SELECT COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL UNITY
Mrs. Eleanor Norrie
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I want to thank so many of you for turning out this evening and welcome you to this, the eighth committee public hearing that we are holding on the national unity issue. I would ask you all to stand and we will open the evening with the singing of O Canada.
[The national anthem was sung by Mr. Roger Bowman.]
MADAM CHAIRMAN: As you all know, the committee is a Select Committee of the House of Assembly. It is travelling the province holding public hearings on the issue of national unity. I will introduce to you the members of the committee that are with us tonight.
We have Mr. Ernest Fage, MLA for Cumberland North; Mr. Ronald Russell, MLA for Hants West; Mrs. Lila O'Connor, MLA for Lunenburg; Mr. John Holm, MLA for Sackville-Cobequid; and Vice-Chairman, Mr. Robert Carruthers, MLA for Hants East. I am Eleanor Norrie, MLA for Truro-Bible Hill and Chairman of the Select Committee.
The purpose of the public hearing is to listen to Nova Scotians' opinions on the Calgary Declaration and the discussion paper that was presented by the five national Aboriginal organizations.
As you came in, there were copies of the Declaration on the side table, as well as the Aboriginal discussion paper. There is also located on the table, devices for simultaneous translation if anyone requires them.
Given the large number of presenters this evening, I will ask you to keep your remarks as briefly as possible and to the issue of national unity. I have my watch off and I am timing so I will ask you then to please respect the time so that as many as possible that want to speak will have the opportunity to do so.
Our first presenter this evening is with the Lunenburg Unity Group, Gordon Watson is the spokesperson and with him, Dick Crawford and Shirley Powers. Perhaps, for the record, when you get comfortable you will state your names and then move into your presentation.
MR. GORDON WATSON: Good evening, Madam Chairman. My name is Gordon Watson. On my left is Shirley Powers and on my right, Dick Crawford. Together, we represent the Lunenburg Unity Group.
The members of this group are grateful for the opportunity to participate in the select committee hearings. We are composed of 21 residents of Lunenburg County who are drawn together by a love of Canada and a profound concern for its well-being. We have been meeting regularly for almost two years to discuss our concerns and have enjoyed some satisfaction in doing so, especially in crystallizing our shared beliefs in a statement of what one might call first principles. More of that statement in a moment. Gratifying and helpful to us as this may be, the issues themselves demand more of us. We should be seeking to influence the course of events and this evening gives us a chance, through our comments on the Calgary Declaration, to declare publicly our views and our commitments.
This opportunity is also timely in the light of the much-reported sentiments expressed at the hearings of this committee last Monday in Kentville; namely, in certain dire predictions, in the hard-line stand on the question of Quebec and in the view on so-called minority languages. Those remarks are a sobering reminder to us that the causes of the alienation and resentment felt by many in French Canada are still with us and are capable of poisoning the social and political atmosphere. We should remember, for example, that dire predictions in the realm of human behaviour have the capacity to become self-fulfilling prophecies.
In responding to the seven points endorsed by nine Premiers and two territorial government Leaders, we do so on the basis of the principles enunciated in our own statement which was prepared during the late summer and early autumn and which I believe we have made available to you. My references to that statement will only be in the context of our comments on the Calgary Declaration, however, because we did not come with the intention of presenting that statement, but rather responding to your agenda.
First of all, we welcome wholeheartedly any initiative that begins a process of reaching out to Quebec and constructively addressing the whole question of national unity. The decision of the Premiers and territorial Leaders to meet with this agenda was certainly that kind of initiative, and we welcome its outcome in these seven propositions. Here we have an
important, indeed a necessary, first step. Not an easy one from a purely political standpoint, granted, but nonetheless one without which there might well not be a next step; in other words, any constructive process at all. I will deal with them one at a time.
Propositions 1 and 2 of the Calgary Declaration affirm two aspects of equality. The first, fundamental and universal; the second, more specific and politically aimed towards the current issues surrounding national unity and the relations between provinces and territories. In a general way we agree with both of these propositions, but with respect to the second, there is a host of qualifications that must be taken into account and understood before the notion of equality of status has real substance. The proposition's simple statement begs many questions that will have to be dealt with in the process of ensuring that fairness, justice and equity prevail in the conduct of our intra-national affairs; that is, in the way we run this federation of political and social collectivities.
In the diversity of characteristics to which the Declaration refers, with which we all begin, all is not equal and never will be for a host of unavoidable reasons. So, the ultimate challenge lies in the way we orchestrate the adjustments and the compensations that will create and maintain a truly harmonious federation, in which we think less in terms of the haves and the have-nots - the givers and the receivers - and more in terms of the contribution everyone makes in a solid partnership.
Propositions 3 and 4 describe in a general way the demographic and social ethos of our country. They do so with obvious pride, which we share, as our own statement indicates. However, Number 4's reference to the English and French languages and a multicultural citizenry blurs the picture. We have a French culture of which the language is a vital part, but that culture, along with the Aboriginal cultures, is in quite a different category from other cultures among our citizenry and should be treated so.
Proposition 5 contains the heart of the matter, we believe. Using language similar to our own, the first sentence binds the reality of French Canada within the very concept of Canada as a whole. This is a momentous and fundamental statement and a great deal flows from it. If its authors mean and intend what it says, and if we mean and intend what we say in our statement, then we have made a commitment to many things, great and small, in our relations with Quebecers. There is plenty to do. Of course, if it is only rhetoric, then we are playing an irresponsible and cruel game with the future of all Canadians.
It is the second sentence of Number 5, the consequence, that we may differ. This Declaration of the First Ministers appears to fade away in the assertion that, ". . . the legislature and Government of Quebec have a role to protect and develop the unique character of Quebec society within Canada.". Clearly, French Canadians, and Quebecers especially, are the ultimate source of their own inspiration and survival as a culture, but their friends, neighbours and fellow Canadians can and must nurture their endeavours with love and support, as members of a family. Our group expresses a strong desire to work with
Quebecers, to fulfil our mutual dreams and aspirations. And, as we say, we encourage every effort to ensure that the French culture flourishes and remains integral to the character and identity of Canada. In other words, we do not see this matter of survival being left to Quebecers alone, as though it were their problem so let them solve it. We believe we are in this together.
May I refer to the presentation made to you in Halifax by Dr. Richard Goldbloom who, being a summer resident of Lunenburg County, is a member of our group. His views on and distress over the history of relations between French Canada and other Canadians we share fully. The history of those relations is not edifying and if one looks at it squarely, English-speaking Canada has a lot to answer for. What the French failed to receive from us was dignity and respect. Without those, equality is empty. The three - dignity, respect and equality - form a whole in the realm of human worth and are the result of attitudes and actions rather than symbol-laden rhetoric.
Proposition 6 is already entailed in Proposition 2, and our same observations apply.
Finally, Proposition 7 describes successful federalism. Our comment is this. Cooperation, partnership and flexibility - especially the last - depend on trust. Trust depends on openness and mutual recognition of rules of negotiation; above all, honesty; unambiguity; and clarity in all dealings, large and small. Trust is not created by uttering the word, any more than respect and dignity are bestowed by lecturing on the subject. These are built slowly through the repetition of actions and encounters that demonstrate what one is trying to achieve.
We have a past to undo; let's get on with it. Right now, for example, we can flood Quebec with help when they need it so desperately. In the summer we can drive to Quebec and through Quebec and linger along the way, and discover what wonderful people Quebecers are if we don't already know. We can keep the pressure on our elected representatives to show imagination, creativity and political courage in facing these issues and in honouring their obligation to inform us, listen to us and lead us in all the endeavours of making this country the place they and we have said it is. Thank you. (Applause)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I thank you very much, Mr. Watson, for your presentation; it was a very strong and powerful presentation. Would you entertain some questions or comments from the panel if anyone wishes the opportunity? I think they pretty well have your message, sir; thank you very much.
MR. WATSON: Unambiguous, perhaps.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Dr. Gandhi, private citizen.
DR. KARAMCHAND GANDHI: Madam Chairman, my name is Dr. K.J. Gandhi; I have been a practising family physician in the Town of Bridgewater since December 1, 1969. I welcome this opportunity to make a very brief presentation to this committee. I am hoping that this hearing is not a public relations exercise in futility but that the views expressed to the committee will be considered seriously before the final report is prepared.
[7:30 p.m.]
I was born in an African subcontinent; I was educated in Asia; I did my post-graduate studies in Europe and I am practising in Canada. Therefore, with all humility, I do feel that I bring to this committee a rather different perspective than most of the other witnesses being present today.
I can honestly and sincerely say that, having been to most parts of the world, Canada is the best country in the world. However, over a period of the last 30-odd years, we have torn ourselves apart and wasted tremendous resources over the Quebec issue. I think the time has come now for final resolution of this problem one way or the other.
On one hand, most of us feel that this great country of ours should not be allowed to fall apart over a single issue of the distinctiveness of Quebec. On the other hand, many of us also feel that for everything in life, there is a price and at some stage in the game we have to decide once and for all that this is it. We cannot allow to pay any more price, irrespective of the consequences.
I welcome this Select Committee on National Unity. This hearing, by itself, makes me feel that my views will be heard and treated with respect. We never got such an opportunity during the turbulent years of the Meech Lake Accord which almost got approved by the various Legislatures and Parliament, even though a vast majority of the population of English-speaking Canada was against it. Fortunately, the Charlottetown Accord faced a referendum from Canadians and it was soundly rejected.
On a personal basis, I have no objection to the seven objectives enunciated by the nine Premiers and two territorial Leaders in Calgary on September 14, 1997. However, I want to add three reservations to the seven objectives.
In the Calgary Declaration, Number 1, "All Canadians . . . have equal rights . . . by law.". I think certain clarification is required, what these rights are. Point 2, in Number 5, it states that, ". . . the legislature and Government of Quebec have a role to protect and develop the unique character of Quebec society within Canada.".
In order to obtain this objective, how far is the Quebec Government allowed to go? Are they allowed to violate the basic human rights accorded to the citizens of Canada, which at times they have done in the last 10 years? Nowhere in these seven objectives does it state that if there is a conflict between the various objectives, which one will prevail.
I, personally, see a possibility of a conflict between Number 5 and Number 1. At some stage of the game, the Quebec Government might feel that for the betterment of the Province of Quebec that certain individual rights will have to be violated and the principle of equality of the rights of all Canadians will have to be sacrificed. Nowhere in the seven statements is there a clarification that when there is a conflict between different objectives, which one will prevail. I would wish that this committee unequivocally would make a statement that in the case of conflict that the ideal or objective Number 1 will prevail at all costs.
My third and final comment is that in order to end this perpetual discussion regarding the place of Quebec in Canada, the message needs to be delivered to the leaders of Quebec, that this is it, we have gone far enough as we can go to accommodate the aspirations of Quebec. No more. We very much want that this family stays together based on these ideals and objectives; however, if that is not enough, then let us part in a friendly way, go our own way while remaining good friends and trading partners and wish well to all the citizens of the future country of Quebec and the rest of Canada.
I personally do not share the guilt that was implied in the previous presentation that we have not accorded the respect, dignity and equality to the people of Canada. I think we have very much done so, we continue to do so and in all the endeavours that we have made to the people of Quebec, yes, equality, respect and dignity but they are no more equal than other Canadians. Thank you. (Applause)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I thank you very much for your presentation. Would you entertain some questions?
DR. GANDHI: Sure, if you have any.
MR. JOHN HOLM: Thank you for your presentation. Just one quick question if I might. You have said that from your vantage point and having travelled and lived in many parts of the world that Canada is definitely the best country in the world. My question is, do you think that it still would be the best country in the world without Quebec?
DR. GANDHI: It still would be the best country in the world although it may not be as good a country as it is today. However, as I made the argument, that for everything in life there has to be a price. At some stage of the game, we, the people living in the rest of Canada, will have to decide how far we can go and how far we should go. I personally feel that we have reached that point now; the longer we delay that clarification about how far we can go, more harm is happening to this country. Economically speaking in the last 10 years or
possibly the last 13 years, since the Meech Lake Accord was announced, we have suffered tremendous disharmony and tremendous economic hardship. You probably will remember former Prime Minister Mulroney giving us all kinds of very dangerous scenarios if we were not to accept the Meech Lake Accord. These kinds of threats are continuously being repeated.
There are two partners in Quebec, the partners who are totally separatists whom you will never be able to satisfy. You give them everything they want and they will ask for more, and if you give them still more, they will still find reasons to ask for more. All we can address our comments and offers are to the people who are soft federalists or soft nationalists who are prepared to listen to us in an intellectual fashion, to our arguments, as to why we want them to stay with us.
To answer your question, yes, Canada will be weakened but I think Canada has the resources that we will come back and we will probably attain the number one status again in the world even though Canada does get fractured.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, sir, for your presentation. We appreciate your being here with us this evening.
Just before we move to our next presenter, I would like to recognize some people who are in the room tonight. As I have stated, we, as committee members, have been selected by the House of Assembly to represent the House as a non-partisan all-Party committee. All the MLAs in the House of Assembly have an opportunity to take part in a debate in the House of Assembly and have an opportunity at that time to offer their views and response to the resolution that will be drafted as a result of these hearings. But most of them have made the effort to attend meetings in their area as we have travelled around. We have with us tonight the Honourable Donald Downe, Minister of Transportation and Public Works, and MLA for Lunenburg West. Please rise, Don. (Applause)
We also have the Honourable Wayne Gaudet, Minister of Business and Consumer Services, and MLA for Clare. (Applause)
Also, MP for the South Shore, Mr. Gerald Keddy. (Applause)
So we thank you all for taking the time to be with us here this evening.
We would ask now the Mayor of the Town of Lunenburg, Laurence Mawhinney to come forward.
MR. LAURENCE MAWHINNEY: Madam Chairman and honourable members, my name is Laurence Mawhinney, Mayor of the Town of Lunenburg, North America's only World Heritage Designated Site, as a town. (Applause) I would express appreciation to the
members of the Legislature and to this committee for providing Nova Scotians with the opportunity to address a matter that I think is of tremendous concern to our people and one which has occupied, at various stages, most of us for most of our lives, although at some times with a much more serious potential and outcome before us.
I would like to offer some comments in regard to the submission and presentation that I will make, which is relatively brief, but I would like to, I hope, highlight the point that is made in the submission.
I am first of all a Canadian by choice and not by chance. My people came to this province 50 years ago and to Lunenburg County and I have been forever grateful that they made that choice and that subsequently as I grew older I was able to reaffirm that choice and return here as the place in which to live and to work. I think that all of us, whatever our home community may be in this country, take justifiable pride in the place that is our home, the achievements of its citizens past and present and the ways in which we, as Canadians, have the opportunity to fulfil a destiny which I believe this country still has before it in tremendous measure, because I believe that the potential for this country to execute greatness in our communities of world nations is still largely untapped. We have a tremendous role ahead of us given the opportunity to resolve our own family difficulties at home.
