how little respect they have for us.
I have a few questions to ask you, members of the committee. As representatives of mainly anglophone areas, what did we do to you that you hate us so much? As representatives of English areas, can you tell me why you hate us so? What did we do that you can't respect us? What did we do to you that you have contempt for us? What did we do that you can't even tolerate us speaking French among ourselves? What did we do to you that you won't accept us as equals, that you give us fair opportunities in employment? What did we do to you that you have to constantly work to put us down? What did we do to you that you despise us so? What did we do to you that you won't accept us as Acadians? What did we do to you that you cannot accept that we are entitled to a better school system, that our present system needs much more support?
Michael Franklin, who was instrumental in establishing Clare as an Acadian refuge, referred to Acadians as a much harassed people. Your people have been harassing us for three centuries; when is this going to stop? Men and women of goodwill, of all races and ethnic
origins, must put an end to the problems of French and English relationships. Doesn't unity start at home? Doesn't respect start at home?
In conclusion, as Homer Simpson would say, "Just because I don't care does not mean I don't understand.". I hope you understand and I hope you care. Thanks.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Merci beaucoup; thank you, sir, for your presentation. Are there any questions or comments from the committee members? If not, I thank you very much for your presentation; I appreciate you taking the time to be with us tonight.
Now I ask for Mark Muise, Member of Parliament for West Nova.
M. MARK MUISE: Thank you, Madam Chairman, members of the committee. Depuis l'adoption de la fameuse Déclaration de Calgary, j'ai attendu avec impatience cette occasion de paraître devant ce comité provincial pour faire connaître mon opinion sur l'unité nationale.
Si je réussis, par mes commentaires, à démontrer que j'appuie la Déclaration de Calgary, j'en serai fort content. Cependant, basé sur mon passé et sur l'histoire, dans le contexte canadien, vous comprendrez bien pourquoi j'ai certaines inquiétudes pour l'avenir de notre pays.
From the very start, let me be very clear about one thing. I am in full support of the Calgary Declaration, or to quote John Diefenbaker who said at a press conference in St-Hyacinthe, Québec on August 23, 1965, "I can't see Québec outside of Canada, nor can I see the Canada I dream about without Québec.".
It is my sincere hope that all Canadians will clearly see the intent of this declaration and support it. While I fully respect the rights of Canadians to speak for or against the Calgary Declaration, I only hope that those who do speak out, do so fully aware of what is at stake.
Without wanting to take your valuable time going through history of the Canadian people, which undoubtedly some here are much more knowledgeable about than I, I would like to share with you a brief snapshot in history.
In 1881, the Acadians of the Maritimes held their national convention in Memramcook, New Brunswick. At issue was whether the Acadians would always be recognized as a separate people. More than one speaker clearly outlined the choices for the Acadians. On the question of a national holiday, S.J. Doucet said:
"Do we (Acadians) wish to become linked with the Canadians in such a way as to be no longer recognized as a separate people? . . . then let us choose Saint Jean Baptiste, the National holiday of the Canadians as our own . . . Should we, on the other hand, wish to preserve our national group and at the same time profit from an efficacious and unique means of strengthening and affirming our existence as a separate people? Then let us choose our own national holiday taking account only of ourselves . . . After we will be united on another plane, the plane of a higher politic, much above those of particularism - the plane where we all French Canadians, English, Scots, Irish are united together by the bonds of the great Canadian confederation."
You may well ask, what does this have to do with the question at hand, the Calgary Declaration. Well, it shows that all people want to be distinct. For the Acadians, it was to be distinct from the French Canadians in Quebec. They addressed it and solved it in their own way. We are still here. For how much longer, only the future will tell. This short excerpt from our history could also serve to show that we, the Acadians, may well have a slightly different perspective on this issue because we also had to struggle to maintain our identity.
Two things are necessary in order to guarantee the unity of a country as large as ours: Firstly, a feeling of belonging and, secondly, of mutual trust.
Ces deux facteurs peuvent paraître fort simplistes et même un peu superficiels.
C'est quand même ma grande conviction que si ces deux choses, un sentiment d'appartenance et une confiance réciproque, étaient analysées, disséquées et comprises, le Canada ne serait pas confronté par un futur si incertain.
La Déclaration de Calgary est un témoignage de maternité. Elle nous réchauffe le coeur, mais nous laisse un peu désorientés. C'est un peu comme si nous revenons d'un long voyage et nous apercevons un panneau sur la route qui nous informe que nous approchons notre destination. Je tiens toutefois à prévenir le comité que les statistiques démontrent que la plupart des accidents d'automible arrivent à quelques milles des foyers.
Regarding the seven point Framework for Discussion, endorsed by nine Premiers and two territorial Leaders, as I stated before, I agree in general with all points. I did, however, have some hesitation when I read Number 3. Not a disagreement, I just felt that those who wrote it wanted it to say too much. I feel that a country like Canada can be diversified and have equality of opportunity. Tolerance and compassion are human traits that every Canadian will have to have if we want to keep this country together. The Calgary Declaration is a very important step towards building a stronger, more united country.
In writing the report of what you have heard across this province, I urge you to keep in mind the ultimate goal of this process: a stronger, more united country, and to remember that the vast majority of people in Québec - including French-speaking Québecers - cherish
their Canadian citizenship and wish to remain with the country they have helped to build. Poll after poll have clearly demonstrated that Québecers are deeply attached to Canada. Keep in mind that the Bouchard Government was elected with only 44 per cent of the popular vote. In the last federal election, the federalist Parties in Québec obtained more than 60 per cent of the popular vote.
Le débat sur le caractère unique du Québec porte sur l'exigence fondamentale de la nationalité. A propos de cette déclaration, j'encourage les premiers ministres des provinces et du Canada aussi bien tous les canadiens et canadiennes d'affirmer leur intention de reconnaître que le Québec a une langue dynamique, une culture, un système de lois civiles et des institutions qui sont une partie intégrante de notre identité nationale. En tant que pays, nous avons réussi à conserver cette langue et cette culture uniques et c'est une réussite pour laquelle nous pouvous tous être très fiers. Ça fait partie de l'indentité canadienne en général que nous parlions français ou non.
En reconnaîssant ce fair, notre objectif n'est pas seulement de reconnaître l'identité canadienne, mais aussi de reconnaître notre obligation de continuer à protéger la langue, la culture, le système de lois civiles et les institutions du Québec. Le gouvernement du Québec a une responsabilité particulière, mais il n'est pas seul. C'est une responsabilité nationale que nous devons tous endosser avec enthousiasme.
It is time for us, in the rest of Canada, to recognize that the break-up of this country is not a fait accompli. Nothing in politics is inevitable if we choose to address it.
As Jean Charest, the Leader of my Party, said, "The country needs to reaffirm a common sense of purpose, our common will and our common identity. We must continue the task of nation building.".
Quant aux rapports entre les premières nations et les gouvernements, je crois fermement qu'on doit redéfinir les rôles et les responsabilités de ces deux groupes, de la même façon qu'on le fait entre les provinces et le gouvernement fédéral. En d'autres mots, lorsque c'est possible, les prises de décisions devraient se faire avec les niveaux de gouvernement qui sont les plus près du peuple. Je crois qu'il devrait y avoir un nouveau dialogue entre les gouvernements et les premières nations en vue de régler, entre autres, l'auto-détermination.
In conclusion, I would caution the committee that their report will be a difficult one to write. It must be written wisely and with enough substance to allow our political Leaders to have a stable, yet flexible, position in the deliberations that are sure to follow. I wish you all the best and I reaffirm the belief that the failure of Canada is not an option. I leave you with a short quote from one of our Prime Ministers, who said, "We must remain whole, and we must remain complete. National unity is the framework to which everything is knit.". Thank you; merci.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Merci and thank you very much for your presentation. Do any of the committee members have questions or comments? I thank you very much for your presentation; thank you for joining us.
Would M. DeViller please come forward. He is with le Comité régional de la FANE en Argyle. If you would state your names and then move forward with your presentation. Thank you.
M. CLYDE DEVILLER: Bonsoir, je m'appelle Clyde DeViller, coordinateur régional pour la FANE en Argyle; I am Clyde DeViller, regional coordinator for FANE in Argyle.
M. GARY SEELEY: Et mon nom est Gary Seeley, vice-président au Comité régional de la FANE en région d'Argyle aussi. I will be doing the presentation and if there are any questions, M. DeViller may answer them at the end.
Le comité régional de la Fédération acadienne de la Nouvelle-Écosse, la FANE, en Argyle désire remercier le comité de nous permettre l'occasion de présenter nos points de vue au sujet important de l'unité nationale.
La FANE en Argyle regroupe 321 membres, soit 38 associations et 283 individus, et par ce fait devient le plus important porte-parole des acadiens de la région.
Le débat constitutionnel touche à coeur les acadiens. Tout changement est susceptible d'avoir un impact significatif sur la communauté acadienne. La déclaration de Calgary constitue un autre début dans ce débat. Pour les acadiens, il est de prime importance que le Québec reste au sein de la fédération canadienne.
D'abord, le comité régional de la FANE en Argyle désire appuyer la présentation faite par notre président au niveau provincial, M. Jean Melanson. Comme lui, nous sommes d'accord en principe avec les objectifs de la déclaration de Calgary. Cependant, nous croyons qu'il faut préciser quelques passages.
Au niveau de la 4e clause, l'on fait allusion au "dynamisme des langues française et anglaise . . . du Canada". Cette clause parle à la fois du visage multiculturel du Canada ainsi que la dualité linguistique - des caractéristiques fondamentales du pays. Nous sommes d'avis qu'il faut parler plus spécifiquement des cultures des communautés francophones et anglophones car la simple mention des langues officielles du pays n'est pas assez précise.
À la 6e clause, l'on discute de la dévolution des pouvoirs du fédéral aux provinces. Le bilinguisme officiel, par le biais de la Loi sur les langues officielles, assure la dualité linguistique au pays. Alors, le Canada doit accorder une place centrale au renforcement de ce bilinguisme afin de protéger et promouvoir les droits des communautés de langue officielle.
Nos recommandations. Le comité régional de la FANE en Argyle appuie les recommandations faites par la FANE au niveau provincial, c'est-à-dire:
(1) Qu'à la clause 4 de la déclaration de Calgary, il soit impératif que les communautés francophones et acadiennes du pays y soient inscrites de la façon suivante: "les communautés francophones et acadiennes du Canada et leur dynamisme".
(2) Qu'à la clause 6 de la déclaration de Calgary, il soit impératif d'y ajouter à la fin de cette clause les mots suivants: "et qu'il soit de la responsabilité du gouvernement fédéral que toute dévolution puisse protéger et promouvoir les droits acquis de communautés de langue officielle".
Conclusion. Le comité régional de la FANE désire réitérer son appui à la déclaration de Calgary avec le souhait d'apporter quelques précisions. Nous voulons également souligner de nouveau l'importance de l'inclusion du Québec au sein de la fédération canadienne.
La situation du Québec, une francophonie minoritaire au sein d'un Canada majoritairement anglophone, est analogue à celle des acadiens en Nouvelle-Écosse, une communauté francophone minoritaire dans une province majoritairement anglophone. Alors, comme communauté linguistique vivante en situation minoritaire, nous sommes bien placés pour comprendre leurs craintes et leurs aspirations. Peu importe, le respect mutuel doit régner afin de régler ce débat constitutionnel. Merci; thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Merci. Thank you very much. Are there any questions or comments from members of the committee? I think your presentation was very clear; you agree, but with two additions. I thank you very much for that; you have obviously given it a lot of thought and have represented your organization very well. Thank you very much.
We would ask Betty Cox, private citizen, to come forward.
MS. BETTY COX: Good evening, my name is Betty Cox. I am here as a private individual, not representing any group or organization. I would like to thank Madam Chairman and members of the committee for the opportunity to address this committee. First, I would like to thank the committee members for granting the people of Nova Scotia the opportunity to address this declaration, both through formal presentations and in the form of verbal, written and e-mail presentations.
Few people are willing to express their views in front of a committee, so often are excluded from important discussions such as this. Unfortunately, the ability to reach the committee's questionnaire has not been as widely publicized as it may have been.
Knowing that most provinces had put questionnaires on the Internet, I eventually found Nova Scotia's finance page, backtracked to your home page and then found the questionnaire. Unfortunately, this problem probably means that many Nova Scotians have not been able to find the questionnaire.
Please ask the media to publish both a toll-free number and the Internet address so that more people can reach you. The future of Canada will best be represented when the greatest number of Canadians have the opportunity to express their views.
In addressing the Calgary Declaration, I would like to make my comments point by point, if you will allow me.
The first four points specifically address the need for the equality of our citizens, our provinces, our recognition of our nation's diversity and an appreciation for the gift of that diversity.
While we have not achieved the ideal stated in these four points, Canada is probably closer than almost any other country in the world. That should be a matter of great pride to us as Canadians. These ideals should be written into our Constitution, not just as a goal to strive towards, but as a constant reminder that we will only reach the goal of real equality by working towards it. In our struggle to reach this ideal, we must be very careful.
In our efforts to attain equality, we cannot grant rights to one group which may then be used to deprive other groups of similar rights. If we are diligent as citizens and if you as legislators are cautious, the ideal of real equality is possible.
I am glad to see that this declaration states all Canadians are equal, all provinces are equal. I am equally pleased to see the phrase, Canada is graced by diversity, and later, that diversity is referred to as a gift. It truly is. As long as we recognize these facts, Canada will continue to be a wonderful place to live.
The fifth point charges the federal government with protecting and developing the unique character of Quebec society and identifies Quebec language, culture and civil law as fundamental to the well-being of Canada. This statement is neither clear, nor is it a reassurance to Canadians wishing to see an end to the unity crisis.
Most Canadians recognize that Quebec is part of the diversity of which we are so proud, so is Nova Scotia, the province of firsts: first newspaper, first incorporated town, first dramatic society. I won't list them all, it is a very long list.
In fact, all the provinces and territories are unique in some way. If we include a statement recognizing the unique character of one province and declare the preservation of that unique character as fundamental to the well-being of Canada, we must also recognize the unique character of all provinces and territories.
If we do not, it is tantamount to admitting that we in Atlantic Canada are somehow less important, that our culture, our character and our traditions are not fundamental to the well-being of Canada.
More importantly and much more dangerous to the future stability of Canada, is the potential to take this argument to court for constitutional challenges on behalf of Quebec. An imaginative constitutional lawyer would have a powerful argument with this clause entrenched in law. Basically, the clause means that any constitutional challenge made on behalf of the separatist faction in Quebec would be given a new argument. Demands for future exclusive treatment could be justified by the claim that: anything which protects Quebec language, culture or civil law was in the best interests of Canada as a whole because of the unique character of Quebec is fundamental to the well-being of Canada.
This clause denies the existence of the diversity in the rest of Canada. In fact, it is repetition of the status quo. Quebec and the RoC (Rest of Canada). We have lived with this mentality for over a quarter of a century with the result that in 1995, 49.4 per cent of the people voted to separate. We came within a hair's breadth of the destruction of Canada.
Divisive policy hurts all Canadians. National pride is diminished by constant stress. Our security is diminished by constant threat. Our financial security - that is, our ability to find jobs and our children's future prosperity - has been disrupted by uncertainty.