I would like to suggest in the presentation, however, that our Council of the Town of Lunenburg very much does support the wording and the intent of the Calgary Declaration of last December. We view it as a positive vision for the future of this country and one upon which to work and build. We realize that many different clauses, articles and other amendments might be made to our Constitution but we are suggesting that there could be one that we believe would strengthen the Canadian Constitution and that would be to recognize local government in the Canadian Constitution and there to give it some stability as a recognized order of government. (Applause)
Local government has been in place in our world society in various forms for over 2,500 years. It is the oldest order of government that exists. It is an order of government that in this country I think has matured greatly over the last 10 years or so. I would just like to highlight that in several ways.
We in Nova Scotia live in 55 different municipalities, we have fewer municipalities in this province than any other province in this country. This is the only province, also, by way of trivia, in which all citizens live in a municipality. In other provinces and the territories, not all residents have that opportunity; service districts and so on, and local laws prevail. But in our system of government - and we note very much the wording contained in the Calgary Declaration, that - Canadians want their governments to work together. They want their governments to cooperate. I believe that in a very real sense we have tried to do that over the last number of years. Might I just cite an example that I think is still very current.
The present Team Canada mission to South America is under way. Representation from Lunenburg County is a part of that mission, taking Nova Scotian-produced products for sale in that part of the world. I was privileged to be a part of the first Team Canada mission in 1994, which went to the Orient. I think it was most fascinating from my point of view, as someone completely new to federal-provincial politics in that sense, to be there with the nine Premiers and the Prime Minister and the two territorial Leaders who participated and to see these people who came from at least three different political Parties at home, leave their baggage behind them and work together as Canadians for the betterment of Canada, the Canadian economy and Canadian business. The results which they achieved I think are still having beneficial effects across our country.
The same kind of thing has happened each time that a Team Canada mission has gone forward. We have gone forward as Canadians, irrespective of our geographical or political differences and we have taken Canada to the world. It was an indication to me of what Canada can do when we work together to try to achieve something for our citizens but also in the world community.
It also has been of interest to me to find out over the last 10 years, when I had some involvement with the body that I would suggest is the body that could be at the table or should be at the table in federal-provincial talks, not as a voting member but as a participant, as an observer, and that is the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which represents some 20 million Canadians who live in municipalities across this country and a voice that has over 50 years of history behind it now, which does represent the interests of all municipalities in this country and could, indeed, be at the table as an observer, not as a voting partner but someone to be there to offer words of advice when called upon and input when it might, indeed, be helpful.
That particular organization, I think has matured also, with the help of the Canadian Government. Because, ladies and gentlemen, irrespective of what our citizens may think of the form of government that they have in their home community - and there are many different opinions about local politicians, you will find them each day when you walk the streets of your towns or the roads or gather in community centres, people will certainly tell you what they think of the local government in the town or municipal council or the regional council that is serving them. But regardless of what we may think of how local government serves us - in the eyes of the world, we have a form of government at the local level that is very highly recognized.
In the past number of years, other countries in the world have come to Canada and Canadian municipalities looking for advice as to how they should reconstitute freedom and democracy at home. That happened in South Africa with the changeover there in the last five years. It happened after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, when the Union of Russian Cities struck an alliance with Canadian municipalities to find out how Canadian municipalities operate; how they operate local government.
I recall the story told in the Ottawa-Hull region when a group of Russian municipal politicians was visiting one of the council chambers and the night that they addressed council, there was a group of skateboarders in talking to the council about their desire to have improvements to the facilities that were available to them to enjoy their sport. The Russians were absolutely astounded that these young people could actually come in and speak directly to their elected local officials in the manner in which they did, because such things did not happen in Russia. But over the last several years we have worked with those communities and many Canadian cities have twinned with other cities around the globe, notably in China, and that has had economic as well as diplomatic benefits for our country.
We administer on behalf of CIDA some fairly significant amounts in international relations around the globe because our way is one-to-one, city-to-city, town-to-town and that seems to work much better than simply having career diplomats take forward a message and try to make it heard in some other location.
We meet regularly as a group, quarterly. We have other organizations of our body which meet more regularly. There is an organization in Canada called Big City Mayors which meets every few months and in order to belong the person must be a mayor of a provincial capital or a city with a population of over 300,000 and there are some 25 or 26 mayors who meet on a regular basis to provide policy.
When we are talking about the main elements of government expenditure, we are talking about education, about health care, about social programs. Those are some of the key elements that are in provincial budgets, some of the key elements that are in municipal budgets and some of the key elements that relate to transfer payments and the difficulty that we have in dealing with those. As the order which is closest to the people, we feel that we have some good advice to offer on the way some of these programs or funding applications may have been made and for many other reasons. I don't wish to cloud your thinking with hosts of these tonight, but I do want to make this one point very strongly.
It has been my belief after 20-some years in this calling in municipal government that I believe that municipal government should be recognized in the Canadian Constitution as an order of government. We have 4,400 municipalities in this country representing some 20 million Canadians, over two-thirds of the population, and we expend billions of dollars every year; in fact, we have a good number of municipalities that are larger than many provinces. It is not an order to be ignored but I believe to be recognized.
I would implore you to use that as a means of trying to add to this whole discussion because we encompass many representatives within the Province of Quebec and we have had the best of relationships in our working, one with the other, and particularly with other francophones in other parts of the country as well. Our sessions offer simultaneous translation so that all may participate and so that we are part of it and we believe that that is one of the things that we have to offer. I believe that we have something to give and we would like to
share it in some way and in this sense I believe that a recognition in the Constitution would provide a grass-roots part of this whole thing that could very easily implement a number of changes as they come through for discussion and, finally, as they find their way into Canadian society.
I thank you very much for offering the opportunity for us to share our opinions here on the South Shore. I wish you well in your deliberations and I am pleased to make this submission.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, sir, for your presentation.
MR. RONALD RUSSELL: Mr. Mayor, I should ask you that in Proposition 7 of the framework that where they speak, "Canada is a federal system where federal, provincial and territorial governments work in partnership . . .", that the inclusion of municipal governments would be appropriate to move along the recognition of municipal units within any constitutional change?
MR. MAWHINNEY: Yes. We are very much aware of the discussions that have been ongoing in other parts of the country as well. We have the First Nations and Aboriginal people with whom a lot of municipalities have very close contact because of boundary issues that are unresolved, and that sort of thing. If I sensed anything from Minister Stewart's comments recently in addressing issues of past errors that have been made, I sensed that there was a movement forward there towards the recognition of Aboriginal rights and Aboriginal government somehow in the Constitution. I do not disagree with that, in fact, I think that is something that would be helpful from the point of view of all concerned. What I am saying is, at the same time, I think it would be helpful to consider the inclusion of the municipal order of government along with that and the federal system that would include territorial, provincial, municipal and Aboriginal governments.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Are there any other comments? I thank you very much for coming forward this evening.
I would ask Mr. Lou Centa, private citizen, to come forward.
MR. LOU CENTA: My name is Lou Centa and I reside in Bridgewater. Madam Chairman and members of the National Unity Committee, the Calgary Declaration as endorsed by the nine Premiers and two territorial Leaders presents a strong vision of Canada as a united a country. It points out the diversity of all Canadians including Aboriginal, French Canadians and multicultural citizenry drawn from all parts of the world, making our uniqueness the envy of the world.
How great it is to be a Canadian. When we speak of our country as Canada, there is an immediate response of proudness and love for our country. Canadians have a good reason for this wonderful feeling for Canada, because we have fought in two world wars and in peacekeeping missions all over the world with great distinction. Many of our young men and women, from every province and territory, gave up their lives so that we and the rest of the world could live in peace and freedom.
One suggestion I would like to bring forward to the National Unity Committee is that we add one more declaration to the seven now proposed, and that this declaration be placed at the top of the list in bold black letters, stating, Canada is not divisible. We are a nation of two major languages, English and French, and I dare say that even in the Province of Quebec the majority of French Canadians would have great difficulty giving up their Canadian citizenship. Also, we must always remember that Canada is a nation of 30 million people and it will be these 30 million Canadians who will decide Canada's fate as a federation of provinces and territories and not any one single province or territory.
There is much we can do as Canadians to make our French-speaking brothers and sisters feel more a part of our great nation. French-speaking Canadians represent 25 per cent of our total population and a good beginning would be to become a truly bilingual country. With today's telecommunication links offering worldwide computer access in all languages, the next generation of Canadians will not only be speaking French and English, but will be complemented with a worldwide web of many languages. However, in the meantime, changes could be made now that would easily accommodate our two language cultures by merely following the example of the Province of New Brunswick, where English and French language designations are used in unison throughout the whole province. We now provide government services in both official languages; let's go all the way and have uniformity across our whole country. Imagine as Canadians being able to converse in both languages? What a great way to welcome the new millennium year 2000.
Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of the committee, for allowing me the time to make this presentation. How unfortunate it is that I am unable to present it in both official languages. Thank you very much. (Applause)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir. Are there any comments or questions? Mr. Holm.
MR. HOLM: I apologize that I can only ask it in one language, as well. I note, Mr. Centa, that in your remarks you suggested that one section should be included at the beginning, that Canada is not divisible; that should go on as Number 1. Then your solutions which came later on, you didn't think that they should also be included in the Declaration, which I guess leads me, just if I could, to two questions that I put to you for your reaction.
[8:00 p.m.]
Human nature being what it is, sometimes when you tell people - and maybe I am unique, but I don't think I am - absolutely that you cannot do something without providing redresses to issues, that can sometimes cause them to get their backs up and go and decide to do exactly that which you tell them they can't do, whether it is best for them or not. So, one, my question is, do you think that by stating that Canada is not divisible, end of discussion, that that would create a bit of a red flag and drive some of those soft federalists to the separatist side? Secondly, we can state that, but then if the result was that they vote to separate and they declare separation, what do we do then?
MR. CENTA: Well, I also stated in this presentation that we are a nation of 30 million people and it will be the 30 million Canadians who will decide what Canada is going to be in the future; not one single province or a single territory will decide that by saying they are going to break away, because as Canadians we would be united. We wouldn't allow a province or a territory to break away unless it had the approval of all the Canadian people, or most of the Canadian people. That would be the standard that I would take in saying Canada is not divisible.
I also say, when we make that statement, there are a lot of things we can do to help the situation that we have today; for example, bilingual signage and buildings designated. If you go through the Province of New Brunswick, it is a pleasure to see signs in both languages. Also, as I said, the next generation of Canadians will become bilingual because schools now can't accommodate young children who are starting school; they can't accommodate them in the French classes. I think this is something that we have to work on.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, sir, for your presentation.
Mr. Roy Page, private citizen.
MR. ROY PAGE: First, if I may, I would like to say that it is a pleasure to appear before this committee and have the opportunity to present my views. That is the end of being a nice guy, okay? (Laughter)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: You have to state your name first, before you are no longer a nice guy.
MR. PAGE: Okay, Roy Page. I think the Premiers should be commended for taking on the task of resolving the national unity question, a question which has confounded some of the best minds in the country for more than three decades. Their task was compounded by the absence of Quebec and the conflicting views and objectives which existed among the provincial Leaders. It is quite remarkable that they were able to produce a document at all, and in particular produce a document which was not a conglomeration of clichés and axioms.
I can, therefore, support, in general, the objectives of the Calgary Declaration, and I would certainly support the people who spoke here tonight in favour of the Declaration. But there is a but. I think with my presentation I may be able to answer Dr. Gandhi's question for him.
The only contentious point for me in the Calgary Declaration is the first one; namely, "All Canadians are equal and have equal rights protected by law.". As stated, this statement is not correct. Let me explain. During a visit to Toronto, I was shown a shopping centre where all the signs were in Chinese and there was no English at all, as far as I could see. I have no objection to this. If Chinese Canadians want to do their business in Chinese, that is their prerogative. If English-speaking Canadians were to do the same thing in Quebec, and persisted in doing so, they would wind up in jail. Now, it would appear that we have a situation where Canadians are receiving unequal treatment under the law; this is not the case.
The loss of human rights on the part of English-speaking Canadians is perfectly legal; what makes it legal is Section 33(1) of the Canada Act, commonly known as the notwithstanding clause. The notwithstanding clause allows any provincial or federal government to override Section 2 or Sections 7 to 15 of the Charter. What are these sections? I think you have the full text in the written submission, but I would like to go through the highlights, if I may; it won't take very long.
Section 2, "Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion;", freedom of speech and freedom of the press; "(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association.". Now, if I could put it into perspective, with all respect to the members of the Legislature sitting here, it takes, I believe, 27 members to make a majority in the Legislature.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Just to clarify, the majority of the members present in the House.
MR. PAGE: Well, just putting it into perspective, when you hear of all these rights that could be taken away from you, 27 people sitting in Halifax can do this. I know you wouldn't do it, the present members, but some others may. (Laughter)
Section 7, everyone has the right to liberty; Section 8, secure against unreasonable search or seizure; Section 9, no unlawful detention; Section 10, habeas corpus; Section 11, presumed innocent until proven guilty - that would make the old rights guys really go for it - Section 12, not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment; Section 13, self-incrimination; and Section 14, the right to an interpreter.
What I want to get to is Section 15. Section 15 relates directly to the Calgary Declaration. The first two lines of this section read: "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection . . .". This is very close to the first item in the Calgary Declaration, which is: "All Canadians are equal and have equal rights protected
by law.". It takes no stretch of the imagination to realize that the first item in the Calgary Declaration, endorsed by the Premiers and two territorial governments, is subject to the notwithstanding clause. This, I think, is a major defect.
I don't want to talk long because I don't want to repeat what other people have said, but I want to make two points to the committee. The notwithstanding clause in our Constitution is undemocratic and contradicts the spirit of the Calgary Declaration, in my opinion. Canada can never be united if a province can deny fundamental rights to Canadian citizens living within its borders; rights which are, at the same time, enjoyed by all other Canadians. The power that the notwithstanding clause vests in provinces means that we are not a united country, but merely a loose association of sovereign states having some commonalities in a shared constitution.
What should we do? With all the problems that we have in agreeing on an amending formula, it would be difficult to take the notwithstanding clause out of the Constitution. However, there is nothing to stop the various provincial Legislatures and the House of Commons from passing a resolution stating that they would not use the notwithstanding clause in their jurisdiction. It would be interesting to see which of these bodies refused to table such a motion.