This unique character clause is distinct society only in much stronger language. According to Funk & Wagnell's Standard Collegiate Dictionary, distinct means "recognizably not the same; clearly different; different in nature or qualities", while society is described as "a system of community life in which individuals form associations for their mutual benefit and protection; all persons collectively, regarded as having certain common characteristics and relationships". On the other hand, unique is described as "being the only one of its kind; being without or having no equal or like", while character is "the combination of qualities or traits that distinguishes an individual or group;" namely personality. This clause moves from meaning a group of citizens sharing common characteristics which are clearly different to a much stronger designation, namely, a combination of qualities that distinguishes a group which is without equal.
Law is based on words and their meanings, and the interpretations of words are the tools of law.
Number 6 reaffirms equality of provinces. This is probably one of our most important clauses, yet because it has been separated from Number 5 it could be ignored in constitutional challenges. The only way to guarantee equality of citizens and provinces is to give prominence to Number 1 through Number 4 and Number 6. Here is the strength and the value to be found in this declaration.
By granting unique status in Number 5, namely recognizing one province as having no equal, it is too late in Number 6 to promise equality.
The final clause recognizes the need for cooperation between levels of government and the need for flexibility in government. The meaning of this appears to be greater cooperation between levels of government but this is not what is actually written. There is no affirmation that the central government is committed to working cooperatively with the provinces, only that the provinces and territories commit to working with the federal government. Typically, local levels of government, those branches of government which are closest to the people are ignored. Today, when the federal government shrugs, so do provincial governments and it is the local governments which end up carrying the increased burden.
This requirement for cooperation should cause some concern among Canadians with this one-sided commitment. Recently, we have had a few demonstrations of the federal government's willingness or unwillingness to cooperate. The Kyoto deal, an international agreement signed by our federal government covers an area which lies largely within provincial jurisdictions. The provinces will be left to conform, yet they had little impact on the agreement signed. Similarly, current negotiations on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment is another area where provincial governments will be impacted. This is an agreement which could severely affect municipal governments as well. Will we really be asked to risk large areas of autonomy? Will multinational corporate bodies be able to challenge Canadian laws we have worked hard and long to establish - minimum wage laws, occupational health and safety laws, municipal by-laws, provincial environmental laws? If this agreement is signed and these questions turn out to be factual concerns, what help will cooperation be?
[8:00 p.m.]
We need carefully defined federal, provincial and municipal jurisdictions, then each level of government must have the authority to act in the best interests of the people they represent. Cooperation is a two-way street, with the federal government being accountable to us and to provincial and municipal governments when it negotiates internationally.
Allow all provinces to operate in such a way in which they are free to enhance those areas in which we are unique, give the municipalities a place in this cooperative effort and above all, let's be very sure that any pledge of cooperation includes all the sides represented:
the federal government, the provincial governments, the local governments and the people of Canada. I thank you for your time.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Ms. Cox, for your presentation. It was very well put. Are there any comments or questions for Ms. Cox from the committee members? Thank you very much for being here with us this evening and for your presentation, Merci.
Would Mr. Bob Frelick please come forward, as a private citizen. I do hope the sounds next door are not too distracting for your presentation.
MR. BOB FRELICK: No, I hope not anyway. I must clear one thing up before I get started, I am not anti-government. When I get going along on this some of you may think that I am. I think we have very good politicians, the only thing is that in some cases I believe the good ones' hands are really tied. Now, to get on with my 10 minutes.
The following are my opinions and concerns on national unity. One hundred and thirty-one years ago when this country became globally known as Canada, the government of the day began to create divisions among the various peoples of the land. Even before Confederation and the War of Independence, there had been divisions created so that the British style of rule could dominate all who lived on the land.
I have to clear one more thing up too, when I refer to the British style of rule, I not only refer to the way our government operates but the British mentality when they came here and threw the French out and put the Indians on reservations. I have a book home, it goes back to 1776 with actual letters from the French to the English and vice versa and the communications overseas and it has been a big help to me as far as understanding what has happened in the history of our country.
As we know, the French and the English were not the only inhabitants here. Due to the British slave trade, there were Africans, but first the Native people of North America lived on the land. In order for the British method of government to work there had to be absolute control of the population. This British control is what started the American War of Independence. Thus we began to become further divided as a continent.
In the days that followed Confederation, we saw the people of the First Nations placed on reservations. After having their lands expropriated and in order to maintain British rule, they were divided so they would have to remain powerless against the government of the day.
The French were expelled from the country and those who consented to live under the British style of government, also became a division within Canada, which was known as Upper and Lower Canada.
There was then development in Canada and the east and west divisions were created. The same method created divisions in the north and not only were the people divided but their religious beliefs were not encouraged. The British religion and schooling were forced upon the Native people, thus creating more divisions within the previous divisions.
In more recent years, we have witnessed legislated divisions which have affected all races of people, both those who have been born in Canada and those who are landed immigrants. It seems that all nationalities are divided and the governments of the day usually find ways to further segregate them.
Today, all the peoples in Canada are victims of segregation, so much so that the business community is divided, large companies are pitted against medium-sized ones and both are pitted against the small business, et cetera.
The farmers have been segregated. The governments of the day have done all but provide protection for them. The foresters have been divided, as well, pitting the private landowners against the larger companies and the government-assisted corporations. The fisheries have been divided in such a magnitude that there is no way within the present means known to correct the extinction of all species, both in the Atlantic and in the Pacific Oceans.
It would take one month, at least, to list all the divisions within this great country that the governments of the day call ours. There have been so many divisions created by the British style of government that we know as Canadian government, that the different peoples are beginning to realize that they all have one common ground.
One example of this is that no person in Canada who works hard, is diligent, proud and has all the qualities needed to be a model citizen, but is not part of the British style of system, has never been shown recognition for his or her labour, but instead are penalized by either taxation or some other form of punishment.
There have been divisions of the Armed Forces who have served in both world wars, Korea, Bosnia and the list goes on, who have been disregarded and shunned by the governments of the day.
Canada is the only country in the world which degrades and demoralizes troops who stand up and fight for Canada. It seems the only ones that are respected and honoured by the governments of the day are the troops that did not return home alive. It appears that the reason is because dead soldiers do not have to be paid or receive disability benefits, et cetera.
After causing divisions within our military, morale is expected to remain high. The Canadian Government has criticized the actions of the peacekeepers when deployed in other countries and even degraded it in front of their families and countrymen by using the media,
failed to justly reward those who have returned sick and crippled and, yet, expect the highest quality of performance.
I, personally, am proud of our Armed Forces, regardless of any controversy created by our governments and the media. After all, the military has proven to be the most respected group of people anywhere in the world, by every country in the world.
Their foreign recognition was not recognized yesterday. The ice storm in Ontario and Quebec has proven that our troops are proud to serve their countrymen and morale instantly went through the roof when they were deployed in their own land. This clearly shows whom they serve in their hearts.
All societies within Canada have been segregated by a British style government and continue to be targeted daily: the medical profession, parliamentary groups, education, fisheries, Natives, Canadian-Asian communities and the list goes on and on. No one group has escaped so far. Even communities have been divided by government legislation.
It is quite evident that in order to be politically correct in Canada, the word, dictate, has been conveniently changed to, legislate. We, as a people, are being legislated into isolation by the politicians that supposedly represent us. Fortunately, I feel that the feeling of isolation is beginning to unite the people of Canada. This creates the largest division in the country and causes me to be concerned. This huge division is between the people in general and the government in general.
The track record of our elected officials in the past 130 years or so has proven to the people in Canada that no elected person has ever been accountable to anyone and they simply have earned no trust. There have been and still are a myriad of scandals and no official has ever been outside the political immunity.
Taxpayers are losing big time and the loss of their tax dollars is causing distress. The governments of the day have created legislation which has even gone so far as to divide families and has become involved in activities that are virtually illegal for the common citizen to be involved in. Gambling casinos, lotteries and alcohol are some of the examples.
The politicians have failed to listen to the public in every situation but had the will to venture into decision-making on an issue they admittedly know little or nothing about, which seriously affects the well-being of those who are disregarded. The best examples that come to mind are the mismanagement of the East Coast fishery and the Westray Mine disaster. It seems the governments of the day are the peoples' worst enemy. Any court in our land will state that ignorance is no excuse. What excuse does the government have?