The second point I want to make - and I lived for 15 years in Quebec, I think I should say - is that the loss of right to work in their own language by non-francophones in Quebec, even if it is legal, is a deprivation of human rights. If a loss of human rights, such as that imposed by the language laws in Quebec, occurred anywhere else in the world, Canada would be one of the first to complain. We would be right in there, human rights, you can't do that. We complain about China and I don't think it is quite legal under their law.
We are all aware of the political expediency involved in not being critical of Quebec, but surely our political leaders would have the courage to protest at least once in a while, when it is their own citizens who are being deprived of their human rights. (Applause)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Page. I still think you are a pretty nice guy. Would you entertain some questions or comments?
MR. PAGE: I like long questions.
MR. ROBERT CARRUTHERS: You really shouldn't say that to me. Just a quick question. It is a really interesting point you make about the notwithstanding clause and I think it is a good idea.
I wonder, when you make the point that, perhaps, individual Legislatures, provincial and, perhaps, federal, would pass a resolution, that they would not use the notwithstanding clause - that is what one of your points is?
MR. PAGE: Yes, they could always unpass it.
MR. CARRUTHERS: I think that would be an interesting thing to do, to see how many provinces would do so. Do you say that, recognizing, of course, the week thereafter they could pass a resolution saying that they would?
MR. PAGE: Yes, I know that. The whole point of the constitution is that you cannot change it.
MR. CARRUTHERS: Yes, so it would be a principle thing that we would be talking about?
MR. PAGE: It would be a principle, yes. I have one little thing I would like to read, if I may. It is only one paragraph, I would just like to read this, if I may, on the question of rights.
"No free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or outlawed or exiled or in any way ruined, nor will we go or send against him, except by the lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land." Magna Carta, Clause 39 [Articles, c.29; 1225, c.29.]
MR. HOLM: I have just an observation. I also like your ideas that you brought forward and you are the first one in all the presentations, I believe, who has mentioned the notwithstanding clause.
MR. PAGE: I thought Dr. Gandhi was going to steal my thunder. He almost did. (Laughter)
MR. HOLM: Bob and I had talked about the fact that a resolution could be unpassed a week later. The other thing is that a resolution that had passed by the House is not binding upon the government. So when we pass resolutions, that does not necessarily mean they are binding. There have been numbers of resolutions adopted in the House. It is a statement but it is not binding so it would have to be in a law.
MR. PAGE: We are in deeper trouble.
MR. HOLM: I just thought I would point that out to you.
MR. PAGE: Yes, I think there are a lot of problems in resulting this but I think if we make the attempt to do it and we publicize what the notwithstanding clause covers, I think people will want it out of the Constitution. I don't know why. How a clause like that gets into the Bill of Rights is beyond me.
MR. HOLM: A very important point you made, thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I think what has happened here now, we were on a roll up here when that happens. Here we go, watch out. (Laughter) Mr. Fage.
MR. ERNEST FAGE: Just for clarification, the Calgary Declaration is a framework for discussion, not a constitutional amendment. In that context, your view on the Calgary Declaration, do you agree with it or disagree with it?
MR. PAGE: Oh, yes, I support it 100 per cent.
MR. FAGE: Most of the presentation did not deal with the declaration in front of us.
MR. PAGE: I am making two points, that the Calgary Declaration is subject to the notwithstanding clause, that is one thing. Right from coast to coast - and I don't want to pick on provincial governments but they are the best example - any provincial government can override one of these fundamental rights. The way I like to express it, they can take away fundamental rights from Canadian citizens living within the borders of that province. We are all Canadian citizens. Now, a province can take away those fundamental rights and they should never be in any constitution. It legalizes and legitimizes dictatorship, if you like.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Russell.
MR. RUSSELL: Oh, I don't think so. I will speak to Mr. Holm later. (Laughter)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: The argument was this way. (Laughter)
MR. PAGE: Well, I don't mind joining in. (Laughter)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: We will have our opportunity in the House of Assembly, I am sure.
MR. HOLM: Maybe you can join us for coffee after.
MR. PAGE: Will do.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, sir, for your presentation.
MR. PAGE: Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Tai Woo Warriors, Andrew Fulton, Vice-Admiral, retired, spokesperson.
MR. ANDREW FULTON: Madam Chairman, members of the committee, thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to present some views on Canadian unity.
My name is Andy Fulton. I represent the Tai Woo Warriors who are a group of 12 retired men that have met at the Tai Woo Restaurant just about every week for the past three years to discuss unity, to reminisce and lie about how good we were in various wars. (Laughter) We have written several papers which we sent to all large newspapers across the country. I regret to say that only two newspapers published our words of wisdom.
We met with our local MP and other people interested in Canadian unity and as a result of our initiative, a unity workshop was held in Bridgewater two years ago. The unity workshop had several offshoots which were important. One was a reading group and the other was a program to exchange students between Lunenburg County and the Gaspé. The reading group played a significant role in shaping my views on Quebec, as the group read many books on the subject of Quebec and that province's relationship with the rest of our country.
With the exception of one member of the Tai Woo group, all of us have served in the Armed Forces. We have served in or visited many countries of the world. We have served in many provinces and I am proud to say that I, personally, have been in every province and territory of our country. Our lifelong commitment to Canada would tell you that the unity of Canada is extremely important to us. Trying to analyze why this is so is perhaps another matter.
From our experiences overseas, we recognize, very well, what a wonderful country Canada is. We live in peace and quiet, have bountiful resources and great opportunities for our families. In comparison to many other societies, we seem to be a peace-loving people.
On a simpler scale, when we were growing up, the country was painted all one colour on the map and we would all like to see it remain that way. Not quite as simple as the map is our concern that if the country should break up over Quebec, the financial and political repercussions would not only be bad for Quebec, but very serious for all of Canada, particularly Atlantic Canada. All that we have worked for could be lost and not recovered, if ever, for many years.
It is our view that a solution can be found with goodwill and a determination to succeed. Geography does not permit otherwise. Quebec will always be there and we will always have to live with one another. We should do so to the benefit of all.
The Calgary Declaration is an interesting document. While we disagree with the statement on multiculturalism, we agree in principle with the main thrust of the Declaration. It says just about anything you want it to say; in other words, good politics. The Premiers are
to be congratulated on producing the Declaration in such a short period. The tricky part of the problem is to translate the Declaration into a meaningful solution for all Canadians.
I believe that history will tell us, in part, the road that should be followed, although we may not like the answer that we get.
All of us around this table, if asked to describe ourselves, will say, we are Canadians. I was born in Ontario but I never say I am an Ontarian; not so in Quebec. There are many who think of themselves as Quebecers first and foremost, and then, perhaps, as Canadians or canadiens.
This probable or possible reply of many people in Quebec is significant and should be acknowledged and understood by all of Canada. This is a question of identity, a question of how these people feel about themselves.
The point here that should be carefully looked at, particularly by the western provinces, is the identity of Quebec. To phrase this in another way, we should be willing to consider seriously that which in recent years we have come to know as the distinctness of Quebec.
The Quebec Act of 1774 established Quebec as a distinct French-Canadian society. It confirmed language, civil law, the Roman Catholic Church and, thus, their culture. Rather than putting some new twist in the Constitution like, unique character, to appease the West, we should just reiterate that we reaffirm the intent of the Quebec Act of 1774.
I am sure that the West would understand this in view of the recent Supreme Court decision on Indian land rights in British Columbia which required consideration of orally transmitted history as there were no written documents like those between the Eastern Tribes and the Crown. The Indian claims preceded the establishment of British Columbia and Alberta by many years and their rights have never been extinguished. In other words, in Canada the mere passage of time does not nullify Acts, treaties or land claims or the intentions embodied in them.
History will tell us much more about Quebec and why the people of Quebec consider themselves Quebecers. The French or canadiens, have been asked to give up a great deal as our country has developed. For example, prior to Confederation in 1841 the people of Quebec joined a constitutional union with the English of Upper Canada, a union in which the smaller population of Upper Canada, 450,000, was given the same representation, thus equal power, as the larger population, 650,000, of Quebec or Lower Canada.
Ironically, it wasn't long before Upper Canada's population became larger than that of Quebec. The people of Upper Canada then clamoured for, and got, a constitution that created a Parliament where the representation was based on population. In other words, as
far as national affairs were concerned, Confederation meant that French Canada would have to accept the dominance of the English-speaking majority.
In agreeing to enter Confederation, French Canada did win two important promises:
(a) That the West should be developed by the French as well as the English; and
(b) That the Constitution would govern the English and French relationship.
French Canadian leaders saw the first benefit as an important way of resolving their community's need to expand. Business leaders in particular, envisaged a western railway north of the lakes that would establish a hinterland for Quebec. Church leaders encouraged rural communities to colonize the Clay Belt of Northern Ontario and the Manitoba hinterland. Many French-speaking outposts already existed in the West.
Unfortunately this promise of equal participation in western development soon became a dead letter. French Canada lacked the capital needed to compete effectively with the English in the West and could not match the tide of immigration that came from, first, the English provinces and Great Britain and later, from central Europe.
Most of us in the rest of Canada have forgotten that French Canadians once shared our dreams of western development. Probably the great majority of new Canadians are unaware that the promise was ever made. But French Canada has not forgotten.
As far as most French Canadians were concerned, the second promise of Confederation was by far the most important, and it is that promise that we have been breaking for the last 40 years. The British North America Act specified how the relationship between the English and the French would be governed.
As far as the Fathers of Confederation understood it, from 1867 on, by leaving responsibilities for local and private matters including health, welfare and education to the provinces, they were enshrining the political power of the church in Quebec. Because the church in those days was the guardian of the culture and the way of life of the common people of Quebec, it meant that the culture of French Canada was thereby protected.
French Canadian writers call this the social contract of 1867. They see it as a solemn agreement between two communities, or to use the word they prefer, two collectivities in which each undertakes to respect the fundamental interests of the other. For French Canada those fundamental interests had to do with maintaining the collectivity itself. That is why the leading political writers of French Canada speak of collective rights and insist that these rights are far more important than individual rights. Quebec's philosophy of the collectivity provides the basic rationale for protecting their language, their culture and their laws relating to all social services.
When we stop to think about it, doesn't this understanding of the Confederation make perfect sense for a community of just a few million people surrounded by a sea of 300 million maudits anglais? How else can such a community maintain its distinctiveness? Between 1867 and 1960, this social compact was broadly adhered to. There were disputes. The most difficult grew out of western expansion, particularly provincial legislation antithetical to French Canadian interests and strictly speaking, of dubious constitutional legality, and secondly, Canada's participation in two world wars. But on the whole the English and French collectivities rubbed along well enough. The world has changed incredibly since 1960 and nearly all of the changes that we have witnessed have undermined the pact of 1867.
A few of those changes have been more important than others. First there have been many changes in Quebec itself: particularly the quiet revolution of the early 1960's and the very much reduced authority of the Roman Catholic Church as a result of secularizing education. Second the new world economy: globalization is having a profound effect on all countries, including Canada. The trade barriers that acted as a glue for many countries, including Canada, have all but disappeared. Because there is less and less that our national government can do to protect Canadian industries, there is less incentive for a disaffected region to want to continue to be part of a country where it feels unwelcome. Without trade barriers, the natural tendency for North American trade to flow in a north-south direction has asserted itself. As a result, there are fewer commercial ties binding Quebec to the other provinces and hence Quebec is beginning to say to itself, we can go it alone.
A third factor which is contributing to our problem of national unity is the growing demographic and economic strength of the West. This has pulled Canada's political centre of gravity westward and westerners want that fact recognized in the Constitution. For many English Canadians the cry that the West wants in is the most obvious sign of western influence and western impatience with Quebec and its politics. On the other hand, Quebec French Canadians fear the increasing power of the West will diminish the political influence of their own province and further undermine the Confederation pact.
The fourth factor undermining the Confederation pact is the gradual acceptance in English Canada of a political philosophy based on individual rights. The Charter of Rights is seen by many as one of the great achievements of Canadian politics. But there is a price to pay for it. When we say that we want to put individual rights at the heart of our political system, we are also saying that we are prepared to remove from the same place the acknowledgement of collective right that has been at the heart of the Confederation compact. In other words, we are saying that we want to modify our agreement of 1867. The tragedy is that our actions have not been inspired by malice, or even lack of sympathy for the position of our francophone neighbours. We became concerned for individual rights out of the best of motives, a desire to protect the individual from the power of the state. There was also a belief that a recognition of individual rights would help the disadvantaged members of our society, and encourage a respect for democratic principles. In the eyes of most Canadians, the Charter has been a good thing.
What worries French Canadian Quebecers about the Charter is that it transfers powers from the Quebec National Assembly to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court, although governed by the Charter, is in the eyes of French Canadians, dominated by English Canadian jurisprudence. Its decision in several Charter cases appear to have confirmed Quebec's fears.
We need to understand the damage done by the patriation of the Constitution without the consent of Quebec. The institution of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which was inimical to Quebec and the introduction of multiculturalism, which Quebec said relegated them to a minority group like any other minority group. It is curious that these initiatives were carried out by ministers elected from Quebec. You would have thought that they would have known better.
The Calgary Declaration has introduced the term unique character, to avoid the adverse connotation now associated with the phrase distinct society. While the Declaration assigns a role to Quebec to protect and develop its unique character, it is clothed in language of equality of citizens and equality of provinces so that it appears there is no intention to provide special powers to support Quebec's assigned role. If that is really the case, the Declaration, in effect, only recognizes that the francophones have a problem but does nothing to help Quebec solve it.
Restoration of the original compact of 1867 is plainly not on. Canada cannot address the loss to the francophone community of the opportunity to share in the development of the West. That has been done. Entrenching action in most areas of cultural and social importance is not necessary since all, or almost all, are already assigned to the provinces. Federal-provincial agreements in all these areas would have to be unwound, which would be complicated enough and any additional powers granted to Quebec would likely have to be matched in other provinces. The federal position that its involvement is necessary to maintain federal standards would have to be replaced by the adoption of national standards developed collaboratively by the provinces and the central government. This can be done and the country would survive.
To solve our problem, English Canada has to admit that the country was wrong in adopting the Constitution of 1982 without the consent of Quebec and that Trudeau and the present Prime Minister were wrong in their concept of Canada. This will be very hard for many people to swallow.
[8:30 p.m.]
The Calgary Declaration sets out broad parameters within which much can be accomplished, for not only are we trying to bring Quebec back into the fold, but we have to accommodate the wishes of the West. The lawmakers will have to have the wisdom of Solomon, the patience of Job and the magnanimity to be greater than petty.
I would like to quote from John Crosbie's book where he describes his view on Canada which could serve as a basis for discussions. I quote and I think it is pretty good.
"It's not necessary that each province have exactly the same constitutional and legislative powers as every other province. The concept of asymmetrical federalism doesn't frighten me. If it's necessary to provide some special status, powers, or legislative jurisdiction for Quebec because of its size, numbers, language, or culture, so be it - so long as the same kind of legislative jurisdiction or power is available to others if they need it. Federal systems can be very diverse. We should adopt the federal system that suits our needs. It's not the country that must adapt itself to some particular constitution or constitutional rule, but the constitution that must adapt itself to the needs of the country and its people." [Page 198]
Lastly, we believe that there should not be a national referendum on this whole question. It should be freely debated in the Legislatures of the provinces and the House of Commons, and should be the subject of a free vote. Our elected representatives are the lawmakers and they must give it their best effort to solve this seemingly never-ending problem. Thank you. (Applause)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry we are going to miss our opportunity to have brunch with you tomorrow after that presentation. (Laughter)
MR. FULTON: Well, maybe if we had had lunch, you would not have had to hear it, would you? (Laughter)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I want to thank you very much for your presentation. I think Mrs. O'Connor has a question.
MRS. LILA O'CONNOR: Yes, I can certainly see you do a lot of reading. We have been hearing through the past few days that there needs to be more exchange groups between this province and the Province of Quebec. You said that you started off with two objectives. The first one, I can certainly believe that you do.
The second one is the exchange students between Lunenburg County and the Gaspé. You made no more comment. Have you been doing this, are you working on it or . . .
MR. FULTON: No, we did it.
MRS. O'CONNOR: You did it?
MR. FULTON: Yes, we did it. We did it last year. About 25 students went from Bridgewater to the Gaspé. They went up there for a weekend and the others came back here for a weekend and it was very highly successful. I was away at the time but a lot of them stayed in homes, they saw around our cities and part of the province and it worked out very well.
MRS. O'CONNOR: Was this through ParkView?
MR. FULTON: Yes, it was from Park View and some of the students were in the French class, they went up, they conversed in French up there and they looked after the students coming down here the same way.
MRS. O'CONNOR: Are you hoping to do another one?
MR. FULTON: Well, it is certainly in the back of our minds to do it again, yes. I think it would be really worthwhile. I believe some of the teachers who came down with the students came back here in the summer for holidays as well. I really think this is one big way of getting ourselves better acquainted, is to get people down and for us to go there.
MRS. O'CONNOR: Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Carruthers has a comment.
MR. CARRUTHERS: Actually, I have a couple of quick questions. The point you had made about the perception of collective rights being important versus the growing trend towards entrenching individually, I think that is an interesting point because there is something to that.
What I wonder is, some of that seems to be coming from our great neighbours to the south. The American system has always been heavily in that conflict between the collective rights and individual rights.
Do you think we have been affected by the American system that way or was this a natural progression? Is there something we can do to get back a little bit - you say we can't go all the way back to the Act of 1700 but is there something we can do?
MR. FULTON: Well, I really think that Quebec, the idea of their collective rights is so intrinsic to them that it will be very difficult to change that. That is why I think that if you have some sort of asymmetrical type federalism where they would be able to continue looking after their society and I think we had better do something like that. It would mean some sort of constitutional change. I don't know whether that is in the cards, or not, but I think something like that has to happen.
MR. CARRUTHERS: That would be the direction which brings me to the second question because it follows naturally.
Many of the presenters have indicated that they feel that this accord and this issue is evidence of the need for a strong, central government. Others have indicated that a central government holds too much power, or federalism versus confederalism.
If I am reading you, I am kind of getting the feeling that you think the feds have enough power but I am not sure. If you were to give us an opinion.
MR. FULTON: Yes, I do. I think one of the things that happened within our group - and I said that we had a reading group - we had a very fine lady in Bridgewater who went and got all the books that we could find on Quebec and Canada. I think we have got about 200 books now if anybody would like to have them, you are welcome to them.
When we started off in our Tai Woo Warriors, we were pretty dogmatic about everything you could think of. One Canada. If they don't like it, we were going to take them on. As we started to read and go into history, and we started to have a feel for what they were doing, then we started to look at it in a completely different way.
I think, myself, that something the Legislatures could do is to bring to Canadians what this history is all about. It is really, I think, important because the more you read about it, you say, gee whiz, those guys got the wrong end of the stick at times. I think it really is important. It just seems to me that the federal government should be a part of that.
I think, sometimes, the federal government has too many powers but I think there are basic ones they need. They need defence; they need external affairs; they need monetary and all those sort of things but the rest of it, I don't think they need at all.
[Mr. Robert Carruthers took the Chair.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think Mr. Fage has a question and then Mr. Holm.
MR. FAGE: Thank you very much, Mr. Fulton. Your organization's reputation precedes you and your presentation tonight certainly upholds what I have heard about your organization over a number of months.
I guess I don't have a question at all but as a person who enjoys history, likes to look at macro-history, changes over time, your presentation tonight, to me, was insightful, it was realistic and it really quite adequately in a fair and even-handed manner describes how changes happened in this country to two diverse cultured groups over time.
The only thing I might add in my statement was, you were thorough enough - the only thing I didn't notice in the relationship with the West was what the Crow rate (Laughter) and the dissolving of it three years ago, had meant on the backlash to eastern Canada. I just want to compliment you on a very well researched presentation. I think your points are well taken and, certainly from myself, those views aptly put it exactly where we are and where those critical decision lines are going to come in the future. Thank you very much.
MR. FULTON: Thank you very much, indeed.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Holm.
MR. HOLM: I certainly would like to echo those former comments. I would like to just ask one brief question, if I might, because the view that you are taking at the end is a different one from that which has been presented by some others. That is, that the Tai Woo Warriors are suggesting that there should be no national referendum but that any change would be debated simply by the Legislatures.
Whereas, we hear from many people, the public is demanding that any changes would have to go through a referendum. I am just wondering, the rationale or the reasons for the position that your group has taken?
MR. FULTON: Well, I am the responsible one for that. (Laughter) After I left the navy, I went to work for the Halifax Herald and I worked for them for about eight years. During the time when I was at the Halifax Herald, we had three things occur: we had the Meech Lake Accord, we had Charlottetown and we had free trade.
If you listen to CBC Radio, or CTV, there were a lot of people who came on and said, we don't know anything about it at all. It went on and on. They did not know anything about it. We discussed this at the editorial board one day at length and finally, the publisher said, what did we publish on all this stuff? So we went back into our archives and we brought it all out. I kid you not, we had about two inches of paper, pros and cons on both sides, everything you wanted to know about that subject was there but yet nobody knew anything about it.
What I am afraid of is that the Canadian public, as much as they are great, what they do do, they read the headlines, they read the sound bite and you might say, oh, isn't he a rotten sod. Then everybody says, you know, he is a rotten sod, so that is the end of it but he is not, he is really a nice guy, you just don't like him. The point is that people really don't get the meanings of what is going on. You people are in the Assembly and you are there to find out all the ifs ands or buts and to take the notwithstanding clause out that Roy Pace said you should do and all that sort of stuff. That is what you are there for and it seems to me that unless the Canadian public is really well educated, they are going to get the wrong end of the stick. It just seems to me that it is better to not have a referendum, to have a good, solid
discussion which would come out in the paper and would be broadcast and you would have to figure out how you are going to do this. I think the government has a great system of getting the information out if they really want to and you can do this. I think that would be much better than us going in and saying yes we do.
I remember when the Charlottetown Accord was going on. I drove out West and by the time I got out there I knew it wasn't going to pass because I just heard what was going on. Maybe it was a good thing it didn't get passed but that is another matter. I just think that by and large the public is not well enough informed to make a good decision as to the ramifications of everything that has to come out of this.
[Mrs. Eleanor Norrie resumed the Chair.]
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mrs. O'Connor wants to make one more comment. We are moving right along here so make it as quickly as possible.
MRS. O'CONNOR: I want to ask you something or give you food for thought when you are meeting next week. We have heard, also, that we should let Canadians know what would happen if Quebec did separate, with the jobs and what they would lose and what Canada would lose. When you were talking about the editorial, that made me think about it. Do you think that is something we should start working on, this is what will happen if you do leave?
MR. FULTON: I think a lot has been done on that already. Having been in the military, I always wanted to have a Plan B or something like that in case something went wrong. I think that the government should have a plan if there is no agreement. I think that is for sure. They should have a plan. I think Quebec should be told at some point, if you don't agree, this is what we might think about but I think the main thing, though, is to go to Quebec with our constitutional changes so that they recognize that they will be part of the family and you never have to get that far because I think there are about 20 per cent or 30 per cent which are hard separatists, there are about 30 per cent which are federalists and there are about 30 per cent which are not quite sure which way to go.
MRS. O'CONNOR: They don't know what they are.
MR. FULTON: So you have to get the ones that don't know where to go and the only way they have to know is come to Canada.
MRS. O'CONNOR: Okay, thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir, very much for your presentation. Very good. (Applause)
Douglas Rodenhizer, private citizen.
MR. DOUGLAS RODENHIZER: Madam Chairman, my name is Douglas Rodenhizer. I live in this general area, just outside of Bridgewater. I have been here for 66 years, 2 months and a few days. I am a private citizen, as you stated. I do occasionally, about once a year, eat at Tai Woo (Laughter) but most of my time is spent in the business field, in the business world and looking after the operations myself. So, therefore, I have a very independent mind on how Canada should evolve.
Being of German descent, my ancestors came here before Bridgewater was even a village. Actually, they came from Germany in 1751, that is 247 years ago, so that makes me a native of this land for a long time. What I am referring to is that I believe in one nation and in that nation, all people are equal, regardless of your nationality, regardless of the language you speak, regardless if you came from Asia across the Great Divide, the continent before it separated, 12,000 years ago and the Métis and the Eskimo people came over that way and then the other Native peoples came up from down south, from Mexico, and worked their way up through during the course of thousands of years.
The inhabitants of Germany have also been there thousands of years. So we came over to this great land called Canada, K-a-n-a-d-a at that time, and we populated it from all the countries of Europe, Asia, South Africa, various different colours and races. So my belief is that I am disheartened when I hear so much rhetoric about we have to cave in, cater and do everything that we can to appease any one particular language type of people.
I know that the Natives had it very tough in this land many years ago. I also know that my great, great, great, great, great grandfather, when they moved up in Cookville and would walk back through the woods, a mile and one-quarter, found a little small clearing of land and they built a building, they built it out of poles. They had access and they cut the trees down and built it out of poles. They put sods, chunks of moss and ground and limbs on that roof. They had great hardships. They knew what it was like to come into a strange land. There was no welfare at that time, no pensions, no unemployment insurance, no Canada Pension, no nothing but they struggled and they built farms, they built families. They expanded, they built better houses, they tore the land up, they cut the trees down, they burned the stumps, they hauled them out by hand and with some oxen. So they went through hardships to build this, their farms. They were part of the builders of this great Canada.
It is the same as the people who came from northern Europe and went out West. They were the empire builders of out West. Same as the French people came over and went to parts of Cape Breton to have the fort down there at Louisbourg. I toured that this summer. It is beautiful the way they got it reclaimed. They have done a fantastic job. Some French went to Manitoba. They also went down to the States. So we are a mixture of all of these nationalities and I certainly do not feel that we should cater to any one particular language.
Now if we go back to the days of Maurice Duplessis, when he was the Premier of Quebec, the people who read history know his attitude toward repression of his peoples. Then as we come on up through Jean Lesage and we come on up to Bourassa and Lévesque and Bourassa back again and the present Premier Bouchard, including the one who was there before him, we all know what they respect. Some Premiers can respect with a rule of law and common sense and fair judgment. When the Premier before Bourassa after he lost the vote that they thought they were going to win, stood up and blamed it on the minorities that were in Quebec, that they ganged up on him and defeated the French-speaking people, with an attitude like that, it is difficult to ask us, of all other nationalities in this great country, and it is, as some speaker said, the greatest country in the world, to ask us and to give, give, give and bend the rules.
I want to see Canada stay together as much as anyone else in this room or anyone else in this country but at what price and at what giving? I think Mrs. O'Connor made a statement that said something about, what do we do? Do we notify people how bad it would hurt the people of Quebec if they separated? I think we have to have a Plan B, like our military friend, here. You always have to have a Plan B and I think the people of Quebec have a right, and not just the French, the English, the Italians and every other nationality that are in Quebec, the Asians. There are all kinds of nationalities in Quebec right now and I think they have a right to know what would happen if Quebec separated from the rest of Canada. What happens to the $60-odd billion debt, that 23.5 per cent or whatever it is, of the population, they also owe 23.5 per cent of the national debt which is over $160 billion. It may be $180 billion now, it is always going up.
We need to tell them what would happen, the rest of Canada. They are part of Canada, they need to know. We need to know too. I do believe that there should be a referendum. I am the type of person that I believe in the right to vote. I believe in the right to exercise that right to vote and I think all Canadians, all 30 million of us, should have a right to say what we think about it.
Now in the Charlottetown Accord, not only English-speaking people voted against it, the people of Quebec voted against it. Every part of Canada voted against the Charlottetown Accord. Quebec said, we weren't getting enough and the English people said, we are giving too much. That was the whole gist of it.
Now I would like to point out a scenario that if everything else fails, what Canada must do, the rest of Canada. I feel that $60 billion or $70 billion which will have to be paid back to the rest of the countries, for them to get their airports, then to get the roads, then to get the schools that were built by federal money and everything equalized out. I think then we should take a few of those billions of dollars and we should go down and negotiate with our friends to the south and build a super highway and railway from St. Stephen, New Brunswick, through Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, upstate New York, right through to Cornwall, Ontario, as straight a line as you can do, with no ons and offs, just a straight line
from the Maritime Provinces to Cornwall, Ontario, so that Canada, the other nine provinces, can truly stay together.
I honestly believe that if everything else fails and Quebec definitely wants to go - and we can't keep them here, which we want to keep them here. We want to keep the country intact but we must have a plan and I think that plan would be that we negotiate with the Americans. Now I know some people won't like me to mention about the toll highway and the Cobequid Pass but we see how quick that was built through private partnerships. That is the PPP word a lot of people don't like but it may be possible to build that super highway from St. Stephen, New Brunswick to Cornwall, Ontario with negotiations with our American people in a very short period of time because I am sure the Americans have hundreds of thousands of earth-moving equipment as well as our Canadians from Ontario, the West and the Maritimes. You put everything together, I think that road could be built just the same as the road was built through the Cobequid Pass in a very short period of time, maybe in a period of one year, if enough equipment gets at it. We would have all them billions to pay for it.