It is a proven fact that the Canadian Government cannot be trusted. Brian Mulroney cost the taxpayers millions for various mistakes during his term in office and was the least popular Prime Minister of all time but he ended up suing the government of the day for defamation, did he not?
There seems to be little or no loyalty in the hearts of the retired politicians who have held office in the past. Upon retiring, the majority take their pension money and their bank account and move to a condominium in another country where there is little or no tax on things to buy. These persons prove to the population in general what motivates members of the present day government. Thus divisions continue to be created with the retirement of every politician.
As to unity, it is my opinion that it is virtually impossible for any one group of persons who make up any committee or organization to succeed in dismantling the barriers and divisions that has taken the British style of rule 131 years to develop or devise. It is not the fault nor is it the responsibility of the people to devise means of creating unity but instead the responsibility of the electorate. Until there is a government of the people, by the people and for the people, which is accountable to the people for both their extravagance and wrong doings, there is no chance of unity in Canada.
The Governments of Canada have disregarded examples of other countries which have been divided in the same manner and used similar practices, which have not only led those countries to massive civil disobedience but in some cases, civil war. Let us hope that the Canadian Governments are wise enough to dismantle the great division that exists between the people and the governments. In my opinion, they, the governments of today and tomorrow, by thinking long term are the only ones that are capable of creating a lasting united country. This will only be possible if the promotion of racism is stopped by the government of the day by realizing the needs of the citizens, and creating an environment where trust and respect for governments are possible. One law for one people should be a start. Capitalism rather than socialism along with patriotism wouldn't hurt either. The governments, regardless of what style, need to listen to the people. Thank you for your time.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Frelick, for your presentation. Any comments or questions from members of the committee? Thank you very much for coming forward.
MR. FRELICK: You are welcome and I thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Dr. John Nause, Canadian Literature teacher, Yarmouth High School.
DR. JOHN NAUSE: To members of the Committee on National Unity and ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank you for giving me this opportunity to present a few ideas tonight. I will warn you, they are a few ideas. I do not have a written presentation and I am not an orator. I hope when I go up beyond the Milky Way that I will be remembered more as a poet than as an orator. But I would like to comment a bit on the letter and the spirit of the Calgary Declaration because I think that it is extremely important to Canada at this time.
I want to go back for just a moment to 1967, because in 1967 I was living in Ottawa and one of the memories that I have, which is a very fond one, is of standing out in front of the Parliament buildings on July 1st and eating from a gigantic birthday cake which required a crane and someone sitting in a box to cut it because it was so huge, and thousands of people were gathered there holding hands and singing O Canada. It is a memory that I have of a display of fellowship and a display of warmth that this country sorely needs. It seems to me that there are many advantages to our cultural mosaic because this is what it is and I think that our forefathers back in 1867, when they forged the British North America Act, realized the beginnings of it at that time, when they spoke of Canada as being a bilingual and a bicultural country. As time has gone on and the country has evolved and has grown and has begun to mature, it has become more than that. It has become a multicultural and multilingual country.
I think that Nova Scotia, you know, because this is where we are right now, is very much a microcosm of the country because you can drive up along the shore and you see the examples of this beautiful French Acadian culture that we have right here in this part of the province, the music and the theatre that are flourishing here in this Acadian area. You go up along the South Shore through Lunenburg and you see a sort of a rejuvenation of the German culture there and you go to Cape Breton and you can see the highland culture which came over two centuries ago and how it is still flourishing there. In that sense, we are very much, I think, a microcosm of what this country represents.
I think that one of the strong points also in this Calgary Declaration is the use of the phrase, unique character of Quebec society, because I think we have always recognized that there is a uniqueness to the character of Quebec society and I think that that concept is somehow superior to the concept of distinct society, the phrase which was used earlier, and which left, I think, a lot of people feeling sort of uncomfortable and I don't mean just English Canadians because if one looks at Pierre Elliott Trudeau's reaction to it, there were also some French Canadians who also felt uncomfortable with it because they thought that it was a phrase that was perhaps not worthy of them.
I also wanted to mention the importance of the availability of new powers to all provinces which I think is in Number 6 of the Declaration. I think that this, too, is very important because it allows each province, even the smaller ones, and we are one of the smaller provinces, to feel that it has at its disposal, that it would have at its disposal, an equality of opportunity in terms of legislation, in terms of new powers which could be legislated for it.
I think it is also important because this Declaration speaks so much of the maintenance of equality and the recognition of equality of all persons, of all individuals and of all groups. I think that is very important for us, here in Nova Scotia, that as this committee and other committees pursue their deliberations, that the Calgary Declaration always recognize the importance of equalization which was written into the British North America Act and which we should never forsake.
One of the other comments that I wanted to make as a teacher and as a member of the Yarmouth local of the Nova Scotia Teachers Union, is that I think that the youth of our country are its future. I think there is no doubt about it that if all of us in our own respective generations had been able to do what Heidi Deveau did here tonight, that we wouldn't have to be sitting here wondering about Canadian unity and about good fellowship among Canadians. The public school system has a responsibility to promote goodwill among our various ethnic groups and our various linguistic and cultural groups. I think that already there are some Canadian programs that are attempting to do that.
I remember about two years ago, a student from my Canadian Literature class had the opportunity to go to the Terry Fox Centre and when she came home she was absolutely agog, you know, at what she had discovered there. The best friendship that she formed up there was with a girl from Rimouski. When she came back home, one of the things that she did was write an essay that she presented to me for my Canadian Literature class on the importance of the Canada that we know, the Canada that we have, and of preserving it. I think that is very important for us to always continue to realize that this generation which is going to be taking over from us at some point in the new millennium, perhaps has a better understanding than we did, when we were their age, of what the situation is here in Canada.
The final thing I wanted to mention, because Canada, you know, I suppose that if we look at it from a purely rational point of view, it doesn't make very much sense to try to forge a country which has all of its urban centres in a ribbon about 150 miles wide and stretching out over 4,000 miles with a mountain and a prairie in between. You know when we look at it from our hearts, when we look at it as Canadians who have a feeling of fellowship, a feeling of unity, I take myself back always to a poem that I wrote. It is a fairly long poem so I am not going to bother you with it right now, but I wrote a fairly long poem in 1973 called Meditation on the Moreside Ruins. Those of you who know Ottawa probably recognize the Moreside Ruins as a place where Mackenzie King had his country estate up north of Ottawa on the Quebec side. He had collected all of these ruins from the old Parliament Buildings, from the Royal Bank which had burned down in Ottawa and from Greece and from Italy and he had these ruins there and he said this was the place where he went to think. Well, when you sit around among those ruins and you meditate upon this vast country that surrounds us, you always, I think, come away with the feeling that what we have in our hearts is what we are going to be able to make of Canada. I closed my poem with the lines that I still hold hope for a union of hearts because hearts beat louder than drums and love resounds louder than guns. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Dr. Nause, for your presentation. The only comment I would like to make is on your discussion about youth. We have had some presentations, from the Boys Scouts of Canada in Halifax, and we had a high school group in Port Hawkesbury made a presentation and a young man in Truro made a presentation and all of those, I think, were very impressive and hit a chord with each and every one of us on the committee. So that point is well taken.
Are there any comments or questions? Mr. Holm.
MR. JOHN HOLM: I have been sitting quiet too long, I guess. First I must just make the observation that methinks that you short-change yourself when you say that you are not an orator because if you are not an orator then you are the closest thing to it that you will find.
I just would like to get your opinion on one thing and really picking up on 1(c) where you are talking about the importance and availability of all new powers to the provinces. The frame-work that is before us, as numbers have pointed out, it is not necessarily something that we have already achieved but these are goals and objectives that we are striving toward in terms of equality - equality of opportunities for citizens and equalities of the provinces and so on. If you are going to have that kind of equality, that means that those provinces, those governments, must have equal ability to deliver those programs and to ensure that those opportunities exist but we are not all economically equal. Some have more financial abilities to deliver programs and services than others. So I guess my question really goes down to the point of the availability of new powers to the provinces and one of the clauses, as you correctly know says that powers that are transferred to one province can be transferred to all other provinces. My question is, do you think that it is advisable or in the best interests of the country to be giving - what is the word I am looking for - devolution of powers to the provinces or do you think the objectives that are contained within the framework could be more easily achieved if we have a stronger, rather than a weaker, federal government?
DR. NAUSE: Well, if you are asking me, I am a federalist and I believe that it is incumbent on the federal government to take responsibility for those aspects of our operation that are laid down for it under the Canada Act. I would not like to see a devolution of that but I think that the safeguard that would be involved in any form of legislation that would speak of equality of powers for provinces, that if one province were given a certain power then others should have access to it, I think there is a virtue in having this because at times people tend to become noisy and the squeaky wheel gets the grease. You would not want to feel that it was only the wheel that squeaked that was being given a special sort of power or a special sort of legislative privilege.
MR. HOLM: I guess that just leaves, then, the follow-up question which would be if those powers, particularly in the social areas, you are a teacher and so education is one area that currently, of course, is a provincial responsibility but there is a federal hand in it, do you
think that the federal government should be insisting upon and maintaining standards, particularly in social types of programs, if they are going to be giving increased powers to the provinces?
DR. NAUSE: Yes, I think there always has to be some form of common denominator for any form of social program. I say this, from the point of view of the welfare of the citizens of the country as a whole, that there has to be a sort of common denominator. Otherwise, you end up with the very inequality that this declaration wants to deny. Inequality is the one thing that we do not want in the country so we would not want to create a situation that would allow more inequality to develop. At least that would be my attitude toward it.
MR. HOLM: Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Are there any further questions?
MR. RUSSELL: Dr. Nause, as an educator, I was just wondering if you would like to comment very briefly on the importance of the education of our young people in Canadian history and provincial history as a way of perhaps making them more friendly toward Canadian problems, such as are brought to our attention because of the situation between the Province of Quebec and the remaining provinces?
DR. NAUSE: It is interesting that you mention this, sir, because the study of Canadian problems, to a large extent, has devolved from the senior high school to the junior high schools. I have always thought that was a move that maybe was not altogether wise but I notice in my Canadian Literature class, it is almost impossible to study Canadian literature without looking at the whole business of separatism, without looking at the whole business of the differences in the various regions and their similarities. Sometime in the spring, we always end up somewhere around 1970 - I am talking about the events of that time period and the literature which sprang out of it because there was a tremendous amount of poetry and short fiction which was the result of the October crisis and of the events leading up to it and of its aftermath. So we always become involved in discussions of this and I find that young people are very interested in what happens in parts of the country other than our own. So I think the more exposure they have to the realities of our country's history and its cultural and social backgrounds then the better citizens they will be able to be. I think that they want to be good citizens.
[8:30 p.m.]
The local of our union this year began sponsoring an essay competition on Canadian unity and the final papers are due in on February 28th. So I am rather anxious to see them. I have some already because some people are keen on the competition and they said, can I hand this in early? So I already have some but they will be judged and there are various categories: P to 3, 4 to 6 and junior high and senior high. I am surprised at how positive the
early response is because the competition hasn't actually been officially announced yet. I guess right now it has been but it hadn't been before now. (Laughter)
MR. ERNEST FAGE: Dr. Nause, just in that light and you mentioned it with the Terry Fox Centre. Would you be supportive and encouraging more cultural exchanges between different regions of Canada, particularly maybe Quebec, for our young people or people of all ages in Canada to foster and promote that?
DR. NAUSE: Absolutely. I think that the one thing that breaks down barriers is familiarity. Familiarity doesn't breed contempt, familiarity breeds friendship. I think that the more of this sort of exchange that we can have the better. Yes, absolutely.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: You get them going now then you can't get them stopped.
MR. HOLM: One of the observations or conclusions that I have come to, in just following up on what Ernie has said, is that sometimes, as one of the previous speakers has said, something to the effect about unity and so on begins at home, solving problems begins at home and I am beginning to think that there may also be some advantage to having increased tours and so on throughout Nova Scotia so that we of different cultures within Nova Scotia, the English, Acadians and others, may also become more familiar with each other within our own province. As we do that then we can expand from that and better understand the whole country, because so many Nova Scotians, we don't understand our province and the different cultures within it.
DR. NAUSE: That's for sure.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Dr. Nause, for your presentation.
DR. NAUSE: Thank you very much.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Now, there are a number of others who have indicated that they would like to have an opportunity to speak. I hope I am pronouncing this properly, Désiré Boudreau. When you are prepared, state your name and then your presentation, thank you.
M. DÉSIRÉ BOUDREAU: Madame la présidente et distingués membres du comité de l'unité nationale. Mon nom est Désiré Boudreau et je suis un citoyen retraîté de l'éducation auparavant.
Je félicite, d'abord, le gouvernement d'avoir donner l'occasion au néo-écossais de réagir sur la déclaration de Calgary à propos de l'unité nationale. Souhaitons que cette input vous permettra de soumettre à qui de droit nos réactions, nos commentaires, ainsi que nos suggestions comment nous esperons garder le Canada dans son ensemble.
En tant qu'acadien, nous avons du luter depuis longtemps pour sauve garder notre langue et notre culture. Cette lutte nous l'on maintenant encore aujourd'hui et ceci grâce au gouvernement fédéral et provincial de qui nous avons bénificier des ressources financières et humaines pour arriver où nous en sommes actuellement.
Nous avons encore beaucoup à accomplir et nous esperons que le gouvernement fédéral et provincial vont continuer à nous donner le support et l'appui nécessaire pour que nous puissions nous épanouir d'avantage, afin de sauvegarder notre langue et notre héritage.
Dans la mosaïque canadienne, nous avons quelque chose a offrir à nos compatriotes canadiens. Dans cette même ligne de pensée, les québécois ont beaucoup a offrir dans le domaines de la langue, de la culture, et de tout leurs héritages. Cette richesse que possède le Québec doit être partager avec les francophones hors Québec, ainsi qu'avec tous les canadiens et toutes les canadiennes.
Je ne suis pas totalement convaincu que cette révolution discrète de soumise au Québec et la volonté de la majorité des québécois. Il faut que ce qui demande la séparation du Québec soit mise au courant des ramifications advenant la séparation.
Où vont-il se placer dans la mosaïque canadienne? Vont-il reclammer les même pouvoirs? Vont-il posséder les même droits? Vont-il demander les financières du gouvernement fédéral? Ce sont certaines questions qui méritent d'être discuter avec ce qui demande la séparation du Québec.
L'unité canadienne, nous l'avons démontrer ces jours même avec l'aide fournit au gens du Québec, lors de la sinistre tempête qui ravage encore cette partie du Canada. L'aide apporter aux gens du Lac Saint-Jean, lors des inondations, il y a peine un an et encore un geste tangible de l'unité canadienne.
Et enfin, mesdames et monsieurs, je supporte la déclaration de Calgary, mais je ne suis pas totalement convaincu que l'adoption de cette déclaration va mettre fin a tous les frustrations resentit dans certains cartiers du Québec. Il faut cependant continuer à dialoguer et discuter avec ces gens qui préconisent la séparation du Québec afin qu'ils arrivent à comprendre que nous voulons qu'ils demeurent à l'interieur du Canada.
Permettez-moi, mesdames et monsieurs, de vous soumettre quelques suggestions qui me semble appropriés pour promouvoir d'avantage l'unité canadienne. D'ailleur certaines des suggestions ont déjà été discuter avec l'orateur précédent, Docteur Nauss, mais je me demandais si il avait déjà vu mon texte.