But that is the scenario that we must tell the people of Quebec. Yes, we must tell the people of Quebec what the alternative is. Yes, we must tell them that they can't use the Canadian dollar. Yes, we must tell them they will have to have their own postal system. Yes, we will have to tell them they have to have their own military. According to the rights of nations, they cannot close off the St. Lawrence Seaway. That is an international shipping lane. Now I don't want to see this have to go to that end but our people and their people must realize that that could happen if they separate and I feel if they did the rest of Canada would be as strong or stronger than it is today. At least it wouldn't be having all this divisiveness, that every year after year all we are hearing is what can we do to appease Quebec. Then we could take and go back and work to build the rest of this nation into one more powerful than we even are today. I don't want to see this happen.
So, to wind it up, yes, I want to see Quebec stay. Now on the Calgary Declaration, I have some problems with that and one is that I am not against Aboriginal rights, in a sense, but how far is it going to go? My foreparents came over here and they went into the jungle of Cookville. It was a jungle. There was a forest, huge trees there, and they built their homes and they built their lives and they built their families and from that group of Rodenhizers there are about 300 Rodenhizers in Lunenburg County now and around the South Shore and Halifax and Yarmouth and so on, covering this whole area plus the hundreds and hundreds who are interrelated. They created a neighbourhood here.
We, as German descendants, are not asking for schools to teach our children and ourselves in German. I don't even know one word in German. Is that right? Shouldn't all us German descendants have the right that there be a school in this area? There were many Germans settled in this area. It was one of the heaviest parts of the population. Shouldn't we have a right, then, equal to the French, to have a school here in Lunenburg County, that
teaches French, teaches German, teaches English. We should be trained in that. I think my heritage is being deprived to forsake the French heritage and I think the time has come that we are going to have to bite the bullet and recognize that. If we don't we are going to divide our country even more.
The Ukrainians that came over here from northern Europe, they went out West and they learned to work among all the other people. I think one of the greatest problems is that we are trying to say, well, we have to give special status to Quebec, we have to give special status to the Natives, we have to give special status to the blacks. Where does it end? Who is left? Why shouldn't everybody be equal, whether you are French, you are German, you are Italian, you are Dutch, you are Irish? Look at the Scottish in Cape Breton. That end of the province is basically Scottish. I don't know if they have schools down there, I don't think they have, but don't you think they feel deprived but they are not screaming their heads off and making a big fuss over it. I think I better shut up right there. (Laughter) (Applause)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I don't know if the applause is because you shut up or because of what you said. Are there any comments from the members?
MR. FAGE: I thoroughly enjoyed your comments. Just one question. I like your views on deficit financing but if we, on a debt, can have a debt divided and you receive a cheque at the same time, I am in favour of it.
MR. RODENHIZER: Maybe I should run for politics and go into the Nova Scotia Legislature and I could explain that to you.
MR. FAGE: Okay, I would appreciate that. (Applause)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, sir, for coming forward.
I would ask Mr. Frank Fawson to come forward, private citizen. I am going to have to urge people to try to keep your comments as brief as possible. We are quickly running out of time and we have a number of presenters left to come forward.
MR. FRANK FAWSON: My name is spelled wrong on the speakers' list. It is F-a-w-s-o-n. I am going to talk a little bit about history tonight, too. We have heard a fair bit of that but I want to talk about the history of Nova Scotia. I want to talk more about unity and I will tie that to the Calgary Declaration in the end.
I don't pretend to know or understand the needs of Quebecers, or any other Canadians for that matter. I do feel I have a fair understanding of the needs of Nova Scotians. I was born and raised here and over the last few years I have read a lot of history about Nova Scotia and particularly since 1867. So I am going to touch on some history here.
Whether it is yes Canada or no Canada, I don't really think is important. It is the extent of the choices we have to choose from. I think not. In fact, it is all the possible frameworks in between those two extremes we need to explore. I think there are a lot of different types of Canada. We see different parts of the world evolving now, the nation's state changing and I don't think we should be afraid of those changes. I don't think it is black and white, yes or no Canada. There are a lot of Canadas we can choose from and we just have to define what we want. Canada no doubt has some problems to deal with today but many of the problems are as old as the country. It may be wise to revisit the past before we attempt to chart a course for the future.
[9:00 p.m.]
I am not sure how many people but most Nova Scotians should know this. Nova Scotia elected the first separatist government with a mandate to remove the province from Canada, shortly after Confederation, in 1867. In the 1867 Confederation debate, the two major concerns for Maritimers were trading tariffs and fishing. Joseph Howe warned of placing the control of trade policy, "in the hands of those who live above the tide who will know little of and care less for our interests or experiences.". We all know Joseph Howe, right, that statesman? After 130 years of those who live above the tide setting policy in these areas, we are left with little trade and not many more fish.
The secessionist movement raised its head once again in the 1880's. It would be wrong to lament about our great age of sail and assume it ended due only to the rise of steel and iron steam ships. Central Canadian economic policy promoted developing the western parts of this country and manufacturing products for that market. In order to protect the young Canadian manufacturing industries, international trade barriers were erected. At the time, the Maritimes enjoyed profitable trade with the U.S., the West Indies and Britain, just to name a few. Shipbuilding and foreign trade were Maritime commerce at the time. Maritimers were then forced to turn their eyes landward, along rail lines, in search of economic prosperity.
As one takes a closer look at Canadian history we find repeated examples of decisions detrimental to the well-being of Maritime economies. The Maritime Rights Movement in 1917 to 1927 was a widespread response to economic hardship in the region. The non-political league for the economic independence of Nova Scotia was organized by individuals such as F.B. McCurdy, Clifford Baker and J.P. McGrath. After taking the message across the country and winning support, Prime Minister MacKenzie King was forced, in 1926, to appoint Sir Andrew Rae Duncan, to head the Royal Commission on Maritime Claims. The report's findings were heralded as the dawn of a new day in the East. King's Government was fully behind the recommendations until industry in Central Canada realized the potential impact on their profits. In the end, the report collected dust on a shelf.
During the hard depression years of the 1930's, a Nova Scotia Royal Commission of Economic Inquiry was formed to review the impact on our economy of the first 65 years of Confederation. That is the halfway point from where we are at today, right? We are about 130. The Royal Commission spoke of a lingering mistrust toward Canada in the hearts of Nova Scotians which it said, "can be forgotten only if the present and future interests of Nova Scotia can be reconciled on equitable terms with the constitutional framework and basic policies of the Dominion". It spoke of the need for constitutional revisions concerning the regulations of trade and fishing in order for Nova Scotia to maintain itself as "a self-reliant and economically healthy community", something we all want.
Relief payments came from Ottawa during the dirty 1930's in the form of a cost-sharing program with the provinces. Maritime governments, unlike wealthier provinces, could hardly afford to cost-share. What was finally received in federal relief payments in the Maritimes was less than other Canadians received per capita.
During World War II, C.D. Howe, heading up the War Cabinet, first funded shipbuilding at central Canadian ports. Only when the British and Americans asked why they couldn't get ships out of the East Coast ice-free ports did Howe send more financial support to Halifax and Saint John. At the end of the war, reconstruction funding was awarded to each port according to their existing development. Again, due to the lack of wartime shipbuilding funding, we got less than Central Canadian ports.
Around 1960, we witnessed the start of transfer payments from richer provinces to poorer ones like ours. It gave rise to the practice of courting business to relocate in the Maritimes. One has to wonder how much has been squandered by handouts to politically-connected, large corporations who pack up and leave once the public money stops flowing. After more than 30 years of this policy, are we any better off economically today? Dynatek, $13.5 million unsecured loans this week.
Today, Maritime ice-free ports, en route the busiest shipping lanes in the world, suffer while public money built and maintains the ice-ridden St. Lawrence Seaway. Cost for Coast Guard and navigational aids based on the user-pay principle should finally reward us for our ideal geographical location and proximity to world shipping. Again, rate structures will protect Central Canadian ports.
I would just like to draw your attention to an article in the Chronicle-Herald this week by Mark Richardson of the Halifax Chamber of Commerce. I don't know if he gave a submission to your committee but he certainly speaks to the inequities of how decisions are made concerning transportation in favour of Central Canada and to the detriment of the Maritimes. With the choice between costly Maritime ports and the time-consuming St. Lawrence routes, many shipping lines will travel directly to U.S. ports, moving cargo inland by rail to Central Canada. The North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, is yet another example of economic policy not made in the interest of our small scale Maritime
economies. Large corporations have been given monopolies on free trade. Small businesses, the backbone of our local economy, still have to jump through federal bureaucratic hoops in order to carry on business across the borders. As it stands, we only have free trade for the powerful corporate players in Canada and you will find very few of them on the East Coast.
We are now asked to speak up about our place in Canada. I feel better knowing many before me have spoken of the same economic prejudices that maintain our present status as poor cousins within this wealthy nation. Centralist policy and decision making are our biggest barrier to changing this relationship. I am first and foremost a Nova Scotian. That means I support decisions being made here, not by those who live above the tide. If the other provinces will not support that view along with the necessary financial help we require to improve our condition, then I suggest we chart a course for open water. If there isn't greater support for economic equity between the provinces, I propose we redefine Canada with looser bonds, pursue our prosperity seaward on the international stage.
Given the amount of time and energy politicians and the media have given to constitutional debate without anything tangible, the Calgary Declaration is remarkable but all I am reading are warm mom and apple pie-type thoughts. When do we begin to deal with the problems that have been here since 1867? Where is the action plan that will deal with these economic realities? I am not talking about just another handout. No, a plan that will make us self-reliant and economically healthy, a plan that recognizes diverse, small scale economies work best in the Maritimes.
Recent polls, this week, in fact, in Maclean's Magazine, suggest three times as many Canadians are more concerned about jobs and the economy than the unity issue, three times. That should tell you where we need to focus the discussion of what Canada can be. So in the Maritimes our children, grandchildren and their children won't have to go to the Boston States or TO or out West but can find meaningful work here at home if they choose to stay. Thank you. (Applause)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you. That was a very interesting history lesson. Very good. Are there any comments or questions from the members of the panel?
MR. FAWSON: It might take a little time to absorb it, I guess. I have been reading about this for a number of years so it doesn't come easily.
MR. HOLM: It is not a matter of taking time to absorb it, it is a matter of time to discuss it.
MR. FAWSON: Yes, it is a pretty big subject.
MR. CARRUTHERS: It takes some time to absorb it, too.
MR. FAWSON: But I do feel fairly strongly that we have to look at economic issues if we are talking unity. I think that is where it begins and ends with the Maritimes.
MR. HOLM: I will ask one question, just picking up on the economic issues of polls and so on and we have heard from other presenters as well that the issues that concern Canadians the most being jobs, good jobs, good-paying jobs for themselves and a future for the children, a good health care system, a good education system, that those are the crucial issues that people are concerned about. Would it be your view that if we are able to tackle those issues and come up with proper strategies to address the jobs issue, to address health care, to address education, that the discussions about national unity and the threats to it will fade away because everybody will want to be part of a strong, healthy whole?
MR. FAWSON: I think you are right on. I think they will be alleviated in a big way. I don't think there is any question that we are moving toward decentralizing Canada and that is going to happen regardless, or that is my view of it. I think if we are giving our attention to work on those issues you mentioned, yes, and I think that would be the same in Quebec or any other part of Canada.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, sir, for your presentation.
MR. FAWSON: Thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. John MacDonald, private citizen. State your name, sir, and move forward.
MR. JOHN MACDONALD: I am John MacDonald. I live in Bridgewater. I have since 1974.
Madam Chairman and members of the committee. The Premiers are to be congratulated for this initiative. I believe that the Calgary Declaration represents both an excellent starting point for discussion and a promising foundation for understanding and cooperation among governments and citizens of all the provinces and territories. Personally, I have been very heartened by the generally favourable response to the document by people across the country and especially by the people, if not the government, of Quebec. Yet, I remain puzzled by some of the negative reaction outside of Quebec which would deny a recognition of Quebec's uniqueness as if we are diminished somehow in extending that recognition. Call it what you want, different, unique, even distinct if need be. It is all of these and it is a difference worth preserving.
In taking the Quebecers' point of view, if any of us believed that our language and culture were not worthy of recognition and protection, and therefore placed in jeopardy, we, too, might be inclined to go our separate way. My own background provides some empathy for understanding Quebec's concerns. My grandmother, whose family moved to Maine from
Quebec when she was an infant, never spoke English. My mother spoke only French until she was 15. I don't speak French at all. I know how quickly the language, customs and culture can disappear but the American melting pot was expected to do that.
Closer to home, where the ideal of the cultural mosaic is supposedly more conducive to preserving one's heritage, the Acadian experience has been, until recently, one of far too much erosion of language and culture. Therefore, the fear of assimilation is for many people very real. The fact that the response to the document has been generally favourable in Quebec would indicate that the assurances for protection and development of her unique character within Canada begin to meet their needs and could make the document a vital milestone in strengthening Confederation. On the contrary; another rejection in the Meech or Charlottetown vein could only seriously exacerbate a potentially dangerous situation and supply needed grist for the separatist propaganda mill.
I am not overly concerned that Canada will actually split up or even if more than 50 per cent of Quebecers opt for separation. Surely the Supreme Court of Canada will rule based on international law that a province cannot unilaterally secede. But I am greatly concerned about the increased mistrust and rancour, the heightened political and economic instability and the probability of violence - the Raymond Veilleneuves of the world are still with us - that could result. Obviously, we can change the situation only by convincing enough of the dissidents of the value of Confederation and making them feel part of the Canadian family. That is a responsibility of all of us collectively, through our governments, churches, business and civil organizations and as individual citizens.
Though the tide may have turned for the moment with more encouraging polling results, we must in no way become complacent. In addition to the Parti Québécois Government, there are some very powerful influences in the lives of Quebec citizens, namely the media and the education system that should concern us. It is widely accepted that the French media is predominantly sovereignist with many journalists who are not known for their objectivity in dealing with unity matters and some of whom, especially in more rural and isolated regions who have been known to minimize positive events. Two classic examples were the downplaying by some segments of the francophone media both of the Montreal unity rally on October 30, 1995 and the significant contribution from the Canadian Government and people to the victims of the Saguenay flood.
I saw that lack of objectivity first-hand at the Montreal rally. Among the myriad memories of a magnificent day was a disquieting incident in which I observed the hostility with which a reporter from one of the French networks challenged and berated one of the rally participants about why he was there. Amid the warmth, excitement and exuberance of that day, for a moment I had a sinking feeling of helplessness and anger about the harm that such a person can do, overtly or otherwise and I wondered how many more like her there were.
Maybe one needn't wonder why Quebecers have so many misconceptions about the rest of Canada, why a majority of them in 1995 believed that independence would not even entail the loss of Canadian currency, of a post office or of their Canadian passport. Why even today a significant number of Quebecers believe that their province economically is a net loser in its relationship with the rest of Canada when, in fact, the flow of transfer of funds makes Quebec a significant net gainer.