D'abord, encourager d'avantage des échanges en québécois et néo-écossais enfin que l'on puisse mieux se connaître, mieux se comprendre, et d'apprecier chacun nos valeur.
Numéro deux, promouvoir le tourisme dans notre province avec plus d'énphase sur la francophonie. Par exemple, les panneaux routiers en français, offrir plus de services en français, encourager les commerçants, surtout dans les régions acadiennes, d'afficher leur produits en français. C'est surprennant qu'on bien des gens au Canada, et même dans notre province voisine au Nouveau-Brunswick, qui ne savent pas encore qu'il existent des francophones acadiens en Nouvelle-Écosse qui veulent sauf garder leur langue et leur culture. C'est en développent d'avantage le tourisme que nous allons combler cette lacune.
Troisième suggestion, développer et promouvoir la fierté canadienne, spécialement chez les jeunes. Chanter l'hymne national que nous avons fait ce soir, je vous félicite. Chaque jour au début des classes dans les écoles publiques, ainsi qu'a chaques opportunités ou l'occasion se présent, changer l'hymne national en français et en anglais comme nous l'on fait ce soir. Encourager les canadiens de flotter leur pavillion du Canada, surtout à notre fête nationale. Je ne le vois pas notre drapeau ici là, mais j'en vois pas d'autre.
Numéro quatre, enseigner l'histoire du Canada, surtout aux étudiants enfin qu'ils puissent vraiment apprendre et comprendre la déception et le mécontentement des québécois. On peut seulement remédier à la situation si on comprend le problème.
Voilà, mesdames et monsieurs, mes commentaires que j'ai voulu vous faire part dans cette discussion de l'unité canadienne. Je vous remercie de votre attention et je souhaite que votre rapport finale portera fruit et qu'enfin le Canada demeurera uni pour toujours enfin que nos enfants et nos petits enfants puisse jouir de ce bon pays que le Canada. Merci.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much. Any comments or questions from members of the committee?
MR. FAGE: Just a comment, not a question. Mr. Boudreau, it seems to me that you are a very strong realist in your description of where the accord may possibly head, where the future may go and your interpretation of the reality you see of the mosaic of Canada, Quebec and this province would be the comment I would like to make. They seem to be pretty accurate of the reality out there.
M. BOUDREAU: Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for coming forward, I appreciate it.
Would Ms. Joan Paquette please come forward. Make yourself comfortable.
MS. JOAN PAQUETTE: Madam Chairman and members of the committee, I am really quite pleased to be sitting here. I don't have long comments, just a few. First of all, I agree with the seven statements describing Canada in the Framework for Discussion. At this time - this is sort of the second part of your questions - I wouldn't want any other statements
to be added because I think that would delay the whole process of evaluation to an unending degree. The new statements would have to be added, they would have to be re-evaluated and it could go on and on. My third comment is that the seven statements are, indeed, an accurate reflection of my own vision of Canada.
Tonight I would like to express some of my own thoughts and feelings about national unity, and mostly it is just a feeling. I was born and raised in Montreal. I went to school there. I became a teacher, I taught children in the English Catholic school system in Montreal. My mother was French Canadian, my father was Irish Canadian. Some of my relatives were unilingual French-speaking and others were unilingual English-speaking and many were bilingual. I remember parties on both sides of the family and I can remember a whole lot of singing, laughing, drinking, eating and hugging; both the French Canadians and the Irish could indeed party hearty. Sometimes we all got together, all on both sides of the family, to celebrate a christening or a wedding or a funeral. My memories are warm and delicious of those moments. Montreal is as much my home as is Nova Scotia.
My four children were born in Nova Scotia and they were raised in Manitoba, Ontario, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia. We have witnessed western radicalism as well as Quebec separatism. We have learned the impact of weather on farmers in Manitoba and fishermen in the Maritimes. We have loved every province and all the neighbours with whom we shared community.
As people in Ontario and people in Quebec play a survival game with the weather today, we pain for all of them and we wish we could be there to bring generators and blankets and food. Each person facing cold and darkness is special, is unique, is Canadian. There cannot be a boundary that would destroy this reality.
I think that there will always be separatists. I don't believe that we can convince them that their language and culture will be secure within a united Canada. I do not believe that the separatists are, have been or will be a majority in the Province of Quebec. I believe that Quebecers are unique; I believe that Quebec society is distinct. But in saying that, they have to be distinct from something. The corollary must be that the rest of Canada is distinct from them.
I believe that Quebecers are an integral part of Canada, as are the Aboriginal peoples, as are Canadians from other parts of the world, as are English Canadians. We are all Canadians.
I believe that, historically, we have always debated the national unity question. Perhaps we always will. I never get tired of the debate. It is part of being Canadian. Thanks.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Ms. Paquette, for your presentation. We appreciate your coming forward. I now ask Joe Paquette to come forward. I appreciate both of you making presentations. In other evenings, we have had proxies from spouses, so tonight we have both of you here and I do appreciate it. State your name, then, and move forward.
MR. JOE PAQUETE: I hope when we are finished we will find that that was a good thing. (Laughter)
My name is Joe Paquette. I am a retired military officer, having served 31 years in the Canadian forces. As my wife Joan has mentioned, we have lived in all parts of Canada; we have worked with all sorts of people. I did part of a degree in Manitoba, being taught early Canadian history by a professor with a degree in western radicalism. I finished my degree at the University of Ottawa with a course or two in French Canadian nationalism. So I have had it from all sides.
The Framework for Discussion is essentially flawed in the fact that it has been developed and endorsed by nine well-meaning Premiers and two territorial government Leaders. It is meant to be discussed with the elements within Quebec whose intention is to take Quebec from the federation. This is not a framework for discussion of unity but is an attempt to ensure that Quebec does not achieve any powers that the other stakeholders do not.
In a country of undeniable, cultural, linguistic and ethnic diversity, Quebec is - as I was taught in my Quebec nationalism classes at the University of Ottawa - unique, distinct, different from any other province or group in Canada. They are people within a defined border of one language, more or less of one religion, of one civil code, of one culture and of one history; a conquered people which managed to keep all of its uniqueness, not because the British were benevolent conquerors but because the British, themselves, did not trust the bostonnais to the south and thought that les canadiens would make a good buffer to their influence. Though a minority in Quebec, the French Canadians remained the power brokers by voting as a bloc, so that is not a new term.
When they were the majority in the country, the Upper Canadians made sure that the English held the upper hand by giving Upper and Lower Canada an equal say in government.
When English, Scots and Irish arrivals began to outnumber les canadiens, the English speakers changed the rules to make representation by population the basis for governing Canada in an attempt to disenfranchise the Quebecers.
Throughout all this manouevering, les canadiens always managed to stay together and to bring the additional, necessary votes to their side. You could not govern Canada without winning Quebec. This was a fact from 1763 until the Bloc Québécois victory in 1992. If you consider the constant national unity debates since then, you could say that it is still true today.
Even as a majority in their own province, les canadiens had to turn inwards to ensure that they survived. During the years of English companies, English managers and English rules, les canadiens were forced to work in English but they chose to live their lives in French.
What does Quebec ask for? I suppose, to change history; to remove the stigma and distrust that over 200 years of watching their backs brings. Quebec would love to trust that the majority of Canada would govern in such a way that les canadiens could feel that their best interests were considered and that all they had protected and nurtured over the years would prosper forever.
Was not their best interests the motivation behind residential schools; the incarceration of Japanese Canadians during World War II; the moving of the northern Aboriginal communities around the Arctic; the closing of the outports; the rape of the fishing banks by large trawlers?
I do not mean to catisgate those who govern and make decisions but if I were interested in protecting those things that Quebec had managed to retain in the 200-plus years since the English took over, I would want the final say. A true à la terre, to be master in my own house.
Give the Quebecers, not the Bloc, not the PQ and not the separatistes, but give Quebecers what they want. It is not separation. Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I thank you very much, Joe, for your presentation. You must have an interesting breakfast conversation at your house. (Laughter) Any comments or questions from members? Mrs. O'Connor.