Another major institution shaping public attitudes is the education system. Unfortunately, a large majority of francophone teachers are separatists. Their union, the CEQ, as is most of the union movement in the province, is officially sovereignist. I am not suggesting that CEQ policy is necessarily reflected in the classroom but I know enough about teaching and about human nature to know that the situation is not helpful.
We recently read of the English professor at the University of Quebec at Chicoutimi who was alienated from his colleagues when he tried to expand the number of course offerings for students who were studying to teach English as a second language in French schools. His colleagues' excessive nationalism forced him to rethink and disavow his own separatist views.
I have seen first-hand the effects of negative attitudes about Canada and the public school system. From the inception of the Terry Fox Canadian Youth Centre in Ottawa in 1982 until 1992, I was a member of the Nova Scotia Committee for the centre and its program Encounters With Canada. The program, which has been sponsored from the outset by the Council on Canadian Unity has been a highlight of their high school careers for the 3,200 students from every part of the country who attend each year yet a perennial difficulty has been achieving a full quota of students of Quebec. Because of a lack of cooperation from many schools, only about 65 per cent to 70 per cent of that quota is filled each year. Happily that situation is beginning to show some improvement.
I spoke earlier today with the director of the centre who told about numerous success stories of students returning to their schools and changing the views of both students and teachers, including two principals who switched to the federalist side. But the most dramatic involved a daughter of a PQ regional organizer who left the centre a federalist and has since convinced her father about the merits of Canada.
But we must remain vigilant, not forgetting the demographic reality that a higher percentage of younger people advocate separation while senior citizens, a dwindling number, are more likely to be federalists. So what do we do? How do we reach people? Certainly, Mr. Dion's Plan B has struck a positive chord with its practical appeal to reality compared to the dangerous laissez-faire Plan A strategy - or lack of one - prior to the last referendum. The Calgary Declaration is indeed a good starting point but not a sufficient solution. The answer lies in developing mutual understanding about one another both among our young people and the population as a whole. Quebec is, especially in the most heavily separatist regions, very
isolationist and insular, not only geographically but also attitudinally. But even in more urban areas there are problems caused by an ethnocentric provincial school curriculum which gives only superficial treatment to areas outside of Quebec. We must penetrate that isolationism.
I have several suggestions about how that might be done. First, expand the Terry Fox Centre with special efforts to maximize the participation of Quebec students. At the same time, the Nova Scotia Government should reconsider its 50 per cent reduction from $150 to $75 in the subsidy that helps students defray their total cost of $550 to attend the centre. Any cutback always excludes students of lesser means.
Second, revive the Open House Canada Program. This initiative of the Office of the Secretary of State which was cancelled by budget cuts in the early 1980's was a student exchange program in which students spent a month at one another's home and school during the school year. Though Quebec participation was, again, less than desirable, the program was extremely worthwhile for all participants in getting to know one another and another region of the country. Imagine the tremendous potential for good if, for example, every high school in Quebec had one exchange per year for every 1 of 200 students. There is also the potential of modifying the program for exchanges of up to a school year. The federal government would administer the program and pay for travel as it did in the past.
Third, another arrangement worth investigating might be school twinning. Whereas the aforementioned programs are designed for senior high students, this concept might be viable for schools at any level. The key is effective leadership at the school level, especially in gaining cooperation from the Quebec school.
Fourth, more interaction between Quebec teachers and their colleagues in the rest of the country would be an ideal situation. Exchanges of varying durations from a week to a year might be considered.
Fifth, our efforts in promoting French immersion must continue. As well, all students with a capacity to succeed in three years of high school French should be encouraged to do so.
Sixth, the problem of an ethnocentric curriculum is an extremely difficult one to overcome. It would seem that the Council of Ministers of Education Canada is the one group best positioned to move in this direction.
Seventh, conversely, Ministries of Eduction should ensure that their provincial curricula give adequate coverage to the history of Quebec, especially as it relates to our present conundrum.
Eighth, civil and community groups should be encouraged to consider ways in which they might be involved such as the Tai Woo Warrior Gaspé experience related earlier. For example, the Canadian Legion has given a sterling example by donating $100 to every student across the country who attends the Terry Fox Centre.
Ninth, there is also much to be done here on the home front among the general population in educating them about the reality of Quebec so that we genuinely understand and respect the aspirations of the Quebecers. The media and the education system both have a role here.
Tenth, the tourism industry also offers potential for getting people to better understand one another. Perhaps a targeting strategy to encourage more tourists from Quebec might be devised with appropriate gestures of welcome.
Finally, I am optimistic that with good will and hard work we can consign this issue to the history books where it belongs. Our possibilities as a nation are truly bondless so let's put this behind us and welcome the new millennium with a sense of confidence and goodwill as a people united. (Applause)
I realize it is getting late. It wouldn't hurt my feelings if there were no questions. (Laughter) No, but it is up to you. I wouldn't be offended.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I think it was a very good presentation. It pretty well states, quite clearly, exactly what you are trying to say and I do appreciate that very much.
MR. RUSSELL: I just had a comment, Madam Chairman. I think that your point about exchange students is well taken and it is one that has come before the committee from several sources and certainly I think a greater knowledge of Quebec history within the other Provinces of Canada is one of the first steps along that road. (Applause)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Robert Young, private citizen.
MR. ROBERT YOUNG: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. My name is Robert Young. I am a retired hospital worker. I presently split my time between Halifax and Lunenburg and I am appearing before you as an individual, a Nova Scotian and a Canadian. After listening to most of the other people that came on before me, they sound fairly professional. Now you have me. This is only my second presentation before any kind of a legislative committee.
I have read the Framework for Discussion on Canadian Unity and I understand the situation. We are looking for, as I understand it, for a change in the constitution in order to solidify the unity of this country. I have no doubt that the authors of the framework meant
well when they designed it but it is just words and only words. What this nation needs is action.
It seems ironic that at this time that every endeavour to strengthen our unity through the process of constitutional change usually leads to heartache. The outbreak of emotions and actions of our fellow Canadians and the federal government to the serious situation in eastern Ontario and Quebec brought on by the climatic disaster had the opposite effect. It is a shame that we had to have this disaster to show the world how we feel about our fellow Canadians. If wisdom were to prevail, we would not have to wait for a disaster to bring this country together.
What we need is leadership at the federal level. What we need are leaders at the federal level to institute programs that would strengthen the bonds of this nation. Here are just two suggestions which would go a long way in strengthening the bonds to the nation. It is just two of the suggestions, you could think up dozens. We need an expanded infrastructure program, funded at least 60 per cent by the federal government, up to 30 per cent by the provincial governments, where appropriate, and up to 10 per cent by the municipalities, where appropriate, which would include investment in publicly owned and operated environmental and social infrastructure including but not limited to improving public transit, waste reduction, reuse and recycling and community-based not-for-profit child care and elder care centres and services and services against violence against women.
The expenditures to operate these public facilities to meet the needs of Canadians for adequate services from those facilities would create jobs and incomes which would help stimulate the economy while simultaneously lowering the need for government expenditures on employment insurance and social assistance and also by raising revenues through income and other taxes. In other words, a lot of this would pay for itself.
[9:30 p.m.]
As far as finding additional money, we found $500 million to pay for a company to not build helicopters. Just send us some of the money down here, we will send it into Lunenburg and build a sewage treatment plant. We are gunning for some federal money there and we will take all we can get. We will call it the Jean Chretien Centre for Waste Treatment. We will call it anything you want, we just want the money.
Over the last few years we managed to get cost-sharing for a fire hall down there and it is something to be proud of. Lila was there at the opening and it really is something to be proud of. That thing should stay in for 100 years. I mean, it is built so well. I sure hope so. The taxpayers got their money's worth out of it, out of the money that they spent.
The second suggestion is in regard to our health delivery system. The federal government should aggressively promote and support long overdue progressive changes to achieving a truly national health care system with such measures as the following:
The development of national health goals and a national healthy strategy; (2) enhance public health services, such as medical lab testing, home care, long-term care and support systems; (3) national transition funding to assist with shifts away from institutionally-based facilities and services to more community-based approaches without sacrificing quality or accessibility of care; (4) a national primary health care support fund, especially to promote and support development of community health centres and CLSCs. That is what they call them in Quebec. What the community health centres would be in the rest of the country, especially in Saskatchewan, they have a lot of experience with those in Saskatchewan.
We also want support for school milk programs, the cost of these programs to be paid at the rate of at least 65 per cent by the federal government.
These programs would be more cost-effective than the large institutions that we have had, although we are paring them down.
I worked at the VG Hospital for over 30 years. Thirty years ago there was a lot of fat there, let's face it. I worked there and I saw it was top-heavy with management but most of that management has been cleaned out. You can only pare back so far, so it is running fairly lean now as far as management goes, I think. I have not worked there for a couple of years yet, but I mean, when you get an institution that large, you are going to make large mistakes too. That is only human.
Okay, (5) we need a national health human resource strategy, including promotion of health professional teams and payment by salary. An example of these professionals would be nurse practitioners and mid-wives. Also, (6) the development of a national prescription drug strategy and national drug plan to eventually establish universal coverage.
These are only two that I put forward that would strengthen the bonds of the nation and I submit these considerations to you. That is the end of my spiel so ask me any questions you want. Not that I know anything I am as stupid as I look. (Laughter) Go ahead.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Young. I think you should be very proud of your presentation. Any other comments?
MR. HOLM: I will just make one observation. In part, what you are saying is, like a former presenter, if we have certain standards we can address certain kinds of issues like health care, that some of the others may disappear.
MR. YOUNG: Oh, yes. If we have strong leadership in Ottawa - you know, what they have done is divest their responsibility over the last 20 years. We need strong leadership in Ottawa.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Carruthers has a question.
MR. CARRUTHERS: You are in favour of a more stronger, centralized government as opposed to a devolution of power?
MR. YOUNG: Yes, yes, right.
MR. CARRUTHERS: I would take that to mean - and the other thing, I take it that you are not suggesting that it is just a matter of, well, if we spend more money, the problem will go away.
MR. YOUNG: No.
MR. CARRUTHERS: I take it, what you are suggesting is that if there is an equality in the health care system from one end of the country to the other, if there is an equality in the social system . . .
MR. YOUNG: That would help.
MR. CARRUTHERS: That would help towards unity.
MR. YOUNG: Yes. It is not just throwing money at it, you have to spend it wisely. I mean, for years, Ottawa sent the money down here and a lot of it was wasted. A lot of it was inexperience and a lot of it was . . .
MR. CARRUTHERS: But it is equality across the nation.
MR. YOUNG: We need the equality, of course, across the nation. Listen to the provinces for the best ideas. Adopt the best of the best when it comes to ideas. Quebec has a lot of good ideas. If you were to team up Quebec and Saskatchewan and look at their systems, they probably have the best infrastructure systems but they are underfunded because Ottawa does not send enough money out.
MR. CARRUTHERS: Okay, thank you.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, sir. Isabelle Davis, private citizen. State your name, please, and begin your presentation as soon as you are comfortable.
MS. ISABELLE DAVIS: Good evening, Madam Chairman, members of the committee, members of the press, ladies and gentlemen behind me. My name is Isabelle Davis and I am greatly humbled by the wonderful presentations I have heard here this evening. I am also intimidated by the fact that I am the only woman presenter. Anyway, I am a private citizen and a recent resident of Cornwallis Park in Clementsport, Nova Scotia.
I welcome the opportunity to air my views on the unity of our country with you, however, I really do not want to be here. Indeed, all of us should be in our homes with our families, but evil thrives where good men do nothing. So here we are, trying to find solutions to all the past and present efforts to amend and change our Constitution, for that is what this Calgary Declaration is all about.
Before the Trudeau years and before the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canada was the most peaceful place where everyone was free to do whatever they wanted, so long as no laws were broken and their actions did not harm anyone else. We were a free people and, most importantly, a united and proud people from coast to coast.
We are now reaping the results of 30 years of a whole series of bills and Acts designed to try to change society and the basic face of Canada to win political support and to pacify Quebec in its efforts to control. All this from a succession of Prime Ministers from that province.
I sit here before you, a displaced person, a migrant, a fifth generation Canadian who is unable to work in my own province, in my own country. I come from the much touted, only bilingual province in Canada. I have to qualify that statement to say that I have worked in the New Brunswick education system.
After 30 years of watching how the system works, seeing it unfold before my very eyes, it is obviously less about speaking French and more about being French. It is jobs, control, power. The takeover is achieved step by step. There is a French word for this, it is called étapism.
There is an ugly mood in New Brunswick and resentment sizzles just below the surface. I greatly fear that one single incident will cause it to explode.
Currently, there are two of everything; judicial systems, hospitals, schools, universities, agricultural service, arts and since 1985, even some churches. Even some families have been torn apart. I will not bore you with anecdotal stories as I am also aware of what your response would be. The standard answer is, there may be some negative effects from this policy but for the good of all, et cetera.
The majority, over 70 per cent, tried to establish some sort of fairness by electing eight members of the COR Party to the Legislature, immediately they were maligned and attacked as being bigoted and far worse, that they hated the French. These tens of thousands of people are still there and still resentful and represent a goodly portion of the population.
My town, consisting of 43 per cent French, 47 English and 10 per cent who are so bilingual they really don't know what they are, other than being Canadian. This is now a French town, that is an outright denial of history as evidenced by their names, Dalhousie; Campbellton; Glen Levit; Robinsonville; Shannonvale; Balmoral; Dundee; Inch Arron, which is Gaelic; Charlo, which is First Nations; and many others. It is in fact all set for the big takeover when Quebec separates. Our canteens disappeared a few years back and now they are déppaneurs. French is first on all signs; if English is there at all, it is second. We have lost our English radio stations. The only English radio station we receive is the CBC from Moncton, Saint John or Montreal. We are left with a bilingual station. One or two sentences in French, then one or two sentences in English. I wonder if any of you have any idea what that is like. I don't know of anyone who listens to it. The French receive three FM stations and I believe 5 AM stations, it is between 5 and 7, I am not sure. In 1996, a transmitting station began there, partially supported by the taxpayer and totally French, of course. One morning we woke up to find we no longer lived in northern New Brunswick but in northern Acadia. Thanks to the pressure applied by the Acadians on our provincial government, my town has now gone from a very nice bilingual town to a French town.
I found these bags to prove my point in the trunk of my car after my move. This is Greenbergs, c'est tous que vous pouvez mettre dans le sac. I am sorry I don't have a Canadian Tire. This is Metropolitan. It is bilingual.
Now, Number 1 of the Calgary agreement reads, "All Canadians are equal and have equal rights protected by law.". A very nice statement, equal rights. Yes, a law that can be overruled by the notwithstanding clause and was used by the Government of Quebec to suppress language rights even over the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada. The government of the day did not even give a peep, and incidentally, this clause has yet to be removed. Remove it! I don't know the mechanics of this but you do.
Number 2 was clearly answered by the Meech Lake debacle and that is, "All provinces while diverse in their characteristics, have equality of status.". This was clearly answered by the Meech Lake debacle and again in the Charlottetown Accord and is still being answered. It needs repeating again. We want all provinces to have equal status.
Number 3, "Canada is graced by diversity, tolerance, compassion and an equality of opportunity that is without rival in the world.". A wonderful statement right down to equality of opportunity, which I have already addressed in the foregoing. A recent report by Victor Goldbloom reveals the tremendous imbalance in hiring compared to the ethnic distribution of the population. We could ask ourselves, too, does Canada want or need a language
commissioner? Opportunity is limited and changed drastically by the government's own system of quotas, which flows through to the Armed Forces and other businesses run by the Crown like the post office, power companies and railroads.
Number 4. Yes, we have diverse people here and we welcome them but rather than promote our diversity, we should be promoting our Canadian-ness. Neil Basoonda clearly states in his book that most people deliberately chose Canada because they want to become Canadians. What does our government do but encourage them with gobs of money to celebrate their cultural heritage, as funding is done by numbers, it also encourages them to ghettoize themselves and thus they seldom ever become Canadians. Thus the multicultural policy of our government contributes to our disunity. The Irish and Scottish cultures have survived without this giveaway and so will others. They might even get to spread it around a bit. If our government must spend money on cultural differences please let it be in Canada for Canadians.
Canada must get out of the organization known as La Francophonie. According to the Ottawa Citizen and the Vancouver Sun, the Chretien Government will spend $20 million on the next summit in Moncton. Canada pays about 30 per cent of the Francophonie's bills. In 1996-97, we shelled out $61 million. In addition, $467 million was given to developing countries belonging to this organization. Can this government not find a better place to put our money?
Further, to many Canadians who stood together, fought and died under another flag, a mere two generations ago, the great handout of Canadian flags as a means of promoting unity is a shallow and insulting attempt. What Sheila Copps should do is make sure that the Canadian flag is flown in the Quebec Legislature and that all loyal subjects in that province are able to fly it without repercussions. She should also publicly declare full support of those communities that have declared they want to remain Canadian.
Also, she should, with the power of the office she holds, she should make sure that the Canadian history that is taught to our children is as accurate as can be. I realize that education is a provincial matter but surely with the power she has, she could make sure that all Canadians learn the true history, as near as it can be. I am ad libbing that part, it is not on the list.
Now, here's where we get to the meat. Number 5, this is the character of Quebec being a unique society. The unique character of Quebec society; if one is unique it must be different from the rest. As stated, it must mean unique from the rest of Canada. Logically then, if Quebec is unique from the rest of Canada, then Canada must be unique from it. Therefore we are all unique. Questions need to be asked: who does this include, immigrants who speak neither French nor English? If a Quebecer leaves that province do they still retain their uniqueness? Is a member of my family, who happens to live there, unique and I am not? When one moves to that province, exactly when does this uniqueness begin? But most
importantly, will our Constitution be interpreted and applied by the judicial system as having one segment of our society as unique? Will the collective rights collide with individual rights? Daniel Johnson, Leader of the Quebec Liberal Party said, "It opens the door, everything else will follow.". Is this the kind of country we want? I believe this to be the greatest hoax in Canadian history and the tool by which the separatists will take over the whole country, at least what is left of it. Can you name four Cabinet Ministers who are not French?
Further, I question the so-called culture. It is the ruse used by Quebec to gain never-ending concessions from the government. As in all cultures it includes language, music, certain traditions and foods. Do they not shop at Sears, the Bay, Zellers and Kmart? Do they not wear the same clothes and hair-dos, rent American movies and holiday in Florida like the rest of us? The last time I checked there were over 200,000 Quebecers living in the United States. Indeed, even Lucien Bouchard married an American and educates his children in English schools, something he denies his own people. But then he is not an elected Premier. By using the excuse of saving a language, Orientals in Montreal were asked to remove their Asian characters from their stores as well as Hebrew symbols carved in granite on gravestones by the tongue troopers, that is slang for the language police, l'officier de la langue française. Don't think you think this is a little bit racist?
In conclusion, I greatly fear that this once great united country has sown the seeds of our own destruction. In Rwanda and Burundi the Tutsi, 15 per cent minority, holds power through control of the army and the government over the majority of Hutu, 85 per cent. It is a place where the innocent suffer and die with the guilty and massacres have taken place in 1965, 1972, 1988, 1991 and are not over yet. Is this what we want for our country?
Section 5 of the Calgary agreement opens the door for the separatists by declaring Quebec a unique society. The surest way to conquer a country is to divide it. God help us. Thank you. (Applause)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Ms. Davis. Are there any questions or comments from the members?
I thank you very much for your presentation.
I am going to ask everyone to take into consideration that there are still a few more presenters and we would like to allow time for everyone to speak. We would ask now that Tom Jorgensen from the Unity Link to come forward.
MR. TOM JORGENSEN: Madam Chairman and members of the panel, my name is Tom Jorgensen and I am with the Canadian unity group, Unity Link.
Unity Link has been monitoring the unity issue across the country for a little over two years and all of us were active on the unity issue before that. Our website tracks the key players, ideas and strategies. The group has members from many parts of Canada. Our registered office is here in Lunenburg County.
We attended the meeting in Ottawa at which the current initiative was introduced and gave our support to that and to the subsequent Calgary Declaration.
The declaration, taken in its proper context, is a very worthwhile effort on the part of our elected leaders, to keep the country in one piece. The evidence is pretty clear. Canada will not survive without Quebec. The implications of separation are particularly dire for this province.
The unique character of Quebec is, in my opinion, self-evident and I won't go into it here. I would also point out that Nova Scotia has a lot in common with Quebec. We both have thriving folk cultures, Nova Scotia has a dynamic francophone community and both provinces have an open and welcoming attitude towards the outside world.
I am entirely convinced that the more information that is made available and the more direct contacts that are made with individual Quebecers, the greater the support for the Calgary Declaration and mutual accommodation in general. That has certainly been our experience at Unity Link. While public forums like these attract a wide range of opinion, we strongly encourage the select committee to also consider the evidence available outside these hearings.
Public opinion polling shows that a majority of Nova Scotians support the Calgary Declaration. There have been many encouraging demonstrations of support for Quebec's place in Canada.
With reference to Lunenburg County, and as others have mentioned, we have a wonderful example right here of the benefits of direct contact with Quebec. A recent exchange between the students from this area and Quebec was a great success resulting in increased mutual understanding and many new friendships made as a result. This area shares similar challenges with people in the Gaspé region. We are both affected by problems in the resource industries, the fishery. The rural nature of both areas means we have many common interests.
If more useful information were made available to Nova Scotians, and I have been a member of a number of committees, panels, round tables, that were put together to do just that but we never really got the funding or the issue wasn't fashionable at the particular point in time that we were meeting, but my real feeling is that what we have here isn't a divergence of views or opinions, it is simply a lack of understanding and communication between peoples in various parts of the country. There is no doubt that most of our daily lives, our opinions
and our feelings are very similar to those of people in Quebec. So I would say that this recent exchange of students from Amqui and here was a major step in the right direction. I would also like to say that if there was this information was made available, if these contacts were made that there would be a dramatic increase in support for things like the Calgary Declaration.
I would suggest that this committee consider recommending an ongoing program of public information and exchanges with Quebec.
I will end by quoting our francophone co-editor of our French language website who said, "If the rest of the country only knew how close we are." i.e. how close we all are, "And if they only knew that it would take one small gesture from the rest of Canada to break the back of the PQ's negativism.", perhaps that would spur them into some form of action.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to address the panel. (Applause)
MR. HOLM: Just two very quick ones. One, is that a home page that is on the top of your . . .
MR. JORGENSEN: That's our domain name.
MR. HOLM: That's your home page?
MR. JORGENSEN: Yes.
MR. HOLM: Secondly, does Unity Link have branches across Canada?
MR. JORGENSEN: Yes we do. Well, branches, we operate on the Internet but we have members right across the country. We have people in B.C. and in various other provinces.
MR. HOLM: And in Quebec as well?
MR. JORGENSEN: In Quebec, yes.
MR. FAGE: Just one quick question. The membership across the country, all hold the same common view you presented here tonight or is there is a divergence in view from members in province or region?
MR. JORGENSEN: Well, no, on the substantive issue, i.e., let's say in this case, the Calgary Declaration, we are all agreed. But we have had a very interesting meeting of minds, we have francophones, anglophones, westerners, central Canadians and Atlantic Canadians, let's say, all exchanging views and it has led to some interesting revelations, let's put it that
way. But basically I don't think there are so many huge differences in this country. I think it is largely a question of more information, more contact.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Jorgensen, for your presentation.
While we are waiting for Mayor Ernie Bolivar, the Mayor of the Town of Bridgewater to come forward. I would just mind the people who are here tonight that besides an opportunity to have presentations in the public hearings, we also have several other means of communications with the Unity Committee through our own web page, through e-mail, fax machine, telephone and by what they call snail mail these days. So there are a number of ways that we are receiving information as well through the public hearings.
So I would ask you to state your name and move forward with your presentation please.
[10:00 p.m.]
MAYOR ERNIE BOLIVAR: Good evening, my name is Mayor Ernie Bolivar, Town of Bridgewater. Madam Chairman, committee members and Canadians, I want to thank you for this opportunity. I, first of all, want to congratulate the Government of Nova Scotia for giving all its citizens a chance to be heard on this very important subject. During the past number of years, national unity has been on the minds of all Canadians. It appears that the subject will not go away.
The Calgary Declaration provides a framework for discussions and gives all of us equal rights. We agree that the powers given to any province must also be available to all other provinces. Our Premiers and Leaders have endorsed this framework for discussion.
On behalf of our council, for the Town of Bridgewater, we are supportive in the attempt to have a vision for this great Country of Canada. I urge the committee to recommend to the House of Assembly that the Calgary Declaration, as presented, be a framework for further discussions.
I had some other details that I wanted to relate to the committee but I think previous speakers have outlined those and I am satisfied that you have a good understanding of that. I wish you all the very best in your future meetings and I look forward to your final report to the House of Assembly. I thank you. (Applause)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, sir. If you have any further information you would like to include you could mail it into us, as well. Mr. Carruthers has one quick question.
MR. CARRUTHERS: Just one quick question. Of course, she has heard that before. The issue of whether we need an increased strength at the federal level versus a diversification or devolution to the provincial level, do you know if your council has a particular view on that? Did they turn to their mind to that?
MR. BOLIVER: No, we did not. If I gave you one it would be personal view so I prefer not to. I am speaking on behalf of council.
MR. CARRUTHERS: That is great, thank you.
MR. BOLIVER: Thank you very much.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir, very much for coming forward. (Applause) Marg Forbes, the Nova Scotia School Boards Association.
MS. MARG FORBES: Good evening, panel, Madam Chair and other members of the panel, and also interested members of the audience.
I think that in this area we should pay particular tribute to the Tai Woo Warriors and the other unity groups who have spurred the interest of us on the South Shore. I have had the experience of attending their workshop a couple of years ago and I think another session a year ago. Certainly, it has helped to promote interest, I think, on the issue in this area.
My name is Marg Forbes and as President of the Nova Scotia School Boards Association, I thank you for the opportunity to speak to you on behalf of the school boards of Nova Scotia.
Similar to Mayor Boliver who spoke before me, we did not have time to debate the points in the Calgary Declaration but there were several points that the group wished to have mentioned, as other points that contributed to the unity of Canada.
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 the 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 of our students - all of those who wish to have 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 board's 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 able to be fluent in both official languages, their abilities to fulfil those wishes are constrained by the funding restraints within which they operate.
Enhanced opportunities for students include: increased opportunities to develop facility with the second language and I think that has been mentioned by most of the speakers tonight; exposure to each other's culture, for example, through films and literature; and 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 those improved chances for young Canadians to become bilingual and the resources to support those programs.
The Canadian School Boards Association, of which the Nova Scotia School Boards Association is an active member, has recently undertaken three national initiatives. All are concerned with supporting the development of a Canadian citizenry that is strong, positive and contributory.
1. Students in 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 those materials that have been published by CSBA: "The relationship between child poverty and its adverse effect upon children's readiness to learn, and their ultimate success in school has been 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.".
2. 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 has also offered to work with the other two levels of government in facing the issues of Canada's youth today.
3. Youth Justice Issues
During the past several years, the CSBA has strongly promoted changes to the Young Offenders 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 legislation 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 the young citizens of our country. On behalf of those boards in Nova Scotia, I thank you again 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 for our young people. I thank you. (Applause)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Ms. Forbes. Mr. Holm has a question.
MR. HOLM: Thank you very much for your presentation. I have one question which really is slightly outside of your presentation. We have heard a great deal about, if we are going to address the issues we have to have the knowledge and an understanding of the history and how we have gotten to the point that we are at. I am wondering if the school boards association has taken a look, for example, at the curriculum in Nova Scotia and do we have enough appropriate programs in place in our educational system today to be educating our young people about our history in this country, so that the young people who are coming up will have the full depth of understanding that they would need to be able to address these kinds of issues and a knowledge?
MS. FORBES: I find that a very interesting question and I think John MacDonald had mentioned the promotion of, perhaps, some additional history on Quebec. I would have thought we had adequate history curricula on Quebec but that may not be the case.
Certainly, in the last recent years, there have been initiatives to produce Aboriginal history and Black history which had not been available previously. I would have to check on that personally. I really had thought, and you perhaps as a former teacher would have some knowledge of that as well.
MR. HOLM: I have been out of the classroom for some period of time but one of the things, now, with the programs, I am led to believe, particularly at the high school levels, students have to take Canadian Studies but they don't have to take Canadian history. I am wondering if the school boards association has or intends to look at the amount of history,
because we have to know something about the past in order to understand where we are at the present, so we can make wise decisions.
MS. FORBES: That's right. Your point is well taken. David Cook is in the audience and he would probably be our expert in residence I would say on that subject here, if the Chairman would allow him to answer or you could perhaps discuss it with him later. But certainly the advent of the global history, which is necessary, that is not an option they have to take that for the high school curriculum. You may be correct or John MacDonald may be correct and probably was correct in his statement, if he felt that there was a need for more, probably there was, but I honestly can't answer that question.
They do have more options than they had before that is certain.