MRS. LILA O'CONNOR: I was going to make almost the same comment that Eleanor made, that I would like to be a fly on the wall when the two of you sit down and have a discussion. I think one has a little more heart and the other one probably has a little more - I will be careful - something else. (Laughter) It should be very interesting in your home. Thank you for your comments, both of you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Any other comments? Thank you very much for coming forward with your presentation. Jeanne Doucette. Once you are comfortable, would you please state your name and give us your presentation, thank you.
MS. JEANNE DOUCETTE: Yes. Good evening. My name is Jeanne Doucette. I am a member of the Board of Directors for the Nova Scotia School Boards Association. We are representing the Conseil scolaire acadien provincial. I thank you for the opportunity to speak to you on behalf of the school boards of Nova Scotia.
As Nova Scotians and, indeed, as Canadians, our need to be able to communicate with each other is paramount to our ongoing common citizenship.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, enacted in 1982, declares English and French as official Canadian languages with equal status, rights and privileges within the institutions and Government of Canada. Thus, the ability to communicate in both languages is a basic and significant vehicle, whereby Canadian citizens can contribute to the unity of our country.
Increased skills are needed for young Canadians. Resources are needed to help today's students prepare for the rapidly changing world of communications and increased mobility. School boards need increased funding and resources to allow all our students the possibility to broaden their experience. Young people are more mobile than ever before; frontiers are expanding, not narrowing and the education system needs more support to reflect that reality.
It is the school boards' responsibility to provide the opportunity for students to become fluent in Canada's two official languages. However, the education system is underfunded. While boards would wish for their graduates to be fluent in both official languages, their abilities to fulfil these wishes are constrained by the funding restraints within which they operate.
Enhanced opportunities for students include, first, increased opportunities to develop facilities with the second language; secondly, exposure to each other's culture, for example, through films and literature; thirdly, increased funding to provide additional immersion programs with greater support and resources.
An adequately funded education system is needed in order to address the need for and provide improved chances for young Canadians to become bilingual and the resources to support these programs.
The Canadian School Boards Association, of which the Nova Scotia School Boards Association is a member, has recently undertaken three national incentives. All are concerned with supporting the development of a Canadian citizenry that is strong, positive and contributory.
The first one, Students and Poverty. The CSBA has launched a national program to raise awareness of the issue of child poverty and its impact on students in the classroom. It has published a resource book on the issue and has called on government to host a national forum on child poverty, to involve all partners and act as a catalyst for action on this issue.
To quote from CSBA materials, the relationship between child poverty and its adverse effect upon children's readiness to learn and their ultimate success in school is well established. The future of both our children and our nation depends upon a concerted effort to stem the tide of child poverty in Canada.
Secondly, Youth Unemployment. The CSBA has urged the provision of a variety of opportunities to support the school-work transition and to promote technical, vocational education as a positive avenue for students to gain employment and post-secondary education.
The CSBA also offered to work with the other two levels of government in facing the issues of Canada's youth today.
Thirdly, Youth Justice Issues. During the past several years, the CSBA has strongly promoted changes to the Young Offender's Act and a government report on that issue was released in June 1997. Currently, the CSBA's focus is to encourage increased consistency between federal and provincial legislations and resources and the need for equitable accessibility to early identification, prevention and rehabilitation services across the country.
These are all issues of concern to school boards who are charged with responsibility for the development of young citizens of our country.
On behalf of the boards of Nova Scotia, I thank you for this opportunity to express their concerns and hope these remarks will contribute some support to the work of the Select Committee on National Unity. We need a strong Canada to support the future of our young people. Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Well, thank you very much, Ms. Doucette. We appreciate your coming forward with the presentation.
MS. DOUCETTE: Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Any comments or questions from the members of the committee? Mr. Fage.
MR. FAGE: Just to make it perfectly clear in my mind, the responsibility for funding, are you talking not only from a provincial and federal perspective? I believe, here in the province the last four years, your funding budget is down by $51.8 million over the last four years.
MS. DOUCETTE: It is down, yes.
MR. FAGE: Is that a plea for federal and provincial, and a priority of those budgets? Is that what I am reading into this?
MS. DOUCETTE: Well, I think the education budget is in great need of financial support and it would have to be something with the various stages of government, yes.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Okay. Very good, fine, thank you very much for coming forward. Would you Mr. Mark - another applicant I will try to pronounce properly - Setlakwe?
MR. MARK SETLAKWE: It is Mark Setlakwe. I don't have too many things to say this evening, just a few points. The points are especially, I guess, as to what direction I feel we should take as a country, as far as trying to stay united.
[9:00 p.m.]
I am an expatriate from the Province of Quebec. We moved here six years ago. At the time, we felt we had more opportunities here. We felt that this part of the country met our children's educational needs better. They had much more flexibility as far as being able to go to school in English or in French and a lot less political turmoil in this part of the country than there is in the Province of Quebec.
One of my main concerns, I think, as far as where our federal and provincial Leaders are going is that we seem to be very focused on negotiating with the present Parti Québécois government. I think we are wasting a lot of time and energy in doing this because the present Quebec Government has only one agenda and that is to separate from the rest of the country. I don't think it is possible for them to negotiate any type of agreement with the rest of Canada in good faith because of their single-mindedness.
It is no good for us to go to them with an open cheque book because I truly believe that whatever we offer will never be good enough for the Parti Québécois. All they want is to separate. I am not speaking about the whole province but, mainly, the leaders of that political faction.
When I grew up in Quebec, I was fortunate to grow up at a time when the citizens of Quebec had opportunities to go to either an English school or French school. Today, the citizens of Quebec do not have those opportunities. If one of the parents has not been educated in English in Quebec, it is my understanding that they cannot go to school in English.
I am from a town that is primarily French. I grew up in French. I never went to school in French but I grew up French. I know hundreds of people that would love to be able to speak English but because of the way the laws are set up in that province right now, they do not have the opportunity. They end up learning how to speak conversational English by people who teach them in their homes who have no more qualification to teach them how to speak English than I do but they want to learn so badly that that is what they are doing.
I think as far as proposals, what I think we should be doing, is we must somehow show the people of Quebec the benefits of a Canadian federation. That is, the financial benefits, the cultural benefits and the many other benefits that we have of being a united country.
I think it is really critical that we give Quebecers a clear picture of what it is going to mean if there is separation with the rest of Canada. I think all Canadians as a matter of fact need to know that because there is, we have to face it, a strong and large proportion of Quebecers - maybe not a majority, but based on the last vote that they had in the Province of Quebec, there was a fairly large proportion of Quebecers that did want to separate, so we have to face that fact. We have, somehow, to be able to get to those people and to make them understand the benefits of staying within the Federation of Canada. We have to show Quebecers that under the present government they do not have the same opportunities or even the same rights as many other Canadians, as I pointed out earlier, educationally.
I think we should try to put the Quebec Government to the test and make them prove how they think they are going to be better off being separate from the rest of the country. I think Quebecers, presently, already have a very good standard of living. Some might argue that in many places, it is better than the way we are in some parts of this country. Somehow, the Quebec Government seems to say that they are going to be better off as a separate entity but I don't think they have been able to prove this.
Now, I understand that we are trying to get to the Quebec people and not speak to the Quebec Government, at some point in time we do have to speak to those Leaders. However, in the meantime, I think our efforts should be directed at trying to talk and influence the people of Quebec and in turn, if we can convince those people that and show them that Canada is much better and they are much better off within the federation, then hopefully, they will, in turn, vote the Parti Québécois out of government. Hopefully, we should be able to have this situation finished and not have to talk about it anymore.