MR. FAGE: Madam Chairman, Ms. Forbes, when I look at the submission here, it appears to indicate that the Province of Nova Scotia under education, you are suggesting has some responsibilities in providing bilingual services, financing to promote national unity. Is that correct in assuming that from this presentation?
MS. FORBES: That is correct. Certainly, we have larger numbers of students addressing school boards that wish to take immersion programs. Over the recent past years, probably since about 1989, the provincial portion of the funding for immersion programs has been reduced considerably. I am not sure exactly what year, I would say it was probably 1985-86 that the Heritage Canada money was established to promote the immersion programs. In the initial few years it was good, the federal portion has remained fairly constant but the provincial portion has been eroded considerably so that school boards have had to pick up the slack and they have been doing it but with great difficulty. So we really have reached some fairly serious problems in that area.
MR. FAGE: Just a subsequent question relating to that. Would the school boards have the ability with funding being decreased - since 1993-97, I believe, education funding in the classroom has been reduced - by $51.8 million, are there enough resources with that decrease that more French immersion can happen in Nova Scotia so that we, provincially, can contribute to our responsibility or does that funding have to be increased?
MS. FORBES: Well, it has been happening without the funding. But we are concerned that the quality and the level, the standard which we would like to have, certainly, is being jeopardized. As we speak, we don't have any plans to reduce those programs but it is certainly becoming more and more difficult. It is a complex issue certainly and I would be happy to discuss it further at another time.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Ms. Forbes, for your presentation.
We have just two more presentations that I am aware of; if there are others in the room who want to present you could perhaps let us know. I have to just before everybody leaves this evening, we had about 92 in the room here this evening, if not more, don't leave yet, we still have two more presentations. I will go to my next presenter, Harry Norrie, private citizen.
MR. HARRY NORRIE: Madam Chairman, commissioners, first of all I think I should point out and ask a question for legal merit. Madam Chairman, you are not familiar, although you are related to me, with my opinion on this issue are you?
MADAM CHAIRMAN: No.
MR. HARRY NORRIE: Okay, thank you. So there is no conflict of issue here. Mesdames et monsieurs, merci beaucoup pour cette opportunité. Tel que je parle en français, mais je pense peut-être que beaucoup les gens, celle ici parle en anglais, je parle en anglais aussi. Mais, merci pour cette opportunité et c'est un plaisir pour l'unité du Canada et aussi les causes importants de la monde.
So it is very important, I think, what we have here not only for Canada but for, and I am going to be brief, but we forget our role in the world. This is the only example in history, the only one in all of modern history of a country that solves its problems with non-confrontation, lest we forget that.
We are on the beginning of a course of, perhaps, genetic devolution, linguistic devolution when we know that genetic and linguistic diversity are essential for the intellectual and physical survival of the world.
Now, if you don't love this country, at least love your life. If you forget that, what is going to happen is war and they are talking about it. Some of the people in this room tonight espoused some very violent attitudes. Now, I am speaking loudly because we are speaking and that gives us a tremendous opportunity to coalesce and ameliorate our solutions.
I think we have forgotten a lot of what this country is. In terms of political science, Balkanization defines what we see going on and what caused World War I. I am not going to get into long studies of that, but interestingly, the term, Canadianization, is direct opposite of Balkanization. We are tolerant. The only thing I am intolerant to is intolerance, itself, and I am sure I have some of that in me. I am sure we all have some of that.
My suggestion, therefore, I would humbly submit to you, in regards to the Calgary Declaration and in respect to all of the viewpoints that we have heard - because I think you will find that this can be an agreement with every single person who has spoken tonight and who will probably speak and that is this, because I think this is a solution - in respect for the rule of law that all provinces and peoples of Canada are always welcome now and welcome
to return at all times to Canada, that we were no more in any way and always instead explore for more unity and understanding according to the common and international laws of heritage.
You don't really have a choice if you are honest. If you know your law, there are a lot of lawyers in this country who do not know their law. Ralph Nader told me to be a teacher because he said, Harry, you have already done enough law. You will do it now for the people.
So I am here for those generations you don't see here yet. They are not here, are they? There is hardly a young person in this room. Where are they? Hello? Why? The solution, I am suggesting to you is that we build our country, grow the country.
If you say to Quebec, listen, the Canadian way is, if you want leave - we believe in the prodigal son, you know, or daughter. If you want to come back, you're welcome. You have never heard that any where, did you? You have a Prime Minister who is about to throw this right over the brink. If we fall, it will be, yes, a namesake here but I will remember it for another reason.
Most of you may not have heard of Noricum. Noricum was a place in Europe where the chiefs of the tribes of Rome that had become mercenary in Gaul - the mercenaries of Rome said the chiefs in those days were the only people who had a vote. They said, we want a right to vote in the Roman Senate. That is what is going on now. It is not just going on in Canada, it is going on all over the world.
So what they said from Rome was - they sent their messenger and they said, no, your chiefs cannot have a vote. You can fight for us but you cannot have a vote. Well, you know what happened next. The fall of Rome.
If this country falls, if we fail here to accommodate Quebec, make no mistake about it you are not going to have a stronger Nova Scotia; you are not going to have a stronger Canada; you are not going to have a North America.
Sir Edward Heath said that the market of the Orient, itself, is 20 times larger - that economy is 20 times larger than the entire economy from the Urals to the Rockies. Here is a country that has everything going for it, where we can allow every single type of person respect for their culture and, yet, one of the first cultures, in a certain way, we are failing, over words, over battles, making a living at it.
I would suggest to you, humbly, that if you say to Quebec, listen, if you want to leave, we are not going to fight it but the door is open. That may sound like wimping out but I think that will pull the carpet from under the argument.
At the same time, you have to continue to grow the country, it has to be all win deal. A lot of Quebecers are not annoyed any longer because of the language problem, they are annoyed because they are not getting the bang for their buck. The bang they used to get for their buck is gone. I think it is called the Canadian Social Services Act was disbanded and then we saw the GST come in. Talk to some of the people who wrote our Constitution and see if those things are legal. They just haven't been taken to court the right way yet. They are not legal. Even if you are experiencing them and you are paying them, it just has to go court the right way. Changing the Constitution, there are lots of countries that function without constitutions. Australia has barely obeyed its constitution and has a good one. The Russians during the Cold War had the best constitution in the world but we know what it was like to live there.
What it comes down to, is that if you make the country enticing enough, everybody is going to want to be here. I suggest that many people have espoused that view tonight and I would also say that yes, you have to make each province interesting enough because if a little old province like Nova Scotia thinks it is going to go off on its own or join the United States or what have you, that is not going to happen I suggest to you. In reality, it is not a real dream.
What likely would happen is that if we expand and explore our hegemony of Canada by continental and international associations with other countries, we should be thinking of a super country, like a continental country but leaving Canada and the United States the same. Remember how paranoid we were about free trade, no we didn't get the free trade that Europe got, what we got was something cheaper. We got free trade for the big companies, nothing really changed. We got an instrument to make it possible for the average person to benefit by it but those kinds of associations that perhaps would increase our economy and we could tie it to the province's wealth.
Now, I won't go on any further. I think I have made the point quite clear and I am sure many people want to go home and get a nap. I think though as you leave, you will notice on the sign outside how this motel, which we are all in right now, sells itself. I think it is very appropriate. On the sign there, it says, they have a getaway package on one side of the sign and on the other side of the sign it says, view our upgraded rooms. Well, let's view our upgraded rooms, folks. We have great law if we follow it. I suggest to you new space is the solution to just about everything in every way that you can think of it, from curriculums to economies to actual physical new space. Now, that's at the limit right now for the time being but there are a lot of ways in which we can expand our minds and make things happen but if we go through this backward process and continue to allow that to happen, we are going to lose. You only win by winning, you only learn how not to lose by learning not to lose. So we have to learn how to win. Thank you very much. (Applause)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Merci beaucoup, thank you very much, Mr Norrie. Any comments or questions from the panel?
Mr. Richard Lord, private citizen.
MR. RICHARD LORD: Madam Chairman, members of the committee, I should apologize for you have to listen to this tonight, I wish I had taken the time to prepare formal remarks and concentrate my thoughts a little better. But if I could just before I start, I would like to say that I am reminded of a friend of mine who is invited to speak in an august group, one of several speakers, as he waited in the audience for his turn, he saw the crowd diminish as various speakers ahead of him completed their remarks, he finally got his turn, he stood up, he saw one person in the audience and he said if this man is interested enough to stay to listen to what I am going to say, then I am going to give him the full $100 shot, he spoke for half an hour at great length and at great elucidation, when he concluded he jumped off the stage, ran down to shake the man's hand and the man said, don't thank me, I am the next speaker. (Laughter) So I hope everybody doesn't plan to speak tonight.
If I may, I don't want to speak directly on the Calgary Declaration. I have read it at some length, I have looked at it. If anything, I perhaps am in the minority that to me it shares a weakness that I had with Meech Lake and Charlottetown and that is, a minority opinion here, that every province has to be exactly the same. And fundamental to my belief is that I do not believe in that. I believe whether you use the word distinct or unique or different or whatever, there is a rationalization, there is a reality and I don't know what other word to use that will satisfy all parties but there is a difference. One of the reasons that we have this problem is semantics and one of the reasons is trying to find a way to recognize and respect that difference that we can all live with.
I was particularly impressed tonight with the speaker from Tai Woo Warriors and I think probably in terms of giving us all some perspective tonight he probably did the best job of recognizing the historical realities. I am not a constitutional expert and I am not a lawyer but there are certain guarantees, there are certain conditions, there are certain realities of Canadian life where is Quebec is unique, distinct, whatever word we can find, and they have to be recognized. Unfortunately, to my mind, too much of the debate that has occurred, and this reflected in the comments, well, what about German and what about Dutch and what about our other groups who have come here. If a distinction cannot be seen, I am scared that we have no hope of ever solving this problem.
I believe we can have an asymmetrical system in Canada. I believe we should have. I believe our founding fathers defined that and said that is what we are going to be. So where do you draw the limits? The biggest problem, as I see it, is a need for sensitivity. If I have anything to say to your panel, if I have anything to say to my fellow Canadians, it is a call for sensitivity, it is a call for understanding on both sides. We have seen the flag burners in Ontario, in Brockville River, it was. I have a father who will go to his grave believing he missed the final step up the Civil Service ladder because he was a unilingual Englishman and it was given to an unqualified French Canadian. He carries that with him and for many years he subsequently would not drive his car through Quebec. That is the type of intolerance on
both sides. There is an explanation for it, there is a rationale, there is an understanding. We are all human beings, we all have our shortcomings but as far as those sort of attitudes prevail on either side, there is not much hope.
We are insensitive, we exaggerate. A recent example, if Canadians can be so insensitive, if Nova Scotians, if Haligonians can be so insensitive that when CBC Radio has a debate today or yesterday on whether we name a street in Halifax after someone who apparently was a headhunter, went out to take Mi'kmaq scalps and we want to name a street after him and some people are sensitive about that. Some people dare to say, well maybe we shouldn't and others jump and say well, hey, that's history. How can we be so insensitive to other people's feelings? There are rights, we have to respect them.
English Canada has made many efforts to - I hate to use the word accommodate - but perhaps to try and understand. I go back to Prime Minister Pearson and the English on the Corn Flakes boxes. Extremely well intended but a total joke in satisfying Quebec's aspirations. I am in the export business, I am in the Christmas tree business. I deal with many Quebec people who are my competitors and my friends. I have sat in their kitchens in the separatist areas of Quebec in my stumbling French and their stumbling English and they point to that as an example of well intended nonsense. The Quebec fact will not be recognized by people in B.C. or people in Nova Scotia stumbling along with a little bit of French, it will be in their culture and their language and traditions and their acceptance. Yes, they have been as insensitive as many of us have been but the pendulum swings. We all exaggerate, we all go overboard.
Again, I come back only for a plea for tolerance. I have no answer to give this committee or to the government or to the Prime Minister or to my friends from Quebec on exactly where the line should be drawn. Thank God we have a few disasters once in a while which tend to bring us together.
I spoke a moment ago about the well intended attempts that many Canadians have made that perhaps haven't been that well accepted. Well, there is an old adage that says, the best way to make an enemy is to try to do them a favour. Maybe that is just reality. Maybe our best intentions haven't been well understood. But I have seen intolerance here in Bridgewater. I have seen intolerance to the French. We see intolerance to Cape Bretoners and yet we love the culture. We here in Lunenburg County, although we will occasionally on the street say negative things about Cape Bretoners, they all don't want to work and they are all living on welfare or they get all the grants but we love their music and they are part of us.
[10:30 p.m.]
To me, as an English Canadian who grew up with a WASP father from Ontario and French-Irish mother from Quebec, fortunately, I have been able to be exposed to both cultures. I have worked in Quebec. I could never learn French but I learned a little bit about their history and their culture and it is part of me as a Canadian and it is part of all of us.
In summary, I plead with my fellow Canadians to be optimistic. I plead for them to be sensitive. Canada is the best country in the world, perhaps we are tired of the United Nations telling us maybe we are too well off. We have nothing else to do but navel gaze. We look at our navel because we have no other problems, no other distractions, essentially, and I am not taking anything away from our problems of unemployment and our problems with health and many other issues, we are the best off country in the world. We spend our time looking at our navel. We find some lint and we tear the lint apart on both sides of this Quebec-English issue. Let's have some tolerance. We will not solve this issue by legislation. We will not solve it, I don't think, by legal debates. We will not solve it by the strict economic arguments. We will solve it by compassion and tolerance, understanding and time. I guess that is my message to you and to all of us. Thank you. (Applause)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Lord. Are there any comments? Mr. Russell.
MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Lord, I don't know whether you are the last speaker this evening or not but I think you have made a very strong plea along lines that we haven't heard in any other meeting that we have had and it is plea for tolerance, compassion and understanding. I think that is a good way to close off the meeting if, indeed, you are the last speaker.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Holm.
MR. HOLM: Let me just say that you were worthwhile waiting for. (Applause)
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, just a bit of information. We had about 92 attendees here tonight, the largest hearing we have held so far with the most number of presenters, 16 in all. I think probably that is due, in some part, to the strength of the unity committees in the area and also it is quite a diverse community as well. I do see some tolerance here in the presentations that were made. They were very impressive presentations from each and every one of you and I want to thank each of you for coming forward. I also want to thank Bridgewater and the area for your kind hospitality in welcoming us here to Bridgewater.
Just one other thing, we have added one further hearing. It will be on Wednesday night, January 21st in the Red Chamber to accommodate the large number of people who indicated they wanted to speak. So it is heartening that has happened and I want to thank you
all very much for being here this evening and taking part in this very important issue and debate. Thank you very much. (Applause)
[The committee adjourned at 10:35 p.m.]