I am not trying to avoid the discussion but I think it is the people of Quebec that have to be influenced and not the present government because I don't think we will ever be able to influence those people. That is all I have to say. I would like to thank you very much for the opportunity to have spoken this evening.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for coming forward and making your presentation. It is not something we have not heard during our tour around the province to date. It is nice to know that there are others who feel the same way or they have the same opportunity to speak with the same thoughts. Mr. Holm?
MR. HOLM: Yes, just very briefly. Recognizing your discussion about needing to get to the people, speak to the people of Quebec, do you think that the passing of the framework would be a positive step in assisting - not the Leaders - and have a positive impact in our effort to speak to the citizens of Quebec?
MR. SETLAKWE: Yes, I think so, I guess, to a certain extent but I think we have to get into their face and get face to face with the people. I think things like the Terry Fox Centre, exchanges between provinces, all those things definitely help in creating a better understanding. I think that is the main thing, just for individuals to get face to face with regular people.
I think, if you get right down to it, the regular Quebecer probably does not even understand. I don't think any of us really understands what the significance of Quebec separating really means. That is why I say, you know, somehow we have to try to get our heads around that and to try to figure out what it is actually going to mean to Quebecers and to the rest of Canadians. I know that some people want to try and avoid that but it is a fact, it is there. Almost 50 per cent of the Quebecers voted that they wanted to separate.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mrs. O'Connor?
MRS. O'CONNOR: Thank you. As both Eleanor and John said, others have made the same comments of letting the people from Quebec know what would happen if they did separate and that it has to be done before the referendum is being talked about. Well, it is being talked about now because there is an election coming up and it has been stated that on the ballot they are going to have on there about - wording a question in a certain way that, hopefully, you will be able to understand it, which did not happen the last time.
A lot of the people who voted did not understand the question and they are not sure exactly what they voted for, even though we know that 49.4 per cent of the people who voted, of the population of Quebec, voted in favour of the question. I am not sure how much of the population did not vote and I am not talking about the ones that voted and did not get counted but how many just did not vote.
I agree that we have to let them know but I am not sure exactly how we do it without threatening. You made some comments and some suggestions on getting to the people, but I am not sure that we can get to all the people. I know the last time the Premier of Nova Scotia made a number of radio programs that did not get to the people, they did not hear it. It wasn't until we, Canadians across Canada, went up there that Friday that they even new we cared. I guess it is people like you who have lived there, writing home and letting them know what we are doing. I am not sure Quebecers know what we are doing now, what the nine provinces are doing. Do you feel, when you write - and I don't know how many relatives you have left at home, or talk to your family and friends at home - that this message is getting across?
MR. SETLAKWE: I guess. The people that I know from there and that I see, most of my family is still there, but we are sort of all on the same side. I am not a good one to get into a discussion with a separatist because I have difficulty in speaking rationally with them, because it can get quite hot and so I try to avoid those conversations, it just gets into a very heated discussion, usually; because the strong separatists definitely have a one-minded view and it doesn't seem that they want to see any other view. Now, they have been influenced, certainly, by their governments and in some cases they may have been influenced by the places where they work and it just kind of creeps down throughout different generations. I think as time goes by, there are just more and more people that sort of accept that way of thinking. So I think the longer we wait, the greater the possibility of separation actually happening.
MR. HOLM: Something that is bothering me in the sense of really trying to figure something out. In your comments earlier you talked about what we really need to do is to get in their face with the people of Quebec to be able to tell them how Canada feels and so on. Mr. Paquette earlier said to give the Quebecers what they want. It is an oversimplification of what he said but at the end something to that effect. You also in your comments talked about the inability to speak with the hard sovereigntist because they are single-minded and so you can't discuss rationally with them. But unless we do that, how do we know what the aspirations of the Quebecers are? One of the questions that keeps going through my mind is what do the people of Quebec want, not just the politicians, I am not just talking about the leaders, but what do the people of Quebec want? Unless we are having those kinds of dialogues with all, how do we find that out and, therefore, how do we counter it and then be able to carry on that rational dialogue with the people of Quebec? I guess I am asking you if you can help me understand how we get that dialogue, how we learn what the legitimate aspirations are or if you know what the people want. Help!
MR. SETLAKWE: I am not sure I know exactly what the people of Quebec want. My gut tells me that probably deep down inside most Quebecers don't want to separate, and it is more then just a hair over 50 per cent, I think it is significantly more than that. We already know what the separatists want. I don't mean that we can't discuss with them but we know what they want. They want to separate. So as far as finding out what it is they want, we have our answer. We have to find out what the other people, which are those who are either true
federalists or those who are sort of borderline. I don't know how we go about figuring out who's who in all of that, but I guess technically the people who are in government now, as far as I am concerned, they are the enemy and they are separatists. So we have to go and look at the rest of the population, the regular people and try to find out what it is they want. I don't think they want to separate. I am convinced of that.
MR. HOLM: If I could just continue for a brief moment. We have had some other presenters in other areas talking about aspirations. We have been told by some that the aspirations of the people in Quebec really, although the language may be different and the culture may be different, but the aspirations or the values are the same as other parts of the country. I mean, they want to have jobs, they want to have decent good paying jobs, they want to have a good health care system, they want to have a good education for their children, they want to know that their children are going to have a future and that they are as well, suggesting that sometimes we spend too much time talking about differences and not about those common visions and common values. Is that the kind of approach that we should be talking about? Is that an oversimplification? Is it accurate? Is it reality with regard to the people that you know and talk to in Quebec?
MR. SETLAKWE: I don't think it is an oversimplification, no, because you could look across the whole country here or anywhere, basically, people want that. They want to have a job, they want to have a roof over their heads, they want to be able to eat. Those are pretty basic needs and everybody wants that. I never understood why there was, I guess, a movement towards wanting to separate. I have lived there, I have lived there most of my life and I say I look around me and they say, what the heck are we complaining about, I think we have it pretty good here. What more do you want? I know that over the years the various provincial governments in Quebec have taken initiatives to try, I guess, to take care of some of the social services that are offered there because they didn't feel that what was being offered by the federal government was meeting their needs. In some cases, I think they were just a little bit quicker than some of the other provinces, because we are seeing a lot of the other provinces trying to grab more powers themselves these days. But what you say, yes, I think if we just showed them.
I don't have the answer to this, unfortunately, but I think it is important as much as we can for Canadian politicians and just regular Canadians to really talk with Quebecers and Quebecers to get over here and get into western Canada and all of that to speak to each other. At the end of the day, we are all going to look at each and say, well, beside you being able to speak French and me only speaking English or whatever, there is not a whole lot of difference between you and me. You work in a factory, I work on a farm, whatever it is, basically, we are all pretty much the same. I admit that Quebecers are certainly, I mean I joke about it a lot but I mean Quebecers wear their wealth. It is not the same as anywhere else in the country. They don't dress the same and, yes, they don't speak the same and they don't eat the same but so what?
MADAM CHAIRMAN: They dress, they eat and they speak. Well, I want to thank you very much for your insight. We are hearing a lot from Nova Scotians who either grew up or were born or lived in Quebec, and it is a good perspective. It is a different perspective than some of the rest of us might have. So I do thank you for coming forward.
MR. SETLAKWE: Thanks for the opportunity.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Are there any further individuals who would like to come forward? If not, I just have a couple of comments. I want to thank you all, of course, for coming here tonight. I want to thank the media for their diligence. There are some following us around the trail, others from each location are coming, so we have to behave ourselves, we have them watching closely.
The other comment or announcement that I would like to make is because of the growing momentum and the interest in this issue and the hearings, we had originally planned for nine hearings across the province and because of the interest that is now showing in the Dartmouth hearings, because of its location I guess, we have had to expand to a tenth hearing, which will take place on Wednesday, January 21st in the Red Chamber. So we have to have a deadline of January 23rd, so we hope we won't be there all night that night.
I am looking forward to the further hearings, each and every one are becoming more insightful and more interesting, so thank you all for your attendance and for your input into this whole discussion. Thank you very much for being here.
[The committee adjourned at 9:20 p.m.]
